Skip to main content

Full text of "The expositor's Greek Testament"

See other formats 




Z LSSZ6990 LO/L € 





3931109 S.1aVHOIW “LS 4O ALISHAAINN 





John M. Kelly Library 


Donateo by 
William Klassen 
ano 


Dona Harvey 


The University of 
St. Mickael’s College 
Toronto, Ontario 









mR. AND MRS. WILLIAM KLASSEN 
353 W. Cleveland Ave. 
Elkhart, Indiana 





PEO EXPOSITOR’S 


Ghee TESTAMENT 


EDITED BY THE REV. 


Wie ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A.; LL.D: 


EDITOR OF ‘* THE EXPOSITOR,” ‘'THE EXPOSITOR’S BIBLE,” ETC, 


VOLUME I, 


NEW YORK 
GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY 


ee EXPOSITOR’S 


halves bE STAMENT 


I 
THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 


BY THE REV. 


ALEXANDER BALMAIN BRUCE, D.D. 


PROFESSOR OF APOLOGETICS, FREE CHURCH COLLEGE, GLASGOW 


II 
fee GOSPEL. OF ST. JOHN 


BY THE REV. 


MARCUS DODS, D.D. 


PROFESSOR OF EXEGETICAL THEOLOGY, NEW COLLEGE, EDINBURGH 


NEW YORK 
GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY 


GENERAL EDITOR’S PREFACE 


THe Expositor’s Greek Testament is intended to do for 
the present generation the work accomplished by Dean 
Alford’s in the past. Of the influence of Dean Alford’s 
book there is no need to speak. It is almost impossible 
to exaggerate the success and usefulness of Dean Alford’s 
commentary in putting English-speaking students into 
possession of the accumulated results of the labours of 
scholars up to the time it was published. He made the 
best critical and exegetical helps, previously accessible only 
to a few readers, the common privilege of all educated 
Englishmen. Dean Alford himself would have been the 
first to say that he undertook a task too great for one 
man. Though he laboured with indefatigable diligence, 
twenty years together, from 1841 to 1861, were occupied 
in his undertaking. Since his time the wealth of material 
on the New Testament has been steadily accumulating, 
and no one has as yet attempted to make it accessible 
in a full and comprehensive way. 

In the present commentary the works have been 
committed to various scholars, and it is hoped that the 
completion will be reached within five years from the 
present date, if not sooner. As the plan of Alford’s 
book has been tested by time and experience, it has been 
adopted here with certain modifications, and it is hoped 
that as the result English-speaking students will have a 
work at once up to date and practically useful in all 
its parts. 


vi GENERAL EDITOR’S PREFACE 


It remains to add that the commentators have been 
selected from various churches, and that they have in 
every case been left full liberty to express their own 
views. The part of the editor has been to choose them, 
and to assign the limits of space allowed to each book. 
In this assignment the judgment of Dean Alford has 
appeared to be sound in the main, and it has been generally 
followed. 


W. ROBERTSON NICOLL. 





PREFACE 


In this Commentary on the Synoptical Gospels I give to the 
public the fruit of studies carried on for many years. These 
Gospels have taken a more powerful and abiding hold of me 
than any other part of the Scriptures. I have learnt much 
from them concerning Christ in the course of these years ; 
not a little since I began to prepare this work for the press. 
I have done my best to communicate what I have learned to 
others. I have also laid under contribution previous com- 
mentators, ancient and modern, while avoiding the pedantic 
habit of crowding the page with long lists of learned names. 
I have not hesitated to introduce quotations, in Latin and 
Greek, which seemed fitted to throw light on the meaning. 
These, while possessing interest for scholars, may be passed 
over by English readers without much loss, as their sense is 
usually indicated. 

In the critical notes beneath the Greek Text I have aimed 
at making easily accessible to the reader the results of the 
labours of scholars who have made the text the subject of 
special study; especially those contained in the monu- 
mental works of ‘Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort. 
Readers are requested to peruse what has been stated on 
that subject in the Introduction, and, in using the com- 
mentary, to keep in mind that I have always made what I 
regard as the most probable reading the basis of comment, 
whether I have expressly indicated my opinion in the critical 
notes or not. 

In these days one who aims at a competent treatment 
of the Evangelic narratives must keep in view critical 


Vili PREFACE 


methods of handling the story. I have tried to unite some 
measure of critical freedom and candour with the reverence 
of faith. If, in spite of honest endeavour, I have not suc- 
ceeded always in realising this ideal, let it be imputed to the 
Yack of skill rather than of good intention. 

I rise from this task with a deepened sense of the wisdom 
and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. If what I have written 
help others to a better understanding of His mind and heart, 
I shall feel that my labour has not been in vain. 

I enjoyed the benefit of Mr. MacFadyen’s (of the Free 
Church College, Glasgow) assistance in reading the proofs 
of the second half of the work, and owe him earnest thanks, 
not only for increased accuracy in the printed text, but for 
many valuable suggestions. 

The works of Dr. Gould on Mark and Dr. Plummer on 
Luke, in the International Critical Commentary, appeared too 
late to be taken advantage of in this commentary. 


A. Bo BRUCE: 


GLASGOW. 


THE GOSPELS 


ACCORDING TO 


MATTHEW, MARK AND LUKE 





INTRODUCTION. 


CHAPTER I. 
CONCERNING THE THREE GOSPELS, 


SeEcTION I. THE CONNECTION. 


1, The three first Gospels, bearing the names of Matthew, Mark 
and Luke, have, during the present century, been distinguished by 
critics from the fourth by the epithet synoptical. The term implies 
that these Gospels are so like one another in contents that they can 
be, and for profitable study ought to be, viewed together. That such 
is the fact is obvious to every reader. A single perusal suffices to 
shew that they have much in common in contents, arrangement and 
phraseology ; and a comparison with the fourth Gospel only deepens 
the impression. There everything appears different—the incidents 
related, the thcughts ascribed to Jesus, the terms in which they are 
expressed, the localities in wh.ch _ae Great Personage who is the 
common subject of all the four narratives exercised His remarkable 
teaching and healing ministries. 

2. Yet while these three Gospels present obtrusive resemblances, 
they also exhibit hardly less obtrusive differences. The differences 
are marked just because the books are on the whole so like one 
another. One cannot help asking: Seeing they are so like, why are 
they not more like? Why do they differ at all? Or the question 
may be put the other way: Seeing there are so many idiosyncrasies 
in each Gospel, how does it come about that notwithstanding these 
they all bear an easily recognisable family likeness? The idiosyn- 
crasies, though not always so obvious as the resemblances, are un- 
mistakable, and some of them stare one in the face. Each Gospel, 
e.g., has some matter peculiar to itself; the first and the third a 
great deal. Then, while in certain parts of their narratives they 
follow the same order, in other places they diverge widely. Again, 
one cannot but be struck with the difference between the three 
records in regard to reporting the words of Jesus. Mark gives com- 


4 INTRODUCTION 


paratively few: Matthew and Luke very many, and these for the 
most part very weighty and remarkable, insomuch that one wonders 
how any one undertaking to write a history of Christ’s life could 
overlook them. Matthew and Luke again, while both giving much 
prominence to the words of Jesus, differ very widely in their manner 
of reporting them. The one collects the sayings into masses, 
apparently out of regard to affinity of thought; the other disperses 
them over his pages, and assigns to them distinct historical occasions. 

3. These resemblances and differences, with many others not 
referred to, inevitably raise a question as to their cause. This is the 
synoptical problem, towards the solution of which a countless num- 
ber of contributions have been made within the last hundred years. 
Many of these have now only a historical or antiquarian interest, 
and it would serve no useful purpese to attempt here an exhaustive 
account of the literature connected with this inquiry. While not in- 
sensible to the fascination of the subject, even on its curious side, as - 
an interesting problem in literary criticism, yet | must respect the 
fact that we in this work are directly concerned with the matter 
only in so far as it affects exegesis. The statement .Aerefore now to 
be made must be broad and brief. 

4, All attempts at solution admit of being classified under four 
heads. First may be mentioned the hypothesis of oral tradition. 
This hypothesis implies that before our Gospels there were no 
written records of the ministry of Jesus, or at least none of which 
they made use. Their only source was the unwritten tradition of 
the memorabilia of that ministry, having its ultimate origin in the 
public preaching and teaching of the Apostles, the men. who had 
been with Jesus. The statements made by the Apostles from time 
to time, repeated and added to as occasion required, caught up by 
willing ears, and treasured up in faithful memories: behold all that 
is necessary, according to the patrons of this hypothesis, to account 
for all the evangelic phenomena of resemblance and difference. The 
resemblances are explained by the tendency of oral tradition, 
especially in non-literary epochs and peoples, to become stereotyped 
in contents and even in phraseology, a tendency much helped by the 
practice of catechetical instruction, in which the teacher dictates 
sentences which his pupils are expected to commit to memory.! 
The differences are accounted for by the original diversity in the 
memorabilia communicated by different Apostles, by the measure of 


1 On the function of catechists as helping to stereotype the evangelic tradition 
vide Wright, The Composition of the Four Gospels, 1890. Mr. Wright is a 
thorough believer in the oral tradition. 


CONCERNING THE THREE GOSPELS 5 


fluidity inseparable from oral tradition due to defective memory, 
and of course in part also by the peculiar tastes, aims and indi- 
vidualities of the respective evangelists. This hypothesis has been 
chiefly in favour among English scholars, though it can likewise 
boast of influential supporters among continental critics, such as 
Gieseler and Godet. It points to a vera causa, and cannot be 
wholly left out of account in an endeavour to explain how written 
records of the evangelic tradition arose. There was a time doubt- 
less when what was known of Jesus was on the lip only. How 
long that primitive phase lasted is matter of conjecture; some say 
from 30 to 60 a.p. It seems probable that the process of trans- 
ferring from the lip to the page began considerably sooner than the 
later of these dates. When Luke wrote, many attempts had been 
made to embody the tradition in a written form (Lukei.1). This 
points to a literary habit which would naturally exert its power 
withont delay in reference to any matter in which men took an 
absorbing interest. And when this habit prevails writers are not 
usually content to remain in ignorance of what others have done in 
the same line. They want to see each other’s notes. The pre- 
sumption therefore is that while oral tradition in all probability was 
a source for our evangelists, it was not the only source, probably 
not even the chief source There were other writings about the 
acts, and words, and sufferings of Jesus in existence before they 
wrote; they were likely to know these, and if they knew them they 
would not despise them, but rather use them so far as serviceable. 
In Luke’s case the existence of such earlier writings, and his 
acquaintance with them, are not mere presumptions but facts; the 
only point on which there is room for difference of opinion is how 
far he took advantage of the labours of his predecessors. That he 
deemed them unsatisfactory, at least defective, may be inferred from 
his making a new contribution; that he drew nothing from them is 
extremely improbable. Much can be said for the view that among 
these earlier writings known to Luke was our Gospel of Mark, or a 
book substantially identical with it in contents, and that he used it 
very freely. : 

5. The last observation naturally leads up to the second hypo- 
thesis, which is that the authors of the synoptical Gospels used each 
other’s writings, each successive writer taking advantage of earlier 
contributions, so that the second Gospel (in time) borrowed from 
the first, and the third from both first and second. Which borrowed 
from which depends of course on the order of time in which the 
three Gospels appeared. Six permutations are possible, and every 


6 {NTRODUCTION 


one of them has had its advocates. One of the most interesting, in 
virtue of the course it ran, is: Matthew, Luke, Mark. This arrange- 
ment was contended for by Griesbach, and utilised by Dr. Ferdinand 
Christian Baur in connection with his famous Tendency-criticism. 
Griesbach founded on the frequent duality in Mark’s style, that is to 
say, the combination of phrases used separately in the same connec- 
tion in the other synoptical Gospels: e.g., “at even when the sun did 
set’ (i. 32). In this phenomenon, somewhat frequently recurring, 
he saw conclusive proof that Mark had Matthew and Luke before 
him, and servilely copied from both in descriptive passages. Baur’s 
interest in the question was theological rather than literary. Accept- 
ing Griesbach’s results, he charged Mark not only with literary 
dependence on his brother evangelists, whence is explained his 
graphic style, but also with studied theological neutrality, eschewing 
on the one hand the Judaistic bias of the first Gospel, and on the 
other the Pauline or universalistic bias of the third; both charac- 
teristics, the literary dependence ana the studied neutrality, implying 
alater date. Since then a great change of view has taken place. 
For some time the prevailing opiniea has been that Mark’s Gospel 
is the earliest not the latest of the three, and this opinion is likely to 
hold its ground. Holtzmann observe_ that the Mark hypothesis is 
a hypothesis no longer,! mean.ng that it is an established fact. And 
he and many others recognise in Mark, either as we have it or in an 
earlier form, a source for both the other synoptists, thereby acknow- 
ledging that the hypothesis of mutual use likewise has a measure of 
truth. 

6. The third hypothesis is that of one primitive Gospel from 
which all three synoptists drew their material. The supporters of 
this view do not believe that the evangelists used each other’s 
writings. Their contention is that all were dependent on one original 
document, an Uvevangelium as German scholars call it. This 
primitive Gospel was, ex hypothest, comprehensive enough to cover 
the whole ground. From it all the three evangelists took much in 
common, hence their agreement in matter and language in so many 
places. But how about their divergencies? How came it to pass 
that with the same document before them they made such diverse 
use of it? The answer is: it was due to the fact that they used, not 
identical copies of one document, but different recensions of the 
same document. By this flight into the dark region of conjectural 
recensions, whereof no trace remains, the Urevangelium hypothesie 


4 Hand-Commentar, p- 3. 


CONCERNING THE THREE GOSPELS 7 


was self-condemned to oblivion. With it are associated the honour- 
able names of Lessing and Eichhorn. 

7. The fourth and last hypothesis was propounded by Schleier- 
macher. He took for his starting-point the word 8ujynots in the intro- 
duction of Luke’s Gospel, and found in it the hint that not in one 
primitive Gospel of comprehensive character was the source ex- 
ploited by our Gospels to be found, but rather in many Gospelets con- 
taining a record of some words or deeds of Jesus with which the 
writer had become acquainted, and which he specially desired to 
preserve. Each of our evangelists is to be conceived as having so 
many of these diegeses or Gospelets in his possession, and construct- 
ing out of them a larger connected story. In so far as they made 
use of copies of the same diegesis, there would be agreement in con- 
tents and style; in so far as they used Gospelets peculiar to their 
respective collections, there would be divergence; and of course 
diversity in the order of narration was to be expected in writings 
compiled from a handful of unconnected leaflets of evangelic tradition. 
In spite of the great name of its author, this hypothesis has found 
little support as an attempt to account for the whole phenomena of 
the Gospels. As a subordinate suggestion to explain the presence 
in any of the synoptists of elements peculiar to himself, it is 
worthy of consideration. Some of the particulars, e.g., peculiar to 
Luke may have been found by him not in any large collection, but in 
a leaflet, as others may have been derived not fron. \.sitten sources 
large or small, but from a purely oral source in answer to local 
inquiries. 

8. None of the foregoing hypotheses is accepted by itself as a 
satisfactory solution of the synoptical problem by any large number 
of competent critics at the present time. The majority look for a 
solution in the direction of a combination of the second and third 
hypotheses under modified forms. Toa certain extent they recog- 
nise use of one Gospel in another, and there is an extensive agree- 
ment in the opinion that for the explanation of the phenomena not 
one but at least two primitive documents must be postulated. In 
these matters certainty is unattainable, but it is worth while making 
ourselves acquainted with what may be called the most probable 
working hypothesis. With this view I offer here a brief statement 
as to the present trend of critical opinion on the subject in question. 

9. It is a familiar observation that, leaving out of account the 
reports of the teaching of Jesus contained in the first and third 
Gospels, the matter that remains, consisting of narratives of actions 
_and events, is very much the same in all the three synoptists. Not 


8 INTRODUCTION 


only so, the remainder practically consists of the contents of the 
second Gospel. It seems as if Matthew and Luke had made Mark 
the framework of their story, and added to it new material. This 
accordingly is now believed by many to have been the actual fact. 
The prevailing idea is that our Mark, or a book very like it in 
contents, was under the eye of the compilers of the first and third 
Gospels when they wrote, and was used by both as a source, not 
merely in the sense that they took from it this and that, but in the 
sense of adopting it substantially as it was, and making it the basis 
of their longer and more elaborate narratives. This crude statement 
of course requires qualification. What took place was not that the 
comp‘lers of the first and third Gospels simply transcribed the 
second, page by page, as they found it in their manuscript, reproduc- 
ing its contents in the original order, and each section verbatim. If 
that had been the case the synvptical problem would have been 
greatly sirtplified, and thers would hardly have beer room for 
difference of opinion. As the case stands the order of narration is 
more or less disturbed, and there are many variations in expression. 
The question is thus raised: On the hypothesis that Mark was a 
source for Matthew and Luke, in respect of the matter common to 
all the three, how came it to pass that -he writers of the first and 
third Gospels deviated so much, and in different ways, from their 
common source in the order of events and in style? The general 
answer to the question, so far as order is concerned, is that the 
additional matter acted as a disturbing influence. The explanation 
implies that, when the disturbing influence did not come into play, 
the original order would be maintained. Advocates of the hypothesis 
try to show that the facts answer to this view; that is to say, that 
Mark’s order is followed in Matthew and Luke, except when 
disturbance is explicable by the influence of the new material. One 
illustration may here be given from Matthew. Obviously the 
“Sermon on the Mount” exercised a powerful fascination on the 
mind of the evangelist. From the first he has it in view, and he 
desires to bring it in as soon as possible. Therefore, of the incidents 
connected with the commencement of the Galilean ministry reported 
in Mark, he relates simply the call of the four fisher Apostles, as if 
to furnish the Great Teacher with disciples who might form an 
audience for the great Discourse. To that call he appends a general 
description of the Galilean ministry, specifying as its salient 
features preaching or teaching and healing. Then he proceeds to 
illustrate each department of the ministry, the teaching by the 
Sermon on the Mount in chapters v.-vii., the healing by a group of 


CONCERNING THE THREE GOSPELS 9 


miracles contained in chapters viii. and ix., including the cure of 
Peter’s mother-in-law, the wholesale cures on the Sabbath evening, 
and the healing of the leper, all reported in the first chapter of Mark. 
Of course, in regard neither to the sermon nor to the group of 
miracles can the first Gospel lay claim to chronological accuracy. 
In the corresponding part of his narrative, Luke follows Mark closely, 
reporting the cure of the demoniac in the synagogue of Capernaum, 
of Peter’s mother-in-law, of many sick people on the Sabbath 
evening, and of the leper in the same order. There is only one 
deviation. The call of Peter, which in Luke replaces that of the 
four, Peter and Andrew, James and John, comes between the 
Sabbath evening cures and the cure of the leper. 

The variations in style raise a much subtler question, which can 
only be dealt with adequately by a detailed comparative exegesis, 
such as that so admirakiy exemplified in the great work of 
Dr. Bernhard Weiss on the Gospel of Mark and its synoptical 
parallels Suffice it to say here that it is not difficult to suggest 
a variety of causes which might lead to literary alteration in the use 
of a source. Thus, if the style of the source was peculiar, markedly 
individualistic, colloquial, faulty in grammea~, one can understand a 
tendency to replace these characteristics by smoothness and elegance. 
The style of Mark is of the character described, and instances of 
literary correction in the parallel accounts can easily be pointed out. 
Another cause in operation might be misunderstanding of the mean- 
ing of the source, or disinclination to adopt the meaning obviously 
suggested. Two illustrative instances may be mentioned. In 
reporting the sudden flight of Jesus from Capernaum in the early 
morning, Mark makes Him say to the disciples in connection with 
the reason for departure, “to this end came I forth,” 7.e., from the 
town. In Luke this is turned into, “therefore was I sent,” 1.e., into 
the world2 In the incident of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, 
Mark makes Jesus bid the two disciples say to the owner of the colt, 
“straightway He (Jesus) will send it back,” z.e., return it to its owner 
when He has had His use of it. In Matthew this is turned into, 
“ straightway he (the owner) will send them (the ass and her colt)”.’ 
Yet another source of verbal alteration might be literary taste acting 
instinctively, leading to the substitution of one word or phrase for 
another, without conscious reason. 

10. Thus far of the matter common to the three Gospels, or what 
may be called the triple tradition. But Matthew and Luke contain 


1 Das Marcusevangelium und seine synoptischen Parallelen, 1872. 
2 Mark i. 38, Luke iv. 43. 3 Mark xi. 3, Matthew xxi. 3. 


10 INTRODUCTION 


much more than this, the additional matter in both consisting mainly 
of words and discourses of Jesus. Each Gospel has not a little 
peculiar to itself, but there is a large amount of teaching material 
common to the two, and though this common element is very 
differently reproduced as to historic connection and grouping, yet 
there is such a pervading similarity in thought and expression as to 
suggest forcibly the hypothesis of a second source as its most 
natural explanation. Assuming that the first and third evangelists 
borrowed their narrative of events from Mark, and that what needs 
accounting for is mainly the didactic element, it would follow that 
this hypothetical second source consisted chiefly, if not exclusively, 
of sayings spoken by the Lord Jesus. Whether both evangelists 
possessed this source in the same form, and had each his own way 
of using it, as dictated by his plan, or whether it came into their 
hands in different recensions, formed under diverse influences, and 
meant to serve distinct purposes, are questions of subordinate 
moment. The main question is: Did there exist antecedent to the 
composition of our first and third Gospels a collection of the words 
of Christ, which both evangelists knew and used in compiling their 
memoirs of Christ’s public ministry? Modern critics, such as 
Weiss, Wendt, Holtzmann, Jiilicher, concur in cnswering this 
question in the affirmative. dhe genera: result is that for the 
explanation of the phenomena presented by the synoptical Gospels. 
modern criticism postulates two main written sources: a book like 
our canonical Mark, if not identical with it, as the source of the 
narratives common to the three Gospels, and another book contain- 
ing sayings of Jesus, as the source of the didactic matter common te 
Matthew and Luke. } 

11. These conclusions, which might be reached purely by interna) 
inspection, are confirmed by the well-known statements of Papias, 
who flourished in the first quarter of the second century, concerning 
books about Christ written by Mark and Matthew. They are to this 
effect: ‘Mark, being the interpreter of Peter, wrote carefully, 
though not in order, as he remembered them, the things spoken or 
done by Christ”. “Matthew wrote the Logia in the Hebrew 
language, and each one interpreted these as he could.”! The state- 
ments point to two books as the fountains of evangelic written tradi- 
tion, containing matter guaranteed as reliable as resting on the author- 
ity of two apostles, Peter and Matthew. The first of the two books is 
presumably identical with our canonical Mark. It is not against this 


1 Eusebii, Historia Ecclesiastica, lib. iii., c. 39. 


CONCERNING THE THREE GOSPELS I! 


that Papias represents Mark’s work as including things spoken as 
well as done by Christ. For this is true of canonical Mark. Though, 
by comparison with Matthew and Luke, Mark is extremely meagre 
in the didactic element, yet he does report many very remarkable 
sayings of Jesus. But what of the other book? Is it to be identi- 
fied with our Matthew? Prima facie one would say no, because 
the Matthew of Papias is a book of Logia, which we naturally take 
to mean a book of oracles, or weighty words spoken by the Lord 
Jesus. But, on the other hand, it might be argued that Logia is 
simply a designation from the more prominent or characteristic part, 
and by no means excludes such narratives of events as we find in 
canonical Matthew. Indeed, it might be said that it would be diffi- 
cult to compile a collection of sayings that should be interesting or 
even intelligible without the introduction of more or less narrative, 
if it were only by way of preface or historical settiny. Granting that 
the leading aim was to report words, a minimum amount of narrative 
would still be necessary to make the report effective. And it might 
be added that it is, in many instances, only a minimum of narrative 
that we find in canonical Matthew, his historic statements being 
generally meagre in comparison with those in Mark and Luke. 
Hence, not a few cri‘ics and apologists still hold by the old tradi- 
tion which practically ‘dentifie. the Logia of Papias with the 
Matthew of the New Testament. But the Logia, according to 
Papias, was written in Hebrew, and our canonical Matthew is in 
Greek which does not wear the aspect of a translation. This diffi- 
culty defenders of the old v’=w do not find insurmountable. Yet 
the impression left on one’s mind by such apologetic attempts is that 
of special pleading, or perhaps, one ought to say, of an honourable 
bias in favour of a venerable tradition, and of a theory which gives 
us, in canonical Matthew, a work proceeding directly from the hand 
of an apostle. If that theory could be established, the result would 
be highly satisfactory to many who at present stand in doubt. 
Meantime we must be content to acquiesce, provisionally, in a hypo- 
thesis, according to which we have access to the apostle Matthew’s 
contribution only at second hand, in a Gospel from another unknown 
author which has absorbed a large portion, if not the whole, of the 
apostolic document. Even on this view we have the satisfaction of 
feeling that the three synoptists bring us very near to the original 
eye and ear witnesses. The essential identity, amid much diversity 
in form, of the words ascribed to our Lord in the two Gospels which 
draw upon the Logia, inspires confidence that the evangelic reports 
of these words, though secondary, are altogether reliable. 


2 INTRODUCTION 


12. We cannot but wonder that a work so precious as the Logia 
of Matthew was allowed to perish, and earnestly wish that, if 
possible, it might even yet be restored. Attempts at gratifying this 
natural feeling have recently been made, and conjectural reconstruc- 
tions of the lost treasure lie before us in such works as that of 
Wendt on the Teaching of $esus,) and of Blair on the Apostolic 
Gospel2 A critical estimate of these essays cannot here be given. 
Of course they are tentative; nevertheless they are interesting, and 
even fascinating to all who desire to get behind the existing records, 
and as near to the actual words of our Lord as possible. And, 
though an approach to a consensus of opinion may never be reached, 
the discussion is sure to bear fruit in a more intimate acquaintance 
with the most authentic forms of many of our Lord’s sayings. As 
another aid to so desirable a result, one must give a cordial welcome 
to such works as that of Resch on Extracanonical Parallel Texts to 
the Gospels.2 Resch believes it pogsible, through the use of Codex 
Bezae, the old Latin and Syriac versions, and quotations from the 
Gospels in the early fathers, to get behind the text of our canonical 
Gospels, and to reach a truer reflection in Greek of the Hebrew 
original in the case of many sayings recorded in the Logia of 
Matthew. There will be various estimates of the intrinsic value of 
his adventurous attempt. Personally, I am not sanguine that much 
will come out of it. But one cannot be sorry that it has been made, 
and by-one who thoroughly believes that he is engaged in a fruitful 
line of inquiry. It is well to learn by exhaustive experiment how 
much or how little may be expected from that quarter. 

13. Among those who accept the hypothesis of the two sources 
a difference of opinion obtains on two subordinate points, viz., first, 
the relation between the two sources used in Matthew and Luke, 
and, second, the relation between these two Gospels. Did Mark 
know and use the Logia, and did Matthew know Luke, or Luke 
Matthew? Dr. Bernhard Weiss answers the former question in the 
affirmative and the latter in the negative. From certain pheno- 
mena brought to light by a comparative study of the synoptists, he 
thinks it demonstrable that in many parts of his narrative Mark leans 


1 Wendt, Die Lehre Fesu, Erster Theil. This part of Wendt’s work has not 
been translated. His exposition of Christ’s words has been translated by Messrs. 
T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh. 

2 The Apostolic Gospel, with a Critical Reconstruction of the Text, by J. Fulton 
Blair, 1896. Mr. Blair’s critical position differs widely from Wendt’s, and his 
Apostolic Gospel contains much more besides sayings. 

® Aussercanonische Paralleltexte zu den Evangelien. 


CONCERNING THE THREE GOSPELS 13 


on an older written source, whose accounts of evangelic incidents are 
reproduced in a more faithful manner in the companion Gospels, and 
especially in Matthew. This source he takes to be the Logia of the 
apostle Matthew. It follows from this, of course, that the Logia 
was not a mere collection of sayings, but a book containing histories 
as well, such narratives, ¢.g., as those relating to the palsied man, 
the feeding of the 5000, and the blind man at Jericho. The pheno- 
mena on which Weiss rests his case are of two kinds. One group 
consists of minute agreements between Matthew and Luke against 
Mark in narratives common to the three, as, e.g., in the use of the 
words iSod and émi xAtvns in the opening sentence of the story of the 
palsied man. The inference is that these phrases are taken from the 
Logia, implying of course that the story was there for those who 
chose to use it. The other group consists of sayings of Jesus found 
in Mark’s Gospel, and reproduced also in Matthew and Luke in 
nearly identical form, yet not taken, it is held, from Mark, but from 
the Logia. The contention is that the close similarity can be 
accounted for only by the assumption that Mark, as well as his 
brother evangelists, took the words from the Logia. An instance in 
point may be found in the respective accounts of the reply of Jesus 
to the charge of being in league with Beelzebub. Wendt dissents 
from the inference of Weiss in bota classes of cases. The one group 
of facts he explains by assuming that Luke had access to the first 
canonical gospel; in the second group he sees simply accidental 
correspondences between independent traditions preserved respec- 
tively in the Logia and in Mark.} 


SEcTION jI. HzsToricity. 


1. The Gospels prima facie wear the aspect of books aiming 
at giving a true if not a full account of the life, and more especially 
of the public career, of Jesus Christ, the Author of the Christian 
faith. For Christians, writings having such an aim must possess 
unique interest. There is nothing an earnest believer in Christ 
more desires to know than the actual truth about Him: what He 
said, did, and experienced. How far do the books, the study of 
which is to engage our attention, satisfy this desire? To what 
extent are they historically reliable ? 

2. The question has been recently propounded and discussed: 


1 Die Lehre Fesu, Erster Theil, pp. rg1-3. On the question whether the third 
evangelist used canonical Matthew, vide the Abhandlung of Edward Simons, 
Bonn, 1880. 


14 INTRODUCTION 


What interest did the apostolic age take in the evangelic history ? 
and the conclusion arrived at that the earthly life of Jesus inter- 
ested it very little! Now, there can be no doubt that, comparing 
that age with the present time, the statement is true. We live in an 
age when the historical spirit is in the ascendant, creating an insati- 
able desire to know the origins of every movement which has affected, 
to any extent, the fortunes of humanity. Moreover, Christianity 
has undergone an evolution resulting in types of this religion which 
are, on various grounds, unsatisfactory to many thoughtful persons. 
Hence has arisen a powerful reaction of which the watchword is— 
“ Back to Christ,” and to which additional intensity has been given 
by the conviction that modern types of Christianity, whether eccle- 
siastical, philosophical, or pietistic, all more or less foster, if they do 
not avow, indifference to the historic foundations of the faith. We 
have thus a religious as well as a scientific reason for our desire to 
know the actual Jesus of history. In the primitive era, faith was 
free to follow its native tendency to be content with its immediate 
object, the Risen Lord, and to rely on the inward illumination of the 
Holy Spirit as the source of all knowledge necessary for a godly life. 
This indifference might conceivably pass into hostility. Faith might 
busy itself in transforming unwelcome facts so as f> make the his- 
tory serve its purpose. For the historic interest and the religious 
are not identical. Science wants to know the actual facts; religion 
wants facts to be such as will serve its ends. It sometimes idealises, 
transforms, even invents history to accomplish this object. We are 
not entitled to assume, @ priori, that apostolic Christianity entirely 
escaped this temptation. The suggestion that the faith of the primi- 
tive Church took hold of the story of Jesus and so transfigured it 
that the true image of Him is no longer recoverable, however scepti- 
cal, is not without plausibility. The more moderate statement that 
the apostolic Church, while knowing and accepting many facts about 
Jesus, was not interested in them as facts, but only as aids to faith, 
has a greater show of reason. It might well be that the teaching of 
Jesus was regarded not so much as a necessary source of the know- 
ledge of truth, but rather as a confirmation of knowledge already 
possessed, and that the acts and experiences of Jesus were viewed 
chiefly in the light of verifications of His claim to be the Messiah. 
It does not greatly matter to us what the source of interest in the 
evangelic facts was so long as they are facts; if the primitive 
Church in its traditions concerning Jesus was simply utilising and 

1 Vide Von Soden’s essay in the Theologische Abhandlungen, Carl von Weis- 
sdcker Gewidmet, 1892. 


CONCERNING THE THREE GOSPELS 15 


not manufacturing history. There is good reason to believe that in 
the main this is the true state of the case. Not only so, there are 
grounds for the opinion that the historic spirit—interest in facts as 
facts—was not wanting even amid the fervour of the apostolic age. 
It may be worth while to mention some of these, seeing they make 
for the historicity of the main body of the evangelic tradition con- 
cerning the words, deeds, and sufferings of Jesus as these are re- 
corded, ¢.g., in the Gospel of Mark. 

3. In this connection it deserves a passing notice that there 
existed in the primitive Church a party interested in the fact-know- 
ledge of Jesus, the knowledge of Christ “after the flesh” in Pauline 
phrase, a Christ party. From the statement made by St. Paul in 
the text from which the phrase just quoted is taken, it has been in- 
ferred that the apostle was entirely indiffevent to the historical 
element.!. The inference seems to me hasty ; but, be this as it may, 
what I am now concerned to point out is that, if St. Paul under- 
valued the facts of the personal ministry, there were those who did 
not. There was a party who made acquaintance with these facts a 
necessary qualification for the apostleship, and on this ground denied 
that St. Paul was an apostle. The assumption underlying the Tibin- 
gen tendency-criticism is that there were two parties in the apostolic 
Church interested in misrepresenting Jesus in different directions, 
one virtually making Him a narrow Judaist, the other making Hima 
Pauline universalist, neither party being worthy of implicit trust. 
This hypothesis presents a somewhat distorted view of the situation. 
It would be nearer the truth to say that there was a party inter- 
ested in facts and another interested chiefly in ideas. The one 
valued facts without seeing their significance; the other valued 
ideas without taking much trouble to indicate the fact-basis. To the 
bias of the former party we might be indebted for knowledge of many 
facts in the life of Jesus, the significance of which was not under- 
stood by the transmitters of the tradition. 

4, Even within the Pauline party there were those who were 
interested in facts and in some measure animated by the historical 
spirit. So far from regarding Paulinists in general as idealists, we 
ought probably to regard St. Paul, in his passion for ideas and 
apparent indifference to biographic detail, as an excepticn; and to 
think of the majority of his followers as men who, while sympathising 
with his universalism, shared in no small measure the common 
Jewish realism. Of this type was Luke. The absence from his 


1 2 Corinthians v. 16, 


16 INTRODUCTION 


Gospel of even the rudiments of a doctrine of atonement, so con- 
spicuous a topic in the Pauline epistles, will be remarked on here- 
after; meantime I direct attention simply to its opening sentence. 
That prefatory statement is full of words and phrases breathing the 
fact-loving spirit: MemwAnpohopypéver mpaypdtwy, dw dpyiis adtémrat kal 
Smnpérat, axpiBds, dopddercav. The author wants to deal with facts 
believed; he wishes, as far as possible, to be guided by the testimony 
of eye-witnesses; he means to take pains in the ascertainment of the 
truth, that the friend for whose benefit he writes may attain unto 
certainty. The question here is not how far he succeeded in his 
aim; the point insisted on is the aim itself, the historical spirit 
evinced. Luke may have been unconsciously influenced to a con- 
siderable extent by religious bias, preconceived opinion, accepted 
Christian belief, and therefore not sufficiently critical, and too easily 
satisfied with evidence; but he honestly wanted to know the historic 
truth. And in this desire he doubtless represented a class, and . 
wrote to meet a demand on tue part of Christians who felt a keen 
interest in the memorabilia of the Founder, and were not satisfied 
with the sources at command on account of their fragmentariness, 
or occasional want of agreement with each other.! 

5. The peculiar character of the apostle who stood at the head 
of the primitive Jewish Church has an important bearing on the 
question of historicity. For our knowledge of Peter we are not 
wholly dependent on the docume:.ts whose historicity is in question. 
We have a rapid pencil-sketch of him in the epistles of St. Paul, 
easily recognisable as that of the same man of whom we have a 
more finished picture in the Gospels. A genial, frank, impulsive, 
outspoken, generous, wide-hearted man; not preoccupied with 
theories, illogical, inconsistent, now on one side, now on the other; 
brave yet cowardly, capable of honest sympathy with Christian 
universalism, yet under pressure apt to side with Jewish bigots. 
A most unsatisfactory, provoking person to deal with for such a man 
as St. Paul, with his sharply defined position, thorough-going 
adherence to principle, and firm resolute will. Yes, but also a very 
satisfactory source of first-hand traditions concerning Jesus; an 
excellent witness, if a weak apostle. <A source, a copious fountain of 
information he was bound to be. We do not need Papias to tell us 
this. This disciple, open-hearted and open-mouthed, must speak 
concerning his beloved Master. It will not be long before everybody 
knows what he has to tell concerning the ministry of the Lord. 


? Von Soden, in the essay above referred to, takes no notice of Luke’s preface, 


CONCERNING THE THREE GOSPELS | 


Papias reports that in Mark’s Gospel we have the literary record of 
Peter’s testimony. The statement is entirely credible. Peter would 
say more than others about Jesus; he would say all in a vivid way, 
and Mark’s narrative reflects the style of an impressionable eye- 

witness. If it be a faithful report of Peter’s utterances the general 
truth of its picture of Jesus may be implicitly relied on. For Peter 
was not a man likely to be biassed by theological tendency. What 
we expect from him is rather a candid recital of things as they 
happened, without regard to, possibly without perception of, their 
bearing on present controversies; a rough, racy, unvarnished story, 
unmanipulated in the interest of ideas or theories, which are not in 
this man’s line. How far the narratives of the second Gospel bear 
out this character will appear hereafter. 

6. The other fact mentioned by Papias, viz., that the apostle 
Matthew was the source of the evangelic tradition relating to the 
words of Jesus, has an important bearing on historicity. Outside 
the Gospels we have no information concerning this disciple such as 
we have of Peter in the Pauline letters. But we may safely assume 
the truth of the Gospel accounts which represent him as having been 
a tax-gatherer before he was called to discipleship. The story of his 
call, under the name of Matthew or Levi, is told in all the three 
synoptists, as is also the significant incident of the feast following at 
which Jesus met with a large company of publicans. There is 
reason to believe that in calling this disciple our Lord had in view 
not merely ultimate service as an apostle, but immediate service in 
connection with the meeting with the publicans; that, in short, Jesus 
associated Matthew with Himself that He might use him as an 
instrument for initiating a mission to the class to which he had 
belonged. But if the Master might call a fit man to discipleship for 
one form of immediate service, He might call him for more than 
one. Another service the ex-publican might be able to render was 
that of secretary. In his old occupation he would be accustomed to 
writing, and it might be Christ’s desire to utilise that talent for 
noting down things worthy of record. The gift would be most in 
demand in connection with the teaching of the Master. The 
preservation of that element could not be safely trusted to memories 
quite equal to the retention of remarkable healing acts, accompanied 
by not less remarkable sayings. The use of the pen at the moment 
might be necessary. And of all the members of the disciple-circle 
the ex-publican was the likeliest man for that service. We are not 
surprised, therefore, that the function assigned to Matthew in con- 


nection with the evangelic tradition is the preservation of the Logia. 
2 


18 INTRODUCTION 


That is just the part he was fitted to perform. As little are we 
surprised that Mark’s Gospel, based on Peter’s recollections, contains 
so little of the teaching. Peter was not the kind of man to take 
notes, nor were discourses full of deep thought the kind of material 
he was likely to remember. What would make an indelible impres- 
sion on him would be, not thought, but extraordinary deeds, 
accompanied by striking gestures, original brief replies to embarrass- 
ing questions and the like; just such things as we find reported in 
the second Gospel. 

From Matthew the publican might be expected not only a record 
of Christ's teaching as distinct from His actions, but an impartial 
record. We should not suspect him any more than Peter of 
theological bias; least of all in the direction of Judaism. As a 
Galilean he belonged to a half-Gentile community, and as a pub- 
lican he was an outcast for orthodox Jews. It was probably the 
humane spirit and wide sympathies of Jesus that drew him from the 
receipt of custom. If, therefore, we find in the Logia any sayings 
ascribed to Jesus of a universalistic character we do not feel in the 
least tempted to doubt their authenticity. If, on “he other hand, we 
meet with words of an apparently opposite character we are not 
greatly startled and ready to exclaim, Behold the hand of an inter- 
polator! We rather incline to see in the combination of seemingly 
incongruous elements the evidence of candid chronicling. It is the 
case of an honest reporter taking down this and that without asking 
himself whether this can be reconciled with that. That a deep, 
many-sided mind like that of Jesus might give birth to startling 
paradoxes is no wise incredible. Therefore, without undertaking 
responsibility for every expression, one may without hesitation en- 
dorse the sentiment of Jilicher, “that Jewish and anti-Jewish, 
revolutionary and conservative, new and old, freedom and narrow- 
ness in judgment, sensuous hopes and a spiritualism blending 
together present and future, meet together, by no means weakens 
our impression that Jesus really here speaks ”’. 

7. The mere fact of the preservation of Mark’s Gospel is not 
without a bearing on the question of historicity. In its own way it 
testifies to the influence of the historic as distinct from the religious 
spirit in the early period of the Christian era. It would not have 
been at all surprising if that Gospel had fallen out of existence, 
seeing that its contents have been absorbed into the more compre- 
hensive Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Assuming the correctness 


1 Einleitung in das Neue Testament, p. 231. 


CONCERNING THE THREE GOSPELS 19 


of modern critical views, the Logia of the Apostle Matthew has dis- 
appeared; how did it come about that the second Gospel did not 
disappear also, especially in view of its defects, as they would be re- 
garded, comparing it with the longer narratives of the same type? 
Whether the authors of the first and third Gospels aimed at super- 
seding the Logia and Mark is a question that need not be discussed. 
From Luke’s preface it might plausibly be inferred that he did 
aspire at giving so full and satisfactory an account of the life of 
Jesus as should render earlier attempts superfluous. If he did, he 
was not successful. The Gospel without the story of the infancy, 
and the Sermon on the Mount, and the detailed appearances after the 
resurrection, survived. It might be undervalued. There is evidence 
of preference and partiality for one Gospel as against another in 
Patristic literature. Clement of Alexandria, true to his philosophy, 
undervalued all the synoptists as compared with the fourth Gospel, 
because they showed merely the body of Jesus, while the fourth 
Gospel showed His spirit. Augustine regarded Mark as a mere 
pedissequus to Matthew, en laquais, as D’Eichthal irreverently but 
not incorrectly renders the word.1. Still Mark held his place, mere 
lackey to Matthew though some supposed him to be. The reason 
might be in part that he had got too strong a hold before the com- 
panion Gospels appeared, to be easily dislodged, and had to be 
accepted in spite of defects and apparent superfiuousness. But | 
think there was also a worthier reason, a certain diffused thankful- 
ness for every scrap of information concerning the Lord Jesus, 
especially such as was believed to rest on apostolic testimony. 
Mark’s Gospel passed for a report of St. Peter’s reminiscences of 
the Master; therefore by all means let it be preserved, though it 
contained no account of the childhood of Jesus, and very imperfect 
reports of His teaching and of the resurrection. It was apostolic, 
therefore to be respected; as apostolic it was trustworthy, there- 
fore to be valued. In short, the presence of the second Gospel in 
the New Testament, side by side with Matthew and Luke, is a wit- 
ness to the prevalence in the Church of the first century of the 
historical spirit acting as a check on the religious spirit, whose in- 
stinctive impulse would be to obliterate traces of discrepancy, and to 
suppress all writings relating to the Christian origins which in their 
presentation of Jesus even seemed to sink below the level of the 
Catholic faith. 

8. The foregoing five considerations all tend to make a favour. 


1 Vide his work Les Evangiles, p. 66, 


20 INTRODUCTION 


able impression as to the historicity of the evangelic tradition in 
general. More special considerations are needful when the tradition 
is broken up into distinct divisions. The tradition consists of three 
layers. Faith would make three demands for information concern- 
ing its object: what did He teach ? what did He do? how did 
He suffer? Some think that the first and most urgent demand 
would be for information concerning the teaching, and that only in 
the second place would there grow up a desire for narratives of facts 
and experiences. According to Holtzmann the order was: first the 
Logia, then the passion-drama, then the anecdotes of memorable 
acts.! I should be inclined to invert the order of the first two items, 
and to say: the Passion, the Logia, the memorable incidents. But 
the more important question is: how far can the evangelic records 
concerning these three departments of the tradition be trusted ? 
Only a few hints can be given by way of answer here. 

9. The narratives of the Passion, given in all the four Gospels . 
with disproportionate fulness, have lately been subjected to a 
searching analysis in a sceptical spirit rivalling that of Strauss. 
Dr. Brandt,? after doing his utmost to shake our faith in the trust- 
worthiness of these pathetic records, still leaves to us eight par- 
ticulars, which even he is constrained to recognise as historical. 
These are: betrayal by one of the twelve; desertion by all of them; 
denial by Peter; death sentence under the joint responsibility of 
Jewish rulers and Roman procurator; assistance in carrying the cross 
rendered by Simon of Cyrene; crucifixion on a hill called Golgotha; 
the crime charged indicated by the inscription, “‘ King of the Jews”’; 
death, if not preceded by a prayer for the murderers, or by the 
despairing cry, “‘My God, my God,” at least heralded by a loud 
voice. In these particulars we have the skeleton of the story, all that 
is needful to give the Passion tragic significance, and even to form 
a basis for theological constructions. The items omitted, the 
process before the Sanhedrim, the interviews with Pilate and 
Herod, the mockery of the soldiers, the preferential release of 
Barabbas, the sneers of passers-by, the two thieves, the parting of the 
raiment, the words from the cross, the preternatural accompaniments 
of death, are all more or less of the nature of accessories, enhancing 
greatly the impressiveness of the picture, suggesting additional 
lessons, but not altering the character of the event as a whole. 

But even accessories are important, and not to be lightly given 


1 Vide Hand-Commentar, pp. 13-17. 
° Die Evangelische Geschichte und der Ursprung des Christenthums, 1893. 


CONCERNING THE THREE GOSPELS 21 


over to the tender mercies of sceptical critics. The reasons assigned 
for treating them as unhistoric are not convincing. They come 
mostly under three heads: The influence of Old Testament prophecy, 
the absence of witnesses, and the bias manifest in the accounts of 
the trial against the Jews and in favour of the Gentiles. By 
reference to the first a whole group of incidents, including the cry, 
“ Bli, Eli,” are summarily disposed of. Texts taken from Psalm xxii. 
and Isaiah liii. created corresponding facts. This is a gratuitous 
assumption. The facts suggested the prophecies, the prophecies did 
not create the facts. The facts were there, and the primitive 
disciples looked out for Messianic oracles to suit them, by way of 
furnishing themselves with an apologetic for the thesis, Jesus is the 
Christ. In some cases the links of proof are weak; no one could 
have thought of the texts unless the facts had been there to suggest 
them. The plea of lack of witnesses applies to what took place 
between Jesus and the various authorities before whom He appeared: 
the High Priests, Pilate, Herod. Who, it is asked, were there to 
see or hear? Who likely to be available as witnesses for the 
evangelic tradition? We cannot tell; yet it is possible there was 
quite sufficient evidence, though also possible, doubtless, that the 
evangelists were not in all cases able to give exact verifiable informa- 
tion, but were obliged to give simply the best information obtainable. 
This, at least, we may claim for them, that they did their best to 
ascertain the facts. As to the alleged prejudice leading to unfair 
distribution of blame for our Lord’s death between the Jewish 
authorities and the Roman governor, we may admit that there were 
temptations to such partiality, arising out of natural dislike of the 
Jews and unequally natural desire to win the favour of those who 
held the reins of empire. Yet on the whole it may be affirmed that 
the representation of the evangelists is intrinsically credible as in 
harmony with all we know about the principal actors in the great 
tragedy. 

10. With regard to the teaz%ing, it is of course obvious that all 
recorded sayings of Jesus do not possess the same attestation. Some 
words are found in all three synoptists, some in two, and not a few 
in only one. Yet in many instances we can feel as sure of the 
authenticity of sayings found in a single Gospel as of that of sayings 
occurring in all the three. Who can doubt, e.g., that the word, “ the 
Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath,” emanated 
from the great Master? It is well in this connection to have before 
our minds the rules by which judgment should be guided. The 
following canons may legitimately be relied on :— 


22 INTRODUCTION 


(a) Sayings supported by full synoptical attestation may be 
regarded as in substance authentic. 

(b) Sayings unsupported by full synoptical attestation may be 
regarded as authentic when their absence from a particular Gospel 
can be explained by its plan, or by the idiosyncrasy of its author. 
This covers not a few omissions by Luke. 

(c) Sayings found only in a single Gospel may be accepted as 
authentic when they sympathise with and form a natural complement 
to other well-attested sayings. This remark applies to the sayings in 
Luke vii. 47, xv. 7, concerning the connection between little forgive- 
ness and little love, and about the joy of finding things lost, which 
are complementary to the saying in all three synoptists: “the whole 
need not a physician ;” the three sayings together constituting a full 
apology for the relations between Jesus and the sinful. 

(d) All sayings possess intrinsic credibility which suit the general 
historical situation. This applies to Christ’s antipharisaic utterances, 
an element very prominent in Matthew, and very much restricted in 
Luke. 

(e) All sayings may be accepted as self-attested and needing no 
other attestation which bear the unmistakable stamp of a unique 
religious genius, rise above the capacity of the reporters, and are 
reported by them simply as unforgettable memories of the great 
Teacher handed down by a faithful tradition. 

The chief impulse to collecting the sayings of Jesus was not a 
purely historical interest, but a desire to find in the words of the 
Master what might serve as a rule to believers for the guidance of 
their life. Hence may be explained the topical grouping of sayings 
in Matthew and Luke, especially in the former, ¢.g., in the tenth 
chapter, whose rubric might be: a directory for the mission work of 
the church; and in the eighteenth, which might be headed: how 
the members of the Christian brotherhood are to behave towards 
each other. The question suggests itself, Would the influence of 
the practical aim be confined to grouping ? Would it not extend to 
modifications, expansions, additions, even inventions, that the words 
of the Master might cover all present requirements. and correspond 
fully to present circumstances and convictions? On this topic 
Weizsacker makes the following statement: ‘ From the beginning 
the tradition consisted not in mere repetition, but in repetition 
combined with creative activity. And from the nature of the case 
this activity increased as time went on. Elucidations grew into text. 
The single saying was multiplied with the multiplication of its uses, 
or the words were referred to a definite case and correspondingly 


CONCERNING THE THREE GOSPELS 23 


modified. Finally, words were inserted into the text of Jesus’ 
sayings, especially in the form of instances of narrative, which were 
only meant to make His utterances more distinct.”’ This may 
seem to open a door to licence, but second thoughts tend to allay our 
fears. The aim itself supplied a check to undue freedom. Just 
because disciples desired to follow the Master and make His words 
their law, they would wish to be sure that the reported sayings gave 
them the thoughts of Jesus at least, if not His ipsissima verba. 
Then there is reason to believe that the process of fixing the 
tradition was substantially completed when the memory of Jesus was 
recent, and the men who had been with Him were at hand to guide 
and control the process. Weizsacker remarks that very little of the 
nature of accretion originated elsewhere than in the primitive church, 
and that the great mass of the evangelic tradition was formed under 
the influence of the living tradition.2 That is to say, the freedom of 
the apostolic age was controlled by knowledge and reverence. It 
was known what the Master had taught, and great respect was 
cherished for His authority. If there was no superstitious concern 
as to literal accuracy, there was a loyal solicitude that the meaning 
conveyed by words should be true to the mind of Christ. 

11. The incidents of the Healing Ministry, which form the bulk 
of the narrative of events, are complicated with the question of 
miracle. Those for whom it is an axiom that a miracle is impossible 
are tempted to pronounce on that ministry the summary and sweep- 
ing verdict, unhistorical. This is not a scientific procedure. The 
question of fact should be dealt with separately on its own grounds, 
and the question of explicability taken up only in the second place. 
There are good reasons for believing that the healing ministry, mir- 
aculous or not miraculous, was a great fact in the public career of 
Jesus. Healing is associated with teaching in all general notices of 
our Lord’s work. Nine acts of healing, some of them very remark- 
able, are reported in all the synoptical Gospels. The healing element 
in the ministry is so interwoven with the didactic that the former 
cannot be eliminated without destroying the whole story. This is 
frankly acknowledged by Harnack, who, if he does not doubt the 
reality of miracles, attaches very little apologetic value to them.’ 
The occasional notices in the Gospels of contemporary opinions, 
impressions, and theories regarding Christ’s actions speak to some- 
thing extraordinary over and above the preaching and teaching. 


1 The Apostolic Age, vol. ii., p. 62. 3 Ibid, 
3 History of Dogma, vol.i., p. 65, note 3. 


24 INTRODUCTION 


Mark’s graphic report of the impression produced by Christ’s first 
appearance in the synagogue of Capernaum may be cited as an 
instance. ‘What is this? A new teaching!—with authority He 
commandeth even the unclean spirits, and they obey Him.”! This 
is a veritable reminiscence, and it points to a double surprise created 
by an original style of preaching, and by an unprecedented power. 
Still more significant are the theories invented to explain away 
the power. The Pharisees accounted for it, as displayed in the 
cure of demoniacs, by the suggestion of an alliance with Beelzebub. 
Herod said: “It is John whom I beheaded risen from the dead and 
exercising the power of the spirit world”. The one theory was 
malevolent, the other absurd, but the point to be noticed is the 
existence of the theories. Men do not theorise about nothing. 
There were remarkable facts urgently demanding explanation of 
some sort. 

The healing acts of Jesus then, speaking broadly, were to begin 
with facts. How they are to be explained, and what they imply as 
to the Person of the Healer, are questions for science and theology. 
It is not scientific to neglect the phenomena as unworthy of notice. 
As little is it scientific to make the solution easy by under-statement 
of the facts to be explained, as, e.g., by viewing demoniacal possession 
as an imaginary disease. Demoniacal possession might be an 
imaginary explanation of certain classes of diseases, but the dis- 
eases themselves were serious enough, as serious as madness and 
epilepsy, which appear to have formed the physical basis of the 
malady. 

Finally, it is not to be supposed that these healing acts, though 
indubitable facts, have no permanent religious value. Their use in 
the evidences of Christianity may belong to an antiquated type of 
apologetic, but in other respects their significance is perennial. 
Whether miraculous or not, they equally reveal the wide-hearted 
benevolence of Jesus. They throw a side light on His doctrine of 
God and of man, and especially on His conception of the ideal of 
life. The healing ministry was a tacit but effective protest against 
asceticism and the dualism on which it rests, and a proof that 
Jesus had no sympathy with the hard antithesis between spirit and 
flesh. 

12. Before leaving the topic of historicity, it may be well here to 
refer to a line of evidence which, though not worked out, has been 
suggestively sketched by Professor Sanday in his Bampton Lectures 


1 Mark i. 27. 


CONCERNING THE THREE GOSPELS 25 


on Inspiration. The thesis to be proved is “that the great mass of 
the narrative in the first three Gospels took its shape before the 
destruction of Jerusalem, 7.e., within less than forty years of the 
events’.! ‘Was there ever,” asks Dr. Sanday, “an easier problem 
for a critic to decide whether the sayings and narratives which lie 
before him came from the one side of this chasm or the other?” 
Among the instances he cites are such as these: “If, therefore, 
thou art offering thy gift at the altar, and then rememberest that 
thy brother hath aught against thee,” etc. “ Woe unto you, ye blind 
guides, which say, whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing,’ 
etc. ‘See thou tell no man, but go thy way, show thyself to the 
priest,” etc. That is to say, the altar, the temple, the priesthood 
are still in existence. This is not decisive as to the date of our Gos- 
pels, but it is decisive as to much of the material contained in them 
having assumed fixed shape, either in oral or in written form, before 
the great crisis of Israel. 

13. Historicity, be it finally noted, is not to be confounded with 
absolute accuracy, or perfect agreement between parallel accounts. 
Harmonistic is a thing of the past. It was a well-meant discipline, 
but it took in hand an insoluble problem, and it unduly magnified the 
importance of a solution, even if it had been possible. Questions as 
to occasions on which reported words and acts of Jesus were spoken 
or done, as to the connections between sayings grouped together in 
one Gospel, dispersed in the pages of another, as to the diverse 
forms of sayings in parallel reports, are for us now secondary. The 
broad question we ask as to the words of Jesus is: have we here, in 
the main, words actually spoken by Jesus, once or twice, now or 
then, in this connection or in that, in separate aphorisms or in con- 
nected discourse, in the form reported by this or that evangelist, or 
in a form not exactly reproduced by any of them, yet conveying a 
sense sufficiently reflected in all the versions? Is the Lord’s prayer 
the Lord’s at whatever time given to His disciples? Is the “Sermon 
on the Mount” made up of real utterances of Jesus, whether all 
spoken at one time, as Matthew’s report seems to imply, or on 
various occasions, as we should infer from Luke’s narrative? Did 
Jesus actually say: ‘1 came not to call the righteous, but sinners,” 
whether with the addition, “to repentance,” as it stands in Luke, or 
without, as in the genuine text of the same Logion in Matthew and 
Mark? Did He speak the parable of the lost sheep—whether in 
Matthew’s form or in Luke’s, or in a form differing verbally from 





1 Page 283. 


26 INTRODUCTION 


both—to disciples, to Pharisees, or perhaps to neither, but to publi- 
cans, yet conveying in some form and to some audience the great 
thought that there was a passion in His heart and in the heart of 
God for saving lost men? It is greatly to be desired that devout 
readers of the Gospels should be emancipated from legal bondage to 
the theological figment of inerrancy. Till this is done, it is impos- 
sible to enjoy in full the Gospel story, or feel its essential truth and 
reality. 


CHAPTER il. 


THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK. 


SecTion I. ConrTENTS. 


1. The second Gospel has no account of the birth and infancy of 
Jesus. The narrative opens with the prelude to the public ministry, 
the preaching and baptism of the prophet John; and the sequel 
consists of a rapid sketch of that ministry in a series of graphic tab- 
leaux from its commencement in Galilee to its tragic close in Jerusa- 
lem. This fact alone raises a presumption in favour of Mark’s claim 
to be the earliest of the three synoptical Gospels. Other considera- 
tions pointing in the same direction are its comparative brevity and 
the meagreness of its account of Christ’s teaching. This Gospel 
wears the aspect of a first sketch of the memorable career of one 
who had become an object of religious faith and love to the circle of 
readers for whose benefit it was written. As such it is entitled to 
precedence in an introduction to the three synoptists, though, in our 
detailed comments, we follow the order in which they are arranged in 
the New Testament. It is convenient to take Mark first for this 
further reason, that from its pages we can form the clearest idea of 
the general course of our Lord’s history after He entered on His 
Messianic calling. In none of the three Gospels can we find a 
definite chronological plan, but it is possible from any one of them to 
form a general idea of the leading stages of the ministry, and most 
easily and clearly from the second. 

2. The first stage was the synagogue ministry. After His bap- 
tism in the Jordan and His temptation in the wilderness, Jesus 
returned to Galilee and began to preach the “Gospel of the King- 
dom of God”.! The synagogue was the scene of this preaching. 
The first appearance of Jesus in a synagogue was in Capernaum, 
where He at once made a great impression both by His discourse 
and by the cure of a demoniac.? This was simply the commence- 


1 Mark i. 14. 2 Mark i. 27. 


28 INTRODUCTION 


ment of a preaching tour in the synagogues of Galilee. Jesus made 
no stay in Capernaum. He left the town the day after He preached 
in its synagogue, very early in the morning. He left so early in 
the day because He feared detention by the people. He left in such 
haste because He knew that He could preach in the synagogues 
only by the consent of the authorities, which might soon be with- 
held through sinister influence. This synagogue preaching naturally 
formed the first phase in Christ’s work. The synagogue presented 
a ready opportunity of coming into contact with the people. Any 
man might speak there with the permission of the ruler. But he 
could speak only so long as he was a persona grata, and Jesus, con- 
scious of the wide cleavage in thought and feeling between Himself 
and the scribes, could not but fear that He would not remain such 
long. It was now or never, at the outset or not at all, so far as the 
synagogue was concerned. 

3. How long this synagogue ministry lasted is not expressly in- 
dicated. A considerable period is implied in the statement: “He 
preached in their synagogues throughout all Galilee”? It is not 
necessary to take this strictly, especially in view of the populousness 
of Galilee and the multitude of its towns large and small, as indi- 
cated by Josephus. But the statement must be taken in earnest 
so far as to recognise that Jesus had a deliberate plan for a 
synagogue ministry in Galilee, and that He carried it out to a con- 
siderable extent. It is not improbable that it was interrupted by the 
influence of the scribes, whom we find lying in wait for Him on His 
return from the preaching tour to Capernaum.* 

4. With the anecdote in which the scribes figure as -captious 
critics of Jesus a new phase in the story begins. The keynote of 
the first chapter is popularity ; that of the next is opposition. In 
this juxtaposition the evangelist is not merely aiming at dramatic 
effect, but reflecting in his narrative a real historical sequence. The 
popularity and the opposition were related to each other as cause 
and effect. It is true that having once entered on this second topic, 
he groups together a series of incidents illustrating the hostile atti- 
tude of the scribes, which have a topical rather than a temporal 
connection, in this probably following the example of his voucher, 
Peter. These extend from chap. ii. 1 to chap. iii. 6, constituting the 


1 Mark i. 35. 2 Mark i. 39. 
8 Josephus gives the number of towns at 204, the smallest having 15,000 inhabi- 
tants. Wide his Vita, chap. xlv., and Bell. Fud., iii., 2, 3. 


¢ Chap. ii. x. 





THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 29 


second division of the story, chap. i. 14-45 being the first. The two 
together set before us the two forces whose action and interaction 
can be traced throughout the drama, and whose resultant will be 
the cross: the favour of the people, the ill-will of their religious 
leaders. 

5. Within the second group of anecdotes illustrating the hos- 
tility of the scribes, a place is assigned to an incident which ought 
not to be regarded as a mere subordinate detail under that general 
category, but rather as pointing to another phase of our Lord’s 
activity co-ordinate in importance with the preaching in the 
synagogues. I refer to the meeting with the publicans, and in con- 
nection with that the call of Levi or Matthew.’ That action of 
Jesus had a decisive effect in alienating the scribes, but meantime 
this is not the thing to be emphasised. We have to recognise in 
this new movement a second stage in the ministry of Jesus. First, 
preaching in the synagogues to the Jews of respectable character 
and good religious habit; next, a mission to the practically excom- 
municated, non-synagogue-going, socially outcast part of the com- 
munity. Mark, more than his brother evangelists, shows his sense 
of the importance and significance of this new departure, especially 
by the observation: “ there were many (publicans and sinners), and 
they followed Him”.? That is to say, the class was large enough to 
demand special attention, and they were inviting attention and 
awakening interest in them by the interest they on their side were 
beginning to take in Jesus and His work. Without doubt this 
mission to the publicans bulked much larger in fact than it does in 
the pages of the evangelists or in the thoughts of average readers of 
the Gospels, and it must be one of the cares of the interpreter to 
make it appear in its true dimensions.’ There is nothing in the 
Gospels more characteristic of Jesus, or of deeper, more lasting sig- 
nificance as to the nature and tendency of the Christian faith. 

6. The third stage in the ministry of Jesus was the formation of 
a disciple-circle. Of the beginnings of this movement Mark gives us 
a glimpse in chap. i. 16-20, where he reports the call of the four 
fishermen, Peter and Andrew, James and John; and in the words 
Jesus is reported to have spoken to the first pair of brothers there 
is a clear indication of a purpose to gather about Him a band of men 
not merely for personal service but in order to training for a high 
calling. Levi’s call, reported in chap. ii, is another indication of 


1 Chap. ii, 13-17. 2 Chap. ii. 15. 
8 Vide notes on this section in Matthew and in Mark. 


30 INTRODUCTION 


the same kind. But it is in the section of the Gospel beginning at 
chap. iii. 7, and extending to chap. vi. 13, that the disciples pro- 
perly come to the front. An intention on the part of the evangelist 
to give them prominence is betrayed in the pointed way in which he 
refers to them in iti. 7: “And Jesus with the disciples withdrew 
towards the sea”.? A little further on in the same chapter we read 
of the retirement of Jesus to the mountain with a band of disciples, 
out of which He selects an inner circle of twelve And at various 
points in this division of the Gospel the disciple-band is referred to 
in a way to indicate that they are assuming a new importance to the 
mind of Jesus.® 

7. This importance was due in part to dissatisfaction with the 
result of the general ministry among the people. Jesus had preached 
often, and healed many, in synagogue and highway, and had become 
in consequence the idol of the masses who gathered in increasing 
numbers from all quarters, and crowded around Him wherever He 
went, as we read in chap. iii. 7-12. But this popularity did not 
gratify Him; it rather bored Him. He did not weary in well-doing, 
but He was disappointed with the outcome. This disappointment 
found expression in the parable of the sower, which was really a 
critical estimate of the synagogue ministry to this sad effect: much 
seed sown; little fruit. Prom this comparatively fruitless ministry 
among the many, Jesus turned with yearning to the susceptible few 
in hope to find in them a good soil that should bring forth ripe fruit, 
thirty, sixty, or even an hundred fold. After a long enough time had 
elapsed to make it possible to form an estimate of the spiritual 
situation, He judged that in a disciple-circle lay His only chance of 
deep permanent influence. Hence He naturally sought to extricate 
Himself from the crowd, and to get away from collisions with un- 
sympathetic scribes, that He might have leisure to indoctrinate the 
chosen band ir the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven. Leisure, 
quiet, retirement—that more and more was His aim. 

8. This desire for opportunity to perform the functions of a 
master is made more apparent by Mark than by the two other 
synoptists. He comes far short of them in his report of Christ’s 
teaching, but he brings out much more clearly than they Christ’s 
desire for undisturbed intercourse with the twelve, the reasons for 
it, and the persistent efforts of the Master to accomplish His object. 
It is from his pages we learn of the escapes of Jesus from the crowds 


1 nera Tay pabnte@y stands before avexépnoey in the best texts. 
2 Chap. iii. 13. 3 Vide iii. 31-35; iv. 10-25; vi. 7-13. 





THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 31 


and from the scribes. These escapes, as reported by Mark, take 
place in all directions possible for one whose work lay on the 
western shore of the Sea of Galilee: towards the hill behind, 
towards the eastern shore, towards the northern borderland. Five 
in all are mentioned: one to the hill;' two to the eastern shore, 
first in an eastward,’ then in a northerly direction;* two to the 
north, first to the borders of Tyre and Sidon,‘ next to the neigh- 
bourhood of Caesarea Philippi.6 All had the same end in view: the 
instruction of the disciples. It was in connection with the first that 
the “Sermon on the Mount,” or the Teaching on the Hill, though 
not mentioned by Mark, was doubtless communicated. The second 
and third attempts, the flights across the lake, were unsuccessful, 
being frustrated in the first case by an accidental meeting with a 
demoniac, and in the second by the determination of the multitude 
not to let Jesus get away from the:~. Therefore, to make sure, the 
Master had to retire with His lisciples to the northern limits of the 
land, and even beyond them, into Gentile territory, that there He 
might, undisturbed, talk to His disciples about the crisis that He 
now clearly perceived to be approaching. 

9. These last flights of Jesus take us on to a point in the story 
considerably in advance of the end of the third section, chap. vi. 13. 
The material lying between this place and chap. viii. 27 shows us the 
progress of the drama under the ever-intensifying influence of the 
two great forces, popularity and hostility. The multitude grows 
ever larger till it reaches the dimensions of 5000,° and the enmity of 
the scribes becomes ever more acute as the divergence of the ways 
of Jesus from theirs becomes increasingly manifest, and His ab- 
horrence of their doctrines and spirit receives more unreserved 
expression.’ After the encounter with the scribes occasioned by 
the neglect of the disciple-circle to comply with Rabbinical customs 
in the matter of ceremonial ablutions, Jesus felt that it was a mere 
question of time when the enmity of His foes would culminate in an 
effort to compass His death. What He had now to do therefore 
was to prepare Himself and His disciples for the end. Accord- 
ingly, Mark reports that after that incident Jesus went thence 
into the borders of Tyre and Sidon, desiring that no one should 
know.® He could not be hid even there, and so to make sure 
of privacy He seems to have made a wide excursion into heathen 
territory, through Tyre and Sidon, possibly across the moun- 


1 Chap. iii. 13. 2 Chap. iv. 35. 5 Chap. vi. 30. 4 Chap. vii. 24. 
3 Chap. viii. 27. 6 Chap. vi. 44. 7 Chap. vii. 1-23. © Chap. vii. 24. 


32 INTRODUCTION 


tains towards Damascus, and so through Decapolis back to 
Galilee" Then followed, after an interval, the excursion to 
Caesarea Philippi, for ever memorable as the occasion on which 
Peter confessed his belief that his Master was the Christ, and the 
Master began to tell His disciples that He was destined ere long to 
suffer death at the hands of the scribes.’ 

10. From that point onwards Mark relates the last scenes in 
Galilee, the departure to the south, with the incidents on the way, 
the entry into Jerusalem, with the stirring incidents of the Passion 
Week, and, finally, the tragic story of the crucifixion. Throughout 
this later part of his narrative it is evident that the one great theme 
of conversation between Jesus and His disciples was the cross: His 
cross and theirs, the necessity of self-sacrifice for all the faithful, 
the rewards of those who loyally bear their cross, and the penalties 
appointed for those whose ruling spirit is ambition.‘ 


SecTION IJ. CHARACTERISTICS. 


1. The outstanding characteristic of Mark is realism. 1 have in 
view here, not the graphic, descriptive, literary style which is gene- 
rally ascribed to Mark, but the unreserved manner in which he pre- 
sents the person and character of Jesus and of the disciples. He 
states facts as they were, when one might be tempted not to state 
them at all, or to exhibit them in a subdued light. He describes 
from the life, avoiding toning down, reticence, generalised expression, 
or euphemistic circumlocution. In this respect there is a great con- 
trast between the second Gospel and the third, and it is only when 
we have made ourselves acquainted with the peculiarities of the two 
Gospels that we are able fully to appreciate those of either. The 
difference is this. Luke’s whole style of presentation is manifestly 
influenced by the present position of Jesus and the disciples: Jesus 
the risen and exalted Lord, the disciples Apostles. For Mark Jesus 
is the Jesus of history, and the disciples are simply disciples. Luke 
writes from the view-point of reverential faith, Mark from that of 
loving vivid recollection. It is impossible by rapid citation of in- 
stances to give an adequate idea of these distinguishing features; 
all that can be done is to refer to a few examples in explanation of 
what I mean. In Mark’s pages, Jesus before He begins His public 
career is a carpenter. At the temptation He is driven by the Spirit 


1 Chap. vii. 31. 2 Chap. viii. 27-33. 
8 Vide chap. ix. 33-50 3 X. 23-45. “ Chap. vi. 3. 





THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK B83 


into the wilderness.’ His first appearance in the synagogue of 
Capernaum is so remarkable that people say to each other: “ What 
is this? Anew teaching! With authority commandeth He even 
unclean spirits, and they obey Him.”* Early the following morning 
He makes what has the aspect of an unaccountable and undignified 
flight from Capernaum.’ By-and-by, when He is fully engrossed 
in His teaching and healing ministries, His relatives come to 
-rescue Him from His enthusiasm, deeming Him beside Himself.‘ 
On the day of the parable-discourse from the boat He makes 
another flight, He saying to the disciples: Let us go over to the other 
side; they promptly obeying orders suddenly given and carrying 
Him off from the crowd, even as He was.5 Towards the end, on the 
ascent to Jerusalem, Jesus goes before the disciples, and His 
manner is such that those who follow are amazed... When He 
sends for the colt on which He rides into the Holy City, He bids 
the two disciples promise to the owner that the colt will be re- 
turned when He has had His use of it.’ 

2. The realism of Mark makes for its historicity. It is a 
guarantee of first-hand reports, such 1s one might expect from 
Peter. Peter reverences his risen Lord as much as Luke or any 
other man. But he is one of the men who have been with Jesus, 
and he speaks from indelible impressions made on his eye and 
ear, while Luke reports at secord-hand from written accounts for 
the most part. The same realism is a strong argument in favour of 
Mark’s priority. It speaks +> an early date before the feeling of de- 
corum had become controlling as it is seen to be in Luke’s Gospel. 
Mark is the archaic Gospel, written under the inspiration not of 
prophecy like Matthew, or of present reverence like Luke, but of 
fondly cherished past memories. In it we get nearest to the true 
human personality of Jesus in all its originality and power, and as 
coloured by the time and the place.® And the character of Jesus 
loses nothing by the realistic presentation. Nothing is told that 
needed to be hid. The homeliest facts reported by the evangelist 
only increase our interest and our admiration. One who desires to 
see the Jesus of history truly should con well the pages of Mark 
first, then pass on to Matthew and Luke. 

3. By comparison with the companion Gospels Mark lacks a 
conspicuous didactic aim. The purpose of the writer seems to be 


Chap. 1.12: 2 Chap. i. 27. 3 Chap. i. 35-38. 4 Chap. iii. 21. 
© Chap. iv. 35. © Chap: x32. 7 Chap. xi. 3. 
8 Vide Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, p. 7. 


3 


LON 


34 INTRODUCTION 


mainly just to tell what he knows about Jesus. Some have tried 
to show that this Gospel is an endeavour to read into the evangelic 
history the ideas of Paulinism."| Others have maintained that the 
purpose of the writer is to observe a studied, calculated neutrality 
between Paulinism and Judaism.? These opposite views may be 
left to destroy each other. Others, again, have found in the book 
a contribution towards establishing Christians in the faith that 
Jesus was the Messiah, when that faith was tried by a delayed 
second coming.’ A didactic programme has been supposed to be 
hinted at in the opening words: “The beginning of the Gospel of 
Jesus Christ, the Son of God,’ and attemnts have been made to 
show that in the sequel this programme is steadily kept in view. 1 
am by no means anxious to negative these last suggestions; all | 
say is that the didactic purpose is not prominent. The writer 
seems to say, not: “These are written that ye may believe that 
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,” but more simply: “ These are 
written that ye may know Jesus”. This also makes for the histori- 
city and early date of the archaic Gospel. 

4. Among the more obvious characteristics of Mark’s literary 
style are the use of dual phrases in descriptive passages, a liking 
for diminutives, occasional Latinisms, the frequent employment of 
ed@us in narrative and of the historical present, both tending to 
vividness and giving the impression of an eye-witness. The rough 
vigour and crude grammar frequently noticeable in Mark’s reports 
strengthen this impression. The style is colloquial rather than 
literary. To this in part is due the unsatisfactory state of the 
text. Mark’s roughness and originality were too much for the 
scribes. They could not rest till they had smoothed down every- 
thing to commonplace. Harmonising propensities also are re- 
sponsible for the multiplicity of variants, the less important Gospel 
being forced into conformity with the more important. 


Section III. AutTHor, DESTINATION, DATE. 


1. The Gospel itself contains no indication as to who wrote it. 
That the writer was one bearing the name of Mark rests solely on 
an ecclesiastical tradition whose reliableness there has been no 
disposition to question. The Mark referred to has been from the 


1 So Pfleiderer in his Urchristenthum. 
2 So Baur and other members of the Tiibingen school. 
3 So Bernhard Weiss, vide Das Marcusevangelium, Einleitung, p. 23. 


THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 35 


earliest times till now identified with the Mark named in Acts xii. 12, 
as the son of a Mary; in xiii. 5, 13, as the attendant of Paul and 
Barnabas on their mission journey; and in xv. 39, as the travelling 
companion of Barnabas alone after he had separated from Paul; 
also, in Colossians iv. 10, as the cousin (dveuds) of Barnabas ; and, 
finally, in 2 Timothy iv. 11, and Philemon 24, as rendering useful 
services to Paul. 

2. The explanations of Jewish customs, ¢.g., ceremonial washings 
(chap. vii. 3-4), and words such as Talitha cumi and Ephphatha, 
and the technical term “common” or “unclean” (v. 41, vii. 34, 
vii. 2), point to non-Jewish readers; and the use of Latinisms is 
most naturally accounted for by the supposition that the book was 
written among and for Roman Christians. 

3..The dates of the Gospels generally have been a subject of 
much controversy, and the endless diversity of opinion means that 
the whole matter belongs largely to the region of conjecture. The 
very late dates assigned to these writings by the Tubingen school are 
now generally abandoned. By many competent critics the Synopti- 
cal Gospels are placed well within the first century, say, between 
the years 60 and 80. Tocondescend upon a precise year is im- 
possible. One cannot even determine with absolute confidence 
whether the earliest of them, z.e., Mark, was written before or after 
the destruction of Jerusalem. The point of practical importance 
is not the date at which a Gospel was composed, but the historical 
value of its materials. In this respect the claims of Mark, as we 
have seen, stand high.’ 


7 On the Appendix of Mark, chap. xvi. 9-20, vide Notes ad loc. 


CHAPTER III. 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW. 


Section I. CoNnrTENTs. 


1. As has been stated in chap. i., the bulk of Mark’s narrative 
is substantially taken up into Matthew’s longer story. But to that 
narrative of the archaic Gospel is added much new material, con- 
sisting mainly of the teaching of our Lord. This teaching as 
reproduced in the first Gospel consists not of short pregnant sen- 
tences such as Mark has preserved, but of connected discourses of 
considerable length—the longest and the most important being that 
familiarly known as the “ Sermon on the Mount”. Whether this 
connected character is due to the Teacher or to the evangelist has 
been disputed, the bias of critical opinion being strongly in favour 
of the latter alternative. Extreme views on either side are to be 
avoided. That Jesus uttered only short pithy sayings is a gratuitous 
assumption. In connection with deliberate efforts to instruct the 
disciples, the presumption is in favvur of continuous discourse. On 
the other hand, in some of the discourses reported in Matthew, e.g., 
that in chap. x. on apostolic duties and tribuiations, agglomera- 
tion is apparent. To what Jesus said tu the twelve in sending them 
forth on their Galilean mission the evangelist, naturally and not 
inappropriately, adds weighty words which bear on the more mo- 
mentous mission of the apostles as the propagandists in the wide 
world of the Christian faith. A similar instance of editorial com- 
bination of kindred matter only topically connected may be found 
in the parabolic discourse (chap. xiii.). Matthew’s seven parables 
were doubtless all spoken by Jesus, but not that day. The parables 
spoken from the boat were probably all of one type, presenting together 
a critical review of Christ’s past ministry among the people. On the 
other hand, I am inclined to think that the contents of chaps. xviii. 
and xxiii. for the most part belong to the respective occasions with 
which they are connected in the Gospel. The call for careful 
admonition to the twelve at Capernaum was urgent, and the Master 


THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW 7) 


would have much to say to His offending disciples. Then nothing 
could be more fitting than that Jesus should at the close of His 
life deliver a final and full testimony against the spurious sanctity 
which He had often criticised in a fragmentary way, and which was 
now at last to cause His death. 

2. The main interest of the question now under consideration 
revolves around the ‘Sermon on the Mount”. That a discourse 
of some length was delivered on the mountain Luke’s report proves. 
Luke, even in this case, breaks up much of Matthew’s connected 
matter into short separate utterances, but yet he agrees with 
Matthew in ascribing to Jesus something like an oration. Though 
much abbreviated, his report of the discourse is still a discourse. 
The only question is which of the two comes nearer the original in 
length and contents. Now, the feeling is a very natural one that 
Jesus could hardly have spoken so long a discourse as Matthew 
puts into His mouth at one time, and to a popular audience. But 
two questions have to be asked here. Did Jesus address a popular 
audience? Did He speak all at one time in the sense of a con- 
tinuous discourse of one hour or two hours’ length? I am strongly 
inclined to answer both questions in the negative. Jesus addressed 
Himself to disciples ; His discourse was teaching, not popular 
preaching—Didache, not Kerygma. And the time occupied in com- 
municating that teaching was probably a week rather than an hour. 
Matthew’s report, in chaps. v.-vii., in that case will have to be 
viewed as a summary of what the Great Teacher said to His dis- 
ciples in a leisurely way on sundry topics relating to the Kingdom 
of Heaven, during a season of retreat on the summit of the hills to 
the west of the Galilean Lake. Instead of calling it the Sermon 
on the Mount, we should more properly designate it the Teaching on 
the Hill} 

3. The insertion of great masses of didactic matter into the 
framework of Mark’s narrative weakens our sense of the progress 
of the history in reading Matthew. The didactic interest over- 
shadowed the historical in the evangelist’s own mind, with the 
result that his story does not present the aspect of a life-drama 
steadily moving on, but rather that of a collection of discourses 
furnished with slight historical introductions. The “Sermon on 
the Mount” comes upon us before we are prepared for it. To 
appreciate it fully we must realise that before it was spoken Jesus 


1 For further remarks on this point vide Notes on the Sermon at the beginning 
and throughout. 


38 INTRODUCTION 


had preached in many synagogues and to many street crowds, and 
that a long enough time had elapsed for the Preacher to feel that 
His ministry had been to a large extent fruitless, and that to 
establish and perpetuate His influence He must now devote Himself 
to the careful instruction of a disciple-circle. The miscellaneous- 
ness of the parable-collection in chap. xiii. hides from us the fact 
that that day Jesus was sitting in judgment on His own past 
ministry and pronouncing on it the verdict: Much seed, little fruit ; 
so justifying Himself for attending henceforth less to the many and 
more to the few. 

4, While the connections of Matthew’s discourses are topical 
rather than temporal, and the sense of progress in his narrative is 
comparatively weak, there is a manifest correspondence between 
the discourses he imputes to Jesus and the whole circumstances of 
the times in which Jesus lived. This remark applies especially to 
the criticism of Pharisaism, which occupies so prominent a place in 
the first Gospel, as compared, e.g., with the third, in which that 
element retires comparatively into the background. Keen conflict 
between our Lord and the Scribes and Pharisees was inevitable, and 
the amount of controversial material in the first Gospel speaks 
strongly in favour of its fidelity to fact in this part of its record, 
even as the unique quality of the anti-Pharisaic sayings ascribed to 
Jesus bears witness to their originality. In the Teaching on the 
Hill the references to Scribism and Pharisaism are, as was fitting, 
the criticised parties not being present, didactic rather than 
controversial, but there can be little doubt that Jesus would take 
occasion there to indicate the difference between His religious ideas 
and those in vogue at the time. Here it is not Matthew that adds, 
but Luke that omits. 

5. It has been maintained that Matthew’s account of our Lord’s 
teaching is not uniform in character—is, indeed, so discrepant as to 
suggest different hands writing in diverse interests and with con- 
flicting theological attitudes. D’Eichthal, e.g., is of opinion that the 
primitive Matthew was the earliest written Gospel, and that its 
contents were much the same as those found in canonical Mark; 
but that, through being the earliest, it had exceptional authority, 
and was therefore liable to be added to with a view to furnishing it 
with support in the teaching of Christ for developing Christianity.’ 
D'Eichthal counts as many as forty-five “ Annexes” gradually in- 
troduced in this way, including the history of the infancy, many 


1 Les Evangiles. 


THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW 39 


parables, numerous passages bearing on the Person of Christ, the 
Church, the Resurrection, the Second Advent, etc. From this 
questionable honour of becoming “a place of deposit” for new 
material, as Dr. Estlin Carpenter calls it,’ Mark, according to 
D’Eichthal, was protected by its greater obscurity and inferior 
authority; hence its modest dimensions and superior reliableness 
in point of fidelity to actual historic truth. 

This theory is plausible, and we are not entitled to say a priori 
that it has no foundation in fact. Additions to the Gospels might 
creep in before they became canonical, as they crept in afterwards 
through the agency of copyists. The sayings about the indestructi- 
bility of the law (v. 17-19) and the founding of the Church (xvi. 18, 19) 
might possibly be examples in point. But possibility is one thing, 
probability another. To prove diversity of hand or successive 
deposits of evangelic tradition by men living at different times, 
and acting in the interest of distinct or even opposing tendencies, 
it is not enough to point to apparently conflicting elements and 
exclaim: “ Behold a Gospel of contradictions”.? On this topic I 
may refer readers to what has been already stated in discussing 
the subject of the historicity of the Gospels. And \ may here add 
that it would not be difficult to conceive a situation for which the 
Gospel might have been written by one man, as it now stands. 
Dr. Weiss, indeed, has successfully done this in his work on the 
Gospel of Matthew and its parallels in Luke. He conceives the 
Gospel, substantially as we have it, to have been written shortly 
after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish State, when the 
faith of Jewish Christians in the Messiahship of Jesus would be 
sorely shaken by the events: the promised messianic Kingdom 
passing away irretrievably from Israel and taking up its abode 
among Gentiles. The Gospel that was to meet this situation would 
have to show that Jesus was indeed the Messianic King, in whose 
history many prophetic oracles found their fulfilment; that He did 
His utmost to found the kingdom in Israel, but was frustrated by 
the unbelief of the people, and especially of its rulers; that, there- 
fore, the kingdom was driven forth from Jewish soil, and was now 
to be found mainly in the Gentile Church, and there {ad been left 
to Israel only an inheritance of woe; that though Jesus had pre- 
dicted this doom He nevertheless loved His people, had loyally and 


1 The First Three Gospels, p. 370. 
2 Dr. Estlin Carpenter, in the above work, p. 363, remarks; '* Truly has the 
first Gospel been called a ‘ Gospel of contradictions’ ”’. 


40 INTRODUCTION 


lovingly sought her good, had spoken with reverence of her God- 
given law (while treating with disrespect Rabbinical traditions), and 
honoured it by personal observance. This hypothesis fairly meets 
the requirements of the case. It covers the phenomena of the 
Gospel, and it is compatible with unity of plan and authorship.’ 


Section IJ, CHARACTERISTICS. 


1. The most outstanding characteristic of the first Gospel is that 
it paints the life-image of Jesus in prophetic colours. While in 
Mark Jesus is presented realistically as a man, in Matthew He is 
presented as the Christ, verified as such by the applicability of many 
prophetic oracles to the details of His childhood, His public ministry, 
and His last sufferings. 

2. If the realism of Mark makes for the historicity of this Gospel, 


the prophetic colouring so conspicuous in Matthew need not detract: 


from the historicity of its accounts. This feature may be due in 
part to the personal idiosyncrasy of the writer and in part to his 
didactic aim. He may have set himself to verify the thesis, Jesus 
the Christ, for his own satisfaction, or it may have been necessary 
that he should do so in order to strengthen the faith of his first 
readers. In either case the presumption is that the operation he 
was engaged in consisted in discovering prophetic texts to answer 
facts ready to his hand, not in first making a collection of texts and 
then inventing facts corresponding to them. The facts suggested 
the texts, the texts did not create the facts, though in some instances 
they might influence the mode of stating facts. In this connection 
it is important to note that the evangelist applies his prophetic 
method to the whole of his material, including that which is common 
to him with Mark. He has his prophetic oracles ready to be attached 
as labels to events which Mark reports simply as matters of fact. 
Thus Mark’s dry statement, “they went into Capernaum,”? referring 
to Jesus and His followers proceeding northwards from the scene of 
the baptism, in Matthew’s hands assumes the character of a solemn 
announcement of an epoch-making event, whereby an ancient oracle 
concerning the appearing of a great light in Galilee of the Gentiles 
received its fulfilment.2 Again, Mark’s matter-of-fact report of the 
extensive healing function in Capernaum on the Sabbath evening is 
in Matthew adorned with a beautiful citation from Isaiah’s famous 


‘ Vide Weiss, Das Matthéus-Evangelium und seine Lucas-parallelen, p. 39. 
2 Mark i, 21, & Matt. iv. 12-17. 


THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW 41 


oracle concerning the suffering servant of Jehovah.) Once more, 
to Mark’s simple statement that Jesus withdrew Himself to the sea 
after the collision with the Pharisees occasioned by the healing on 
a Sabbath of the man with a withered hand, the first evangelist 
attaches a fine prophetic picture, as if to show readers the true 
Jesus as opposed to the Jesus of Pharisaic imagination.2, From 
these instances we see his method. He is not inventing history, 
but enriching history with prophetic emblazonments for apologetic 
purposes, or for increase of edification. Such is the fact, we observe, 
when we have it in our power to control his statements by compari- 
son with Mark’s; such we may assume to be the fact when we 
have not that in our power, as, é.g., in the narrative relating to the 
birth and infancy of Jesus, in which prophetic citations are unusually 
abundant. The question as to the historicity of that narrative has 
its own peculiar difficulties, into which * do not here enter. The 
point I wish to make is that the numerous prophetic references cast 
no additional shadow of doubt on its historicity. Here too the 
evangelist is simply attaching prophe*ic oracles to what he regards 
as historic data. If invention has been at work it has not been in 
his imagination. This is manifest even from the very weakness of 
some of the citations, such as “ Out of Egypt have | called my Son,” 
“Rachel weeping for her children,” and “He shall be called a 
Nazarene”. Who could ever have thought of these unless there 
had been traditional data accepted by the Christian community (and 
by the writer of the Gospel) as facts? The last citation is especially 
far-fetched. It is impossible to say whence it is taken; it could 
never have entered into the mind of any one unless the fact of 
the settlement in Nazareth had been there to begin with, creating a 
desire to find for it also, if at all possible, some prophetic antici- 
pation. 

These prophetic passages served their purpose in the apologetic 
of the apostolic age. For us now their value is not apologetic, 
except indeed in a way not contemplated by the evangelist. Their 
occasional weakness as proofs of the Messiahship of Jesus can be 
utilised in the manner above hinted at in support of the historicity 
of the evangelic tradition. But the chief permanent value of these 
citations lies in the light they throw on the evangelist’s own con- 
ception of Jesus. We see from them that he thought of Jesus as 
the Light of Galilee, the sympathetic Bearer of humanity’s heavy 
burden, the Beloved of God, the Peacemaker, the Friend of weak- 


! Matt. vill. 17. 2 Matt. xii. 15-21, Cy. Mark iii. 7, 


42 INTRODUCTION 


ness, the Man who had it in Him by gifts and graces to perform a 
Christ’s part for all the world. Truly a noble conception, which 
lends perennial interest to the texts in which it is embodied. 

3. In the foregoing remarks I have anticipated to a certain 
extent what relates to the question of didactic aim. That the first 
Gospel has such an aim is obvious from the careful manner in which 
the prophetic argument is elaborated. The purpose is to confirm 
Jewish Christians in the faith that Jesus is the Christ. The purpose 
is reveafed in the very first sentence and in the genealogy to which 
it forms a preface. ‘The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, 
the Son of David, the Son of Abraham.” The Son of David first, 
because on that hangs the Messianic claim; the Son of Abraham 
likewise, because that makes Him a Jew, a fellow-countryman of those 
for whose benefit the Gospel is written. The genealogy is the first 
contribution to the apologetic argument. The logic of it is this: 
“The Psalms and Prophets predict the coming of a great Messianic 
King who shall be a descendant of the house of David; this genealogy 
shows that Jesus possessed that qualification for Messiahship. Ha 
is the rod out of the stem of Jesse.” Whoever compiled the 
genealogy did it under the impression that physical descent from 
David was indispensable to Jesus being the Christ. But it does not 
follow that the genealogy was manufactured to serve that purpose. 
The descent from David might be a well-known fact utilised for an. 
apologetic aim. For us, though a fact, it is of no vital consequence, 
Our faith that Jesus is the Christ does not rest on any such external 
ground, but on spiritual fitness to be the world’s Saviour. We 
reverse the logic of the Jewish Church. They reasoned: because 
David’s Son, therefore the Christ. We reason: because the Christ, 
therefore David's Son, at least in spirit.1 

4, In speaking of the literary characteristics of Matthew it is 
necessary to keep in mind that some of these may come from the 
Logia of the apostle Matthew, and that others may be due to the 
evangelist. Critics ascribe to the apostolic source certain phrases 
of frequent recurrence, such as kai i8ou, dphv héyw piv, 6 marhp 6 év 
Tois oupavois. Among the features of the evangelist’s own style they 
recognise the frequent use of such words as réte, héywv, mpocedOav, 
dxdot, daoKprbeis, dvaxwpetv, Keyopevos, and such phrases as ti got Soxei, 
cupBovdiov hapBdvew, kar Sdvap, ev éxelyw TH Katpd.2 By comparison 
with Mark, the style of this Gospel is smooth and correct. 


1 Vide notes on Matt. i. 2 Vide Weiss, Matthdus-Evangelium, pp. 23-4. 


THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW 43 


Section III. AuruHor, DESTINATION, Date. 


1. If the views of modern critics as to the relation of the first 
Canonical Gospel to the Logia, compiled by the apostle Matthew, be 
well founded, then that apostle was not its author. Who the 
evangelist was is unknown. That he was a Jew is highly probable, 
that he was a Palestinian Jew has been generally assumed; but 
Weiss calls this in question. That he wrote in Greek is held to be 
proved by the use which he makes of the Septuagint in his citations 
of Old Testament prophecy, and by traces of dependence on the 
Greek Gospel of Mark. But the view that our Greek Gospel of 
Matthew is a translation by some unknown hand from a book with 
the same contents in the Hebrew tongue still has its advocates, 
among whom may be mentioned Schanz, of Tiibingen.! 

2. The destination of the Gospel was in all probability to a_ 
community of Jewish Christians, whose faith it was designed to 
strengthen. How it was fitted to serve this end has been indicated 
in Section I. § 5. 

3. The probable date is shortly after the destruction of the 
Jewish State. Some things have been supposed to imply a much 
later date, e.g., the commission to the disciples in chapter xxviii. 18, 
with its explicit Trinity, its pronounced universalism, and its doctrine 
of a spiritual presence. On these points the reader is referred to 
the commentary. 


1 Vide his Commentar iiber das Evangelium des heiligen Matthdus: Einleitung. 


CHAPTER IV. 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE. 


Section I. CONTENTS. 


1. Luke’s Gospel includes much of the narrative of Mark and 
large portions of the didactic matter contained in Matthew. There 
are numerous omissions in both departments, but on the other 
hand also considerable additions, especially in the didactic element. 
The third evangelist has greatly enriched the treasure of the 
parables, for itis in this important division of our Lord’s teaching 
that his peculiar contribution cifefly lies. The amount of new 
matter suffices to raise the question as to its source. It can hardly 
be thought that the author of the first Gospel would have omitted 
so much valuable material, had it lain before his eye in the Logia. 
The hypothesis of a third source, therefore, readily suggests itself 
—a collection of reminiscences distinct from Mark and the book of 
Logia, whence Luke drew such beautiful parables as the Good 
Samaritan, the Selfish Neighbour and the Unjust Fudge, the 
Prodigal Son, the Unjust Steward, Lazarus and Dives, and the 
Pharisee and Publican. The chapters on the infancy and on the re- 
surrection, so entirely different from the corresponding chapters in 
Matthew, might suggest a fourth source, unless we suppose that 
the third included these. 

2. The distribution of the material in this Gospel arrests atten- 
tion. In the early part of the history, from chapters iv. 31 to vi. 16, 
the author follows pretty closely in the footsteps of Mark. Then 
comes in a digression, extending from vi. 17 to viii. 3, containing a 
version of the Sermon on the Mount, the stories of the Centurion 
and the Widow of Nain, the Message of the Baptist with relative 
discourse, and the woman in Simon’s house. Thereafter Luke’s 
narrative again flows in Mark’s channel from the parable of the 
Sower onwards to the end of the Galilean ministry, as reported in 
the second Gospel (Mark iv. 1 to ix. 50. Luke viii. 4 to ix. 50), only 


THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE 45 


that the whole group of incidents contained in Mark vi. 45 to viii. 26 
is omitted in Luke. Then at ix. 51 begins another longer digression, 
extending from that point to xviii. 14, consisting mainly of didactic 
matter, and containing the larger number of Luke’s peculiar con- 
tributions to the evangelic tradition. Thereafter our author joins 
the company of Mark once more, and keeps beside him to the end 
of the Passion history. 

3. This lengthy insertion destroys the sense of progress in the 
story. The stream widens out into a lake, within which any move- 
ment perceptible is rather circular than rectilinear. It is a dog- 
matic section, and any indications of time and place it contains are 
of little value for determining sequence or pointing out the suc- 
cessive stages of the journey towards Jerusalem mentioned in ix. 51. 
It may be affirmed, indeed, that throughout this Gospel the interest 
in historic sequence or in the causal connection of events is weak. 
Sometimes, as in the incident of Christ’s appearance in the syna- 
gogue of Nazareth, the author, consciously and apparently with 
deliberate intention, departs from the chronological order.? - What- 
ever, therefore, he meant by xafeéjs in his preface, he cannot have 
intended to say that he had made it a leading aim to arrange his 
material as far as possible in the true order of events. Still less 
can it have been his purpose so to set forth his story that it should 
appear a historic drama in which all events prepare for and 
steadily lead up to tne final catastrophe. When at ix. 22 we 
find Jesus announcing for the first .«me that “the Son of Man must 
suffer many things,” it takes us by surprise. No reason has appeared 
in the previous narrative why it should come to that. It has indeed 
been made clear by sundry indications—at chapter v. 21; v. 30, 33; 
vi. 7-11; vii. 34, 50—that there was not a good understanding be- 
tween Jesus and the Scribes and Pharisees; but from Luke’s 
narrative by itself we could not have gathered that matters were so 
serious. Two important omissions and one transposition are largely 
responsible for this. Luke leaves out the collision between Jesus 
and the Pharisees in reference to the washing of hands (Mark vii. 
1-23. Matt. xv. 1-20), and the demand for a sign (Mark viii. 11. 
Matt. xvi. 1); and he throws the blasphemous insinuation of a league 
with Beelzebub into chapter xi., beyond the point at which he 
introduces the first announcement of the Passion. Therefore, the 


1 In the main, that is to say; for Luke’s Passion history contains a number of 
peculiar elements. 
2 Chap. iv. 16-30; vide v. 23. 


46 INTRODUCTION 


necessity (Set) of that tragic issue is not apparent in the sense that 
it is the inevitable result of causes which have been shown to be in 
operation. For Luke the Se refers exclusively to the prophetic 
oracles which predicted Messiah’s sufferings. Jesus must die if 
these oracles are to be fulfilled. And for him it is a matter of course, 
and so he treats it in his narrative. The announcement of the 
Passion is not brought in as a new departure in Christ’s communi- 
cation with His disciples, as in the companion narratives, with 
indication of the place and solemn introductory phrase: ‘ He 
began to teach them”. It is reported in a quite casual way, as if 
it possessed no particular importance. In connection with this it 
may be noted that Luke gives a very defective report of those 
words of our Lord concerning His death which may be said to 
contain the germs of a theory as to its significance. For particulars 
readers are referred to the notes. 


Section II. CHARACTERISTICS, 


1. One very marked feature of this Gospel is what, for want of 
a better word, may be called the idealisation of the characters of 
Jesus and the disciples. These are contemplated not in the light 
of memory, as in Mark, but through the brightly coloured medium 
of faith. The evangelist does not forget that the Personages of 
whom he writes are now the Risen Lord, and the Apostles of the 
Church. Jesus appears with an aureole round His head, and the 
faults of the disciples are very tenderly handled. The truth of this 
statement can be verified only by x detailed study of the Gospel, 
and readers will find indications of proof at appropriate places in 
the notes. It applies equally to the Master and to His disciples, 
though Von Soden, in the article already referred to, states that the 
tendency in question appears mainly in the presentation of the 
conduct of the disciples; drawing from the supposed fact the pre- 
carious inference that the Apostolic Church cared little or nothing 
for the earthly history of Jesus.1 The delicate treatment of the 
disciples is certainly very apparent. Luke, as Schanz remarks, ever 
spares the twelve; especially Peter. The stern word, “Get thee 
behind me,” is not in this Gospel. The narrative of the denial is an 
interesting subject of study in this connection. But the whole body 
of the disciples are treated with equal consideration. Their faults— 
ignorance, weak faith, mutual rivalries—are acknowledged, yet 


1 Vide Theologische Abhandlungen, p. 1336 


THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE 47 


touched with sparing hand. Some narratives in which these faults 
appear very obtrusively, e.¢., the conversation about the leaven of 
the Pharisees, the ambitious request of James and John, and the 
anointing in Bethany, are omitted, as is also the flight of all the 
disciples at the apprehension of their Master. The weak faith of 
the disciples is very mildly characterised. ‘ Where is your faith?” 
asks Jesus in the storm on the lake, in Luke’s version of the story, 
instead of uttering the reproachful word: “ Why are ye cowardly ? 
Have ye not yet faith?” Their failure to watch in the garden of 
Gethsemane is apologetically described as sleeping for sorrow. In 
his portraiture of the Lord Jesus the evangelist gives prominence to 
the attributes of power, benevolence, and saintliness. The pictorial 
effect is brought out by omission, emphasis, and understatement. 
Among the omissions are the realistic word about that which 
defileth, about “ dogs” in the story of the woman of Canaan which 
is wholly wanting, and the awful cry op the Cross: “My God, my 
God!” Among the things emphasised are those features in acts of 
healing which show the greatness of Christ’s might and of the benefit 
conferred. Peter’s mother-in-law suffers from a great fever; and 
the leper is full of leprosy. The hand restored on the Sabbath is the 
right hand, the centurion’s servant is one dear to him, the son of 
the widow of Nain is an only son, the daughter of Jairus an only 
daughter, the epileptic boy at the hill of Transfiguration an only 
child. The holiness of Jesus is made conspicuous by the prominence 
given to prayer in connection with critical occasions, and by under- 
statement where the incidents related might to ill-instructed minds 
seem to compromise that essential characteristic. Luke’s narratives 
of the cleansing of the temple and the agony in Gethsemane may be 
referred to as striking illustrative instances of the latter. To the 
same category may be referred the treatment by Luke of the anti- 
Pharisaic element in Christ’s teaching. Much is omitted, and what 
is retained is softened. by being given, much of it, not as spoken 
about, but as spoken to, Pharisees by Jesus as a guest in their 
houses.! 

2. The influence of the Christian consciousness of the time in 
which he wrote is traceable not only in Luke’s presentation of the 
characters of Jesus and His disciples, but in his account of Christ’s 
teaching. He seems to have in view|throughout the use of the Lord’s 
words for present guidance. Weizsacker has endeavoured to 
analyse the didactic element in the third Gospel into doctrinal 


1 Luke vii. 36-50; xi. 37*52; xiv. 1-24. 


48 INTRODUCTION 


pieces bearing on definite religious questions and interests of the 
primitive Church.!. This may be carried too far, but the idea is not 
altogether baseless. In this Gospel the so-called “Sermon on the 
Mount” is really a Sermon (Kerygma not Didache) delivered to a 
Christian congregation with all the local and temporary matter 
eliminated and only the universal and perennial retained. The same 
adaptation to present and general use is apparent in the words, 
xa’ ypépay, added to the law of cross-bearing (ix. 23). 

3. The question may be asked whether this adaptation of the 
matter of the evangelic tradition to present conceptions and needs 
is to be set down to the account of Luke as editor, or is to be 
regarded as already existing in the documents he used. On this 
point there may be room for difference of opinion. J. Weiss in his 
commentary on Luke (Meyer, eighth edition) inclines to the latter 
alternative. Thus, in reference to Luke’s mild version of Peter’s 
denial, he remarks: “A monstrous minimising of the offence if 
Luke had Mark’s account before him”; and he accordingly thinks 
he had not, but used instead a Jewish Christian source, giving a 
mitigated account of Peter’s sin. Of such a source he finds traces 
throughout Luke’s Gospel, following in the footsteps of Dr. Paul 
Feine, who had previously endeavoured to establish the existence of 
a precanonical Luke, z.e., a first attempt to work up into a single 
volume the evangelic traditions in Mark, the Logia, and other 
sources, after the manner of the third Gospel.2 This may be a 
perfectly legitimate hypothesis for solving certain literary problems 
connected with this Gospel, and the argument by which Feine seeks 
to establish it is entitled on its merits to serious consideration. But 
I hardly think it suffices to account for all the traces of editorial 
discretion in Luke’s Gospel. It does not matter what documents 
Luke used; he exercised his own judgment in using them. If he 
did not, his relation to the work of redacting the memoirs of Jesus 
becomes so colourless that one fails to see what occasion there was 
for that imposing prefatory announcement in the opening sentence. 
A primitive Luke was ready to his hand, and he did not even 
contribute to it the colour of his own religious personality. Inten- 
tion, bias, purpose to utilise the material for edification of believers 
were all there before he began. He did what? Added, perhaps, a 


1Vide his Umtersuchungen itber die Evangelische Geschichte, and his Apostolic 
Age, vol. ii. 

2 Eine vorkanonische Uberlieferung des Lukas in Evangelium und Apostel- 
geschichte, 18g1. 


THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE 49 


few anecdotes and sayings gleaned from other sources, oral or 
written ! 
4. Notwithstanding this pervading regard to what mey be com 


eV has 


prehensively called edification, the author of the third Gospel cannot 
justly be charged with indifference to historic truth. He professes 
in his preface to have in view acribeia, and the profession is to be 
taken in earnest. But he is writing not as a mere chronicler, but as 
one seeking to promote the religious welfare of mose for whom he 
writes, and so must strive to combine accuracy, fidelity to fact, with 
practical utility. The task is a delicate one, and execution without 
error of judgment not easy. Even where mistakes are made, they 
are not to be confounded with bad faith. Nor should it be for- 
gotten that Luke’s peculiarities can be utilised for the apologetic 
purpose of establishing the general credibility of the evangelic 
tradition. Luke omits much. But it does not follow that he did 
not know. He may omit intentionally what he knows but does not 
care toreport. Luke often understates. What a writer tones down 
he is tempted to omit. By simply understating, instead of omitting, 
he becomes a reluctant and therefore reliable witness to the 
historicity of the matter so dealt with. Luke often states strongly. 
Either he adds particulars from fuller information or he exaggerates 
for a purpose. Even in the latter case he witnesses to the truth of 
the basal narrative. A writer who has ideas to embody is tempted 
to invent when he cannot find what will suit his purpose. Luke 
did not invent but at most touched up stories given to his hand 
in trustworthy traditions. 

5. The author of the third Gospel avowedly had a didactic aim. 
He wrote, so it appears from the preface, to confirm in the faith 
a friend called “most excellent (xkpdtiote) Theophilus,” expecting 
probably that the book would ultimately be useful for a wider circle. 
But there is no trace of a dominant theological or controversial aim, 
The writer, e.g., is not a Paulinist in the controversial sense of the 
word. He is doubtless in sympathy with Christian universalism, as 
appears from his finishing the quotation from Isaiah beginning with, 
«The voice of one crying in the wilderness,’ and ending with, 
“All flesh shall see the salvation of God”’ (iii. 6). Yet, in other 
places, ¢.¢., in the history of the infancy, the salvation brought by 
Jesus is conceived of as belonging to Israel, the chosen people 
(16 Kad adtod, i. 68; cf. ii. 10; vii. 16; xiii. 16; xix. 9). The author 
is not even Paulinist in a theological sense, as the absence from his 
pages of most of the words of Jesus bearing on a theory of atone- 
ment, already remarked on, sufficiently proves. He appears to be an 


4 


50 INTRODUCTION 


eclectic, rather than a man whose mind is dominated by a great 
ruling idea. Distinct, if not conflicting, tendencies or religious types 
find houseroom in his pages: Pauline universalism, Jewish par- 
ticularism, Ebionitic social ideals, the blessedness of poverty, the 
praise of almsgiving. Geniality, kindliness of temper, is the personal 
characteristic of the evangelist. And if there is one thing more 
than another he desires to inculcate on his readers it is the 
graciousness of Christ. ‘“ Words of grace” (iv. 22) is his compre- 
hensive title for the utterances of Jesus, and his aim from first to 
last is to show the Saviour as the friend of the sinful and the social 
outcast, and even of those who suffer justly for their crimes (vii. 36- 
50; xix. 1-10; xxiii. 39-43), 

6. The literary aspect of this Gospel is a complex phenomenon. 
At times, espccially in the preface, one gets the impression of a 
writer having at his command a knowledge of Greek possible only 
for one to whom it was his native tongue, an expert at once in the 
vocabulary and the grammatical structure of that language. But 
far oftener the impression is that of a Jew thinking in Hebrew and 
reflecting Hebrew idiom in phrase and construction. Hebraisms 
abound, especially in the first two chapters. Two explanations are 
possible: That the author was really a Jew, that his natural style 
was Hebrew-Greek, in which case it would have to be shown that 
the preface was no such marvellous piece of classicism after all; 
or that he was a Gentile well versed in Greek, but somewhat slavish 
in his copious use of Jewish-Christian sources, such as the primitive 
Luke for which Feine contends. 


Section III. AutTuor, DESTINATION, DATE. 


1. The author of the third Gospel was also the author of the 
Acts of the Apostles, as appears in chap. i. 1 of the latter work, 
where the name of Theophilus recurs. Neither book bears the 
name of the writer, but uniform ancient tradition ascribes it to Luke, 
the companion of Paul, and by occupation a physician (Col. iv. 11). 
From the preface to the Gospel we gather that he had no personal 
knowledge of Jesus, but was entirely dependent on oral and written 
tradition. 

2. From the prefaces of the Gospel and the book of Acts we 
learn that the author wrote for the immediate benefit of a single 
individual, apparently a man of rank, say a Roman knight. It is 
not necessary to infer that a larger circle of readers was not con- 
templated either by the writer or by the first recipient of his work. 


THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE 51 


3. The date cannot be definitely fixed. Opinion ranges from 
a.p. 63 to the early years of the second century. As late a date as 
say A.D. 90 is compatible with the writer being, in his younger 
years, a companion of St. Paul in his later missionary movements. 
The still later date of a.p. 100 or 105 would be required if it were 
certain, which it is not, that the writer used the Antiquities of 
Josephus, which were published about the year 93-94. Dr. Sanday, 
in his work entitled Inspiration, expresses the view that Acts was 
written about a.p. 80, and the Gospel some time in the five years 
preceding. 


CHAPTER V. 


THE TEXT, CRITICAL LANDMARKS, CRITICAL TESTS OF 
READINGS. 


Section I. Tue Text. 


The Greek text given in this work is that known as the Textus 
Receptus, on which the Authorised Version of the New Testament 
is based. Representing the Greek text as known to Erasmus in the 
sixteenth century, and associated with the names of two famous 
printers, Stephen and Elzevir, whose editions (Stephen’s 3rd, 1550, 
Elzevir’s 2nd, 1633) were published when the apparatus at command 
for fixing the true text was scanty, and when the science of textual 
criticism was unborn, it may seem to be entirely out of date. But 
it is an important historical monument, and it is the Greek original 
answering to the English Testament still largely in use in public 
worship and in private reading. Moreover, while the experts in 
modern criticism have done much to provide a purer text, their 
judgments in many cases do not accord, and their results cannot 
be regarded as final. It is certain, however, that the texts prepared 
by such scholars as Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and 
the company of experts to whom we are indebted for the Revised 
Version, are incomparably superior to that of Stephen or of Elzevir, 
and that they must be taken into account by every competent com- 
mentator. That means that to the text must be annexed critical 
notes showing all important various readings, with some indication 
of the documentary authority in their favour, and of the value 
attached thereto by celebrated editors. This accordingly has been 
done, very imperfectly of course, still it is hoped sufficiently for 
practical purposes. Variations not affecting the sense, but merely 
the spelling or grammatical forms of words, have been for the most 
part disregarded. There are many variations in the spelling of 
proper names, of which the following are samples :— 


THE TEXT, CRITICAL LANDMARKS, ETC. 53 


Nalapér NaLapéd Febonpavh Pebonpavet 
Mat@atos Mad@atos "lwdvyns "lwdyns 
AaBid Aaueid *lepixd *leperyad 
"HALas ’HXetas Moois Moveis 
Karepyaoup Kadapvaoup Niddtos MethGtos 


Among other insignificant variations may be mentioned the presence 
or absence of y final in verbs (€\eye, EXeyev); the omission or in- 
sertion of p (AjWouot, Ajppopar); the assimilation or non-assimilation 
of év and ody in compound verbs (oulnteiv, cuvinreiv; exxaxeiv, évka- 
xetv) ; the doubling of p, v, p or the reverse (pappovas, papwvras; 
yerrnpa, yevnpa ; émppdmrer, émpdmrer) ; the conjunction or disjunction 
of syllables (odx ém, otxér); odtws for odtw; the aorist forms etmov, 
WAOov, etc., replaced by forms in a (ciway, 7Nav); single or double 
augment in certain verbs (éSuvduny, A8uvdpny ; epeddov, 7pedov). 


SEcTION II. CriticaL LANDMARKS. 


1. Up till 1831 editors of the New Testament in Greek had been 
content to follow in the wake of the Texrtus Receptus, timidly adding 
notes indicating good readings which they had discovered in the 
documents accessible to them in their time. Lachmann in that year 
inaugurated a new critical era by printing a text constructed 
directly from ancient documents without the intervention of any 
printed edition. It is not given to pioneers to finish the work they 
begin, and Lachmann’s effort judged by present-day tests was far 
from perfect. “This great advance was marred by too narrow a 
selection of documents to be taken into account, and too artificially 
rigid an employment of them, and also by too little care in obtaining 
precise knowledge of some of their texts” (Westcott and Hort’s 
New Testament, Introduction, p. 13). Tischendorf in Germany and 
Tregelles in England worthily followed up Lachmann’s efforts, and 
made important contributions towards the ascertainment of the 
true text by adopting as their main guides the most ancient MSS., 
in place of the later documents which had formed the basis of the 
early printed editions. The critical editions of the Greek New 
Testament by these scholars appeared about the same time; 
Tischendorf’s eighth edition (the important one which supersedes 
the earlier) bearing the date 1869, and the work of Tregelles being 
published in 1870. The characteristic feature of Tischendorf's 
edition is the predominant importance attached to the great Codex 
Sinaiticus ($%), with the discovery of which his name is connected. 


54 INTRODUCTION 


The defect common to it with the edition of Tregelles is failure to 
deal on any clear principle with the numerous instances in which 
the ancient texts on which they placed their reliance do not agree. 
All goes smoothly when Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus (B) 
and Codex Bezae (D) and the most ancient versions bear the same 
testimony; but what is to be done when the trusted guides follow 
divergent paths ? 

2. It is by the answer which they have given to this question 
that Westcott and Hort have made an epoch-making contribution 
to the science of Biblical Criticism in the first volume of their 
monumental work, The New Testament in the Original Greek, 
published in 1881. Following up hints thrown out by earlier in- 
vestigators, like Bengel and Griesbach, they discriminated three 
types of text prevalent in ancient times, before the period of eclectic 
revision which fixed to a great extent the character ot the text in 
actual use throughout the Middle Ages and on to the dawn of 
modern criticism. To these types they gave the names Western, 
Alexandrian, and Neutral. The last epithet is to be understood 
only when viewed in relation to the other two. The Western and 
Alexandrian types of text had very well-marked characteristics. The 
Western was paraphrastic, the Alexandrian literary. The tendency 
of the one was to alter the primitive tex. by explanatory additions 
with a view to edification, made by men who combined to a certain 
extent the functions of copyist and commentator. The tendency 
of the other was to improve the text fro a literary point of view by 
scholarly refinements. The neutral text is neutral in the sense of 
avoiding both these tendencies and aiming steadily at the faithful 
reproduction of the exemplar assumed to approach in its text as 
near as possible to the autographs. A text adhering honestly to 
this programme ought to be the most reliable guide to the original 
Greek Testament as it proceeded from the hands of the writers, 
making due allowance for errors in the exemplar and for mistakes 
in transcription. The result of investigation has been to justify 
this expectation. 

3. The main representative of the Western text is Codex Bezae 
(D), containing the Gospels and the Acts. Of the Alexandrian text 
there is no pure example. This divergent stream broke up into rills, 
and lost itself as a mere element in mixed texts, like those of Codex 
Sinaiticus and Codex Ephraemi (C). It is important to note by 
the way that these names do not denote local prevalence. The 
Western text was not merely Western. This divergent stream 
overflowed its banks and spread itself widely over the Church, 


THE TEXT, CRITICAL LANDMARKS, ETC. 55 
reaching even the East. Hence traces of its influence are to be 
found not merely in the old Latin versions, but also in the Syriac 
versions, ¢.g., in what is called the Curetonian Syriac, and in the 
recently discovered Syriac version of the Four Gospels, which may 
be distinguished as the Sinaitic Syriac. Of the neutral text, the 
great, conspicuous, honourable monument is Codex Vaticanus (B), 
containing the Gospels, Acts, and Catholic epistles, and the epistles 
of St. Paul, as far as Heb. ix. 14; and being, especially in the 
Gospels, a nearly pure reproduction of a text uninfluenced by the 
tendencies of the Western and Alexandrian texts respectively. To 
this MS., belonging like Codex Sinaiticus to the fourth century, 
Westcott and Hort, after applying to it all available tests, assign 
the honour of being on the whole the nearest approach to the 
original verity in existence, always worthy of respect and often 
deserving to be followed when it stands alone against all comers. 
A very important conclusion if it can be sustained. 

4. In recent years a certain reaction against the critical rcsults 
of Westcott and Hort has been manifesting itself to the effect of 
imputing to them an overweening estimate of Codex B, analogous 
to that of Tischendorf for Codex &. Some scholars, such as Resch 
in Germany and Ramsay in this country, are disposed to insist 
that more value should be set on Codex D; the former finding in it 
the principal witness for the text of the Gospels in their precanonical 
stage, the assumption being that when the four-Gospel canon was 
constructed the text underwent a certain amount of revision. The 
real worth of this Codex is one of the unsettled questions of New 
Testament textual criticism. Irteresting contributions have been 
made to the discussion of the question, such as those of J. Rendel 
Harris, and more may be expected. 


SectTion III. CriricaL TEstTs oF READINGS. 


1. The fixation of the true text is not a simple matter like that 
of following a single document, however trustworthy, like Codex B. 
Every editor may have his bias in favour of this or that MS., but 
all editors recognise the obligation to take into account all avail- 
able sources of evidence—not merely the great uncial MSS. of 
ancient dates, but the cursives of later centuries, and, besides Greek 
MSS. of both kinds containing the whole or a part of the New 
Testament, ancient versions, Latin, Syriac, Egyptian, etc., and 
quotations in the early Fathers. The evidence when fully adduced 
is a formidable affair, demanding much space for its exhibition 


56 INTRODUCTION 


(witness Tischendorf’s eighth edition in two large octavos), and the 
knowledge of an expert for its appreciation. In such a work as the 
present the space cannot be afforded nor can the knowledge be 
expected even in the author, not to say in his readers. Full know- 
ledge of the critical data through first-hand studies belongs to 
specialists only, who have made the matter the subject of lifelong 
labour. All one can do is to utilise intelligently their results. But 
because all cannot be specialists it is not profitless to have a 
juryman’s acquaintance with the relative facts. It is the aim of the 
critical notes placed beneath the Greek text to aid readers to the 
attainment of such an acquaintance, and to help them to form an 
intelligent opinion as to the claims of rival readings to represent the 
true text. Fortunately, this can be done without adducing a very 
long array of witnesses. 

2. For it turns out that there are certain groups of witnesses 
which often go together, and whose joint testimony is very weighty. 
Westcott and Hort have carefully specified these.. They may here 
be indicated :— 

For the Gospels the most important and authoritative group is 
NSBCDL 33. 

In this group L and 33 have hitherto not been referred to. L 
(Codex Regius), though belonging to the eighth century, represents 
an ancient text, and is often in agreement with N and B. 33 
belongs to the cursive class (which are indicated by figures), but 
is a highly valuable Codex, though, like all cursives, of late date. 
In his Prolegomena to Tischendorf's New Testament, Dr. Caspar 
René Gregory quotes (p. 469) with approval the opinion of Eichhorn 
that this is the ‘‘ queen of the cursives”. In the above group, it 
will be noticed, representatives of the different ancient types— 
Western, Alexandrian, Neutral (D, N, C, B)—-are united. When they 
agree the presumption that we have the true text is very strong. 

When D falis out we have still a highly valuable group in 
NBCL 33. 

When DC and 33 drop out there remains a very trustworthy 
combination in NBL. 

There are, besides these, several binary combinations of great 
importance. The following is the list given by Westcott and Hort 
for the Gospels :-— 

BL, BC, BT, Bz, BD, AB, BZ, B 33, and for St. Mark BA. 
In these combinations some new documents make their appearance. 

T stands for the Greek text of the Graeco-Thebaic fragments of 
St. Luke and St. John (century v., ancient and non-Western). 


THE TEXT, CRITICAL LANDMARKS, ETC. 57 
= = fragments of St. Luke (cent. viii., comparatively pure, though 
showing mixture). 

A is the well-known Codex Alexandrinus of the fifth century, a 
chief representative of the “Syrian” text, that is, the revised text 
formed by judicious eclectic use of all existing texts, and meant to 
be the authoritative New Testament. This Codex contains nearly 
the whole New Testament except Matthew as far as chapter xxv. 5. 
For the Gospels it is of no independent value as a witness to the 
true text, but its agreements with B are important. 

A = Codex Sangallensis, a Graeco-Latin MS. of the tenth century, 
and having many ancient readings, especially in Mark. 

To these authorities has to be added, as containing ancient read- 
ings, and often agreeing with the best MSS., Codex Purpureus Ros- 
sanensis (2), published in 1883, edited by Oscar Von Gebhardt ; of the 
sixth century, containing Matthew and Mark in full. Due note has 
been taken of the readings of this MS. 

The foregoing represent the chief authorities referred to in the 
critical notes. In these notes I have not uniformly indicated my 
personal opinion. But in the commentary I have always adopted as 
the subject of remark the most probable reading. Reference to 
modern editors has been chiefly restricted to Tischendorf, and West- 
tott and Hort, meaning thereby no depreciation of the work done by 
others, but simply recognising these as the most important. 

MSS. were corrected from time to time. Corrected copies are 
referred to by critics by letters or figures: thus, N* (4th cent.), S> (6th 
cent.), N¢ (7th cent.), B? (4th cent.), B? (10th cent.). 

Besides the above-named documents the following uncials are 
occasionally referred to in the critical notes :— 
cod. Basiliensis. 8th century (Gospels nearly entire). 
cod. Seidelii. gth or roth century (Gospels defective). 
cod. palimps. Petropolitanus. 5th and 6th centuries (fragments of Gospels). 
cod. Cyprius. gtk century (Gospels complete). 
cod. De Camps, Paris. gth century (Gospels complete). 
cod. Purpureus. 6th century (fragments of all the Gospels). 
cod. Guelpherbytanus I. 6th century (fragments of all the Gospels). 
cod. Guelpherbytanus II. 5th century (fragments from Luke and John). 
cod. Nitriensis, London. 6th century (fragments of Luke). 
cod. Vaticanus 354. roth century (four Gospels complete). 
cod. Nanianus Venetus. goth or roth century (Gospels entire). 
cod. Mosquensis. gth century (contains Matt. and Mk., and Lk. nearly complete). 
cod. Monacensis. oth or roth century (fragments of all the Gospels). 
cod. Dublinensis. 6th century (fragments of Matthew). 
cod. Oxoniensis et Petropolitanus. 1oth century (four Gospels, Matthew and 

Mark defective). 
cod. Oxoniensis Tisch. gth century (Luke and John entire). 


SANMdeMROVZSeR Oe 


. Petropolitanus Tisch. gth century (Gospels nearly complete). 


OS > 
2 
e} 
ja 


cod. EBeratinus. 5th century (Matthew and Mark with lacunae). 


CHAPTER Vi. 


LITERATURE. 


The following list of works includes only those chiefly consulted. 
Many others are occasionally referred to in the notes. 


1. To the pre-Reformation period belong— 


OrIGEN’s Commentary on Matthew. Books x.-xvii. in Greek (Matt. xiii, 36— 
xxii. 33), the remainder in a Latin translation (allegorical method of inter- 
pretation). 

Curysosiom’s Homilies on Matthew. The Greek text separately edited in three 
vols. by Dr. Field (well worth perusal). 

JEROME’s Commentarius in Matthaeum (a hasty performance, but worth consulting). 

AuGusTINE. De Sermone Domini in monte. 

THEOPHYLACTUS (12th century, Archbishop in Bulgaria). Commentarii in quatuor 
Evangelistas, Gracce. 

EuTHyYMIuS ZIGABENUS (Greek monk, 12th century). Commentarius in quatuor 
Evangelia, Graece et Latine. Ed. C. F. Matthaei, 179% (a choice work). 


2. From the sixteentn century downwards— 


CALVIN. Commentarii in Harmoniam 2x Evangelistis tribus . . . compositam. 


Beza. Annotationes in Novum Testamentum. 1556. 
MaLponatus. Commentarii in quatuor Evaxgelistas (Catholic). 1596. 
PricaEI (Price). Commentarii in varios N.T. libros (including Matthew and Luke; 

philological, with classical examples, good). 1660. 
Grotius. Annotationes in N. T. (erudite and still worth consulting). 1644. 
LicutFroot. Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae. 1644. 
Heinsius. Sacrarum exercitationum ad N, T. libri xx. 1665. 
RAPHEL. Annotationes Philologicae in N, T., ex Xenophonte, Polybio, Arriano et 

Herodoto. 1747. 
OvEaRiIUS. Observationes sacrae ad Evangelium Matthaet. 1713. 
Wor. Curae philologicae et criticaein N. T. Five vols. 1741. 
ScHOTTGEN. Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in N. T. 1733- 
WeTSTEIN. Novum Testamentum Graecum (full of classic citations). 1751. 
BENGEL. Gnomon Novi Testamenti (unique). 1734- 


PALAIRET (French pastor at London, + 1765). Observationes philologico-criticae in 
sacros N, T, libros, 1752. 





LITERATURE 59 


Kypxe. Observationes sacrae in N. T. libros. 1755. 
ELSNER. Observationes sacrae in N, T. libros (the three last named, like Pricaeus, 

abound in classic examples). 1767. 
LoEsNER. Observationes ad N. T. e Philone Alexandrino (of the same class as 

Raphel). 1777: 
KuINOEL. Commentarius in libros N. T. historicos. 1807. 
FrRITzScHE. Evangelium Matthaei recensuit. 1826, 
FriTzscHE. Evangelium Marci recensuit (both philological). 1830. 
De WETTE. Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum N. T. 1836-48. 
BoRNEMANN. Scholiae in Lucae Evangelium. 1830. 
ALFORD. The Greek Testament. Four vols. 1849-61. 
Fietp, Otium Norvicense. 1864. 
BLEEK. Synoptische Erkldrung der drei ersten Evangelien. 1862. 


MEYER. Commentary on the New Testament, Sixth edition (T. & T. Clark). 
Meyer. Eighth edition by Dr. Bernhard Weiss (Matthew and Mark, largely 


Weiss). 1890-92. 
Meyer. Eighth edition by J. Weiss (son of Bernhard Weiss ; Luke, also largely 
the editor’s work). 1892. 


Weiss. Das Marcusevangelium und seine synoptischen Parallelen (a contribution 
to comparative exegesis in the interest of his critical views on the synoptical 


problem). 1872. 
Weiss. Das Matthdusevangelium und seine Lucas-parallelen (a work of similar 
character). 1876. 
LuTrerotH. Essai d’Interprétation de quelques parties de VEvangile sclon Saint 
Matthieu. 1864-76. 
ScHanz. Commentar ber das Evangelium des heiligen Matthéus. 1879. 
Scuanz. Commentar iber das Evangelium des heiligen Marcus. 1881. 


ScHanz. Commentar uber das Evangelium des heiligen Lucas (these three com- 
mentaries by Schanz, a Catholic theol~gian, are good in all respects, specially 


valuable for patristic references). 1883. 
GopDET. Commentaire sur l’Evangile de Saint Luc, 3me edition. — 1888-89. 
Haun. Das Evangelium des Lucas. ‘Two vols. 1892-94. 
Houitzmann. Die Synoptiker in Hand-C_mmentar zum Neuen Testament (advanced 

but valuable). 1892. 
The Cambridge Greck Testament for Schools and Colleges; Matthew, Mark, and 

Luke. 1891-93. 


The well-known lexical and grammatical helps, including Grimm, Cremer, 
Winer, and Buttman, have been consulted. Frequent reference has been made to 
Burton’s Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament (T. & T. Clark, 1894), 
both because of its excellence and its accessibility to students. 

A new edition of Winer’s Grammatik (the eighth) by Schmiedel is in course of 
publication; also of Kihner by Blass. 

In the notes, the matter common to the three Gospels is most fully treated in 
Matthew, the notes in the other two Gospels being at these points supplementary 
and comparative. 

The marginal references to passages of Scripture are simply supplementary to 
those in the notes. 

It is hoped that most abbreviations used will need no special explanation, but 
the following table may be helpful :-— 


60 INTRODUCTION 
Mt. = Matthew, 
Mk. = Mark. 
Lk. = Luke. 
O. T. = Old Testament 
N. T. = New Testament. 
Sept. = Septuagint. 
A. V. = Authorised Version. 
R. V. = Revised Version. 
C. N. T. = Cambridge New Testament. 
Tisch. = Tischendorf. 
Treg. = Tregelles. 
W. H. = Westcott and Hort. 
Ws. = Weiss (Dr. Bernhard). 


Egypt. = Egyptian versions (viz., the two following). 
Cop. = Coptic (called Memphitic by W. H.). 


Sah. = Sahidic (called Thebaic by W. H.). 
Syrr. = Syriac versions. 
Pesh. = Peshito (= Syrian Vulgate). 

Syr. Cur. = Curetonian Syriac. (For Greek equivalent vide Baeth 
gen’s Evangelienfragmente.) 

Syr. Sin. = Sinaitic Syriac (recently discovered). 

Latt. = Latin versions. 
Vulg. = Vulgate (Jerome’s revision of old Latin version). 

Vet. Lat. = Vetus Latina (Old Latin, referred to also as It. = Itala). 
The codices of the old Latin are distinguished by 
the letters a, b, c, etc. 

Minusc. = Minusculi (Codices), another name for cursives. 


TO KATA MAT®AION 


AVION EYATTE\ION.} 


I. x. *BIBAOZ *yevécews “IHZOY Xpicrod, *uiod Aafis,? 


"ABpadp. 


Gen. xxxi. 13; xxxzii.g. Lk. i. 14. 


1 The title in T.R. (as above) is late. 
expanded forms occur. 


? AaB.S is found only in minusc. 


SB have simply Kata McOGatov. 


NSB have Aave.d. 


ee Getiaiieds 
spi aie SORE EC 


> see 
2. ABpadp éeyévyyce tov ‘Ioadk~ “loadk Sé éyévvynce toy Lk iii. 4; 


XX. 42. 
a _ b ver. 18. 
c xii. 23; Xxi.g; xxii. 42. 


Jas. i. 23; iii. 6. 
Other 


This is one of several 


variations in spelling occurring in the genealogy, among which may be named Boot 
(ver. 5) = Boes in W.H.; QBnS (ver. 5) = lwByS, W.H.; Mavr@ay (ver. 15) =Mabdar, 
W.H. For a list of such variations in the spelling of names in the three first 


Gospels vide p. 53. 


THE Ti1TLE. The use of the word ev- 
ayyéAtoy in the sense of a book may be as 
old as the Teaching of the twelve Apostles 
(Didache, 8, 11, 15. Vide Sanday, Bamp- 
ton Lectures, 1893, p- 317, n. 1). The 
word passed through three stages in the 
history of its use. First, in the older 
Greek authors (Hom., Od. &, 152, 166), a 
reward for bringing good tidings ; also a 
thank-offering for good tidings brought 
(Arist., Eg. 656). Next, in later Greek, 
the good tidings itself (2 Sam. xviii. 20, 
22, 25, in Sept. In 2 Sam. iv. 10, ev- 
ayyéAva occurs in the earliest sense). 
This sense pervades the N. T. in re- 
ference to the good news of God, “he 
message of salvation. Finally, it came 
very naturally to denote the books in 
which the Gospel of Jesus was presented 
in historic form, asin the Didache and in 
Justin M., Afol. i. 66, Dial. con. Tryp. 
too. In the titles of the Gospels the 
word retains its second sense, while sug- 
gesting the third. evayy. kara M. means 
the good news as reduced to writing by 
M.— xara is not=of, nor kata Ma7Uatoy 
=Maréatov, as if the sense were: The 
book called a ‘‘ Gospel” written by Mat- 
thew. (Vide Fritzsche against this the 
older view, supported by Kuinoel.) 

CHAPTER I. THE GENEALOGY AND 
BIRTH OF JEsuS.—The genealogy may 





readily appear to us a most ungenial 
beginning of the Gospel. A dry list of 
names! It is the tribute which the 
Gospel pays to the spirit of Judaism. 
The Jews set much store by genealogies, 
and to Jewish Christians the Messiah- 
ship of Jesus depended on its being 
proved that He was a descendant of 
David. But the matter.can hardly be 
so vital as that. We may distinguish 
between the question of fact and the 
question of faith. It may be that Jesus 
was really descended from David—many 
things point that way; but even if He 
were not He might still be the Christ, 
the fulfiller of O. T. ideals, the bringer-in 
of the highest good, if He possessed the 
proper spiritual qualifications. What 
although the Christ were not David’s 
son in the physical sense? He was a 
priest after the order of Melchisedec, 
though ayeveaddyynros ; why not Messiah 
under the same conditions? He might 
still be a son of David in the sense in 
which John the Baptist was Elijah—in 
spirit and power, realising the ideal of 
the hero king. The kingdom of prophecy 
came only in a spiritual sense, why not 
also the king? The two hang together. 
Paul was not an apostle in the legitimist 
sense, not one of the men who had been 
with Jesus; yet he wasa very real apostle. 


62 KATA MATOAION L. 


“taxdB. 
d similar 


"laxdB 8é éyévynce tov “loddav Kat rods ddeApods adrod. 


const. in 3. lovdas Sé éyévynoe tov apes Kal rdv Zapa “ex tis Odpap: 


Gal. iv. 4, 
22, 23. 


So might Jesus be a Christ, though not 
descended from David. St. Paul writes 
(Gal. iii. 29): “If ye be Christ’s, then are 
ye Abraham's seed’’. So might we say: 
If Jesus was fit to be the Christ in point 
of spiritual equipment, then was He of 
the seed of David. There is no clear 
evidence in the Gospels that Jesus Him- 
self set value on Davidic descent; there 
are some things that seem to point the 
other way: ¢.g., the question, ‘‘ Who is 
my mother?” (Matt. xii. 48 ; Mk. iii. 33), 
and the other, ‘‘ What think ye of the 
Christ, whose son is He?” (Matt. xxii. 
42, et par.). There is reason to believe 
that, like St. Paul, He would argue from 
the spiritual to the genealogical, not vice 
versé: not Christ because from David, 
but from David, at least ideally, because 
Christ on otker higher grounds. 

Ver. 1. BiBdos yevécews wet-A. How 
much does this heading cover : the whole 
Gospel, the two first chapters, the whole 
of the first chapter, or only i. 1-17? All 
these views have been held. The first 
by Euthy. Zigab., who argued: the birth 
of the God-man was the important point, 
and involved all the rest; therefore the 
title covers the whole history named 
from the most important part (@mé Tov 
Kuptwrépov pépovs). Some moderns 
(Ebrard, Keil, etc.) have defended the 
view on the ground that the correspond- 
mg, title in) OT (Gen ivi. oj); xc 27, 
etc.) denotes not merely a genealogical 
list, but a history of the persons whose 
genealogy is given. Thus the expression 
is taken to mean a book on the life of 
Christ (liber de vita Christi, Maldon.). 
Against the second view and the third 
Weiss-Meyer remarks that at i. 18 a 
new beginning is made, while ii. 1 runs 
on as if continuing the same story. The 
most probable and most generally 
accepted opinion is that of Calvin, Beza, 
and Grotius that the expression applies 
only toi. 1-17. (Nonest haec inscriptio 
totius libri, sed particulae primae quae 
velut extra corpus historiae prominet. 
Grotius.) 

*Iycov Xptorov. Christ here is not an 
appellative but a proper name, in accord- 
ance with the usage of the Apostolic 
age. In the body of the evangelistic his- 


tory the word is nct thus used; only in ft 


the introductory parts. 
John i. 17.) 


(Vide Mk. i. t; 


apes S¢ eyévynoe tov "Eopdy: “Eopdp dé eyévynoe tov “Apap. 


viov A., viod A. Of David first, because 
with his name was associated the more 
specific promise of a Messianic king; of 
Abraham also, because he was the 
patriarch of the race and first recipient 
of the promise. The genealogy goes 
no further back, because the Gospel is 
written for the Jews. Euthy. Zig. 
suggests that David is placed first 
because he was the better known, as the 
less remote, as a great prophet and a 
renowned king. (dé Tod yywpipwrépov 
BGAAov apiduevos, éwl Tov wahatdrepov 
avyAdev.) The word viod in both cases 
applies to Christ. It can refer gram- 
maticdly to David, as many take it, but 
the other reference is demanded by the 
fact that ver. 1 forms the superscription 
of the following genealogy. So Weiss- 
Meyer. 

Vv. 2-16. The genealogy divides 
into three parts: from Abraham to 
David (vv. 2-62); from David to the cap- 
tivity (vv. 6b-11); from the captivity to 
Christ. On closer inspection it turns out 
to be not so dry as it at first appeared. 
There are touches here and there which 
import into it an ethical significance, 
suggesting the idea that it is the work 
not of a dry-as-dust Jewish genealogist, 
but of the evangelist ; or at least worked 
over by him in a Christian spirit, if the 
skeleton was given to his hand. To 
note these is the chief interest of non- 
Rabbinical exegesis. 

Vv. 2-62. Kal tots adeAdots avrod. 
This is not necessary to the genealogical 
line, but added to say by the way that 
He who belonged to the tribe of Judah 
belonged also to all the tribes of Israel. 
(Weiss, Matthausevang.) . . . Ver. 3. 
wv Papés Kal tov Zapa: Zerah added 
to Perez the continuator of the line, to 
suggest that it was by a special provi- 
dence that the latter was first born (Gen. 
XxxVlii. 27-30). The evangelist is on the 
outlook for the unusual or preternatural 
in history as prelude to the crowning 
marvel of the virgin birth (Gradus 
futurus ad credendum partum e virgine. 
Grot.).—éx ris Odpap. Mention of the 
mother wholly unnecessary and un- 
usual from a genealogical point of view, 
and in this case one would say, prima 
acie, impolitic, reminding of a hardly 
readable story (Gen. xxxviii. 13-26). It 
is the first of four references to mothers 





3-—Io. 


4. “Apap 8€ éyévyyoe Tov “ApivaddB - 


EYATTEAION 


"ApwasaB S¢ éyévynoe rov 


Naagody: Naagowy dé éyévyyve Tov Earp. 5. Fahpdoy S€ éyévvqoe 


tov Boot ék tis PaxdB> Bool S€ eyévyyoe tov "ABHS ek Tis “Poud 
"ABAS BE eydvvqce tov “leocal- 6. “lecoal 8é éyévynoe Tov AaBid 


tov Baothéa. 


AaBid 3€ 6 Bactheds? 


, ~ " 
€yévvynge Tov Lohopavra ? €x 


Tijs Tod Odplou- 7. Lohopiv Se éyévynce tov “PoBody: ‘PoBodp 
Be eyévynoe tov “ABid- “ABiad Be Eyevynce tov "Acd: 8. "Acad Be 


> \ 
eyévynoe tov ‘lwcapdr: “lwoapar Se éyévynce tov “lwpdp- ‘lwopdp 


Be Eyevynge Tov “OLiav: g. “Ofias dé eyévvnce Tov “lwdbap > “IwdOap, 


S€é Eyevynae Tov “Ayal: “Ayal S éyévyyoe tov ELexiay: ro. Elexias 


19 BactXtevs omitted in NB, found in C%.. 


Most modern editors omit. 


*Soin A. Zodcpewve in BCL and most uncials. 


in the ancestry of Jesus, concerning 
whom one might have expected the 
genealogy to observe discreet silence: 
Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba; three 
of them sinful wemen, and one, Ruth, a 
foreigner. Why wre they mentioned? 
By way of deferse against sinister mis- 
construction of the birth of Jesus? So 
Wetstein: Ut tacitae Judaeorum objec- 
tioni occurreretur. Doubtless there is a 
mental reference to that birth under some 
aspect, but it is not likely that the evan- 
gelist would condescend to apologise 
before the bar of unbelief, even though 
he might find means of doing so in the 
Jewish habit of glorying over the mis- 
deeds of ancestors (Wetstein). Much 
more probable is the opinion of the 
Fathers, who found in these names a 
foreshadowing otf the gracious character 
of the Gospel of Jesus, as it were the 
Gospel in the genealogy. Schanz follows 
the Fathers, except that he thinks they 
have over-emphasised the sinful element. 
He finds in the mention of the four 
women a hint of God’s grace in Christ 
to the sinful and miserable: Rahab and 
Bathsheba representing the one, Tamar 
and Ruth the other. This view com- 
mends itself to many interpreters both 
Catholic and Protestant. Others prefer 
to bring the four cases under the cate- 
gory of the extraordinary exemplified by 
the case of Perez and Zerah. These 
women all became mothers in the line of 
Christ’s ancestry by special providence 
(Weiss-Meyer). Doubtless this is at least 
part of the moral. Nicholson (New 
Comm.) thinks that the introduction of 
Tamar and Ruth is sufficiently explained 
by Ruth iv. 11, 12, viewed as Messianic; 
of Rahab by her connection with the 
earlier Jesus (Joshua), and of Bathsheba 


because she was the mother of a second 
line culminating in Christ, as Ruth of a 
first culminating in David.—Ver. 6a. 
toy AaBis tov Baothéa, David the King, 
the title being added to distinguish him 
from the rest. It serves the same pur- 
pose as if David had been written in 
large letters. At length we arrive at the 
great royal name! The materials for 
the first part of the genealogy are taken 
from Ruth iv. 18-22, and 1 Chron. ii. 
5-15. 

Vv. 6b-10, &x tas Tov Odpiov, vide 
above. The chief-feature in this second 
division of the genealogical table is the 
omission of three kings between Joram 
and Uzziah (ver. 8), viz., Ahaziah, Joash, 
Amaziah. How is the omission to 
be explained? By inadvertence, or by 
intention, and if the latter, in what view ? 
Jerome favoured the second alternative, 
and suggested two reasons for the inten- 
tional omission—a wish to bring out the 
number fourteen (ver. £7) in the second 
part of the genealogy, and a desire to 
brand the kings passed over with the 
stamp of theocratic illegality. In effect, 
manipulation with a presentable excuse. 
But the excuse would justify other omis- 
sions, ¢.g., Ahaz and Manasseh, who, 
were as great offendersasany. Onecan, 
indeed, imagine the evangelist desiring to 
exemplify the severity of the Gospel as 
well as its grace in the construction of 
the list—to say in effect: God resisteth 
the proud, but He giveth grace to the 
lowly, and even the low. The hypo- 
thesis of manipulation in the interest of 
symbolic numbers can stand on its own 
basis without any pretext. It is not 
to be supposed that the evangelist was at 
all concerned to make sure that no link 
in the line was omitted. His one concern 


64 KATA MAT@AION 1 


t again 
twice in 
ver, 17. 
Also in 2 
Kings 
XXiv.16;1 


, 
Be €yévynoe tov ‘lwotav: IY. 


22. 


tods &deAods adtod, emi THs *petorxecias BaBuddvos. 


a a > 
Sé eyévynoe Tov Mavagon* Mavacans S¢ eyevyyce tov “Apdys “Apo 


> , nd 57 ‘ > , ‘ 
lworas Se eycvyyoe TOY lexoviay KaL 


12. Meta 


Chron. v. §€ thy petrotceriay BaBuddvos, “lexovias eyevyyce tov Yahabuydr* 


verb (uer- Sahar Se eyevynoe tov ZopoBaBed- 13. ZopoBaPed S€ eyévvgve 


ovxi¢w) 1D 
Acts vii. 4, 43+ 


would be to make sure that no name 
appeared that did not belong to the line. 
He can hardly have imagined that his 
list was complete from beginning to end. 
Thus Nahshon (ver. 4) was the head of the 
tribe of Judah at the Exodus (Num. i. 7), 
yet between Hezron and him only two 
names occur—four names for 400 years, 
Each name or generation represents a 
century, in accordance with Genesis xv. 
13-16. The genealogist may have had 
this passage in view, but he must have 
known that the actual succession em- 
braced more links than four (vide Schanz 
on ver. 4). The hypothesis of inadver- 
tence or error in consulting the text 
of the O. T., favoured by some 
modern commentators, is not to be sum- 
marily negatived on the ground of an 
a priori theory of inerrancy. It is pos- 
sible that in reading x Chron. iii. rr in 
the Sept. the eye leapt from ’Oxofias to 
’Ofias, and so led to omission of it and 
the two following names. (’Afapias, not 
’OfLias, is the reading in Sept., but Weiss 
assumes that the latter, Azariah’s original 
name, must have stood in the copy used 
by the constructor of the genealogy.) 
The explanation, however, is conjectural. 
No certainty, indeed, is attainable on the 
matter. As a curiosity in the history of 
exegesis may be mentioned Chrysostom’s 
mode of dealing with this point. Having 
propounded several problems regarding 
the genealogy, the omission of the three 
kings included, he leaves shis one un- 
solved on the plea that he must not ex- 
plain everything to his hearers lest they 
become listless (tva py avaréonte, Hom. 
iv.). Schanz praises the prudence of 
the sly Greek orator. 

Ver. 11. ‘lwoias éyev. Tov ’lexoviav. 
There is an omission here also: Eliakim, 
son of Josiah and father of Jeconiah. 
It was noted and made a ground of 
reproach to Christians by Porphyry. 
Maldonatus, pressed by the difficulty, 
proposed to substitute for Jeconiah, Jeho- 
rakim, the second of four sons ascribed 
to Josiah in the genealogist’s source (1 
Chron. iii. 14), whereby the expression 
Tous adeApovs attov would retain its 
natural sense. But, while the two names 


are perhaps similar enough to be mis- 
taken for each other, it is against the 
hypothesis as a solution of the difficulty 
that Jehoiakim did not share in the cap- 
tivity (2 Kings xxiv. 6), while the words 
of ver. 11 seem to imply that the descen- 
dant of Josiah referred to was associated 
with his brethren in exile. The words 
dai Tis peToukeoias BaBudGvos probably 
supply the key to the solution. Josiah 
brings us tothe brink of the period of exile. 
With his name that doleful time comes 
into the mind of the genealogist. Who 
is to represent it in the iine of succession? 
Not Jehoiakim, for though the deporta- 
tion began in his reign he was not 
himself a captive. It must be Jeconiah 
(Jehoiakin), his son at the second re- 
move, who was among the captives (2 
Kings xxiv. 15). His ‘“‘ brethren ” are his 
uncles, sons of Josiah, his grandfather; 
brethren in blood, and brethren also as 
representatives of a calamitous time— 
(vide Weiss-Meyer). There is a pathos 
in this second allusion to brother- 
hood. ‘ Judah and his brethren,” par- 
takers in the promise (also in the sojourn 
in Egypt); ‘‘ Jeconiah and his brethren,” 
the generation of the promise eclipsed. 
Royalty in the dust, but not without 
hope. The omission of Eliakim (or 
Jehoiakim) serves the subordinate pur- 
pose of keeping the second division of the 
genealogy within the number fourteen.— 
Metouxeoias: literally change of abode, 
deportation, ‘carrying away,” late Greek 
for petorkta or peroiknots.—BafBvdavos : 
genitive, expressing the teyminus ad quem 
(vide Winer, § 30, 2 a, and cf. Matt. iv. 
15, 6d0v Gaddcons, x. 5, 05dv e8vav).—éml 
Tp, ‘at the time of, during,”’ the time 
being of some length; the process of de- 
portation went on for years. Cf. Mk. ii. 
26, émt "ABia@ap, under the high priest- 
hood of Abiathar, and Mk. xii. 26 for a 
similar use of éwt in reference to place: 
ét tov Barov—at the place where the 
story of the bush occurs. Meta 7. p. in 
ver. 12 means after not during, as some 
have supposed, misled by taking perov- 
xeota as denoting the stateofexile. Vide 
on this Fritzsche. 

Vv. 12-15. In.the last division the 


II-—I7. 


EYATTEAION 


tov “ABiovdS- “ABiovS Se eyevynue tov “Edvaxei: “Edtaxeip Se 
eyevvnce tov “Aluip- 14. “ALap 8€ éyévynce Tov ZaSaK-: Zadd« Se 
éyevyyge TOV "Axeip “Axeip Sé eyévynce tov “Edtod8- 15. “Ehiodd 
Sé eyevvyoe Ov "EdedLap: ‘EdedLap 8€ éeyévyce tov Marbdy- 


, > 
MatOdv Sé éyevynoe Tov “laxdB- 16. “laxoB Sé eyévvqae Tov “Iworjh, f same ex- 


tov &vdpa Mapias, é§ fs eyevviOn *’Inaods 6 heyduevos Xprotds. 
17. Maoat ob ai yeveat dd “ABpadp ews AaBid, yeveat Sexatéo-  (« 
capes: Kat dwd AaBid ews Tis peToKeolias BaBuda@vos, yeveal 


genealogical table escapes our control. 
After Zerubbabel no name occurs in 
the O. T. We might have expected 
to find Abiud in 1 Chron. iii. 19, where 
the children of Zerubbabel are given, but 
Abiud is not among them. The royal 
family sank into obscurity. It does not 
follow that no pains were taken to pre- 
serve their genealogy. The priests may 
have been diligent in the matter, and re- 
cords may have been preserved in the 
temple (Schanz). The Messianic hope 
would be a motive to carefulness. In 
any case we must suppose the author of 
the genealogy before us to give here what 
he found. He did not construct an 
imaginary list. And the list, if not guar- 
anteed as infallibly accurate by its inser- 
tion, was such as might reasonably be 
expected to satisfy Hebrew readers. 
Amid the gloom of the night of legulism 
which broods over all things belonging to 
the period, this genealogy included, it is 
a comfort to think that the Messiahship 
of Jesus does not depend on the absolute 
accuracy of the genealogical tree. 


Ver. 16. “loxoB...7ov *lacip: the 
genealogy ends with Yoseph. It is then 
presumably his, not Mary’s. But for 


apologetic or dogmatic considerations, 
no one would ever have thought of 
doubting this. What creates perplexity 
is that Joseph, while called the husband 
(rov &vSpa) of Mary, is not represented 
as the father of Jesus. There is no 
éyévyynoe in this case, though some sup- 
pose that there was originally, as the 
genealogy came from the hand of some 
Jewish Christian, who regarded Jesus as 
the Son of Joseph (Holtzmann in H.C.). 
The Sinaitic Syriac Codex has “ Joseph, 
to whom was betrothed Mary the Vir- 
gin, begat Jesus,” but it does not alter 
the story otherwise to correspond with 
Joseph’s paternity. Therefore Joseph 
can only have been the legal father of 
Jesus. But, it is argued, that is not 
enough to satisfy the presupposition of 
the whole N. T., viz., that Jesus was the 


pression 
IN XxVii. 
17, 22 
esus 
called the 
Christ”). 


actual son of David (xara odpxa, Rom. i. 
3); therefore the genealogy must be that 
of Mary (Nésgen). This conclusion can 
be reconciled with the other alternative 
by the assumption that Mary was of the 
same tribe and family as Joseph, so that 
the genealogy was common to both. 
This was the patristic view. The fact 
may have been so, but it is not indicated 
by the evangelist. His aim, undoubtedly, 
is to set forth Jesus as the legitimate son 
of Joseph, Mary’s husband, at His birth, 
and therefore the proper heir of David’s 
throne.—é¢& 4s éyevyy8y “1. The peculiar 
manner of expression is a hint that 
something out of the usual course had 
happened, and prepares for the following 
explanation: © Aeydpevos Xpiotds; not 
implying doubt, but suggesting that the 
claim of Jesus to the title Christ was 
valid if He were a legitimate descendant 
of David, as the genealogy showed Hin: 
to be. 

Ver. 17. The evangelist pauses to point 
out the structure of his genealogy: three 
parts with fourteen members each ; sym- 
metrical, memorable; maca. does not 
imply, as Meyer and Weiss think, that in 
the opinion of the evangelist no links 
are omitted. He speaks simply of what 
lies under the eye. There they are, 
fourteen in each, count and satisfy your- 
self. But the counting turns out not to 
be so easy, and has given rise to great 
divergence of opinion. The division 
naturally suggested by the words of the 
text is: from Abraham to David, termi- 
nating first series, 14; from David, head- 
ing second series, to the captivity as 
limit, i.¢., to Josiah, 14; from the 
captivity represented by Jeconiah to 
Christ, included as final term, 14. So 
Bengel and De Wette. If objection be 
taken to counting David twice, the 
brethren of Jeconiah, that is, his uncles, 
may be taken as representing the con- 
cluding term of series 2, and Jeconiah 
himself as the first member of series 3 
(Weiss-Meyer). The identical number 


66 KATA MA'TOALON i 


ier i. 27; Sexaréooapes: Kal dmd rtijs 


perotkegias BaBudavos es tod 


eee js 
h Lk. xvii. Xpistod, yeveat Sexaréooapes. 


18, 1 Cor. 


iv. 2, 18. TOY 8é "Ingod! Xprorod H yévvyors*® obtws Hy. 


i again in 


© wynorev- 


xxiv. 19. Aetons yap® tis pytpds adrod Maplas 76 "loon, mplv } ouved eww 


Lk.xxi.23. 


j Mt. xx. 4.adrous, *eipéOy ‘ev yaorpt exouoa éx Mvedparos “Ayiov. 19 


Mk. vi. 20. 


Lk.xx.20. "lwo S€ 6 dvip adrijs, ‘Sixaos dy, kal ph Oddwv adriy wapa- 


Rom. v. 7. 


! B inverts the order of the names (X. 1). 
Sth ed.) remarks that B has a preference for ‘‘ Christ Jesus 


I. X. in SCL, etc. 


” 
. 


2 The best old MSS. read yeveous . , . yevvqots is doubtless a correction of the 
scribe to bring the text into conformity with eyeyvyoe in the genealogy, 


3 yap omitted in {BC!, etc. The sense is clearer without it, 


in the three parts is of no importance in 
itself. It is a numerical symbol uniting 
three periods, and suggesting comparison 
in other respects, e.g., as to different 
forms of government—judges, kings, 
priests (Euthy. Zig.), theocracy, mon- 
archy, hierarchy (Schanz), all summed 
up in Christ; or as to Israel’s fortunes: 
growth, decline, ruin—-redemption ur- 
gently needed. 

Vv. 18-25. THE BIRTH OF JESUS. 
This section gives the explanation which 
e€ is éyevv78n (ver. 16) leads us to expect. 
It may be called the justification of the 
genealogy (Schanz), showing that while 
the birth was exceptional in nature it 
yet took place in such circumstances, 
that Jesus might justly be regatded as 
the legitimate son of Joseph, and there- 
fore heir of David’s throne. The position 
of the name Tod 6é |. X. at the head of 
the sentence, and the recurrence of the 
word yéveots, point back to ver. 1 ; yéverts, 
not yevvynois, is the true reading, the 
purpose being to express the general idea 
of origin, ortus, not the specific idea of 
generation (6 elayyeAtoris ecatvord- 
pyoce TO KaTa hiow dvoya ris yevvijo- 
ews, yéverwy aitiv Kodéoas. LEuthy. 
Zig. on ver. I). 

Ver. 18. pryoredelons . . . adrots 
indicates the position of Mary in relation 
to Joseph when her pregnancy was dis- 
covered. Briefly it was—betrothed, not 
married. [piv 7 ovveA@ety means before 
they came together in one home as man 
and wife, it being implied that that would 
not take place before marriage. ovved@etv 
might refer to sexual intercourse, so far 
as the meaning of the word is concerned 
(Foseph. Antiq. vii. 9, 5), but the evange- 
list would not think it necessary to state 
that no such intercourse had taken place 
between the betrothed. That he would 
regard as a matter of course. Yet most 


of the fathers so understood the word; 
and eyme, Chrysostom, e.g., conceived 
Josepn and Mary to be living together 
before marriage, but sine concubitu, be- 
lieving this to have been the usual 
practice. Of this, however, there is no 
satisfactory evidence. The sense above 
assigned to ovved. corresponds to the 
verb wapadaPety, ver. 20, wapéAaPe, ver. 
24, which means to take home, domum 
ducere. The supposed reason for the 
practice alleged to have existed by Chry- 
sostym and others was the protection of 
the betrothed (6V dooddaov, Euthy.). 
Grammartians (vide Fritzsche) say that 
mplv 4) is not found in ancient Attic, 
though often in middle Attic. For other 
instances of it, with infinitive, vide Mk. 
xiv. 30, Acts vii. 2; without 4, Mt. 
xxvi. 34, 75. On the construction of 
apiv with the various moods, vide Her- 
mann ed. Viger, Klotz ed. Devarius, and 
Goodwin’s Syntax.—ebpéby . . . gxovoa: 
eipé2yn, not qv. (So Olearius, Observ. 
ad Ev. Mat., and other older inter- 
preters.) There was a discovery and a 
surprise. It was apparent (de Wette) ; 
dia To dmpooddxyroy (Euthy.j. To 
whom apparent not indicated. Jerome 
says: ‘‘Non ab alio inventa est nisi a 
Joseph, qui pene licentia maritali futurae 
uxoris omnia noyerat”.—éx wv. ay. This 
was not apparent; it belonged to the 
region of faith. The evangelist hastens 
to add this explanation of a painful fact 
to remove, as quickly as possible, all 
occasion for sinister conjecture. The 
expression points at once to immediate 
divine causality, and to the holy character 
of the effect: a solemn protest against 
profane thoughts. 

Ver. 19. I. 6 dvip: proleptic, imply- 
ing possession of a husband’s rights and 
responsibilities. The betrothed man had 
a duty in the matter—Slkatos . . . Sevrypa- 


Weiss (Meyer, 





18-- 22. 


Jetyparioat,! €BouvryOn AdQpa? *adwohicar airy. 
attou ’ évOupnPevtos, iSov, dyyedos Kupiou ™kat’ dvap épdiy aitw, 
t 


\éyov, “"lwand, vids AaBid, py) doBnIAs “wapahaBety Maprdp. ° 


EYALTEAION 


67 


20. tavta Sek YY: 3% 32; 
xix. 3. 


Mk. x. 12 
(in ref. te 
a hus- 
band). 


‘ La) A ~ . 
Thy yuvatkd cou: Td yap év atti yevvnbev ex Mvedpards éoviy | chap. ix. 4. 


“Aytou. 


JeEN x , a > teh) »\ ~ iG a 2A 2? 
auTOS yap owoer TOV Lady avdTod amd TOY GuapTLdy adTadv, 


Todro S€ SAov yeyover, tva wAnpwOH 76? pyev Uwd Tod * Kupiou Sid 


c ~ ~ 
21. tégerau dé uidv, Kal °Kah€oets TO GvoRa atTod ‘Inaoor - 


m chap. ii. 
12, 13, 19, 
22; XXVii. 

22) aoa 

Nn again ver, 
24. 

o Lk. i. 13; 

bs LL Tipe 

p chap. ii. 15; iii. 3; xxii. 31 


1B and $2 have the simple verb (Seypartioat). 


2 ha@pa. in W.H. 
3 Maptayv in BL (W.H. text). 
history of Christ’s birth in Luke i., ii. 


The Mapiap of the T. R. probably comes from the 


4 The article tov before kvptov is omitted in the best MSS. 


vrloat. He was ina strait betwixt two. 
Being Slkavos, just, righteous, a respecter 
of the law, he sould not overlook the 
apparent fault ; un the other hand, loving 
the woman, he desired to deal with her 
as tenderly as possible: not wishing to 
expose her (atr?iv in an emphatic posi- 
tion before Seypatloat—the loved one. 
Weiss-Meyer). Some (Grotius, Fritz- 
sche, etc.) take 8{katos in the sense of 
bonitas or benignitas, as if it had been 
dyads, so eliminating the element of con- 
flict.—eBovdydy . . . abthv. He finally 
resolved on the expedient of putting her 
away privately. 
exposure by public repudiation, or quiet 
cancelling of the bond of betrothal. 
Affection chose the latter. Seypartloar 
does not point, as some have thought, to 
judicial procedure with its penalty, death 
by stoning. Ad@pa before amodvcar is 
emphatic, and suggests a contrast be- 
tween two ways of performing the act 
pointed at by Gmodtoa. Note the 
synonyms @é\wv and éBovAyOn. The 
former denotes inclination in general, 
the latter a deliberate decision between 
different courses—maluit (vide on chapter 
ac27)) 5 

Vv. 20-21. $oseph delivered from his 
perplexity by angelic interposition. How 
much painful, distressing, distracting 
thought he had about the matter day and 
night can be imagined. Relief came at 
last ina dream, of which Mary was the 
subject.—tatra .. . év@upnSevros: the 
genitive absolute indicates the time of 
the vision, and the verb the state of 
mind: revolving the matter in thought 
without clear perception of outlet. 
ratra, the accusative, not the genitive 
with sept: év0, aept twos = Cogitare de 
re, 0. tr=aliauid secum reputare. 


The alternatives were " 


Kihner, § 417, 9.—t80v: often in Mt 
after genitive absolute; vivid introduc. 
tion of the angelic appearance (Weiss 
Meyer).—kar’ dvap (late Greek con- 
demne* by Phrynichus. Vide Lobeck 
Phryn., p. 423. 6vap, without pre- 
position, the classic equivalent), during a 
dream reflecting present distractions.— 
vios AaB(S: the angel addresses Joseph 
as son of David to awaken the heroic 
pps: abe title confirms the view that 
the genealogy is that of Joseph.—ps 
oBnOys: he is summoned ae Jape 
act of faith similar to those performed by 


“the moral heroes of the Bible, who by 


faith made their lives sublime.—rihy 
yovaika wov:to take Mary, as thy wife, 
so in ver.24—7d .. . aylov: negativing 
the other alternative by which he was 
tormented. The choice lies between 
two extremes: most unholy, or the holi- 
est possible. What a crisis !—ver. 21. 
réerat— Inootv: Mary is about to bear 
a son, and He is to bear the significant 
name of ¥esus. The style is an echo of 
O. T. story, Gen. xvii. 19, Sept., the 
birth of Isaac and that of Jesus being 
thereby placed side by side as similar in 
their preternatural character.—kahécas? 
a command in form of a prediction. But 
there is encouragement as well as com- 
mand in this future. It is meant to 
help Joseph out of his doubts into a mood 
of heroic, resolute action. Cease from 
brooding anxious thought, think of the 
child about to be born as destined toa 
great career, to be signalised by His name 
Jesus — Jehovah the helper.—adros 
yap... apapridv avtey: interpretation oi 
the name, still part of the angelic speech. 


-abtosemphatic, heandnoother. apapr., 


sis, implying a spiritual conception of 
Israel’s need. 


68 


q Is. vii. 14.100 mpoprjrou, AéyovTos, 23. ° 
régerar vidv, kal kadécouat ! 
r Mk. v. 41; * peQeppnveudjevoy, Med’ Hpav 6 Oeds. 


XV. 22, 34. 


KATA MATOAION 


I. 23—-25. 


“1300, 4 wapQévos év yaorpl eer Kal 


ca 


Td dvopa atrod ’Eppavound,” & éor 


24. Aveyepbeis? Se 69 


i , ‘ ‘ ~ « , c 2 A ” 
Jobni.42, lwo awd Tod Umvou éroingev Os mpocétatey attd 6 dyyehos 


8 Lk. i. 34. Kuptour kat mapé\aBe Thy yuvatka adtod, 25. Kat ovk * éyivwoxey 


adnjy, Ews ob * Erexe tov 


TS dvopa adtod "IHZOYN. 


uidv adths Tov mpwTdToKor: 


© kal éxddece 


1D has kadeoets as in Sept. ver. of Is. vii. 14. 
? Here again, as in ver. 19, the simple verb eyep0es is used instead of the com- 


pound of T. R. in the best texts (NBCZ). 


3 9 omitted in ZA al., bracketed in W.H. 
4 ov is omitted in B and bracketed in W.H. 
5 Instead of the words tov wov avrys Tov mewrotoKxov, WBZ 1, 33, some old Latin 


MSS., the Egyptian versions and Syr. Cur., have simply wov. 


The expanded 


phrase of T. R., found in many copies, is doubtless imported from Lk, ii. 7. 


Vv. 22-23. The prophetic reference. 
As it is the evangelist’s habit to cite 
O. T. prophecies in connection with 
leading incidents in the life of Jesus, it 
is natural, with most recent interpreters, 
to regard these words, not as uttered 
by the angel, but as a comment of 
the narrator. The ancients, Chry., 
Theophy., Euthy., etc., adopt the for- 
mer view, and Weiss-Meyer concurs, 
while admitting that in expression they 
reveal the evangelist’s style. In support 
of this, it might be urged that the sug- 
gestion of the prophetic oracle to the 
mind of Joseph would be an aid to faith. 
It speaks of a son to be born of a virgin. 
Why should not Mary be that virgin, and 
her child that son? In favour of it also 
is the consideration that on the opposite 
view the prophetic reference comes in 
toosoon. Why should not the evangelist 
go on to the end of his story, and then 
quote the prophetic oracle? Finally, if 
we assume that in the case of all objec- 
tive preternatural manifestations, there 
is an answering subjective psychological 
state, we must conclude that among the 
thoughts that were passing through 
Joseph’s mind at this crisis, one was 
that in his family experience as a ‘‘son 
of David,” something of great importance 
for the royal race and for Israel was 
about tohappen. The oracle in question 
might readily suggest itself as explaining 
the nature of the coming event. On all 
these grounds, it seems reasonable to 
conclude that the evangelist, in this case, 
means the prophecy to form part of the 
angelic utterance. 

Ver. 22. rovro St... tva mAnpay.- 
tva is to be taken here, and indeed al- 


ways in such connections, in its strict 
telic sense. The interest of the evan- 
gelist, as ofall N. T. writers, in prophecy, 
was purely religious. For him O. T. 
oracles had exclusive reference to the 
events in the life of Jesus by which 
they were fulfilled. The virgin, 4 
mapGévos, supposed to be present to the 
eye of the prophet, is the young woman 
of Nazareth betrothed to Joseph the 
carpenter, now found to be with child.— 
"1806... *EppavouvqA: in the oracle 
as here quoted, ee (cf. xovea, ver. 18), 
is substituted for Aj perar, and Kadéoers 
changed into the impersonal Kadéoovet. 
Emmanuel = “ with us God,” implying 
that God’s help will come through the 
child Jesus. It does not necessarily im- 
ply the idea of incarnation. 

V-, 24-25. YFoseph hesitates no more: 
immediate energetic action takes the 
place of painful doubt. Euthymius 
asks: Why did he so easily trust the 
dream in so great a matter? and an- 
swers: because the angel revealed to 
him the thought of his own heart, for he 
understood that the messenger must 
have come from God, for God alone 
knows the thoughts of the heart.— 
eyepels . . . Kuplov: rising up from 
the sleep (rot Umvov), in which he had 
that remarkable dream, on that memor- 
able night, he proceeded forthwith to 
execute the Divine command, the first, 
chief, perhaps sole business of that day. 
—kal tapéhoBev .. . airod. He took 
Mary home as his wife, that her off- 
spring might be his legitimate son and 
heir of David’s throne.—Ver. 25. kab 
otk éylvwokey ... vidy: absolute habitual 
(note the imperfect) abstinence from 





IL, 2. 


EYATTEAION 


69 


II. x. Tod Se ilnood yevvybevtos ev BnOhecp. THs ‘lovdaias, évya again in 


Hpcpars “HpdSou tod Bacidéws, iSov, “pdyor dad ” dvarohdy 


marital intercourse, the sole purpose of 
the hastened marriage being to legitimise 
the child.—éws: not till then, and after- 
wards? Herecomes in a questio vexata 
of theology. Patristic and catholic 
authors say: not tili then and never at 
all, guarding the sacredness of the virgin’s 
womb. ws does not settle the question. 
It is easy to cite instances of its use as 
fixing a limit up to which a specified 
event did not occur, when as a matter of 
fact it did not occur at all. E.g., Gen. 
viii. 7; the raven returned not till the 
waters were dried up; in fact, never re- 
turned (Schanz). But the presumption is 
all the other way in the case before us. 
Subsequent intercourse was the natural, 
if not the necessary, course of things. 
If the evangelist had felt as the Catholics 
do, he would have taken pains to prevent 
misunderstanding.—vidy: the extended 
reading (T. R.) is imported from Luke 
ii. 7, where there are no variants. 
mpwrToTokov is not a stumbling-block to 
the champions of the perpetual virginity, 
because the first may be the only. 
Euthymius quotes in proof Isaiah xliv. 6: 
‘‘T am the first, and I am the last, and be- 
side Me there is no God.”—xal éxddeoev, 
he (not she) called the child Jesus, the 
statement referring back to the command 
of the angel to Joseph. Winsche says 
that before the Exile the mother, after 
the Exile the father, gave the name to 
the child at circumcision (Neue Beitrige 
zur Erlduterung der Evangelien, p. 11). 
CHAPTER IJ. History oF THE In- 
FANCY CONTINUED. The leading aim of 
the evangelist in this chapter is not to 
give biographic details as to the time 
and place of Christ’s birth. These are 
disposed of in an introductory subordinate 
clause with a genitive absolute construc- 
tion: ‘Jesus being born in Bethlehem 
of Judaea in the days of Herod the 
King”: that is all. The main purpose 
is to show the reception given by the 
world to the new-born Messianic King. 
Homage from afar, hostility at_ home; 
foreshadowing the fortunes of the new 
~ faith: acceptance by the Gentiles, re- 


~~Jection by the Jews; such is the lesson 


of this new section. It is history, but 
not of the prosaic sort: history with a 
religious bias, and wearing a halo of 
poetry. The story forms a natural 
sequel to the preceding account. The 


vv. 7, 16 
(bis). Acts 
xiii. 6, 8. 

b chap. viii. 11 * xxiv. 27. Lk. xiii. 29 


Sé in ver. 1, as in i. 18, is adversative 
only to the extent of taking the attention 
off one topic and fixing it on another 
connected and kindred. This, according 
to Klotz, who regards 8 as a weak form 
of 8%, is the original force of the particle. 
He says (in Devarius, p. 355): ‘‘Illa 
pazticula eam vim habet, ut abducat nos 
ab ea re, quae proposita est, transferat- 
que ad id quod, missa illa priore re, jam 
pro vero ponendum esse videatur’’, 

Vv. 1-12. Visit of the Magi. Ver. 
1. év BnOdctp: The first hint of the 
birthplace, and no hint that Bethle- 
hem is not the home of the family.— 
THs “lovdalas: to distinguish it from 
another Bethlehem in Galilee (Zebulon), 
named in Joshua xix. 15. Our Bethle- 
hem is called Bethlehem-Judah in 1 
Sam, xvii. 12, and Jerome thought it 
should be so written here—Bethlehem 
of Judah, not of Judaea, taking the latter 
for the name of the whole nation. The 
name means ‘‘house of bread,” and 
points to the fertility of the neighbour- 
hood ; about six miles south of Jerusalem. 
—év tpepats, “in the days,’ a very 
vague indication of time. Luke aims at 
more exactness in these matters. It is 
enough for our evangelist to indicate 
that the birth of Jesus fell within the 
evil time represented by Hevod. A name 
of evil omen; called the Great; great in 
energy, in magnificence, in wickedness ; 
a considerable personage in many ways 
in the history of Israel, and of the world. 
Not a Jew, his father Antipater an 
Edomite, his mother an Arabian—the 
sceptre has departed from Judah— 
through the influence of Antony ap- 
pointed King of Judaea by the Roman 
senate about forty years before the birth 
of Christ. The event here recorded 
therefore took place towards the close 
of his long reign; fit ending for a career 
blackened with many dark deeds.—t8ov 
payor: ‘ Behold!” introducing in a 
lively manner the new theme, and a 
very different class of men from the 
reigning King of Judaea. Herod, Magi; 
the one representing the ungodly ele 
ment in Israel, the other the best element 
in the Gentile world; Magi, not kings 
as the legend makes them, but having 
influence with kings, and intermeddling 
much by astrological lore with the for- 
tunes of individuals and peoples. The 


70 


c Acts xiii. 
14 (in i 
same Baoeds tav “loudatwr ; 
const.). 

d vv. 7, 9, 10; xxiv. 29. 1 Cor. xv. 41. 


homage of the Gentiles could not be 
offered by worthier representatives, in 
whom power, wisdom, and also error, 
superstition meet.—pdyo. ard dvar. 
mapey., Magi from the east came—so 
the words must be connected: not 
“came from the east”; from the east, 
the land of the sunrise ; vague indication 
of locality. It is vain to inquire what 
precise country is meant, though com- 
mentators have inquired, and are divided 
into hostile camps on the point: Arabia, 


Persia, Media, Babylon, Parthia are 
some of the rival suggestions. The 
evangelist does not know or care. The 


east generally is the suitable part of the 
world for Magi to come from on this 
errand.—els ‘lepoodAvpa: they arrived 
at Jerusalem, the capital, the natural 
place for strangers to come to, the precise 
spot connested with their errand to be 
determined by further inquiry. Note 
the Greek form of the name, usual with 
Matthew, Mark and John. In Luke, 
the Hebrew form ‘lepovcadtp is used. 
Beforehand, one would have expected 
the first evangelist writing for Jews to 
have used the Hebrew form, and the 
Pauline evangelist the Greek. 

Ver. 2, mod ... “lovalwv: the in- 
quiry of the Magi. It is very laconic, 
combining an assertion with a question. 
The assertion is contained in tex Oels. 
That a king of the Jews had been born 
was their inference from the star they 
had seen, and what they said was in 
effect thus: that a king has been 
born somewhere in this land we know 
from a star we have seen arising, and 
we desire to know where he can be 
found: ‘‘insigne hoc concisae orationis 
exemplum,” Fritzsche. The Messianic 
hope of the Jews, and the aspiration 
after world-wide dominion connected 
with it, were known to the outside 
world, according to the testimony of 
non-Christian writers such as Josephus 
and Tacitus. The visit of the Magi in 
quest of the new-born king is not in- 
credible.—eiSopev . . . vy TH avaToAq, we 
saw His star in its vising, not in the east, 
as in A. V., the plural being used for 
that in ver. 1. Alwayson the outlook, no 
heavenly phenomenon escaped them; it 
was visible as soon as it appeared above 
the horizon.—éortépa, what was this 
celestial portent? Was it phenomenal 


KATA MATOAION 


IL 


*wapeyévovto eis “tepooddupa, 2. Aéyovtes, “Mod éotiv & TexOels 
elSopev yap adtod tov “dorépa ev TH 


only? an appearance in the heavens 
miraculously produced to guide the wise 
men to Judaea and Bethlehem; or a 
real astronomical object, a rare con- 
junction of planets, or a new _ star 
appearing, and invested by men addicted 
to astrology with a certain significance ; 
or mythical, neither a miraculous nor a 
natural phenomenon, but a creation of 
the religious imagination working on 
slender data, such as the Star of Jacob. 
in Balaam’s prophecies ? All these views 
have been held. Some of the fathers, 
especially Chrysostom, advocated the 
first, viz., that it w a star, not ioe, 
but dpe. povov. Hy  ‘asons were such 
as these: it moved from north to south; 
it appeared in the daytime while the 
sun shone; it appeared and disappeared ; 
it descended down to the house where 
the child lay, and so indicated the spot, 
which could not be done by a star in 
the sky (Hom. vi.). Some modern com- 
mentators have laid under contribution 
the investigations of astronomers, and 
supposed the &ctyp to have been one 
of several rare conjunctions of planets 
occurring about the beginning of our 
era or a comet observed in China. Vide 
the elaborate note in Alford’s Greek 
Testament. The third view is in favour 
with students of comparative religion 
and of criticism, who lay stress on the 
tact that in ancient times the appearance 
of a star was expected at the birth of 
all great men (De Wette), and who 
expect mythological elements in the 
N. T. as well as in the Old. (Vide 
Fritzsche, Strauss, L. ¥., and Holtzmann 
in H.C.) These diverse theories will pro- 
bably always find their abettors; the first 
among the devout to whom the mirac- 
ulous is no stumbling-block, the second 
among those who while accepting the 
miraculous desire to reduce it to a min- 
imum, or at least to avoid its unneces- 
sary extension, the third among men of 
naturalistic proclivities. I do not profess 
to be able to settle the question. I 
content myself with expressing general 
acquiescence in the idea thrown out by 
Spinoza in his discussion on prophecy 
in the Tractatus theologico-politicus, that 
in_the case of the Magi we have an 
instance of a sign given; accommodated 
to the false opinions of men, to guide 
them to the truth. The whole system 





2—5. 


“dvarodf, Kat WMOopev mpooKuricar adta.” 3. 


EYATPTEAION 71 


e again ver, 


? , : 
Axotoas %é g, and in 


“ Ps ~ Pies icois 
HpwSys 6 Bacrdeds! *etapdx9n, kat waca ‘lepoosdupa pet adrod: Lisi78(in 


the sense 


‘ x a a x A iat 
4. kat ©ouvayayov wdvTas Tous dpxiepets Kal ypauparets Tod Aaow, P of rising). 


h 
iii. 14. gchap.xxii. 10. John xi. 47. 


lo Baottevs Hpwdys in RBDZ. 
to that in ver. 1. 


> , > > n Lol c A ~ 
éwuvOdveto Tap avTa@v, woU O Xpiords yevvarar. 


EE ee > 1 chap. xiv. 
5. ot Sé etmoy? 26. Lk.i. 
TZ Cera 


Acts xiv. 27. h Cf. Acts xxiii. 20 (ri wept rivos). 


In the T. R. the order of the words is conformed 


2 erav in SB. All such forms have been corrected in the text which the T. R. 
represents and need not be further noticed. 


making birth was current in the east, 
spread by Babylonian Jews. That it 
might interest Magians there is no wise 
incredible; that their astrological lore 
might lead them to connect some un- 
known celestial phenomenon with the 
prevalent expectation is likewise credible. 
On the other hand, that legendary ele- 
ments might get mixed up in the Chris- 
tian tradition of the star-guided visit 
must be admitted to be possible. It 
remains to add that the use of the word 
asrip, not &erpdv, has been supposed 
to have an important bearing on the 
question as to the nature of the phe- 
nomenon. Gory7p means an_ individual 
star, do7pdv a constellation, But in the 
N. T. this distinction is not observed. 
(Vide Luke xxi. 25 ; Acts xxvii. 20; Heb. 
xi. 12; and Grimm’s Lexicon on the two 
words.) 

Ver. 3. 6 Bactheds ‘Hpadys érapny8y: 
Ruortets before the name, not aifter, as 
in ver. 1, the emphatic position suggest- 
ing that it was as king and because king 
that Herod was troubled. The foreigner 
and usurper feared a rival, and the 
tyrant feared the rival would be wel- 
come. It takes little to put evil- 
doers in fear. He had reigned long, 
men were weary, and the Pharisees, 
according to Joseph (A. J. xvii. 2-4), 
had predicted that his family would 
ere long lose its place of power. His 
fear therefore, though the occasion may 
seem insignificant, is every way cred- 
ible.—kal waoa I., doubtless an exag- 
geration, yet substantially true. The 
spirit of the city was servile and selfish. 
They bowed to godless power, and cared 
for their own interest rather than for 
Herod’s. Few in that so-called holy 
city had healthy sympathies with truth 
and right. Whether the king’s fears 
were groundless or not they kuew not 
nor cared. It was enough that the fears 


_existed. The world is med not by truth 
_but_by opinion.—mdea; is lepordhupa—— 


oohupo 
feminine here, or is % woAts understood? 
or is it a construction, ad sensum, of the 
inhabitants ? (Schanz). 

Ver. 4. Herod’s 
ouwayayov ... 70d Aaov. Was this a 
meeting of the Sanhedrim? Not likely, 
as the elders are not “nentioned, who 
are elsewhere named as the repre- 
sentatives of the people, vide xxvi. 
3, ‘‘ the chief priests, scribes and elders 
of the people”. Here we read only 
of the chief priests and scribes of the 
people. The article is not repeated 
before ypapparets, the two classes being 
joined together as the theological ex- 
perts of the people. Herod called 
together the leading men among the 
priests and scribes to consult them as to 
the birth-place of Messiah. Holtzmann 
(H. C.), assum_ng that a meeting of the 
Sanhedrim is meant, uses the fact as an 
argument against the historicity of the 
narrative. The Herod of history slew 
the Sanhedrists wholesale, and did his 
best to lull to sleep Messianic hopes. It 
is only the Herod of Christian legend 
that convenes the Sanhedrim, and makes 
anxious inquiries about Messiah’s birth- 
place. But the past policy of the king 
and his present action, as reported by 
the evangelist, hang together. He dis- 
couraged Messianic hopes, and, now that 
they have revived in spite of him, he 
must deal with them, and his first step 
is to consult the experts in as quiet away 
as possible, to ascertain the whereabouts 
of the new-born child—éarvv@dvero, etc.: 
it is not a historical question he submits 
to the experts as to where the Christ 
has been born, or shall be, but a theo- 
logical one: where, according to the ac- 
cepted tradition, is His birth-place? 
Hence yevvarat, present tense. 

Vv. 5-6. The answer of the experts.— 
ot 8 cizrov, etc. This is not a Chris- 
tian opinion put into the mouth oi the 
scribes. It was the answer to be ex- 


measures, — Kar 


72 


i here only. 
jin Heb.vii. 
5 in same fy 
5m Same rpopytou, 6. 
k Acts vii. 


XX. 8.) x 

Pet. v.2. Tou 
m here and 

in ver. 16. ** 
n Lk. i. 3. 


gatvopevou dotépos, 8. 


KATA MATOAION 


atté, “"Ev ByO\ceu Tijs “loudaias. 
‘Kal ov, ByOdedu, yi “lovda, ‘odSapas eXaxiory ef 
év Tois wyepdow “lodda- ék ood yap éfehedoeTar * iyoupevos, 
Sotis 'tropaver tov Nady pou Tov “lopar\. 
AdOpal Katdoas tods payous, ™AKpiBwoe map’ abtav tov xpdvov 


Nopeubévtes “axpiBds ° eferdoate 


Il. 


odrw yap yéypamrat Sad rod 


>>» 


7. Tote “Hpddns, 


kal téppas aitods eis BynOdcep etme, 
2 wept Tod matSiou- ? érdv dé 


Acts xviii. eJpynte, dmayyethaté pot, Omws Kayo ebay mpookuyyow atta.” 


25.0% 


Thess, v. 2 ochap. x.11, John xxi. 12. 


1 Xa@pg as in i. 19 in W.H. 


p Lk. xi. 22, 34 (with aor. sub.). 


2 eteracarte axptBws in BCD, which accords with Mt.’s usual order. 


pected from them as reflecting the current 
opinion of the time. The Targum put 
upon the oracle in Micah a Messianic 
interpretation (Wetstein, and Wiunsche, 
Beitrdge). Yet with the Talmudists the 
Messiah was the one who should come 
forth from a strange, unknown place 
(Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, p. 342). 
Vide on this point Schanz, who quotes 
Schegg as denying the statement of 
Wetstein, and refers to Celsus as object- 
ing that this view about Messiah’s birth- 
place was not current among the Jews. 
(Origen, c. Celsum, i. 51. Cf. John vii. 
27, and 42.)—ottw yap yeypamrat, etc.: 
The Scripture proof that Messiah’s 
birth-place was Bethlehem 1s taken from 
Micah v. 2. The oracle put into the 
mouth of the experts consulted by Herod 
receives its shape from the hand of the 
evangelist. It varies very considerably 
both from the original Hebrew and 
from the Sept. The ‘least’? becomes 
‘“by no means the least,” “among the 
thousands”” becomes ‘among the 
princes,” and the closing clause, ‘‘ who 
shall rule my people Israel,’ departs 
from the prophetic oracle altogether, 
and borrows from 2 Sam. v. 2, God’s 
promise to David; the connecting link 
apparently being the poetic word de- 
scriptive of the kingly function common 
to the two places—roipavet in Micah 
Vv. 3, TWolpavets in 2 Sam. v. 2. 
The second variation arises from a 
different pointing of the same Hebrew 


word spoysn, spoya = among the 
thousands, poy = among the heads 


of thousands. Such facts are to be 
taken as they stand. They do not cor- 
respond to modern ideas of Scripture 
proof. 


Vv. 7, 8. Herod's next step.—rédte 
‘Hpodys . . . aorépos: rére, frequent 
formula of transition with our evangelist, 
cf. vv. 16, 17; iv. I, 5, I1, etc. Herod 
wished to ascertain precisely when the 
child the Magi had come to worship was 
born. He assumed that the event would 
synchronise with the ascent of the star 
which the Magi had seen in its rising, 
and which still continued to be seen 
(patvopévov). Therefore he made par- 
ticular inquiries (jxptBwoe) as to the 
time of the stair, 2.e., the time of its first 
appearing. This was a blind, an affec- 
tation of great interest in all that related 
to the child, in whose destinies even the 
stars were involved.—Ver. 8. kat méepas 
. . . av7@: his hypocrisy went further. 
He bade the strangers go to Bethlehem, 
find out the whereabouts of the child, 
come back and tell him, that he also 
might go and worship Him. Worship, 
i.e., murder! ‘Incredible motive!” 
(H.C.). Yes, as a veal motive for a 
man like Herod, but not as a pretended — 
one, and quite likely to be believed by — 
these simple, guileless souls from the 
east.—répas ele : the sending was 
synchronous with the directions accord- 
“ing to De Wette, prior according to Meyer. 
It is a question of no importance here, 
but it is sometimes an important ques- 
tion in what relation the action expressed 
by the aorist participle stands to that 
expressed by the following finite verb. 
The rule certainly is that the participle 
expresses an action going before: one 
thing having happened, another there- 
after took place. But there is an impor- 
tant class of exceptions. The aorist 
participle ‘‘may express time coincident 
with that of the verb, when the actions 
of the verb and the participle are prac- 
tically one”. Goodwin, Syntax, p. 52, 
and vide article there referred to by 





6—II. 


9. Ol Sé dxovoaytes TOO Bacihews emoped@noav: Kat 
a > lal lal ~ ry 
dv eidoy év TH avaTtoh, *mpojyev adtous, ews eddy 


ob Fv TO Tadior. 


peyddnvy *opddpa: 11. Kat éhOdvres eis tiv oiklav, eipov? +d 


1 exraby in $$BCD. 


EYATTEAION 


73 


> , , 
idov, 6 dorip, 4 Me reg 
(with ave 


tov W.H.) 


A ee ele) 


” 
coTy eTQVG 


10. iddvtes S€ Tov dorépa, exdpyoay yapdyt Ch. v. 14; 
xxi. ; 


AB AE 
Xxiii. £8, 
iv. s _ SCh. xvii. 6, 
23; XVIM. 31; XIX.25; XXVi. 22; xxvii. 54. 


* adov in all uncials, evpov only in minuse. Came in probably from ver. 8 (evpyre). 


Prof. Ballantine in Bibl. Sacra., 1884, 
on the application of this rule to the 
N. T., in which many instances of the 
kind occur. Most frequent in the Gospels 
is the expression daroxpiOds ele, which 
does not mean “haying first answered 
he then proceeded to say,” but ‘in 
answering he said”. The case before 
us may be one of this kind. He sent 
them by saying ‘‘ Go and search,” etc. 

Vv. 9g, 10. The Magi go on their 
errand to Bethlehem, ‘They do not know 
the way, but the star guides them. 
i804 6 dorip: looking up to heaven as 
they set out on their journey, they once 
more behold their heavenly guide.—ov 
eiSov € tT. G&varodkq: is the meaning 
that they had seen the star only at its 
rising, finding their way to Jesus with- 
out its guidance, and that again it 
appeared leading them to Bethlehem? 
So Bengel, andafter him Meyer. Against 
this is @atvoy.<vov, ver. 7, which implies 
continuous visibility. The clause dy 
eidoy, etc., is introduced for the purpose 
of identification. It was their celestial 
guide appearing again.—poyjyev: it 
kept going before them (imperfect) all 
the way till, arriving at Bethlehem, it 
took up its position (éord@y) right over 
the spot where the child was. The star 
seemed to go before them by an optical 
illusion (Weiss-Meyer) ; it really, in the 
view of the evangelist, went before and 
stopped over the house (De Wette, who, of 
course, regards this as impossible in fact). 
Ver. 10, iddvres $2. . . xapdy peyddny 
odSpa: seeing the star standing over 
the sacred spot, they were overjoyed. 
Their quest was at an end; they had 
at last reached the goal of their long 
journey. oé8pa, a favourite word of 
our evangelist, and here very appropriate 
after peyaAnv to express exuberant glad- 
ness, ecstatic delight. On the convoy of 
the star, Fritzsche remarks: ‘‘ Fuit certe 
stellae pompa tam gravi tempore digna”’. 
Some connect the seeing of the star in 
ver. 10 with the beginning of the journey 
from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. ‘They re- 
joiced, says Euthy. Zig. as evpdvres TOV 
inpevSeoratov oSnyov 


Ver. 11. The Magi enter and do homage. 
—kal ¢€, 7. olklay: the house. In Luke 
the shepherds find the holy family in a 
stable, and the holy child lying in a man- 
ger; reconcilable by assuming that the 
Magi arrived after they had found refuge 
in a friend’s house (Epiphan. Theophy.). 
—eldov tT. 7... . adTov: eidoy better than 
eU¥pov, which seems to have been intro- 
duced by the copyists as not only in itself 
suitable to the situation, but relieving the 
monotony caused by too frequent use of 
eidov (vy. g, 10). The child with His 
mother, Joseph not mentioned, not in- 
tentionally, that no wrong suspicions 
might occur to the Gentiles (Rabanus 
in Aquin. Cat. Aur.).—Kai weodvtes... 
cpipvey. They come, eastern fashion, 
with full hands, as befits those who enter 
into the presence of aking. They open 
the boxes or sacks (@ycavpots, some 
ancient copies seem to have read mfpas 
=sacculos, which Grotius, with proba- 
bility, regards as an interpretative gloss 
that had found its way into the text, vide 
Epiphanius Adv. Haer. Alogi., c. 8), and 
bring forth gold, frankincense and myrrh, 
the two latter being aromatic gums dis- 
tilled from trees.—AtBavov: in classic 
Greek, the tree, in later Greek and 
N. T., the gum, 1d @upidpevoy = 
ALBavwrtds, vide Phryn. ed. Lobeck, p. 
187. The gifts were of three kinds, hence 
the inference that the Magi were three in 
number. That they were kings was de- 
duced from texts in Psalms and Prophe- 
cies (e.g., Psalm Ixxii. 10, Isaiah Ix. 3), 
predicting that kings would come doing 
homage and bringing gifts to Messiah. 
The legend of the three kings dates as far 
back as Origen, and is beautiful but base- 


less. It grew with time; by-and-by the 
kings were furnished with names. The 
legendary spirit loves definiteness. The 


gifts would be products of the givers’ 
country, or in high esteem and costly 
there. Hence the inference drawn by 
some that the Magi were from Arabia. 
Thus Grotius: ‘* Myrrha nonnisi in 
Arabia nascitur, mec thus nisi apud 
Jabaeos Arabum portionem: sed et auri- 
fera est felix Arabia”. Gold and incense 


74 


KA'TA MATOAION 


AT. 


waidiovy perd Mapias ris pytpds adrod, Kal weodvres npooeKdvyoay 


t Cf. vi. 19-a0TG, Kal dvoigayres Tods 
ax. Lk. 

xii. 33. 
Heb. xi. 


t ‘ > aA , aA 

Oycavpods abtav mpootveyxav air 
~ A ‘ 4 

Sapa, xpuodv kal “Ai(Bavoy kal * opvpvay. 


12. kal xpypariodevtes 


26 (=con- Kat’ Ovap pi * dvaxdpipat mpds ‘Hpddyy, Se’ &dAns 6800 * dvexdpyoar 


tentum). ,  , 2 ain 
u Rey. xviii. €b§ THY KOPar auUTwY. 


13. 
v John xix. 


13. “Avaxwpyodvrwy 8 adrady, i8od, dyyedos Kuptou daiverar 


9. a“ ’ ‘ 
wil. x. 6.kat’ bvap! Td ’lworh, Aéywr, “’EyepGels mapdaBe 13 tradiov Kat 


Acts xviii. , 
aI. 
xi. 15. 


Heb. TY PyHTEpa adrod, Kal hedye eis Alyumroy, kal toOc exer Ews &v 


xv. 14,02;€0TW Gols péedAder yap “Hpddys {Lytety 13 wadlovy, tod darodkgoa 


iv. 12; ix. >» » 
24; xii.15. QuTo. 
al. 


1 B has kat ovap epevy as in i. 


(AtBavos) are mentioned in Isaiah Ix. 6 
among the gilts to be brought to Israel 
in the good time coming. The: fathers 
delighted in assigning to these gifts of the 
Magi mystic meanings: gold as to a 
king, incense as to God, myrrh as to 
one destined to die (as pedXovtre yetoa- 
o8at Bavarov). Grotius struck into a 
new line: gold = works of mercy; incense 
= prayer; myrrh = purity—to the dis- 
gust of Fritzsche, who thought such 
mystic interpretations beneath so great 
a scholar. 

Ver.12. Their pious errand fulfilled, the 
Magi, warned to keep out of Herod's way, 
return home by another road.—xpype-rio- 
Gévres points to divine guidance given in 
a dream (kat Svap); vesponso accepto, 
Vulg. The passive, in the sense of a 


divine oracle given, is found chiefly 


in N. T. (Fritzsche after Casaubon). 
Was the oracle given in answer to a 
prayer for guidance? Opinions differ. 
It may be assumed here, as in the case of 
Joseph (i. 20), that the Magi had anxious 
thoughts corresponding to the divine 
communication. Doubts had arisen in 
their minds about Herod’s intentions. 
They had, doubtless, heard something of 
his history and character, and his man- 
ner on reflection may have appeared 
suspicious. A skilful dissembler, yet not 
quite successful in concealing his hidden 
purpose even from these guileless men. 
Hence a sense of need of guidance, ifnot 
a formal petition for it, may be taken for 
granted. Divine guidance comes only to 
prepared hearts. The dream reflects the 
antecedent state of mind.— py dvaxdpbat, 
not to turn back on their steps towards 
Jerus.and Herod. Fritzsche praises the 
felicity of this word as implying that 
to go by Jerusalem was a roundabout 


c ‘ ‘ 
14. “O S€ eyepbeis wapéAaBe Td waSlov Kal Thy pytépa 
auToU vuKtdés, Kal dvexdpycev eis AlyuTTov, 15. Kal qv exer Ews 


20 (W.H. margin). 


for travellers from Bethlehem to the east. 
Apart from the question of fact, such a 
thought does not seem to be in the mind 
of the evangelist. He is thinking, not of 
the shortest road, but of avoiding Herod 
—avexapyoav, they withd-ew not only 
homewards, but away from Herod’s 
neighbourhood. A word of frequent 
occurrence in our Gospel, four times in 
this chapter (vv. 13, 14, 22). 

Vv. 13-23. Flight to Egypt, massacre in 
Bethlehem, return to Nazareth. These 
three stories have one aim. They indi- 
cate the omens which appear in begin- 
nings—omina principiis inesse  solent 
(Ovid). The fortunes of Christianity 
foreshadowed in the experiences of the 
holy child: welcomed by Gentiles, evil 
entreated by Jews. ‘‘ The real contents 
of these sections embody an ideal aim” 
(Schanz). : 5 

Vv. 13-15. Flight to Egypt. Ver. 13. 
daiveror: assuming that this is the cor- 
rect reading, the flight to Egypt is 
represented as following close on the 
departure of the Magi; the historic 
present, vividly introducing one scene 
after another. A_ subjective state of 
anxiety is here also to be presumed. 
Whence arising we can only conjecture. 
Did the Magi give a hint, mentioning 
Herod’s name in a significant manner ? 
Be that as it may, Joseph also gets the 
necessary direction.—’Eyep8els . . . eis 
Aityurrov: Egypt—near, friendly, and 
the refuge of Israel’s ancestors in days 
of old, if also their house of bondage.— 
maoddaBe, take with a view to taking 
care of (cf. John i. 11, ‘‘ His own re- 
ceived Him not,” mapéAaBov); benigne, 
Fritzsche—%ws . . . oot: either gene- 
rally, till I give thee further orders 
(Fritzsche); or till I tell thee to return 





12—I7. 


~ 
e4 


EYATTEAION 


i) 


Ths ¥tedeuTis “Hpwdou- iva mAnpwOA +O pyOev Gad Tod! Kuptouy here only 
in 


Sta Tod mpopytou, Néyovtos, “ES Aiydmrou exddeou Tov vidv pov.” 


16. Tote “Hpddys, i8av om *everratyOn bwd Tay pdyor, 


INGE 
Sere 
‘ (Gen. 
*e8upwOn — xxvii. 2) 


May, kat dtootethas "dveihe wdvtas Tods Tatdas Tous ev BrnOecp for V1 
Z 


Aas A a ec / SA > x a 
KQLt EV TTAGL TOLS OPLloLs QuTys, amro 


AQ , a > f \ wn , 
TOV KPOVvOV OV 7kplpwoe TApa TWV Payor, 


Gen. xxx. 2. 
only. Cf. Acts xxiv. 27. 


1 49BCD, etc., omit tov, 


(Meyer, Schanz); sense the same; the 
time of such new direction is left vague 
(@v with sub.).—péhdeu yap: gives reason 
of the command.—rtovd azrohéoar avro: 
Herod’s first purpose was to kill Mary’s 
child alone. He afterwards killed many 
to make sure of the one. The genitive 
of the infinitive to express purpose 
belongs to comparatively late Greek. 
It occurs constantly in the Sept. and 
in N. T.—Ver. 14. 6 St éyepSels: Joseph 
promptly executes the command, vuxros, 
before the day, indicating alarm as well 
as obedience. The words of the com- 
mand in ver. 13 are repeated by the 
evangelist in ver. 14 to emphasise the 
obedient spirit of Joseph.—Ver. 15. kal 
jv éxet, etc.: the stay in Egypt cannot 
have been long, only a few months, 
probably, before the death of Herod 
(Nésgen).—tva wAnpw8y_: another pro- 
phetic reference, this time proceeding 
directly from the evangelist ; Hosea xi. 
I, given after the Hebrew, not the Sept., 


which for3 33 has réxva airod. The oracle 


states a historical fact, and can therefore 
only be a typical prophecy. The event 
in the life of the infant Jesus may seem 
an insignificant fulfilment. Not so did 
it appear to the evangelist. For him all 
events in the life of the Christ possessed 
transcendent significance. Was it an 
event at all? criticism asks. Did the 
fact suggest the prophetic reference, or 
did the prophecy create the fact? In 
reply, be it said that the narratives in 
this chapter of the Infancy all hang 
together. If any one of them occurred, 
all might occur. The main question is, 
is Herod’s solicitude credible? If so, 
then the caution of the Magi, the flight 
to Egypt, the massacre at Bethlehem, 
the return at the tyrant’s death to 
Nazareth, are all equally credible. 

Vv. 16-18. The massacre. Tore: 
ominous then. When he was certain 
that the Magi were not going to come 


back to report what they had found at 


b Lk. xxii. 2; xxiii. 32 (Acts often). 


»XX. 19; 
XXVil. 
Té oh 0 a perl: : 
arf OTE €TT W TO a here only 
7 iL ese in N. T 


d here 


SueTods Kal KaTwTépw, KaTa 41, 


c Ch. iv. 13; viii. 34; xv. 22; xix. 1. 


Bethlehem, Herod was enraged as one 
who had been befooled (€verraty 6m). Mad- 
dened with anger, he resolves on more 
truculent measures than he at first in- 
tended: kill all of a certain age to make 
sure of the one—such is his savage order 
to his obsequious hirelings. Incredible? 
Anything is credible of the man who 
murdered his own wife and sons. This 
deed shocks Christians; but it was a 
small affair in Herod’s career, and in 
contemporary history.—év Bn®. kal év 
TAL Tors Optors avT7s, in Bethlehem, and 
around in the neighbourhood, to make 
quite sure.—a1d Sterots Kal Katwtépw: 
the meaning is clear—all children from 
an hour to two years old. But 8terovs 
may be taken either as masculine, agree- 
ing with tat8és understood=from a two- 
year-old child, or as a neuter adjective 
used as a noun=from the age of two 
years, a bimatu as in Vulg. There are 
good authorities on both sides. For a 
similar phrase, vide 1 Chron. xxvii. 23, ad 
elxooaerots. Herod made his net wide 
enough; two years ensured an ample 
margin.—kata T. X..-. payov. Euthy. 
Zig. insists that these words must be con- 
nected, not with 8.erods, but with katw- 
vépw, putting a comma after the former 
word, and not after the latter. If, he 
argues, Herod had definitely ascertained 
from the Magi that the child must be 
two years old, he would not have killed 
those younger. They made Mary’s child 
younger; Herod kept their time and 
added a margin: wAdtos érepov ards 


ampooé8nke. It does not seem to matter 
very much. Herod would not be very 
scrupulous. He was likely to add a 


margin in either case; below if they 
made the age two years, above if they 
made it less.—Ver. 18: still another pro- 
phetic reference, Jerem. xxxi. 15, freely 
reproduced from the Sept.; pathetic and 
poetic certainly, if the relevance be not 
conspicuously apparent. The evangelist 
introduces the prophetic passage in this 
case, not with tva, but with rére (ver. 17), 


76 KATA MATOAION Il. 


pnbev bd} ‘lepeptou tod mpodrytou, Néyovtos, 18. “ dwvh év “Papa 
eCh. xiii, FKovcOn, Opivos Kal? SxAavOpds Kal *d8uppds odds, “Payir 


42, 50, al 


fa Cor. vii. *kAalouoa Ta Tékva adits: Kal otk Oeke® wapakdnOAvat, OTe odk 


7- : > (ad 
g with acc, €LCl. 
here only. 


19. TeXeuTicavtos S€ Tod ‘HpwSou, iSot, dyyedos Kupiou 
kat dvap paivetar* TH “lwohp ev AiyUTTw, 20. héywr, “’EyepBeis 


mapddaBe 15 tradiov Kal Thy pytépa adtod, Kat mopevou eis yhv 


hRom.xi.3. lopand: teOvykact yap ot 


*{nroovtes Thy Wuxhy Tod madiou.” 


A 4 
i Rev. v. 10 21. O 8é éyepbets mapéAaBe TS maidiov kai Thy pytépa adtou, kat 


(with ert » 


and gen.). 7 Sev eis yav *"lopann. 


22. dkxotoas S€ Ste “Apyédaos ' Baodever 


1 §ia in NNBCD ; vio not acc. to style of Evang. (Weiss in Meyer). 
2 @pnvos kat om. NBZ ; probably introduced to correspond with Sept. 


3 n8eAnoe in DZ. 
* hatverat kat ovap, NBDZ. 
5 aondOev in NBC. 


suggesting a fulfilment not regarded as 
exclusive. The words, even in their 
original place, are highly imaginative. 
The scene of Rachel weeping for her 
children is one of several tableaux, which 
passed before the prophet’s eye in a 
vision, in a dream which, on awaking, 
he felt to be sweet. It was poetry to 
begin with, and it is poetry here. Rachel 
again weeps over her children; hers, 
because she was buried there, the pro- 
phet’s Ramah, near Gibeah, north of 
Jerusalem, standing for Bethlehem as far 
to the south. The prophetic passage 
did not create the massacre; the tradition 
of the massacre recalled to mind the 
prophecy, and led to its being quoted, 
though of doubtful appositeness in a strict 
sense. Jacob’s beloved wife seems to 
have occupied an imaginative place also 
in Rabbinical literature. Winsche quotes 
this from the Midrasch : ‘‘ Why did Jacob 
bury Rachel on the way to Ephratah or 
Bethlehem? (Gen. xxxv. 16). Because 
he foresaw that the exiles would at some 
future time pass that way, and he buried 
her there that she might pray for them” 
(Beitraége, p. 11). Rachel was to the 
Hebrew fancy a mother for Israel in all 
time, sympathetic in all her children’s 
misfortunes. 

Vv. 19-21. Yoseph’s return. Tedevt- 
yoavros & tr. ‘Hp: Herod died in 750 
u.c. in his 7oth year, at Jericho, of a 
horrible loathsome disease,| rotten in 
body as in soul, altogether an unwhole- 
some man (vide Joseph, Bell, i. 33, 
1-5; Antiq., xvii. 6,5; Euseb., H. E., i. 
6,8). The news of his death would fly 
swiftly, and would not take long to 
reach Egypt. There would be no need 


of an angel to inform Joseph of the fact. . 


But his anxieties would not therefore be 
at an end. Who was to succeed Herod? 
Might he not be another of the same 
type? Might disorder and confusion 
not arise? Would it be safe or wise to 
return to Palestine? Guidance was 
again needed, desired, and obtained. 
—\l8ov Gyyetos. . . A€ywv: the guid- 
ance is given once more in a dream 
(kar’ Svap). The anxious thoughts of 
the daytime are refiected in the dream 
by night, and the angelic message comes 
to put an end to uncertainty.—ver. 20. 
*EyepOels... “lopayd: it is expressed in 
the same terms as those of the message 
directing flight to Egypt, except of 
course that the land is different, and 
the order not flee but return. ‘‘ Arise, 
take the child and His mother.” The 
words were as a refrain in the life of 
Joseph in those critical months.—re@vq- 
kao. yap; in this general manner is the 
death of Herod referred to, as if in 
studious avoidance of the dreaded name. 
They are dead. The plural here (ot 
{ntotvres), as often, expresses a general 
idea, a class, though only a single person 
is meant (vide Winer, § 27, 2, and 
Exodus iv. 19). But the manner of ex- 
pression may indicate a desire to dissi- 
pate completely Joseph’s apprehensions. 
There is nothing, no person to fear: go! 
Ver. 21. 6 Sé éyepOels . . . "lopand: 
prompt obedience follows, but vuxtds 
(ver. 14) is omitted this time. Joseph 
may wait till day; the matter is not 
so urgent. Then the word was ¢evye. 
It was a flight for life, every hour or 
minute important. 

Vv. 22-23, Settlement in Nazareth in 


18—22. 


EYATTEAION 


77 


émt! tijs “loudatas dvtl ‘Hpwdou tod matpds adtod,? epoBryOy ? exel j for éxcice. 


amehOciv: xpnpatiabels Sé Kat dvap, dvexwpyoev cis TA “pepy THs J 


1 Omit emt $B and several cursives. 
its omission here probably correct. 


Ch. xvii. 20. 

ohn xi. 8; 
XViii. 3. 

k Ch. xv. 21; xvi. 13. Mk. viii. 10. 


With em the usual construction; therefore 


2 S8BC place HpwSov after +. war. avrov, 


Galilee. Joseph returns with mother 
and child to Israel, but not to Judaea 
and Bethlehem.—édkovoas .. . “Hpdov: 
Archelaos reigns in his father’s stead. 
A man of kindred nature, suspicious, 
truculent (Joseph., Ant., 17, 11, 2), to be 
feared and avoided by such as had cause 
to fear his father.—Baotheveu, reigns, not 
in the strict sense of the word. He 
exercised the authority of an ethnarch, 
with promise of a royal title if he con- 
ducted himself so as to deserve it. In 
fact he earned banishment. At Herod’s 
death the Roman emperor divided his 
kingdom into four parts, of which he 
gave two to Archelaus, embracing 
Judaea, Idumaea and Samaria; the other 
two parts were assigned to Antipas and 
Philip, also sons of Herod: to Antipas, 
Galilee and Peraea; to Philip, Batanea, 
Trachonitis and Auranitis. They bore 
the title of Tetrarch, ruler of a fourth 
part (Joseph., Ant., 17, 11, 4).—é€poByOn 
éxet awehOeiv. It is implied that to 
settle in Judaea was the natural course to 
follow, and that it would have beer 
followed but for a special reason. 
Schanz, taking a hint from Augustine, 
suggests that Joseph wished to settle in 
Jerusalem, deeming that city the most 
suitable home for the Messiah, but that 
God judged the despised Galilee a better 
training school for the future Saviour of 
publicans, sinners and Pagans. This 
hypothesis goes on the assumption that 
the original seat of the family was 
Nazareth.—éet: late Greek for éxetoe. 
In later Greek authors the distinction 
between rot trot, ot ov, Sot Srrov, 
éxet and éxetoe practically disappeared. 
Rutherford’s New Phrynichus, p. 114. 
Vide for another instance, Luke xxi. 2. 
Others explain the substitution as a case 
of attraction common in adverbs of 
place. The idea of remaining is in the 
mind = He feared to go thither to abide 
there. Vide Lobeck’s Phryn., p. 44, and 
Fritzsche.—x pynpatiovets tis FadtAaias: 
again oracular counsel given in a dream, 
implying again mental perplexity and 
need of guidance. Going to Galilee, 
Judaea being out of the question, was 
not a matter of course, as we should 


have expected. The narrative of the 
first Gospel appears to be constructed on 
the assumption that Nazareth was not 
the original home of the holy family, 
and to represent a tradition for which 
Nazareth was the adopted home, Beth- 
lehem being the original. ‘‘ The evan- 
gelist did not know that Nazareth 
was the original seat of the family.” 
Weiss, Matt. evang. p. 98. 

Ver. 23. KaTwKynoev. KaToLKely in 


Sept. is used regularly for St{> in the 


sense of to dwell, and with év in Luke and 
Acts (Luke xiii. 4; Acts i. 20, etc.) in the 
same sense. Here with eis it seems to 
mean going t¢ settle in, adopting as a 
home, the district of Galilee, the parti- 
cular town called Nazareth.—eis wéAuy is 
to be taken along with xarw, not with 
é\Ov. Arrived in Galilee he transferred 
his familyto Nazareth, as afterwards Jesus 
migrated to Capernaum to carry on there 
His ministry (iv. 13, where the same form 
of expression recurs).—Nalapér, a town 
in lower Galilee, in the tribe of Zebulon, 
nowhere mentioned in O. T. or Josephus. 
—étws wAnpwhy, etc.: a fnal prophetic 
reference winding up the history of the 
infancy. 67res not iva, as usual, but with 
much the same meaning. It does not 
necessarily imply that a prophetic oracle 
consciously influenced Joseph in making 
his choice, but only that the evangelist 
saw in that choice a fulfilment of pro- 
phecy. But what prophecy ? Thereference 
is vague, not to any particular prophet, 
but to the prophets in general. In no 
one place can any such statement be 
found. Some have suggested that it 
occurred in some prophetic book or 
oracle no longer extant. ‘* Don’t ask,” 
says Euthy. Zig., ‘‘in what prophets; 
you will not find: many prophetic books 
were lost ” (after Chrys.). Olearius, in 
an elaborate note, while not adopting, 
states with evident sympathy this view 
as held by others. Jerome, following 
the Jewish scholars (eruditi Hebraeorum) 
of his time, believed the reference to be 
mainly to Isaiah xi., where mention is 


made of a branch (72) that shall 


78 KATA MATOALON 


II. 23 


Iwith eis. FadtXalas, 23. kat éXOdv 'katwxyoev eis Wd Aeyoneryy Nalapér? 


Ch. iv. 13. 


Acts vii. Stas TANPObA Td PyOev Sid Tov mpopyTav, "Ore NaLwpaios «hy O7- 


(ev). 
oeTat. 


1 This spelling is found in BDL and adopted by W.H. 


forms occur, 


spring out of Jesse’s root. This view is 
accepted by most modern scholars, 
Catholic and Protestant, the name of the 
town being viewed as a derivative from 
the Hebrew word (a feminine form). The 
epithet NaLwpaios will thus mean: ‘the 
man of Nazareth, the town of the off- 
shoot’’. De Wette says: ‘Inthe spirit of 
the exegetical mysticism of the time, and 
applying what the Jews called Midrasch, 
deeper investigation, the word is used in 
a double sense in allusion at once to 


sa, Isaiah xi. 1, sprout, and to the 


name of Nazareth’. There may be 
something in the suggestion that the 
reference is to Judges xiii. 7: 8Tt Nafip- 
atov Oe0v torat, and the idea: one living 
apart in a secluded town. (So Furrer 
in Die Bedeutung der bibl. Geographie 
fir d, bib. Exegese, p. 15.) 

This final prophetic reference in the 
history of the infancy is the weakest link 
inthe chain. It is wasted effort to try 
to show its value in the prophetic argu- 
ment. Instead of doing this, apologists 
would act more wisely by frankly recog- 
nising the weakness, and drawing from 
it an argument in favour of historicity. 
This may very legitimately be done. Of 
all the incidents mentioned in this 
chapter, the settlement in Nazareth is 
the only one we have other means of 
verifying. Whether it was the original 
or the adopted home of Jesus may be 
doubtful, but from many references in 
the Gospels we know that it was His 
home from childhood till manhood, In 
this case, therefore, we certainly know 
that the historic fact suggested the 
prophetic reference, instead of the pro- 
phecy creating the history. And the 
very weakness of the prophetic reference 
in this instance raises a presumption 
that that was the nature of the connec- 
tion between prophecy and _ history 
throughout. It is a caveat against the 
critical theory that in the second chapter 
of Matthew we have an imaginary his- 
tory of the infancy of Jesus, compiled to 
meet a craving for knowledge on the 
subject, and adapted to the requirements 
of faith, the rudiments of the story 
consisting of a collection of Messianic 


Nafapein CZ, Other 


prophecies—the star of Jacob, princes 
bringing gifts, Rachel weeping for her 
children, etc. The last of the pro- 
phetic references would never have 
occurred to any one, whether the evan- 
gelist or any other unknown source of 
the tradition, unless there had been a 
fact going before, the settlement in 
Nazareth. But given the fact, there 
was a strong desire to find some allusion 
to it in the O. T. Faith was easily 
satisfied; the faintest allusion or hint 
would do, That was in this case, and 
presumably in most cases of the kind, 


the problem with which the Christian 


mind in the Apostolic age was occupied: 
not creating history, but discovering in 
evangelic facts even the most minute, 
prophetic fulfilments. The evangelist’s 
idea of fulfilment may provoke a smile, 
but it might also awaken a feeling of 
thankfulness in view of what has been 
stated. It is with the prophetic re- 
ferences in the Gospels as with songs 
without words. ‘The composer has a 
certain scene or state of mind in his 
view, and writes under its inspiration. 
But you are not in his secret, and cannot 
tell when you hear the music what it 
means. But let the key be given, and 
immediately you find new. meaning in 
the music. The prophecies are the 
music; the key is the history. Given 
the prophecies alone and you could with 
difficulty imagine the history; given the 
history you can easily understand how 
religious fancy might discover corres- 
ponding prophecies. That the prophecies, 
once suggested, might react on the facts 
and lead to legendary modifications is of 
course not to be denied. 

CuarPTeR III. Tue MINISTRY OF 
THE BAPTIST, AND THE BAPTISM OF 
Jesus. This chapter and part of the 
next, containing the narrative of the 
temptation (iv. 1-11), form the prelude to 
the public ministry of Jesus. John, of 
whom we have not heard before, appears 
as consecrating Jesus to His Messianic 
calling by baptism, and from the baptism 
Jesus passes to the scene of moral trial. 
In what year of Christ’s life these events 
happened is not indicated. The new 
narrative begins with the vague phrase, 


a ae 


II. r—3. 


EYATTEAION 


72 


II]. 1. *"Ev 8€ tats fpépats * exeivats ” Tapayiverat “lwdvyns 6a Cf. Ex. ii 


BamtiotHs, “knpicowy ev TH Epypw THS “loudaias, 2. kal! heywr,, 
“Metavoette “iyyice yap 1) Bactheta tov odpavar.” 
c passim in Mt. Mk. & Lk. im ref. to the kingdom of God. 


solute use. 


11,23. Is. 
XXXVIli. I. 
s Cf. Heb. 
3. OuTos ix. 11 for 


3ame ab- 
Cf. Ex. xxxii. 5. da Cf. 


eyyiGouev, Heb. vii. 19, and éyyvos, ver. 22 (=one who keeps us near to God). 


1 kat omitted in NB and Egypt. verss. 


‘tin those days”. But it is obvious 
from the contents that Jesus has now 
reached manhood; His thoughts and 
experiences are those of mature years. 
From childhood to manhood is an ab- 
solute blank in our Gospel. The evange- 
list gives a genesis of Christ’s body, but 
no genesis of His mind. As we see it 
in the sequel, it is a miracle of wisdom. 
It too, doubtless, had its genesis and 
history, but they are not given or even 
hinted at. Christ is ushered on the 
scene an unexplained prodigy. One 
would like to know how He reached this 
unprecedented height of wisdom and 
grace (Luke ii. 52). The only pos=ble 
source of knowledge is reasoning back 
from the outcome in the full-grown man. 
Jesus grew, and the final result may 
reveal in part the means and process of 
growth. The anti-Pharisaic spirit and 
tlean-cut descriptions of Pharisaic ways 
imply antecedent study, perhaps in 
Rabbinical schools. The parables may 
not have been so extempore as taey 
seem, but may be the ripe fruit of 
long brooding thought, things new and 
yet old. 

Vv. 1-6. Fohn the Baptist appears 
(Mark i. 1-6, Luke iii. 1-6). Ver. 1. 
év S& tais Hpépats éxeivats: the time 
when most vaguely indicated. Luke’s 
narrative here (iii. 1) presents a great 
contrast, as if with conscious intent to 
supply a want. John’s ministry is there 
dated with reference to the genera. 
history of the world, and Christ’s age at 
His baptism is given. Luke’s method is 
more satistactory in a historical point of 
view, but Matthew’s manner Of narra- 
tion is dramatically effective. He passes 
abruptly to the new theme, and leaves 
you to guess the length of the interval. 
A similarly indefinite phrase occurs in 
the story of Moses (Ex. ii. 11), There 
has been much discussion as to what 
period of time the evangelist had in 
view. Some say none, except that of 
the events to be related. ‘In those 
days,” means simply, ‘‘in the days 
when the following events hapened ” (so 
Euthy. Zig.). Others suggest explana- 
tions based on the relation of our Gospel 


to its sources, ¢.g., use of a source in 
which more was told about John, or 
anticipation of Mark i. 9, where the 
phrase is used in reference to Christ’s 
coming to be baptised. Probably the 
best course is to take it as referring back 
from the apostolic age to the great 
creative epoch of the evangelic history = 
‘In those memorable years to which we 
look back with wistful reverent gaze ”.— 
mapaytverar 6 |.: John appears on the 
stage of history—historical present, used 
“to give a more animated statement of 
past events” (Goodwin’s Syntax, p. 11). 
John 6 Bamwtioras, well known by this 
epithet, and referred to under that de- 
signation by Josephus (Antiq., xviii. 5, 2, 
on which wide Schirer; Fewish History, 
div. i., vol. ii., p. 23). Its currency 
naturally suggests that John’s baptism 
was partly or wholly an originality, not 
to be confounded with proselyte baptism, 
which perhaps did not even exist at that 
time.—kypiocev, preaching, as well as 
baptising, heralding the approach of the 
Kingdom of Heaven, standing especially 
in N. T. for proclamation of the good 
news of God, distinct from 88dacxwv (iv. 
23): a solemn word for a momentous 
matter.—év TH épyjpw Tt. lov8afas: scene 
of the ministry, the pasture lands lying 
between the central range of hills and 
the Jordan and the Dead Sea, not all 
belonging to Judaea, but of the same 
character; suitable scene for such a 
ministry. 

Ver. 2. Aéywv introduces the burden 
oi his preaching.—petavoeite, Repent. 
That was John’s great word. Jesus 
used it also when He began to preach, 
but His distinctive watchword was 
Believe. The two watchwords point to 
different conceptions of the kingdom. 
John’s kingdom was an object of awful 
dread, Jesus’ of glad welcome. The 
message of the one was legal, of the other 
evangelic. Change of mind John deemed 
very necessary as a preparation for 
Messiah’s advent.—q Baotdeta tov ov- 
pavav, the Kingdom of Heaven, This 
title is peculiar to Matthew. In the 
other Gospels it is called the Kingdom 
of God. Not used either by John or by 


80 KATA MA'TOALON Ill. 


els. xl.3. ydp éorw 6 pyOeis bad) ’Hoatou tod © ° duvi 
eeepte Y p Py ts . : sis os a AeySv EO, art} 
in paral, Bod@vtos év TH €pypw, ‘ Erousdoate thy odor Kuptou* ed@eias worette 
Ss , a , < , ” 
of worn tas *tpiBous adtod.’” 4. Adrds 8€ 6 “lwdvvns elxe Td © EvSupa 
pa Tpt- a a , 
Ba) i adrod dd tpixav Kapydou, Kal Lavyv Sepnativny mept thy daddy 
& » XXIL 


col - ~ 
n, xxviii. abTOO* FH S€ tpoph adtod jv? 


3; cloth- 4 
ing generally in Mt. vi. 25, 28. 


h Mk. i. 6. Rev. ix. 3, 7. 


* axpides Kat péAt | cyptov. 
i Mk. i. 6. Jude 13 (fierce). 


1 yo here as in ii, 17, instead of 81a in SBCD. 
2 avrov after yy in NECD. The T. R. is suspiciously smooth. 


Jesus, says Weiss, but to be ascribed to 
the evangelist. There does not seem to 
be any urgent reason for this judgment. 
In Daniel ii. 44 the kingdom is spoken 
of as to be set up by “the God of 
heaven,” and in the Judaistic period 
previous to the Christian era, when a 
transcendent conception of God began 
to prevail, the use of heaven as a syno- 
nym for God came in. Custom might 
cause it to be employed, even by those 
who did not sympathise with the con- 
ception of God as transcendent, outside 
and far off from the world (vide note in 
FC; p55)- 

Ver. 3. otros yap éorw, etc.: the 
evangelist here speaks. He finds in John 
the man of prophecy who proclaims in the 
desert the near advent of Jehovah coming 
to deliver His people. He quotes Isaiah 
only. Mark (i. 2) quotes Malachi also, 
identifying John, not only with the vaice 
in the desert, but with Elijah. Isarah’s 
herald is not merely a type of John in 
the view of the evangelist; the two are 
identical. The quotation follows the 
Sept., except that for tod @eod Apov is 
substituted atrot. Note where Matthew 
stops. Luke, the universalist, goes on to 
the end of the oracle. The mode of 
introducing the prophetic citation is 
peculiar. ‘This is he,” not “that it 
might be fulfilled”. Weiss (Meyer) 
thinks this an indication that the passage 
is taken from ‘‘the apostolic source”. 

Ver. 4. autos S€ 67l. The story 
returns to the historical person, John, 
and identifies him with the herald of 
prophecy. ‘This same John.” Then 
follows a description of his way of life— 
his clothing and his food, the details con- 
veying a life-like picture of the manner 
of the man: his habits congruous to his 
vocation.— 76 &Supa amd TpLyav Kap7- 
AXov: his characteristic (atrov) piece of 
clothing was a rough rude garment woven 
out of camel’s hair, not as some have 
thought, a camel’s skin. We read in 
Heb. xi. 37, of sheep sains and goat 


skins worn by some of God’s saints, but 
not of camel skins. Fritzsche takes 
the opposite view, and Grotius. Euthy., 
following Chrysostom, says: ‘Do not 
ask who wove his garment, or whence 
he got his girdle ; for more wonderful is 
it that he should live from childhood to 
manhood in so inhospitable a climate”. 
John took his fashion in dress from 
Elijah, described (2 Kings i. 8) as “an 
hairy man, and girt with a girdle of 
leather about his loins”. It need not 
be doubted that the investment is histori- 
cal, not a legendary creation, due to the 
opinion that John was Elijah redivivus. 
The imitation in dress does not imply a 
desire to pass for Elijah, but expresses 
similarity of mood.—y 8é tpody: his 
diet as poor as his clothing was 
mean.—éaxpides: the last of four kinds of 
edible locusts named in Le xi, 22 
(Sept.), still it seems used by the poor 
in the east; legs and wings stripped off, 
and the remainder boiled or roasted. 
“The Beduins of Arabia and of East 
Jordan land eat many locusts, roasted, 
boiled or baked in cakes. In Arabia 
they are sold in the market. They 
taste not badly’ (Benzinger, Hebraische 
Archdologie). Euthy. reports to the 
same effect as to his own time: many 
eat it in those parts tetaptyeupévov 
(pickled). Not pleasant food, palatable 
only to keen hunger. If we may trust 
Epiphanius, the Ebionites, in their aver- 
sion to animal food, grudged the Baptist 
even that poor diet, and restricted him 
to cakes made with honey (éyxpiSas év 
peAitt), or to honey alone, Vide Nichol- 
son’s Gospel according to the Hebrews, p. 
34, and the notes there; also Suicer’s 
Thesaurus, sub. v. akpis.—péAt Gyprov: 
opinion is divided between dee honey 
and tree honey, z.e., honey made by wild 
bees in trees or holes in the rocks, ora 
liquid exuding from palms and fig trees. 
(On this also consult Nicholson, Gospel 
of Hebrews, p. 35.) Both were used as 
food, but our decision should incline to 


EYALTRALON 


5- Téte efemopeveto mpds autov 


Kal waoa % 'amepixwpos Tod “lopSdvou- 6. Kai éBamtilovto! év Ta 
lopddvy? Gm attod, *éfopohoyoupevot tas Gpaptias attav. 7. 


81 


‘lepoodhupa Kal waca H loudataj Gen. xiii. 


Io (same 
parass): 

t. xiv. 
35. Mk. 
1. 28 al. 


A , 
iSv Se moddods TOY Papicaiwy Kal LadSouxatwy Epxowevous emi TOk here and 


Bdaricpa adtod,® etmev ad.ois, “'Tevvijpata éxidvav, tis ™ bwédergev 


Similar sense in Acts xix. 18. James v. 16. 
const. and sense). 


1Ch. xii. 34; xxiii. 33. 


in Mk.i.5 
=to con- 
fess sin. 


Lk. ili. 7. m Lk. iii. 7 (same 


1 Some copies (C? 33) have mwavres after «Bar. 
2S9BCA al. have morapw after lop, which the scribes may have omitted as 


superfluous. 
3 avrov omitted in NB and by Origen. 


vegetable honey, on the simple ground 
that it was the poorer food. Bee honey 
was a delicacy, and is associated with 
milk in Scripture in descriptions of a 
fertile land. The vegetable product 
would suit best John’s taste and state. 
“ Habitatori solitudinis congruum est, 
non delicias ciborum, sed necessitatem 
humanae carnis explere.” Jerome. 

Vv. 5-6. Effects of Fohn’s preaching. 
Remarkable by his appearance, his mes- 
sage, and his moral intensity, John made 
a great impression. They took him for 
a prophet, and a prophet was a novelty 
in those days. His message appealed to 
the common Messianic hope, and pro- 
claimed fulfilment to be at hand.—Tore, 
then, general note of time, frequent in 
this Gospel. éfemopevero imperfect, de- 
noting continued action. The movement 
of course was gradual. It began on 
a small scale and steadily grew till 


it reached colossal dimensions. Each 
evangelist, in his own way, bears 
witness to this. Luke speaks of 


crowds (iii. 7), Mark and Matthew 
give graphic particulars, similar, but 
in diverse order. ‘All Judaea and all 
the Jerusalemites,” says Mark. ‘“ Jeru- 
salem, Judaea and the Jordan country,” 
Matthew. The historical order was 
probably the reverse of that in Matthew’s 
narrative. First came those from the 
surrounding country—people living near 
the Jordan, on either side, in what is 
now called El-Ghor. Then the move- 
ment extended in widening circles into 
Judaea. Finally it affected conservative, 
disdainful Jerusalem, slow to be touched 
by new popular influences.—‘lepocodv- 
pa: the Greek form here as in ii. 3, and 
generally in this Gospel. It is not said 
all Jerusalem, asin Mark. The remark- 
able thing is that any came from that 
quarter. Standing first, and without the 


“all,” the reference means even Jerusa- 6 


lem. The waca in the other two clauses 
is of course an exaggeration. It implies, 
not that every human being went to the 
Jordan, but that the movement was 
general. The evangelist expresses him- 
self just as we should do in a similar 
case. [las with the article means ‘the 
whole,” without, ‘‘every”.—Ver. 6. kat 
éBamvrifLovro: the imperfect again. They 
were baptised as they came.—ev 1@ lop. 
motapw. The word rota, omitted in 
T.R., by all means to beretained. Dull 
prosaic scribes might deem it superfluous, 
as all men knew the Jordan was a river, 
but there is a touch of nature in it which 
helps us to call up the scene.—im airoi, 
by him, the one man. John would not 
want occupation, baptising such a crowd, 
one by one.—éfopodoyovpevor: confes- 
sion was involved in the act of sub- 
mitting to baptism at the hands of one 
whose preaching had for its burden, 
Repent. But there was explicit confes- 
sion, frank, full (é« intensifies), on the 
part of guilt-burdened men and women 
glad to get reliefso. General or special 
confession ? Probably both: now one, 
now the other, according to idiosyncrasy 
and mood. Confession was not exacted 
as a conditio sine qua non of baptism, 
but voluntary. The participle means, 
while confessing; not, provided they 
confessed. This confession of sins by 
individuals was a new thing in Israel. 
There was a collective confession on the 
great day of atonement, and individual 
confession in certain specified cases 
(Numb. v. 7), but no great spontaneous 
self-unburdenment of penitent souls— 
every man apart. It must have been a 
stirring sight. 

Vv. 7-10. Words of rebuke and warn- 
ing to unwelcome vistors (Luke iii. 7-9). 
Ver. 7. ‘ISav 82, etc.: among those 
who visited the Jordan were some, 
not a few, many indeed (1roAAods) of the 


82 KATA MATOAILON 
n GC}. ty. piv ™ huyety dard ° ris peddovons dpyijs ; 
XIiVill. 20. 


Mk.xvi.8. G§ious! tis pretavolas: 9g. 


o for the 
idea of ‘‘ the coming wrath," vide Rom. ii. 5. 
Lk. iii. 8. Cf. Ps.iv. 5; x. 6; xiv. 3. 


} kaptov aftov in BCD and many other uncials. 


1 Thess. i. ro. 


III. 


8. moijoate obv Kaptous 
kat pi) ’8démre *Adyew ev Eaurois, 
p Ch. vi. 7; xxvi. 53. q Ch. ix. 21. 


The reading in T. R. (found 


in L) may have come in from Lk. iii. 8, where it is undisputed. 


PHARISEES and Sappucegs. The first 
mention of classes of whom the Gospels 
have much to say, the former being the 
legal precisians, v77fwosi in religion, the 
latter the men of affairs and of the 
world, largely belonging to the sacer- 
dotal class (consult Wellhausen, Die 
Pharisder und die Sadducder), Their 
presence at the scene of John’s ministry 
is credible. Drawn doubtless by mixed 
motives, as persons of their type gene- 
rally are, moral simplicity not being in 
their line; partly curious, partly fasci- 
nated, partly come to spy; in an am- 
biguous state of mind, neither decidedly 
in sympathy nor pronouncedly hostile. 
In any case they cannot remain in- 
different to a movement so deep and 
widespread. So here they are; coming 
fo (émt) John’s baptism, not to be bap- 
tised, nor coming against, as some 
(Olearius, e.g.) have thought, as if to put 
the movement down, but coming to wit- 
ness the strange, novel phenomenon, and 
form their impressions. John did not 
make them welcome. His spirit was 
troubled by their presence. Simple, 
sensitive, moral natures instinctively 
shrink from the presence of insincerity, 
duplicity and craftiness.—i8av: how did 
they come under his observation? By 
their position in the crowd or on the 
outskirts of it, and by their aspect? How 
did he identiiy them as Pharisees and 
Sadducees ? How did the hermit of the 
desert know there were such people? 
It was John’s business to know all the 
moral characteristics of histime. These 
were the matters in which he took 
supreme interest, and he doubtless had 
means of informing himself, and took 
pains to do so. It may be assumed 
that he knew well about the Essenes 
living in his neighbourhood, by the 
shores of the Dead Sea, somewhat after 
his own‘fashion, and about the other 
two classes, whose haunts were the 
great centres of population. There 
might be Essenes too in the crowd, 
though not singled out, the history other- 
wise having no occasion to mention 
them.—yevvyjpara éxiSvay: sudden, ir- 
repressible outburst of intense moral 


aversion. Why vipers? The ancient 
and medizval interpreters (Chrysos., 
Aug., Theophy., Euthy.) had recourse in 
explanation to the fable of the young 
viper eating its mother’s womb. The 
term ought rather to be connected with 
the following words about fleeing from 
the coming wrath. The serpents of all 
sorts lurking in the fields flee when the 
stubble is set on fire in harvest in pre- 
paration for the winter sowing. The 
Baptist likens the Pharisees and Sad- 
ducees to these serpents fleeing for their 
lives (Furrer in Zeitschrift fur Missions- 
kunde und Religionswissenschaft, 1890). 
Professor G. A. Smith, Historical 
Geography of the Holy Land, p. 495, 
suggests the fires among the dry scrub, 
in the higher stretches of the Jordan 
valley, chasing before them the scorpions 
and vipers, as the basis of the metaphor. 
There is grim humour as well as wrath 
in the similitude. The emphasis is not 
on vipers but on fleeing. But the felicity 
of the comparison lies in the fact that 
the epithet suits very well. It implies 
that the Pharisees and Sadducees are 
fleeing. They have caught slightly the 
infection of repentance; yet John does 
not believe in its depth or permanence.— 
vis umédegev: there is surprise in the 
question. Can it be possible that even 
you have learned to fear the approaching 
crisis? Most unlikely scholars.—gvuyetv 
amo: pregnant for ‘flee and escape 
from’’ (De Wette). The aorist points to 
possibility, going with verbs of hoping 
and promising in this sense (Winer, 
§ xliv. 7 c.). The implied thought is 
that it is not possible = who encouraged 
you to expect deliverance? The aorist 
further signifies a momentary act: now 
or never.—r7s ped. dpyis, the day 
of wrath impending, preluding the 
advent of the Kingdom. The idea of 
wrath was prominent in John’s mind: 
the coming of the Kingdom an awful 
affair; Messiah’s work largely a work of 
judgment. But he rose above ordinary 
Jewish ideas in this: they conceived of 
the judgment as concerning the heathen 
peoples ; he thought of it as concerning 
the godless in Israel—Ver. 8. roujcare 


= a 


8—11. 


Narépa €xonev tov “ABpad: A€yw yap syiv, dre Sdvatar 6 Oeds' 
éx Tav hidwv ToUTwy eyelpar tTékva TO “ABpadp. 
kat! 4 déivyn mpds Thy pilav tay Sévdpwv KeiTar> wav ody Sévipov 
py "rovodv Kapmov Kadov *éxxomteTar Kal ets wip Badderau. 
"Ey® peév Bamtilw Gpas? év Gate eis petdvoray: 6 Sé dricw pou Tw05; 
€pxdopevos toxupdtepds pou eotiv, ob obk eipt ixavds Ta Srody para | 24. 


EYATTEAION 


83 


vide ver. 8 
% i and vii.17- 
3 1g; xiii. 26 
10. dn Se ae) 
Gen. i. 11 
s Ch. vii. 19; 
aneye,etc., 
Vv. 30; dx 


II. 


om. xi. 


1 kat omitted in S$BCDA and by most modern editors. 


2 Barrifw vpas inverted in NB 1, 33. 


ovv, etc. ‘If, then, ye are in earnest 
about escape, produce fruit worthy of 
repentance; repentance means more 
than confession and being baptised.” 
That remark might be applied to all 
that came, but it contained an innuendo 
in reference to the Pharisees and 
Sadducees that they were insincere even 
now. Honest repentance carries amend- 
ment along with it. Amendment is not 
expected in this case because the repent- 
ance is disbelieved in.—kapmév, collec- 
tive, as in Gal. v. 22, fruit; the reading 
in T. R. is probably borrowed trom 
Luke iii. 8. The singular is intrinsically 
the better word in addressing Pharisees 
who did good actions, but were not 
good. Yet John seems to have incul- 
cated reformation in detail (Luke iii. 
10-14). It was Jesus who proclaimed 
the inwardness of true morality. Fruit: 
the figure suggests that conduct is the 
outcome of essential character. Any one 
can do (woijoate, vide Gen. i. 11) acts 
externally good, but only a good man 
can grow a crop of right acts and habits. 

Vv. 9-10. Protest and warning. Kat 
pr Sdénre...7-’ABpadp: the meaning is 
plain = do not imagine that having Abra- 
ham for father will do instead of repent- 
ance—that all children of Abraham are 
safe whatever betide. But the expression 
is peculiar: do not think to say within 
yourselves. One would have expected 
either: do not think within yourselves, 
or, do not say, etc. Wetstein renders: 
“ne animum inducite sic apud vosmet 
cogitare,” with whom Fritzsche sub- 
stantially agrees =do not presume to 
say, cf. Phil. iii. 4.—wartépa, father, in 
the emphatic position=we have as father, 
Abraham ; it is enough to be his children: 
the secret thought oi all unspiritual Jews, 
Abraham’s children only in the flesh. 
It is probable that these words (vv. 9, 
10) were spoken at a different time, and 
to a different audience, not merely to 
Pharisees and Sadducees, but to the 


people generally. Vv. 7-12 are a very 
condensed summary of a _ preaching 
ministry in which many weighty words 
were spoken (Luke iii. 18), these being 
selected as most representative and most 
relevant to the purpose of the evangelist. 
Vv. 7-8 contain a word for the leaders of 
the people; vv. g-1o for the people at 
large; vv. 11-12 a word to inquirers 
about the Baptist’s own relation to the 
Messiah.—Ver. 10. 98y 82 4 aéivn .. . 
Kettat: judgment is at hand. The axe 
has been placed (ketpat = perfect passive 
of ri@npt) at the root of the tree to lay it 
low as hopelessly barren. ‘This is the 
doom of every non-productive fruit tree.— 
éxxemwterat: the present tense, expressive 
not so much oi the usual practice 
(Fritzsche) as of the near inevitable 
event.—p] Tototy Kapméy Kahov, im case 
it produce not (%y conditional) good 
fruit, not merely fruit of some kind, 
degenerate, unpalatable.—eis mip Bad- 
erat: useless for any other purpose 
except to be firewood, as the wood of 
many fruit trees is. 

Vv. 11,12. ohn defines his relation 
to the Messiah (Mark i. 7-8; Luke iii. 
15-17). This prophetic word would 
come late in the day when the Baptist’s 
fame was at its height, and men began 
to think it possible he might be the 
Christ (Luke iii. 15). His answer to 
inquiries plainly expressed or hinted 
was unhesitating. No, not the Christ, 
there is a Coming One. He will be here 
soon. I have my place, important in its 
own way, but quite secondary and sub- 
ordinate. John frankly accepts the posi- 
tion of herald and forerunner, assigned 
to him in ver. 3 by the citation of the 
prophetic oracle as descriptive of his 
ministry.—éy® pév, etc. éya emphatic, 
but with the emphasis of subordination. 
My function is to baptise with water, 
symbolic of repentance—6 8 6 p. 
épxdpevos. He who is just coming 
(present participle). How did John know 


84 


u Lk. iii. 17. Baordoat * 

v Lk. iii. 17. . 

w Ch. vi. 26; OU 
xiii. 30. 


KATA MA'TOAION 


HOE 


> a , 2 , c , ‘A , 
abtds buds Barrioe: év Mvedpare “Aylw kal mupt. 12. 
a a ‘ a « a 
Td “ardov év TH xetpl adrod, kal "Staxabapret Thy Gova abtod, 


Lkxai18. kal ouvdger tov aitoy ato’ eis Ti “ drobjKyy,) 1d Sé axupov 


” 
x Mk.ix. 43. KaTakadcer trupt * doBéotw. 


Lk. iii. 17. 
1 BL have avrov after aro$yknv (W.H. 


the Messiah was just coming? It was 
an inference from his judgment on the 
moral condition of the time. Messiah 
was needed; His work was ready for 
Him; the nation was ripe for judgment. 
Judgment observe, for that was the 
function uppermost in his mind in con- 
nection with the Messianic advent. These 
two verses give us John’s idea of the 
Christ, based not on personal knowledge, 
but on religious preconceptions. It 
differs widely from the reality. John 
can have known little of Jesus on the 
outer side, but he knew less of His 
spirit. We cannot understand his words 
unless we grasp this fact. Note the 
attributes he ascribes to the Coming 
One. The main one is strength—itoyv- 
pétepos fully unfolded in the sequel. 
Along with strength goes dignity—ot 
ovk eipi, etc. He is so great, augusta 
personage, I am not fit to be His slave, 
carrying to and from Him, for and after 
use, His sandals (aslave’s office in Judaea, 
Greece and Rome). An Oriental magnifi- 
cent exaggeration.—avtTés tpas Bar. 
vice: returns to the Power of Messiah, as 
revealed in His work, which is described 
as a baptism, the better to bring out 
the contrast between Him and His 
humble forerunner.—tv wvevpatt ayio Kat 
amupt. Notable here are the words, & 
mvevpatiayiw. They must be interpreted 
in harmony with John’s standpoint, not 
from what Jesus proved to be, or in the 
light of St. Paul’s teaching on the 
Holy Spirit as the immanent source of 
sanctification. The whole baptism of 
the Messiah, as John conceives it, is 
a baptism of judgment. It has been 
generally supposed that the Holy Spirit 
here represents the grace of Christ, and 
the fire His judicial function; not a few 
holding that even the fire is gracious as 
purifying. I think that the grace of the 
Christ is not here at all. The wvedpa 
Gytov is a stormy wind of judgment; 
holy, as sweeping away all that is light 
and worthless in the nation (which, after 
the O. T. manner, is conceived of as the 
subject of Messiah’s action, rather than 
the individual). The fire destroys what 
the wind leaves. John, with his wild 


marg,). 


L omits avtov after otrov. 


prophetic imagination, thinks of three 
elements as representing the functions 
of himself and of Messiah: water, wind, 
fire. He baptises with water, in the 
running stream of Jordan, to emblem 
the only way of escape, amendment. 
Messiah will baptise with wind and fire, 
sweeping away and consuming the im- 
penitent, leaving behind only the right- 
eous. Possibly John had in mind the 
prophetic word, “‘ our iniquities, like the 
wind, have taken us away,” Is. Ixiv. 6; 
or, as Furrer, who I find also takes 
mveUpa in the sense of “ wind,” suggests, 
the ‘‘ wind of God,” spoken of in Is. xl. 
7: the strong east wind which blights 
the grass (Zeitschrift fir Missionskunde 
und Religionswissenschaft, 1890). Carr, 
Cambridge G. T., inclines to the same 
view, and refers to Is. xli. 16: ‘ Thou 
shalt fan them, and the wind shall carry 
them away”. Vide also Is. iv. 4. 

Ver. 12. This ver. follows up ver. r1, 
and explains the judicial action emhlemed 
by wind and fire.—ot 16 wrvov é. +. x. 
avrov. The construction is variously 
understood. Grotius takes it as a Hebra- 
ism for & ob} xeipt To wrvov. Fritzsche 
takes & 1. xeLpt av’Tod as epexegetical, 
and renders: ‘‘whose will be the fan, 
viz.,in His hand”. Meyer and Weiss 
take ot as assigning a reason: “He 
(avrés of ver. rr) whose fan is in hand 
and who is therefore able to perform the 
part assigned to Him”. Then follows an 
explanation of the modus operandi,— 
StaxaGapiet from Sraxafapifw, late for 
classic Staxa@aipw. The idea is: He 
with His fan will throw up the wheat, 
mixed with the chaff, that the wind may 
blow the chaff away; He will then collect 
the straw, axvpov (in Greek writers 
usually plural td Gyvpa, vide Grimm), 
and burn it with fire, and collect the 
wheat lying on the threshing floor and 
store it in His granary. So shall He 
thoroughly (81a intensifying) cleanse His 
floor. And the sweeping wind and the 
consuming fire are the emblems and 
measure of His power; stronger than 
mine, as the tempest and the devastating 
flames are mightier than the stream 
which I use as my element.— &Aov, a place 


{2—I5, 


EYATTEAION 


85 


, wn fol 
13. Tote wapaytverar 6 “Inoots dd TAS FadtXatas émt tov yhere only; 


> A an a 
lopddynv T™pos Tov "ladvyny, ToU BamticOhvar bw attoo. 
> 

lwdvyns)? 7 Srexdduey aitdv, Aéywv, “Eye *xpetay exw bmd cod 


BamrioOijvat, kat od Epyn mpds pe;” 


) , a” a 
cime mpds aitdv,? ““Ades *dpte- odtw yap “apérov éotly Hptv 


const.). 
inf., 1 Cor. xi, 13. 


1 lwavvys omitted in S{B sah. vers. 


a John xiii. 37. 1 Cor. xiii. 12 (now, opp. to fut. time). 


for force 
of tense 
Cfarleks 1: 
59. Acts 
“ 5 ae py Vii. 26. 
15. Atroxpileis S€ 6 “Inaois z Ch. xiv. 
16. John 
xiii. Io 
(same 
With acc. and 


14. 6 d€ 


b Heb, ii. 10. 


(W.H. omit.) 
? For wpos avrov B and it. vg. cop. versions have avr. 


Though weakly attested 


this reading accords best with the usage of the Evangelist. W.H. adopt it. 


in a field made firm by a roller, or ona 
rocky hill top exposed to the breeze.— 
amo0yKxn means generally any kind of 
store, and specially a grain store, often 
underground. Bleek takes the epithet 
a&aBéorw applied to the fire as signifying: 
inextinguishable till all the refuse be 
consumed. It is usually understood 
absolutely. 

Vv. 13-17. Fesus appears, His baptism 
and its accompaniments (Mark i. 9-11; 
Luke iii. 21-22). Ver.13. Tére rapa.o 
‘I... PadtAatas: tien, after John had de- 
scribed the Messiah, appears ou the scene 
(wapaytverat, the historical presentagain, 
as in ver. I, with dramatic effect) from 
Galilee, where He has lived since child- 
hood, ¥esus, the real Christ ; how widely 
different from the Christ conceived by 
the Baptist we know from the whole 
evangelic history. But shutting off know- 
ledge gathered from other sources, we 
may obtain significant hints concerning 
the stranger from Galilee from the present 
narrative. He comes émt tév |. wpds Tov 
‘lway., Tov BarricOAvat vm’ aitov. These 
words at once suggest a contrast between 
Jesus and the Pharisees and Sadducees. 
They came to the baptism as a phenome- 
non to be critically observed. Jesus 
comes to the Jordan (mt), towards the 
Baptist (pds) to enter into personal 
friendly relations with him (vide John i. 
I, mpos Tov Qedv), in order to be baptised 
by him (genitive of the infinitive express- 
ing purpose). Jesus comes thoroughly 
in sympathy with John’s movement, 
sharing his passion for righteousness, 
fully appreciating the symbolic signifi- 
cance of his baptism, and not only 
willing, but eager to be baptised; the 
Jordan in His mind from the day He 
leaves home. A very different person 
this from the leaders of Israel, Pharisaic 
or Sadducaic. But the sequel suggests 
a contrast also between Him and John 
himself, 


Vv. 14-15. ohn refuses. It is in- 
structive to compare the three synoptical 
evangelists in their respective narratives 
of the baptism of Jesus. Mark (i. g) 
simply states the fact. Matthew reports 
perplexities created in the mind of John 
by the desire of Jesus to be baptised, 
and presumably in the minds of Chris- 
tians for whom he wrote. Luke (iii. 
21) passes lightly over the event in 
a participial clause, as if consoious that 
he was on delicate ground. The three 
narratives exhibit successive phases of 
opinion on the subject, a fact not with- 
out bearing on the dates and relations of 
the three Gospels. Matthew represents 
the intermediate phase. His account 
is intrinsically credible.— Ver. 14. 
Stexodvev: imperfect, pointing to a 
persistent (note the 81a) but unsuccess- 
ful attempt to prevent. His reason was 
a feeling that if either was to be baptised 
the relation ought to be inverted. To 
understand this feeling it is not necessary 
to import a fully developed Messianic 
theology into it, imputing to the Baptist 
all that we believe concerning Jesus as 
the Christ and the sinless one. It is 
enough to suppose that the visitor from 
Galilee had made a profound moral im- 
pression on him by His aspect and con- 
versation, and awakened thoughts, 
hopes, incipient convictions as to who 
He might be. Nor ought we to take too 
seriously the Baptist’s statement: ‘‘J 
have need to be baptised of Thee”. 
Hitherto he had had no thought of being 
baptised himself. He was the baptiser, 
not one feeling need to be baptised ; the 
censor of sinners, not the sympathetic 
fellow-sinner, And just here lies the 
contrast between John and Jesus, and 
between the Christ of John’s imagina- 
tion and the Christ of reality. John 
was severe; Jesus was sympathetic. 
John was the baptiser of sinners; Jesus 
wished to be baptised, as if a sinner 


86 KATA MATOAION Ill. 
cLk.iii, er. WAnpSoat macav Sixatoodvyny.” Téte ddinow attéy. 16. Kal 
ohn i352. - Ne 
ea x Banriobeis! 6 “Ingots dvéBy ed0ds? amd Tod SSaros- Kat idou, 
(with dea, “ . ee ey Gee > , ae nN na a A 
Acts vii. ° dvewxOnoar § adit * ot odpavol, Kat elde Td Nveipa tod Geod Kata- 


56). 

1 Bawrio Bes Se in NBC vg. sah. cop. 

2 For aveBy evdus WE have evOus aveBn, 
3 B has nvewxOqoav. 

4 SSB omit avr. 


Himself, a brother of the sinful. In the 
light of this contrast we are to under- 
stand the baptism of Jesus. Many ex- 
planations of it have been given (for 
these, vide Meyer), mostly theological. 
One of the most feasible is that of Weiss 
(Matt.-Evan.), that in accordance with 
the symbolic significance of the rite as 
denoting death to an old life and rising 
to a new, Jesus came to be baptised in 
the sense of dying to the old natural 
relations to parents, neighbours, and 
earthly calling, and devoting Himself 
henceforth to His public Messianic voca- 
tion. The true solution is to be found 
in the ethical sphere, in the sympathetic 
spirit of Jesus which made Him main- 
tain an attitude of solidarity with the 
sinful rather than assume the position of 
critic and judge. It was impossible for 
such an one, on the ground of being the 
Messiah, or even on the ground of sin- 
lessness, to treat John’s baptism as a 
thing with which He had no concern. 
Love, not a sense of dignity or of moral 
faultlessness, must guide His action. 
Can we conceive sinlessness being so 
conscious of itself, and adopting as its 
policy aloofness from sinners? Christ’s 
baptism might create misunderstanding, 
just as His associating with publicans 
and sinners did. He was content to be 
misunderstood. t 

Ver. 15. The reasoning with which 
Jesus replies to John’s scruples is char- 
acteristic. His answer 18 gentle, re- 
spectful, dignified, simple, yet deep.— 
“Ades Gpti—deferential, half-yielding, 
yet strong in its very gentleness. Does 
Gptt imply a tacit acceptance of the 
high position assigned to Him by John 
(Weiss-Meyer)? We may read that 
into it, but I doubt if the suggestion 
does justice to the feeling of Jesus.— 
oUTw yap mpémov: a mild word when a 
stronger might have been used, because 
it refers to John as well as Jesus: fitting, 
becoming, congruous; vide Heb. ii. 10, 
where the same word is used in reference 
to the relation of God to Christ’s suffer- 
ings. ‘It became Him.”—wécay dtxat- 


oovvnyv: this means more than meets 
the ear, more than could be explained to 
a man like John. The Baptist had a 
passion for righteousness, yet his concep- 
tion of righteousness was narrow, severe, 
legal. ‘Their ideas of righteousness sepa- 
rated the two men by a wide gulf which 
is covered over by this general, almost 
evasive, phrase: all righteousness or 
every form of it. The special form 
meant is not the mere compliance with 
the ordinance of baptism as administered 
by an accredited servant of God, but 
something far deeper, which the new era 
will unfold. John did not understand 
that love is the fulfilling of the law. But 
he ‘saw that under the mild words of 
Jesus a very earnest purpose was hid. 
So at length he yielded—rérte aginow 
avTév. 

Vv. 16,17. The preternatural accom- 
paniments. These have been variously 
viewed as meant for the people, for the 
Baptist, and for Jesus. In my judgment 
they concern Jesus principally and in the 
first place, and are so viewed by the 
evangelist. And as we are now making 
the acquaintance of Jesus for the first 
time, and desiring to know the spirit, 
manner, and vocation of Him whose 
mysterious birth has occupied our 
attention, we may confine our comments 
to this aspect. Applying the principle 
that to all objective supernatural experi- 
ences there are subjective psychological 
experiences corresponding, we can learn 
from the dove-like vision and the voice 
from heaven the thoughts which had 
been passing through the mind of Jesus 
at this critical period. These thoughts 
it most concerns us to know; yet it is 
just these thoughts that both believers 
and naturalistic unbelievers are in danger 
of overlooking ; the one through regard- 
ing the objective occurrences as alone 
important, the other because, denying 
the objective element in the experience, 
they rush to the conclusion that there 
was no experience at all. Whereas the 
truth is that, whatever is to be said as to 
the objective element, the subjective at 


16—17. 


a « xd , AV , ae) 34.259 
Batvoy @cet * mepiotepdv, kat! épyduevov ew atrov. 
ee) ~ > nm ? COR Ss eae 2 <3 , 
povy eK TOV oupavar héyouca, OutTos €oti 0 uLds [OU 0 GyairnTOs, 

e€ 


ec a? 
év @ *edddxyoa. 7 


1 SSB omit was. 


EYAI TEAION 


87 


17. Kal idou, d Ch. x. 16; 
xxi. 12. 

Lk. ii. 24. 
Ch. xii. 18; 
XVii. 5. 1 
Cor. x. 5. 
Heb. x. 38 (all with «v and dat.). 


4 SSCL have nvSox., which Tischendorf follows. W.H. as in T. R. 


all events is real: the thoughts reflected 
and symbolised in the vision and the 
voice. 

Ver. 16. ev@ts may be connected 
with Bamticbeis, with avéBy, or with 
qvedx@noay in the following clause by a 
hyperbaton (Grotius). It is commonly 
and correctly taken along with avéBn. 
But why say straightway ascended? 
Euthy. gives an answer which may be 
quoted for its quaintness: ‘‘ They say 
that John had the people under water up 
to the neck till they had confessed their 
sins, and that jesus having none to con- 
fess tarried not in the river”. Fritzsche 
laughs at the good monk, but Schanz 
substantially adopts his view. There 
might be worse explanations.—xat i8ov 
ave@xOnaay, etc. When Jesus ascended 
out of the water the heavens openedand He 
(Jesus) saw the spirit of God descending 
as adovecoming upon Him. According 
to many interpreters, including many of 
the Fathers, the occurrence was of the 
nature of a vision, the appearance of a 
dove coming out of the heavens. 6 
evayyeAtoTnsS ovK eimev STL ev hice 
meptotepas, GAN’ év cider weprotrepas— 
Chrys. Dove-like: what was the point 
ofcomparison? Swift movement, accord- 
ing to some ; soft gentle movement as it 
sinks down on its place of rest, according 
to others. The Fathers insisted on the 
qualities of the dove. Euthy. sums up 
these thus: diAdvOpwrov yap éore Kal 
dvetixaxov* GmooTepovpevoy yap TeV 
veoooGv Uropevel, Kal OvdSey HTTOY TOUS 
G@mootepovvtTas mpocietat. Kai xaéa- 
pwratév éort, kal TH evwdSlo yaiper 
Whether the dove possesses all these 
qualities—philanthropy, patient endur- 
ance of wrong, letting approach it those 
who have robbed it of its young, purity, 
delight in sweet smells—I know not; 
but I appreciate the insight into the 
spirit of Christ which specifying such 
particulars in the emblematic significance 
of the dove implies. What is the O. T. 
basis of the symbol? Probably Gen. 
viii. 9, 10. Grotius hints at this without 
altogether adopting the view. Thus we 
obtain a contrast between John’s con- 
ception of the spirit and that of Jesus as 


teflected in the vision. For John the 
emblem of the spirit was the stormy 
wind of judgment; for Jesus the dove 
with the olive leaf after the judgment by 
water was past. 

Ver. 17. ottds éoriv: “this is,” as if 
addressed to the Baptist; in Mk.i.9, 00 
et, as if addressed to Jesus.—év & evSox.: 


a Hebraism, } 5} YD .—et8dxqoa,aor- 
; or 


ist, either to express habitual satisfac- 
tion, after the manner of the Gnomic 
Aorist (vide Hermann’s Viger, p. 169), or 
to denote the inner event=my good 
pleasure decided itself once for all for 
Him. So @chanz; cf. Winer, § 40, 5, on 
the use of the aorist. ev8oxetv, according 
to Sturz, De Dialecto Macedonica et Alex- 
andrina, is not Attic but Hellenistic. The 
voice recalls and in some measure echoes 
Is. xlii. x, ‘‘ Behold My servant, I uphold 
Him; My chosen one, My soul delights 
in Him. [have put My spirit upon Him.” 
he title “Son” Srecalls/s/Ps. sit 7: 
Taking the vision, the voice, and the 
baptism together as interpreting the 
consciousness of Jesus before and at this 
time, the following inferences are sug- 
gested. (1) The mind of Jesus had been 
exercised in thought upon the Messianic 
vocation in relation to His own future. 
(2) The chief Messianic charism appeared 
to Him to be sympathy, love. (3) His 
religious attitude towards God was that 
of a Son towards a Father. (4) It was 
through the sense of sonship and the 
intense love to men that was in His 
heart that He discovered His Messianic 
vocation. (5) Prophetic texts gave direc- 
tion to and supplied means of expression 
for His religious meditations. His mind, 
like that of John, was full of prophetic 
utterances, but a different class of oracles 
had attractions for Him. The spirit of 
John revelled in images of awe and ter- 
ror. The gentler spirit of Jesus delighted 
in words depicting the ideal servant of 
God as clothed with meekness, patience, 
wisdom, and love. 

CHAPTER IV. THE TEMPTATION, AND 
THE BEGINNING OF THE GALILEAN 
Ministry. It is in every way credible 
that the baptism of Jesus with its con- 


88 


a Lk. ii. 22; 
iv. 5. Acts 
ix. 39. Cf. 
Rom. x. 7. 

Heb. xiii. 20 (to lead up from the dead), 

sense), cCh. vi. 16-18; ix. 14. Acts xiii. 2. 


1 B omits 0; bracketed in W.H. 


nected incidents should be followed by a 
season of moral trial, or, to express it 
more generally, by a period of retirement 
for earnest thought on the future career 
so solemnly inaugurated. Retirement 
for prayer and meditation was a habit 
with Jesus, and it was never more likely 
to be put in practice than now. He had 
left home under a powerful impulse with 
the Jordan and baptism in view. The 
baptism was a decisive act. Whatever 
more it might mean, it meant farewell to 
the past life of obscurity and consecration 
to a new, high, unique vocation. It re- 
mained now to realise by reflection what 
this calling, to which He had been set 
apart by John and by heavenly omens, 
involved in idea, execution, and experi- 
ence. It was a large, deep, difficult sub- 
ject of study. Under powerful spiritual 
constraints Jesus had taken a great leap 
in the dark, if one may dare to say so. 
What wonder if, in the season of reflec- 
tion, temptations arose to doubt, shrink- 
ing, regret, strong inclination to look 
back and return to Nazareth ? 

In this experience Jesus was alone 
inwardly as well as outwardly. No 
clear, adequate account could be given of 
it. It could only be faintly shadowed 
forth in symbol or in parable. One can 
understand how in one Gospel (Mk.) no 
attempt is made to describe the Tempta- 
tion, but the fact is simply stated. And 
it is much more important to grasp the 
fact as a great reality in Christ’s inner 
experience than to maintain anxiously 
the literal truth of the representation in 
Matt. and Luke. In the fight of faith 
and unbelief over the supernatural ele- 
ment in the story all sense of the inward 
psychological reality may be lost, and 
nothing remain but an external, miracu- 
lous, theatrical transaction which utterly 
fails to impress the lesson that Jesus 
was veritably tempted as we are, severely 
and for a length of time, before the open- 
ing of His public career, in a representa- 
tive manner anticipating the experiences 
of later date. All attempts to dispose 
summarily of the whole matter by refer- 
ence to similar temptation legends in the 
case of other religious initiators like 
Buddha are to be deprecated. Nor 


KATA MATOAION 


TreipacOjvat bd Tod SiaBddou. 


b besides parall. 


IV. 


IV. 1. Tore 6} "Inaods ° dvijy Oy els thy Epynpov 61d tod Nvedparos, 


2, Kal *ynotedoas hpépas Tesoapa- 


1 Cor. vii. 5. 1 Thoss. iii. 5 (same 


should one readily take up with the 
theory that the detailed account of the 
Temptation in Matt. and Luke is simply 
a composition suggested by O. T. 
parallels or by reflection on the critical 
points in Christ’s subsequent history. 
(So Holtzmann in H.C.) We should 
rather regard it as having its ultimate 
source in an attempt by Jesus to convey 
to His disciples some faint idea of what 
He had gone through. 

Vv. 1-11. The Temptation (Mk. i. 12, 
13; Luke iv. 1-13). Ver. 1. Tére, then, 
implying close connectien with the events 
recorded in last chapter, especially the de- 
scent of the Spirit.—avnx9n, was led up, 
into the higher, more solitary region of the 
wilderness, the haunt of wild beasts (Mk. 
i. 13) rather than of men.—tmo Tod 


TVEULATOS, (Lhe divine Spirit has to do 


ex c well as 
swith our bright jayous ones.—Heis with 
abe sone of God in t on ou 
doubt not less~ than in their moments 
of noble impulse and heroic resolve. 
The same Spirit who brought Jesus 
from Nazareth to the Jordan afterward 
led Him to the scene of trial. The 
theory of desertion hinted at by Calvin 
and adopted by Olshausen is based on a 
superficial view of religious experience. 
God’s Spirit is never more with a man 
than in his spiritual struggles. Jesus 
was mightily impelled by the Spirit at 
this time (cf. Mk.’s ékBdéAAe). And as 
the power exerted was not physical but 
moral, the fact points to intense mental 
preoccupation.—7retpac Pjvat, to be temp- 
ted, not necessarily covering the whole 
experience of those days, but noting a 
specially important phase: to be tempted 
inter alia.—wepafw: a later form for 
aetpaw, in classic Greek, primary meaning 
to attempt, to try to do a thing (vide for 
this use Acts ix. 26, xvi. 7, xxiv. 6); then 
in an ethical sense common in O. T. 
and N. T., to try or tempt either with 
good or with bad intent, associated in 
some texts (¢.g., 2 Cor. xiii. 5) with Sont- 
palo, kindred in meaning. Note the 
omission of tov before infinitive.—tao 
z. SiaBddov: in later Jewish theology 
the devil is the agent in all temptation 
with evil design. In the earlier period 





I—5. 


A 
kovta! Kal véxtas TecodpaKovTa,” Jatepor emetvace. 


Ody aita 8 46 weipdlwy etmev,® “Ei vids et tod Ceod, eiwé iva ot 


EYATTEAION 


89 


3. KGL Tpoge- d 6 merp. as 
a subst. in 
1 Thess. 


~ ? lil. 5. 
ior obtor dprou yévwytar.” 4. ‘O Se drroKpiGeis etme, “ Péypamrat, e Cf, Mk. ix. 


‘Ot éw dptw povw Licetar* dvOpwios, GAN’ et 


> 


> D 5) , n 2? 
EKTTOPEVOLLEVH) nye) OTOLATOS @Qeou. 

c 
o 


1 reroep. both places in BCL. 


2 rexoap. before vukras in SD (Tisch.). 


SidBodos eis THy Fdyiav wodw, Kat tornow 


cer 2. 
5 rav7l *pypatis Gh. xvii. 1. 


a. 7. again 
5. Tére * rapohapBdver adtov ” Gh. xevii, 
. Rev. 

6 airdy emt rd die. 


3 SSB omit this aurw and $QBD insert one after evwev (D with «at before ezrey). 


4 SBCD, etc., insert o before ayOpwiros. 


5 CD have ev; em in Sept. and retained by Tisch. and W.H. 


6 exryoev in SBCDZ 1, 33, 209 (Tisch., W.H.). 


to mapadapBave. 


the line of separation between the divine 
and the diabolic was not so carefully de- 
fined. In2 Sam. xxiv. 11 God tempts 
David to number the people; in 1 Chron. 
xxi. I it is Satan.—ver. 2. kat vyo- 
revoas. The fasting was spontaneous, 
not ascetic, due to mental preoccupation. 
In such a place there was no food to be 
had, but Jesus did not desire it. The 


aorist implies that a period of fasting pre-— 


ceded the sense of hunger. The period 
of forty days and nights may be a round 
number.—émetvacey, He at last felt 
hunger. This verb like SiWdw contracts 
in a rather than y in later Greek. Both 
take an accusative in Matt. v. 6. 

Vv. 3-4. 
hunger. Ver.3. wpooeA@ov, another of 
the evangelist’s favourite words, implies 
that the tempter is conceived by the 
narrator as approaching outwardly in 
visible form.—eimeé tva: literally ‘‘ speak 
in order that”. Some grammarians see 
in this use of tva with the subjunctive 
a progress in the later Macedonian 
Greek onwards towards modern Greek, 
in which va with subjunctive entirely 
supersedes the infinitive. Buttmann 
(Gram. of the N. T.) says that the chief 
deviation in the N. T. from classic 
usage is that tva appears not only after 
complete predicates, as a statement of 
design, but after incomplete predicates, 
supplying their necessary complements 
(cf. Mk. vi. 25, ix. 30). etmé here may 
be classed among verbs of commanding 
which take tva after them.—ot Ai@or 
ovrot, these stones lying about, hinting 
at the desert character of the scene.— 
aprou yev., that the rude pieces of stone 
may be turned miraculously into loaves. 
Weiss (Meyer) disputes the usual view 
that the temptation of Jesus lay in the 


First temptation, through © 


The reading in T. R. conforms 


suggestion to use His miraculous power 
in His own behoof. He had no such 
power, and if He had, why should He 
not use it for His own benefit as well as 
other men’s? He could only call into 
play by faith the power of God, and the 
temptation lay in the suggestion that 
His Messianic vocation was doubtful it 


God did not come to_His help at this 
time. This seems a refinement. Hunger 


represents human wants, and _ the 
question was: whether Sonship was to 
mean exemption from these, or loyal 
acceptance of them as part of Mes- 
siah’s experience. At bottom the issue 
raised was_selfishness or_self-sacrifice; 
Selfishness would have _been__shown 


either in the use of personal power-or in 


the wish that God would use it.—Ver. 4. 
6 52 amok. eitrev: Christ’s reply in this 
case as in the others is taken from 
Deuteronomy (viii. 3, Sept.), which 
seems to have been one of His favourite 
books. Its humane spirit, with laws even 
for protecting the animals, would com- 
mend it to His mind. The word quoted 
means, man is to live a life of faith in 
and dependence on God. Bread is a 
mere detail in that life, not necessary 
though usually given, and sure to be 
supplied somehow, as long as it is desir- 
able. Ziv émt is unusual, but good 
Greek (De Wette). 

Vv. 5-7. Second temptation. ‘are 
Tapahan. .. . Tov tepov: TétTe has the 
force of ‘‘next,”” and implies a closer 
order of sequence than Luke’s «at (iv. 5). 
mwapaAanBaver, historical present with 
dramatic effect ; seizes hold of Him and 
carries Him to.—v7yHv ayiay amédw: 
Jerusalem so named as if with affection 
(vide v. 35 and especially xxvii. 53, 
where the designation  recurs).-~ro 


KATA MATOAION IV. 


990 


b here and  awreptytov Tod tepod, 6. Kat Neyer! adTO, “Et ulds ef Tod Ocod, 
in Lk. iv. ae B 
9. Bade ceautdv Kdtrw: yéypawtar yap, ‘Om tois dyyédous adtod 

. i ~ ‘ a ‘ ‘ A > (PAN, , , 

i Ch. xvii.g.' €vTeNetrat mept col, Kal émt XxetpOv dpovdoi oe, pywote TpooKoWys 
Acts i. 2. 5 , ‘ , a? ” Bite ea a «“ 

Heb. xi.aa. Tpos AtBov Tov wdda god. 7. "Egy atta 6 “Ingods, “ Nddw 

j Lk. x.as. yeypamrat, ‘Oux ) éxmerpdcers Kupiov tov Cedv cou.” 8. Mdadw 
1 Cor. x.9. ¢ > < 

~~ tapahapBdver abtov 6 SidBodos eis dpos bnddv Alay, Kat Setkvuow 


k Ch. vi. 29. ae a Pe tee im 
Tk ARS aitO mdoas tas Baordelas Tod Kdopou Kal Thy *Sdtav adTav, 9. Kal 


” 


1 For Aeya Z has evrrev. 


@TEpvyLoy Tov iepov: some part of the 
temple bearing the name of “the 
winglet,” and overhanging a precipice. 
Commentators busy themselves discuss- 
ing what precisely and where it was.— 


tempted Jehovah, saying: “Is Jehovah 
among us or not?” An analogous 
situation in the life of Jesus may be 
found in Gethsemane, where He did not 
complain or tempt, but uttered the sub- 


Ver. 6. Bdde ceavtdv Kdtw: This missive, “If it be possible”. The lea 
suggestion strongly makes for thé down at that crisis would have consiste 





symbolic or parabolic nature of the in seeking escape from the cross at the 
whole representation. The mad pro- cost of duty.” The physical fall from the. 
posal could hardly be a temptation to pinnacle is an Sew Si eeeoeal fall. 
such an one as Jesus, or indeed to any Before passing from this temptation I 


man in his senses. 


(Ezek. viii. 3), and the suggestion to 
cast Himself down a parabolic hint at a 
class of temptations, as the excuses in 
the parable of the Supper (Lk. xiv. 16) 
simply represent the category of pre- 
occupation. What is the class repre- 
sented? Not temptations through 
vanity or presumption, but rather to 
reckless escape from desperate situa- 
tions. The second temptation, like the 
first, belongs to the category of need. 
The Satanic suggestion is that there can 
be no sonship where there are such 
inextricable situations, in proof of which 
the Psalter is quoted (Ps. xci. 11, 12).— 
yéypamrat, it stands written, not precisely 
as Satan quotes it, the clause tov 
SiadvAdétar oe év wdcats Tats 6801s cov 
being omitted. On this account many 
commentators charge Satan with 
mutilating and falsifying Scripture. 
Ver 7. Jesus replies by another quota- 
tion from Deut. (vi. 16).—7dAwv, on the 
other hand, not contradicting but 
qualifying : ‘‘ Scriptura per scripturam 


enough for the purpose. 
such mountain in the world, not even in 
the highest ranges, ‘“‘not to be sought 
for in terrestrial geography,” says De 
Wette. The vision of all the kingdoms 
and their glory was not physical.—rov 
xéopov. What world? Palestine merely, 
or all the world, Palestine excepted? 
or all the world, Palestine included? 
All these alternatives have been sup- 
ported. The last is the most likely. 
The second harmonises with the ideas 
of contemporary Jews, who regarded 
the heathen world as distinct from the 
Holy Land, as belonging to the devil. 
The tempter points in the direction of a 
universal Messianic empire, and claims 
power to give effect to the dazzling 
prospect.—Ver. 9. éav Tecav mpoc- 
Kuvyjops pot. This is the condition, 
homage to Satan as the superior. A 
naive suggestion, but pointing to a subtle 
form of temptation, to which all am- 
bitious, self-seeking men succumb, that 


interpretanda et concilianda,” Bengel. Ww! with 
The reference is to the incident at evil. The danger i when the 
Rephidim (Ex. xvii. 1-7), where the _end is goad, ‘‘ The end sanctifies the. 
people virtually charged God with bring- _means.” _ Nowhere is homage to Satan 
ing them out of Egypt to perish with more common than in connection with 
thirst, the scene of this petulant outburst” sacred causes, the interests of truth, 
receiving the commemorative name of righte a i 8 
Massah and Meribah because they purity ot motive so thoroughly as tempta- 








6 —13. EYAITEAION 


9 I 
, lal co > 

héyet! adtd, “Taira mévta cor? Sdow, édyv wecdv Tposkuyyons | very freq. 

InN ols 

always in- 


” 
pot. 
trans, 


, cy? x , A 
yap, “Kuptov tov Geov cou ™ mpookuryjgets, Kat atta pdyw ™ \atped- m with acc. 


, D aun > a 19. - 
10. Tote héyet abtG 6 “Inaois, “’Ymaye,® Zarava - yéeypatrat 


gets. ss I. Tote apinow adtov & SicéBodos: Kat tSou, adyyeNou Spares 
mpoonAOov Kat °Sinkdvouv aita. Rouen 

12. AKOYZAE 8€ 6 ‘Ingots * ote “lwdvyns ? wapeddOy, dvexdpycer Tea 
eis thy TadtNatavy: 13. Kat %karadurov Thy Nalapéer, édOdyv : ie a 


, > 4 Mk. i. . 
Katwkynoey ets Kamepyaodp® tiv *mapafadacciay, ev Spiots g Heb. xi? 


27. 
r here only in N. T., in Sept. (¢.g., 2 Chron sit 17). 


1 NBCDZ have amev (most mod. edd.). 
2 gravra wot tr. $$BCZ with several cursives. 
* Some MSS. (DLZ) insert omow pov, obviously imported trom xvi. 23. 


‘ol. omit $BCDZ ; probably the insertion is due to ver. 12 commencing a lesson 
in Lectionaries. 


5 This name is spelt kadap. in the older MSS. (S§BDZ), which is adopted through- 
out by W.H. 


tions of this class, Christ was proof Nothing was to be made of one wha 
against them. The prince of the world would not do evil that good might come. 
found nothing of this sort in Him (John —«ai iS00 ayyeXot. The angels were 
xiv. 30). In practice this homage, if ministering to Him, with food, pre- 
Jesus had been willing to render it, sumably, in the view of the evangelist. 
would have taken the form of conciliating It might be taken in a wider sense, as 
the Pharisees and Sadducees, and pander-_ signifying that angels ministered con- 
ing to the prejudices of the people. He tantly to one who had decidedly chosen 
took His own path, and became a Christ, the path of obedience in preference ta 
“neither after the ee oe by the that of self-pleasing. 

"Baptist, nor according to the liking of Vv. 12-25. Beginnings of the Galilean 
“the Jews and their leaders. So. He ministry (Mk. i. rae ae fi iv. 14, 15). 
“gained universal empire, but at a great In a few rapid strokes the evangelist 

cost.—Ver. 10. Umaye warava. 


Further particu- 


negative by a Scripture text, again from 
Deut. (vi. 13), slightly adapted, 
mpockuvyces being substituted for 
hoPnOyoy (the pdévw in second clause is 
omitted in Swete’s Sept.). It takes the 
accusative here instead of dative, as in 
ver. 9, because it denotes worship proper 
(Weiss-Meyer). The quotation states a 
principle in thecry acknowledged by all, 
but how hard to work it out faithfully in 
life ! 

Ver.11. téte adinow: then, when 
the peremptory taaye had been spoken. 


lars as to this are given in chapter xiv. 
Christ’s ministry in Galilee began when 
the Baptist’s came to an end; how long 
after the baptism and temptation not in- 
dicated. Weiss (Meyer) thinks that in 
the view of the evangelist it was im- 
mediately after, and that the reference 
to John’s imprisonment is meant simply 
to explain the choice of Galilee as the 
sphere of labour.—Ver. 13. Nalaper. 
Jesus naturally wentto Nazareth first, but 
He did not tarry there.—Katwxyoey «is 
Kamepvaovp, He went to settle (as in 
ii. 23) in Capernaum. This migration to 


KATA MAT@GAION 


IV. 


ZaPouhov Kat NepBareip, 14. tva wAnpwOh 1d fnPev Bd “Hoatou 


u Ch. xiii.6. 799 apoprtou, Aéyortos, 15. “I ZaPoukdv Kal yy NedOadeiu, 
6700 mpody) y 5. TF yi rm 


Mk. xvi. 2 
James i. 
tr (all in- 
trans.). 

v Ch. x1. 7, 
20; xii. 1. ép 
Mk. iv. 1. 
Lk. iii. 8 et 

al.(on force 
of this 


word vide 


*d3dv Oartdoons mépav tod “lopSdvou, TadtNaia tay eOvav, 16. 6 
Lads 6 Kabijpevos ev oxdrer! cide ids? péya, Kal Tots Kabnpeévors 
xopa kat ‘oxid Oavdrou, pas * dvérethev adtots.” 

17. Amd téte “Hpgato 6 "Ingoids knptocew kat héyeu, “ Metavoette 
hyyexe yap® 4 Bacideta tay odpavay.”’ 


18. Nepuraray 8€ 6 “Ingods* 


Grimm's “ apd Thy Oddacoay tis FadiAatas €ide dU0 AdeApous, Eipwva tov 


Lex.). 


wagain xiii heydpevov Mértpoy, kai “Avdpéay tdv adehpov adtod, BdddovTas 
I 


. Vv. 
ax. Cf. Acts x. 6. 


1 gxotia, BD. 
2 hws before edev in NBC (W.H.), 


3 The Syr. Sin. and Cur. omit petavoerre before nyytKe. 
49 |. found in ELA; omit S$BCD (beginning of a new lesson). . 


Capernaum is not formally noted in the 
other Gospels, but Capernaum appears 
in all the synoptists as the main centre 
of Christ’s Galilean ministry. — thv 
mapabakagaotay, etc. : sufficiently defined 
by these words, “on the sea (of 
Galilee), on the confines of Zebulun and 
Naphthali”. Well known then, now 
of doubtful situation, being no longer in 
existence. Tel Haim and Khan Minyeh 
compete for the honour of the site. 
The evangelist describes the position not 
to satisfy the curiosity of geographers, 
but to pave the way for another prophetic 
reference. 

Vv. 14-16. Jesus chose Capernaum 
as best suited for His work. There He 
was in the heart of the world, in a busy 
town, and near others, on the shore of a 
sea that was full of fish, and on a great 
international highway. But the evan- 
gelist finds in the choice a fulfilment of 
prophecy—iva wAnpw6q. The oracle is 
reproduced from Is. viii. 22, ix. 1, freely 
following the original with glances at 
the Sept. The style is very laconic: land 
of Zebulun and land of Naphthali, way of 
the sea (68dv absolute accusative for 


as = versus, vide Winer, § 23), 


Galilee of the Gentiles, a place where 
races mix, a border population. The 
clause preceding, “beyond Jordan,” is 
not omitted, because it is viewed as a 
reference to Peraea, also a scene of 
Christ’s ministry.—Ver. 16. év oxorlq: 
the darkness referred to, in the view of 
the evangelist, is possibly that caused 
by the imprisonment of the Baptist 
(Fritzsche). The consolation comes in 
the form of a greater light, das péya, 


great, even the greatest. The thought 
is emphasised by repetition and by 
enhaaced description of the benighted 
situation of those on whom the light 
arises: ‘‘in the very home and shadow 
of death”; highly graphic and poetic, 
not Se pleauiel bower: to the land of 
Galilee more than to other parts of the 
land ; descriptive of misery rather than 
of sin. 

Ver. 17. amo TéTe . . . KHpPtOTELW. 
After settling in Capernaum Jesus began 
to preach. The phrase am6 térTe offends 
in two ways, first as redundant, being 
implied in jp~ato (De Wette); next as 
not classic, being one of the degeneracies 
ofthe xow7. Phrynichus forbids é« té7e, 
and instructs to say rather é& éxetvov 
(Lobeck’s ed., p. 45).—«npvcoetv, the 
same word as in describing the ministry 
of the Baptist (iii. r). And the message 
is the same—Meravoeite, etc. ‘‘ Repent, 
for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” 
The same in word but not in thought, as 
will appear soon. It may seem as if the 
evangelist meant to represent Jesus as 
simply taking up and continuing the 
arrested ministry of the Baptist. So He 
was in form and to outward appearance, 
but not in spirit. From the very first, 
as has been seen even in connection 
with the baptism, there was a deep- 
seated difference between the two 
preachers. Even Euthy. Zig. under- 
stood this, monk though he was. Repent, 
he says, with John meant ‘‘in so far as 
ye have erred” =amendment; with 
Jesus, ‘‘ from the old to the new” (amd 
THS Takaras emt THV Katviyv) =a change 
from within. For the evangelist this 
was the absolute beginning of Christ’s 





14—23, 


*aubiBdnotpov cis tiv Odhaccav-: Yoav yap 7 ddtets.} 
héyeu adrois, “* AcdTe émricw pou, Kal roijow bpds adtels dvOpdrev. 
20. Ol Bé edbdws aApevtes TA Sixtua AkohovOyoay ai7a. 
mpoPas exeidev, etdev GAdous BU0 adeAdods, “IdkwBov toy Tod ZeBe- 
Satouv kal “lwdvyny tov adehpdy adTov, év TO TAolw peta ZeBedatou 


nw ~ , A 
Tob Tatpos adTGv, kataptifoytas Ta Sixtua adtav- Kal éxddeoev 


autous. 


> , A aN 
HKohoueycay atta. 


23. Kat *aepufyev Skyy Thy Padtdatay 6 Inoods,” Si8dcKwv év Tats 


EYATTEAION 


c A A 
22. bi Sé eUAEws AdpevTes TS TWAotov Kal Tov TaTépa abTav 


93 


19. Kat x here only 
eee inie Non ks; 
verb in 
Mk. i. 16. 

in Sept. 

y Mk. i. 16 
17. Lk.v.2. 

z Ch. xi. 28; 
XXV. 34. 

a with ev 
here only 
(true text); 
with acc 
of place 
ix. 353 
XXill. 15. 
Mk. vi. 6. 


21. Kat 


a 2A ‘ , Q > a Le ‘ 
TuVAYWYals GUTWY, KaL KNpUTTwY TO evayyeAtoy THS Bactdelas, kat 


149C have adeets, B adevets. 
2$9BC have & ody tH TadtAata, 


ministry. He knows nothing of an 
earlier activity. 

Vv. 18-22. Call of four disciples. 
The preceding very general statement is 
followed by a more specific narrative 
relating to a very important department 
of Christ’s work, the gathering of dis- 
ciples. Disciples are referred to in the 
Sermon on the Mount (v. 1), therefore 
it is meet that it be shown how Jesus 
came by them. Here we have simply a 
sample, a hint at a process always going 
on, and which had probably advanced a 
considerable way before the sermon was 
delivered. — wepumatév 8: Sé simply 
introduces a new topic, the time is inde- 
finite. One day when Jesus was walk- 
ing along the seashore He saw two men, 
brothers, names given, by occupation 
fishers, the main industry of the locality, 
that tropical sea (800 feet below level of 
Mediterranean) abounding in fish. He 
saw them, may have seen them before, and 
they Him, and thought them likely men, 
and He said to them, ver. 19: Aette... 
avOpérwv. From the most critical point 
of view a genuine saying of Jesus; the 
first distinctively individual word of the 
Galilean ministry as recorded by Matthew 
and Mark. , Full ox significance as a self- 
revelation of the speaker. Authoritative 
yet genial, indicating a poetic idealistic 
temperament and a tendency to figurative 
speech; betraying the rudiments of a 
plan for winning men by select men. 
Acire plural form of Setpo = Seip’ tre, 
Setpo, being an adverb of place with the 
force of command, a verb of command- 
ing being understood: here! after me; 
imperial yet kindly, used again in Matt. 
xi. 28 with reference to the labouring and 
heavy-laden. Sedre and Gdteis (= sea- 


The acc. (T. R. as in D, etc.) is the more 
usual construction, hence preferred by ancient revisers. 


B omits o Incovs. 


people) are samples of old poetic words re- 
vived and introduced into prose by later 
Greek writers.—Ver. 20. The effect wag 
immediate : evOéws adévtes. This seems 
surprising, and we naturally postulate 
previous knowledge in explanation. But 
all indications point to the uniquely 
impressive personality of Jesus. John 
felt it; the audience in the synagogue of 
Capernaum felt it on the first appearance 
of Jesus there (Mk. i. 27) ; the four fisher- 
men felt it.—8ixrva: apdiBrnorpov in 
ver. 18. In xiii. 47 occurs a third word 
for a net, oayyvy ; Siktvov (from Stketv, 
to throw) is the general name; apdi- 
BAnorpov (a4ug¢iBdddw), anything cast 
around, ¢.g.,a garment, more specifically 
a net thrown with the hand; cayyvn, a 
sweep-net carried out in a boat, then 
drawn in from the land (vide Trench, 
Synonyms of N. T., § 64).—Ver. 21. 
a Aovs 840, another pair of brothers, 
James and John, sons of Zebedee, the 
four together an important instalment of 
the twelve. The first pair were casting 
their nets, the second were mending 
them, (kataprifovres), with their father. 
—Ver. 22. ot Sé evOéws adevtes. They 
too followed immediately, leaving nets, 


ship, and father (vide Mk. i. 20) 
behind. 
Vv. 23-25. Summary account of the 


Galilean ministry. A colourless general 
statement serving as a mere prelude to 
chapters v.-ix. It points toa ministry in 
Galilee, varied, extensive, and far-famed, 
conceived by the evangelist as antecedent 
to the Sermon on the Mount; not 
necessarily covering a long period of 
time, though if the expression ‘‘ teaching 
in their synagogues” be pressed it must 
imply a good many weeks (vide on Mk,). 


94 


b Ch. ix. 35: Bepametwy wagay vdoov Kal wagay ” padaxiav év Ta had. 


KATA MATOAION 


IV. 24—25,. 


24. kal 


¢ Ch, xiv. 1; aq AGev 2 H “dot adtod eis Any Thy Luplay: Kal mpoojveyKav 


xxiv. 6. 


16; ix. 12 


ait mdvtas tols “Kak@s Exovtas, woiKidats vdcois Kal * Bagdvots 
cuvexopevous, Kal? SapovLoudvous, Kal ‘oednvialopevous, Kai 
mapahutikous: Kat €epdmeucey aidtous. 


25. Kat jKohovOnoar 


ait@ Sxdor wohdot dws Ths Fadthaias Kai Aexamddews Kai ‘lepo- 


gohipur Kai “loudaias, kal mépay tod “lopddvov. 


1 So in BD (W.H.), Ae in NC. 


2 BC omit kat, which isin C?D. The force of kat = and especially. 


The ministry embraced three functions : 
SiSdoxev, Kynpicowv, Separevwv (ver. 
23), teaching, preaching, healing. Jesus 
was an evangelist, a master, and a healer 
of disease. Matt. puts the teaching 
function first in accordance with the 
character of his gospel. The first gospel 
is weak in the evangelistic element com- 
pared with the third: 8:8ax4 is more 
prominent than «yjpvypa. The healing 
function is represented as exercised on a 
large scale: wacav vécov kal macav 
padakiay, every form of disease and 
ailment. Euthy. Zig. defines vécos as 
the chronic subversion of health (4 
xpovia mwapatpom) THS TOU oaHpaTos 
€fews), paXakia as the weakness in which 
it begins (4px) xavvecews odparos, 
mpoayyeAos vécov). The subjects of 
healing are divided into two classes, ver. 
04. They brought to Him wavras rt. 
x. €x. wotxidats vécots, all who were 
afflicted with various diseases (such as 
fever, leprosy, blindness); also those 
Bacdvois cvvexopevous, seized with dis- 
eases of a tormenting nature, of which 
three classes are named—the xat in T. 
R. before Satpov. is misleading; the follow- 
ing words are epexegetical: Satpovifopé- 
vous, weAnvialopevous, wapadutTiKo’s = 
demoniacs, epileptics (their seizures 
following the phases of the moon), 
paralytics. These forms of disease are 
graphically called torments. (Bdcavos, 
first a touch-stone, /apis Lydius, as in 
Pindar, Pythia, x. 105: Fletpévre Sé kat 
xpvaos év Bacavw mpemet Kal vdos dp0ds; 
then an instrument of torture to extract 
truth; then, as here, tormenting forms of 
disease.) The fame, 4 ako}, of such a 
marvellous ministry naturally spread 
widely, els SAnv tHv Zupiay, throughout 
the whole province to which Palestine 
belonged, among Gentiles as well as 
Jews. Crowds gathered around the 
wonderful Man from all quarters: west, 
east, north, south; Galilee, Decapolis 
on the eastern side of the lake, Jerusalem 


and Judaea, Peraea. With every allow 
ance for the exaggeration of a popular 
account, this speaks to an extraordinary 
impression. 

CuaPTERS V.-VII. THE SERMON ON 
THE Mount. This extended utterance 
of Jesus comes upon us as a surprise. 
Nothing goes before to prepare us to 
expect anything so transcendently great. 
Tne impressions made on the Baptist, the 
people in Capernaum Synagogue (Mk. i. 
27), and the four fishermen, speak to 
wisdom, power, and personal charm, but 
not so as to make us take the sermon 
as a thing of course. Our surprise is all 
the greater that there is so little ante- 
cedent narrative. By an effort of 
imagination we have to realise that 
much went before—preaching, teaching, 
interviews with disciples, conflicts with 
Pharisees, only once mentioned hitherto 
(iii. 7), yet here the leading theme of 
discourse. 

The sermon belongs to the didache, 
not to the kerygma. Jesus is here the 
Master, not the Evangelist. He ascends 
the hill to get away from the crowds 
below, and the disciples, now become a 
considerable band, gather about Him. 
Others may not be excluded, but the pa- 
@nrat are the audience proper. The dis- 
course may represent the teaching, not of 
a single hour or day, but of a period of 
retirement from an exciting, exhausting 
ministry below, and all over Galilee ; 
rest being sought in variation of work, 
evangelist and teacher alternately. A 
better name for these chapters than the 
Sermon on the Mount, which suggests a 
concio ad populum, might be The Teach- 
ing on the Hill. It may be a combina- 
tion of several lessons. One very 
outstanding topic is Pharisaic righteous- 
ness. Christ evidently made it His 
business in one of the hill lessons to 
define controversially His position in 
reference to the prevailing type of piety, 
which we may assume to have been to 


V. I—3. 


EYATTEAION 


95 


V. 1. IAQN Se rods Sxous * dveBy cis TO Gpos~ Kat ° KaPicayTos a same 


sla A aA ¢ 4 A 
adTov, mpoojAPov adTG! of °pabytal attod- 2. Kal 
oTOpa aUTOU, ediSacKev attous, héywy, 3. “*Maxdpror ot 


in xiii. 48. Mk. ix. 35. 


Lk. i. 45; x. 23. f Ch. xi. 5. Lk. iv. 18. 


Lk. iv. 20 al., intrans., also Heb. i. 3; trans. x Cor. vi. 4. 
c frequent in Gospp. and Acts, nowhere else in N. T. 


aie phrase 
4 @voitas TO ch. xiv. 
t ce eR Sac 
TT@OXOL Mk. iii. 13. 
b here and 


Aes ii. 6 (ovver). 


d again in ziii. 35. xi. 6; xiit, 16. 


1B omits avrw; bracketed as doubtful in W.H. 


Him a subject of long and careful study 
before the opening of His public career. 
The portions of the discourse which bear 
on that subject can be picked out, and 
others not relating thereto eliminated, 
and we may say if we choose that the 
resulting body of teaching is the Sermon 
on the Mount (so Weiss). Perhaps the 
truth is that these portions formed one 
of the lessons given to disciples on the 
hill in their holiday summer school. The 
Beatitudes might form another, instruc- 
tions on prayer (vi. 7-15) a_ third, 
admonitions against covetousness and 
care (vi. 19-34) a fourth, and soon. As 
these chapters stand, the various parts 
cohere and sympathise wonderfully so as 
to present the appearance of a unity; 
but that need not hinder us from regard- 
ing the whole as a skilful combination 
of originally distinct lessons, possessing 
the generic unity of the Teaching on 
the Hill. This view I prefer to that 
which regards the sermon as a com- 
pendium of Christ’s whole doctrine (De 
Wette), or the magna charta of the 
kingdom (Tholuck), though there is a 
truth in that title, or as an ordination 
discourse in connection with the setting 
apart of the Twelve (Ewald), or in its 
original parts an anti-Pharisaic manifesto 
(Weiss-Meyer). For comparison of 
Matthew’s version of the discourse with 
Luke’s see notes on Lk. vi. 20-49. 

Chap. v. 1-2. Introductory statement 
by evangelist. “lSav 8... eis Td 
dpos. Christ ascended the hill, accord- 
ing to some, because there was more 
room there for the crowd than below. I 
prefer the view well put by Euthy. Zig.: 
‘‘He ascended the near hill, to avoid 
the din of the crowd (@opvBovs) and to 
give instruction without distraction ; for 
He passed from the healing of the body 
to the cure of souls. This was His habit, 
passing from that to this and from this 
to that, providing varied benefit.” But 
we must be on our guard against a 
double misunderstanding that might be 
suggested by the statement in ver. I, 
that Jesus went up to the mountain, as 
if in ascetic retirement from the world, 


and addressed Himself henceforth to His 
disciples, as if they alone were the 
objects of His care, or to teach them an 
esoteric doctrine with which the multi- 
tude had no concern. Jesus was not 
monastic in spirit, and He had not two 
doctrines, one for the many, another for 
the few, like Buddha. His highest 
teaching, even the Beatitudes and the 
beautiful discourse against care, was 
meant for the million. He taught 
disciples that they might teach the 
world and so be its light. For this 
purpose His disciples came to Him when 
He sat down (ka8icavtos atrod) taking 
the teacher’s position (cf. Mk. iv. 1, ix. 
35, xili. 3). Lutteroth (Essaz d’Interpré- 
tation, p. 65) takes xa8icavros as mean- 
ing to camp out (camper), to remain for 
a time, as in Lk. xxiv. 49, Acts xviii. 11. 
He, I find, adopts the view I have 
indicated of the sermon as a summary 
of all the discourses of Jesus on the hill 
during a sojourn of some duration. The 
hill, tO Gpos, may be most naturally 
taken to mean the elevated plateau 
rising above the seashore. It is idle to 
inquire what particular hill is intended. — 
Ver. 2. advolfas +o otdpa: solemn 
description of the beginning of a weighty 
discourse.—edtSackev, imperfect, imply- 
ing continued discourse. 

Vv. 3-12. The Beatitudes. Some 
general observations may helpfully intro- 
duce the detailed exegesis of these 
golden words. 

1. They breathe the spirit of the scene. 
On the mountain tops away from the 
bustle and the sultry heat of the region 
below, the air cool, the blue sky over- 
head, quiet all around, and divine 
tranquillity within. We are near heaven 
here. 

2. The originality of these sayings 
has been disputed, especially by modern 
Jews desirous to credit their Rabbis 
with such good things. Some of them, 
e.g., the third, may be found in sub- 
stance in the Psalter, and possibly many, 
or all of them, even in the Talmud. But 
what then? They are in the Talmud as 
a few grains of wheat lost in a vast heap 


99 


g the name TO 
for the k. ‘ 


KATA MATOAION 


Vi 


a , A 
mvevpatts Ott abtay éotw » *Baoideia tov Sodpavav. 4. 


of G. in paxdproe! ot ™wevOodvtes+ Sti adTol mapakynOjcovrar. 5. paxdpror 


Mt., put 


into the Baptist's mouth, in iii. 2. His, not Christ's, acc. to Weiss ef al. 


h Ch. ix. 15. 


1 The 2nd and 3rd Beatitudes (vv. 4, 5) are transposed in D, most old Latin texts, 
and in Syr. Cur. Tisch. adopts this order. 


of chaff. The originality of Jesus lies in 
putting the due value on these thoughts, 
collecting them, and making them as 
prominent as the Ten Commandments. 
No greater service can be rendered to 
mankind than to rescue from obscurity 
neglected moral commonplaces. 

3. The existence of another version of 
the discourse (in Lk.), with varying 
forms of the sayings, has raised a 
question as to the original form. Did 
Christ, ¢.g., say ‘‘ Blessed the poor” 
(Lk.) or ‘‘ Blessed the poor in spirit” 
(Matt.)? This raises a larger question as 
to the manner of Christ’s teaching on 
the hill. Suppose one day in a week of 
instruction was devoted to the subject 
of happiness, its conditions, and heirs, 
many things might be said on each lead- 
ing proposition. The theme would be 
announced, then accompanied with 
expansions. A modern biographer 
would have prefaced a discourse like 
this with an introductory account of the 
Teacher’s method. There is no such 
account in the Gospels, but there are 
incidental notices from which we can 
learn somewhat. The disciples asked 
questions and the Master answered them. 
Jesus explained some of His parables to 
the twelve. From certain parts of His 
teaching, as reported, it appears that He 
not only uttered great thoughts in 
aphoristic form, but occasionally en- 
larged. The Sermon on the Mount 
contains at least two instances of such 
enlargement. The thesis, ‘I am not 
come to destroy but to fulfil’’ (ver. 17), 
is copiously illustrated (vv. 21-48). The 
counsel against care, which as a thesis 
might be stated thus: “‘ Blessed are the 
care-free,’”’ is amply expanded (vv. 25-34). 
Even in one of the Beatitudes we find 
traces of explanatory enlargement; in 
the last, ‘‘ Blessed are the persecuted ”’. 
It is perhaps the most startling of all the 
paradoxes, and would need enlargement 
greatly, and some parts of the expansion 
have been preserved (vv. t0-12). On 
this view both torms of the first 
Beatitude might be authentic, the one as 
theme, the other as comment. The 
theme would always be put in the tewest 
possible words ; the first Beatitude there- 


fore, as Luke puts it, Maxdpior of 
atwxot, Matthew preserving one of the 
expansions, not necessarily the only one. 
Of course, another view of the expansion 
is possible, that it proceeded not from 
Christ, but from the transmitters of His 
sayings. But this hypothesis is not a 
whit more legitimate or likely than the 
other. I make this observation, not in 
the spirit of an antiquated Harmonistic, 
but simply as a contribution to historical 
criticism. 

4. Each Beatitude has a reason an- 
ry ipa that of the first being “for theirs 
is the kingdom of heaven”. They vary 
in the different Beatitudes as reported. 
It is conceivable that in the original 
themes the reason annexed to the first 
was common to them all. It was under- 
stood to be repeated like the refrain of a 
song, or like the words, “‘him do I calla 
Brahmana,’ annexed to many of the 
moral sentences in the Footsteps of the 
Law in the Buddhist Canon. ‘* He who, 
when assailed, does not resist, but speaks 
mildly to his tormentors—him do I calla 
Brahmana.”’ So ‘‘ Blessed the poor, for 
theirs is the kingdom of heaven”, 
‘‘blessed they who mourn, for,” etc. ; 
‘blessed the meek, the hungry, for,” etc. 
The actual reasons annexed, when they 
vary from the refrain, are to-be viewed as 
explanatory comments. 

5. It has been maintained that only 
certain of the Beatitudes belong to the 
authentic discourse on the mount, the 
rest, possibly based on true logia of Jesus 
spoken at another time, being added 
by the evangelist, true to his habit of 
massing the teaching of Jesus in topical 
groups. This is the view of Weiss (in 
Matt. Evan., and in Meyer). He thinks 
only three are authentic—the first, third, 
and fourth—all pointing to the righteous- 
ness of the kingdom as the summum 
bonum: the first to righteousness as 
not yet possessed; the second to the 
want as a cause of sorrow; the third to 
righteousness as an object of desire. 
This view goes with the theory that 
Christ’s discourse on the hill had refer- 
ence exclusively to the nature oi true and 
ialse righteousness. 

6. A final- much less important ques. 





4—6. 


ous “ e 92 ciN , a 
ot “mpageis: Gre adtot KAnpovouygouar Thy yay. 
MewGvtes kat SupGvtes Thy Sixatoodvyy: Sti adtot yoptacOyjcovrat. 


tion in reference to the Beatitudes is that 
which relates to their number, One 
would say at a first glance eight, counting 
ver. IO as one, vv. II, 12 being an en- 
largement. The traditional number, 
however, is seven—vv. 10-12 being re- 
garded as a transition to a new topic. 
This seems arbitrary. Delitsch, anxious 
to establish an analogy with the Deca- 
logue, makes out ten—seven from ver. 3 
to ver. g, ver. IO one, ver. II one, and 
ver. 12, though lacking the pakdptor, the 
tenth; its claim resting on the exulting 
words, yaipere kal adyadd.taobe. This 
savours of Rabbinical pedantry. 

Ver. 3. pakdpiot. This is one of the 
words which have been transformed and 
ennobled by N. T. use; by association, 
as in the Beatitudes, with unusual con- 
ditions, accounted by the world miser- 
able, or with rare and difficult conduct, 
é.g., in John xiii. 17, “if ye know these 
things, happy (pardprot) are ye if ye do 
them”. Notable in this connection is 
the expression in 1 Tim. i. 11, ‘The 
Gospel of the glory of the happy God”’. 
The implied truth is that the happiness 
of the Christian God consists in being a 
Redeemer, bearing the burden of the 
world’s sin and misery. How different 
from the Epicurean idea of God! Our 
word ‘“ blessed” represents the new con- 
ception of felicity.—ot wrwxol: wrwxds 


in Sept. stands for Jars Ps. cix. 16, or 


YY Ps. xl. 18: the poor, taken even in 


the most abject sense, mendici, Tertull. 
adv. Mar. iv. 14. mrwyds and wévys 
originally differed, the latter meaning 
poor as opposed to rich, the former 
destitute. But in Biblical Greek rrw ot, 
TEVHTES, THGets, Tametvot are used indis- 
criminately for the same class, the poor 
of an oppressed country. Vide Hatch, 
Essays in Biblical Greek, p. 76. The 
term is used here in a pregnant sense, 
absolute and unqualified at least to begin 
with; qualifications come after. From 
wTraoow, to cower in dispiritment and 
fear, always used in an evil sense till 
Christ taught the poor man to lift up his 
head in hope and self-respect; the very 
lowest social class ‘not to be despaired of, 
a future possible even for the mendicant. 
Blessedness possible for the poor in every 
sense; they, in comparison with others, 
under no disabilities, rather contrari- 


EYATTEAION 


97 


c 
6. paxdproe oti Ch. xi. 29; 
XXL 5) ex 
Pet. iii. 4. 
Ch. xxv. 


: J 
34. Heb. vi. 12. k Ch. xiv. 20. 


wise—such is the first and fundamental 
lesson.—t@ wvevpatt. Possibilities are 
not certainties; to turn the one into the 
other the soul or will of the individual 
must come in, for as Euthy. Zig. quaintly 
says, nothing involuntary can bless (od8év 
T@v Gwrpoaipérwy pakapiordv). “In 
spirit”’ is, therefore, added to develop 
and define the idea of poverty. The 
comment on the theme passes from the 
lower to the higher sphere. Christ’s 
thought includes the physical and social, 
but it does not end there. Luke seems 
to have the social aspect in view, in 
accordance with one of his tendencies and 
the impoverished condition of most mem- 
bers of the apostolic Church. To limit 
the meaning to that were a mistake, but 
to include that or even to emphasise it 
in given circumstances was no error. 
Note that the physical and spiritual lay 
close together in Christ’s mind. He 
passed easily from one to the other (John 
iv. 7-10; Lk. x. 42, see notes there). 
7 ty. is, of course, to be connected with 
TTwXol, Not with paxdpior. Poor in spirit 
is not to be taken objectively, as if spirit 
indicated the element in which the 
poverty is manifest—poor intellect: 
‘‘homines ingenio et eruditione parum 
florentes”’ (Fritzsche) = the vymio. in 
Matt. xi. 25; but subjectively, poor in 
their own esteem.  Self-estimate is the 
essence of the matttr, ind is compatible 
with real wealth. On)y the noble think 
meanly of themselves. The soul ot 
goodness is in tue maa who is really 


humble. Poverty luid to heart passes 
into riches. A high ideai of life li-s 
beneath all. Ard \hat ideal is the fink 


between the sovial aid the spiritua). 
The poor man patsey ir to the |,lessedness 
of the kingdom zs soon as he realises 
what a man is or ought to be ~—— Poor in 
purse or even in character, 10 man is 
beggared who has a vision of man’s chief 
end and chief good.—aivav, emphatic 
position ; fheirs,note it well. Soin the 
following verses atrot and avtav.—éor, 
not merely in prospect, but in present 
possession. The kingdom of heaven is 
often presented in the Gospels apoca- 
lyptically as a thing in the future to be 
given to the worthy by way of external 
recompense. But this view pertains 
rather to the form of thought than to the 
essence of the matter. Christ speaks of 
the kingdom here not as a known quan- 


98 


KATA MATOAION 


Vv. 


L Heb. ii17. 7, paxdpror ot 'éexjpovess Ste adtot ™édenPyoovrar. 8. paxdpror 


m Rom. xi. 
30, 31 
Tim. i. 13, 
16. n1 Tim. i. 5; 2Tim. ii. 22. 


tity, but as a thing whose nature He is in 
the act of defining by the aphorisms He 
utters. Ifso, then it consists essentially 
in states ofmind. Itis within. Itis our- 
selves, the true ideal human. 

Ver. 4. of wev@odvres. Who are 
they? All who on any account grieve? 
Then this Beatitude would give utterance 
to a thoroughgoing optimism. Pessimists 
say that there are many griefs for which 
there is no remedy, so many that life is 
not worth living. Did Jesus mean to 
meet this -position with a direct nega- 
tive, and to affirm that there is no 
sorrow without remedy? If not, then 
He propounds a puzzle provoking 
thoughtful scholars to ask: What grief 
is that which will without fail find com- 
fort? There can be no comfort where 
there is no grief, for the two ideas are 
correlative. But in most cases there 
is no apparent necessary connection. 
Necessary connection is asserted in this 
aphorism, which gives us a clue to the 
class described as of wev@otvres. Their 
peculiar sorrow rust be one which com- 
forts itself, a grief that has the thing it 
grieves for in the very grief. The com- 
fort is then no outward good. It lies in 
a right state of soul, and that is given 
in the sorrow which laments the lack of 
it. The sorrow reveals love of the good, 
and that love is possession. In so far as 
all kinds of sorrow tend to awaken re- 
flection on the real good and ill of human 
life, and so to issue in the higher sorrow 
of the soul, the second Beatitude may be 
taken absolutely as expressing the tend- 
ency of all grief to end in consolation.— 
mwapaxAnOyoovrat, future. The comfort 
is latent in the very grief, but for the 
present there is no conscious joy, but 
only poignant sorrow. The joy, how- 
ever, will inevitably come to birth. No 
noble nature abides permanently in the 
house of mourning. The greater the 
sorrow, the greater the ultimate gladness, 
the “‘ joy in the Holy Ghost” mentioned 
by St. Paul among the essentials of the 
Kingdom of God (Rom. xiv. 17). 


Ver. 5. ot wpacis: in Sept. for DMIY 


in Ps. xxxvii. 11, of which this Beatitude 
is anecho. The men who suffer wrong 
without bitterness or desire for revenge, 
a class who in this world are apt to go to 
the wall. In this case we should have 
expected the Teacher to end with the 


rot “kaBapot TH KapSia+ Ste adtol Tov Oedy ° dporTat. 


Q. paKdpror 


o Heb. xii. 14 (seeing God). 


common refrain; theirs is the kingdom 
of heaven, that being the only thing 
they are likely to get. Jean Paul 
Richter humorously said: ‘* The French 
have the empire of the land, the English 
the empire of the sea; to the Germans 
belongs the empire of the air’’. But 
Jesus promises to the meek the empire of 
the solid earth—nAnpovopycove. thy 
yqv. Surely a startling paradox! That 
the meek should find a foremost place in 
the kingdom of heaven is very intel- 
ligible, but ‘inherit the earth ’’—the land 
of Canaan or any other part of this 


“planet—is it not a delusive promise ? 


Not altogether. Itis at least true as a 
doctrine of moral tendency. Meekness 
after all isa power even in this world, a 
“‘world-conquering principle” (Tholuck). 
The meek of England, driven from their 
native land by religious intolerance, 
have inherited the continent of America. 
Weiss (Meyer) is quite sure, however, 
that this thought was far (ganz fern) 
from Christ’s mind. I venture to think 
he is mistaken. 

The inverse order of the second and 
third Beatitudes found in Codex D, and 
favoured by some of the Fathers, ¢.g., 
Jerome, might be plausibly justified by 
the affinity between poverty of spirit and 
meekness, and the natural sequence of 
the two promises: possession of the 
kingdom of heaven and inheritance of 
the earth. But the connection beneath 
the surface is in favour of the order as it 
stands in T. R. 

Ver. 6. If the object of the hunger 
and thirst had not been mentioned this 
fourth Beatitude would have been parallel 
in form to the second: Blessed the 
hungry, for they shall be filled. We 
should then have another absolute affir- 
mation requiring qualification, and 
raising the question: What sort of 
hunger is it which is sure to be satisfied ? 
That might be the original form of the 
aphorism as givenin Luke. The answer 
to the question it suggests is similar tc 
that given under Beatitude 1. The 
hunger whose satisfaction is sure is that 
which contains its own satisfaction. It 
is the hunger for moral good. The 
passion for righteousness is righteous- 
ness in the deepest sense of the word.— 
mewavTes Kat Supavres. These verbs, 
like all verbs of desire, ordinarily take 
the genitive of the object. Hore and in 


7—10. 


c > , A 
ot Peipynvotrotot> Stu avTtot! Yuiot Geod KAnGjcovtar. 


c 
ol Sedwwypevor Evexev Sixarocuyys ° 


lavrot omitted in §§CD it. vul. syr., bracketed in W.H,. 


EYATTEAION 


99 


IO. pKa pLoe p here only. 
The verb 


A , A : 
dtu attav éot H Bacidela TOY Col. i. 20. 


q viot ®. in 


Lk. xx. 36. Rom, viii. 14,19. Gal. ii. 26. 


It may have been 


omitted by homeoteleuton and it seems needed for emphasis. 


other places in N. T. they take the accusa- 
tive, the object being of a spiritual 
nature, which one not merely desires to 
participate in, but to possess in whole. 
Winer, § xxx. Io, thus distinguishes the 
two constructions: dipav drrogodias = 
to thirst after philosophy ; 8up. 
ditocodiay = to thirst for possession 
of philosophy as a whole. Some have 
thought that 8a is to be understood 
before 8ux., and that the meaning is: 
‘« Blessed they who suffer natural hunger 
and thirst on account of righteousness”’. 
Grotius understands by 8x. the way or 
doctrine of righteousness. 

Ver. 7. This Beatitude states a self- 
acting law of the moral world. The 
exercise of mercy (€Aeos, active pity) 
tends to elicit mercy from others—God 
and men. The chief reference may be 
to the mercy of God in the final awards 
of the kingdom, but the application need 
not be restricted to this. The doctrine 
of Christ abounds in great ethical prin- 
ciples of universal validity: ‘‘he that 
humbleth himself shall be exalted,” ‘to 
him that hath shall be given,” etc. This 
Beatitude suitably follows the preceding. 
Mercy is an element in true righteous- 
ness (Mic. vi. 8). It was lacking in 
Pharisaic righteousness (Matt. xxiii. 23). 
It needed much to be inculcated in 
Christ’s time, when sympathy was killed 
by the theory that all suffering was 
penalty of special sin, a theory which 
fostered a pitiless type of righteousness 
(Schanz). Mercy may be practised by 
many means; “not by money alone,” 
says Euthy. Zig., “but by word, and ifyou 
have nothing, by tears” (81a Saxpvwy). 

Ver. 8. ot xaQapol 77 KapSia: T. Kapd. 
may be an explanatory addition to indi- 
cate the region in which purity shows 
itself. That purity is in the heart, the 
seat of thought, desire, motive, not in 
the outward act, goes without saying 
from Christ’s point of view. Blessed 
the pure. Here there is a wide range of 
suggestion. The pure may be the spot- 
less or faultless in general; the continent 
with special reference to sexual indul- 
gence—those whose very thoughts 
are clean; or the pure in motive, the 
single-minded, the men who seek the 


kingdom as the summum bonum with 
undivided heart. The last is the most 
relevant to the general connection and 
the most deserving to be insisted on. 
In the words of Augustine, the mundum 
cor is above all the simplex cor. Moral 
simplicity is the cardinal demand in 
Christ’s ethics. The man who has 
attained to it is in His view perfect 
(Matt. xix. 21). Without it a large 
numerical list of virtues and good habits 
goes for nothing. With it character, 
however faulty in temper or otherwise, 
is ennobled and redeemed.—rov Qedv 
SWovrar: their reward is the beatific 
vision. Some think the reference is not to 
the faculty of clear vision but to the rare 
privilege of seeing the face of the Great 
King (so Fritzsche and Schanz). ‘The 
expression has its origin in the ways of 
eastern monarchs, who rarely show them- 
selves in public, so that only the most 
intimate circle behold the royal counten- 
ance” (Schanz) = the pure have access 
to the all but inaccessible. This idea 
does not seem to harmonise with Christ’s 
general way of conceiving God. On the 
other hand, it was His habit to insist on 
the connection between clear vision and 
moral simplicity; to teach that it is the 
single eye that is full of light (Matt. vi. 
22). It is true that the pure shall have 
access to God’s presence, but the truth 
to be insisted on in connection with this 
Beatitude is that through purity, single- 
ness of mind, they are qualified for seeing, 
knowing, truly conceiving God and all 
that relates to the moral universe. It is 
the pure in heart who are able to see and 
say that ‘“‘ truly God is good” (Ps. Ixxiii. 
1) and rightly to interpret the whole 
phenomena of life in relation to Pro 
vidence. They shall see, says Jesus, 
casting His thought into eschatological 
form, but He means the pure are the 
men who see; the double-minded, the 
two-souled (Sipvxos, James i. 8) man is 
blind. Theophylact illustrates the con- 
nection between purity and vision thus: 
dowep yap TO KdtomTpov, édv 7 Kabapor 
Tove S€xeTar TAS euddcets, oVTw Kal 
xaapa Wux7 Sexerar ov Beod. 

Ver. g. ot eipyvorotot: not merely 
those who have peace in their own souls 


100 KATA MATOAION Vv. 
rRom. ix..o}pav@v. II. paxdprol éore, Stay dve8iowow tpas Kai diwswor, 
eb. vi. ‘ » ~ ‘ fol Ce! o 
x8. kal €iwot wavy wornpdy papal Kab” Spdv? *peuvddpevor,? evexer 
s Lk. x. 21. n a Oe Sie i 
ter. 46. €uod. 12. xalpere kal *dyaddrdobe, Ste 6 *prcOds Spay modds ev 
-vi. ty “ > - o a2 , ‘ Ber 
2,5, etc. TOLS OUpavois: oUTw yap édiwfay tods mpodrtas Tobs mpd Spay. 


1 This word (in CAX) is omitted in SBD. 


sense clear. 
? xa vpev before way in D. 
3 Omitted in D; found in SBC al, 


through purity (Augustine), or the peace- 
loving (Grotius, Wetstein), but the active 
heroic promoters of peace in a world full 
of alienation, party passion, and strife. 
Their efforts largely consist in keeping 
aloof from sectional strifes and the 
passions which beget them, and living 
tranquilly for and in the whole. Such 
men have few friends. Christ, the ideal 
peace-maker, was alone in a time given 
up to sectarian division. But they have 
their compensation—viot Oeod K«KAnOx- 
govtat. God owns the disowned and 
distrusted as His sons. They shall be 
called because they are. They shall be 
called at the great consummation; nay, 
even before that, in after generations, 
when party strifes and passions have 
ceased, and men have come to see who 
were the true friends of the Divine 
interest in an evil time. 

Vv. 10-12. of deSrwypévor e. Sux. The 
original form of the Beatitude was pro- 
bably: Blessed the persecuted. The 
added words only state what is a, matter 
of course. No one deserves to be called 
a persecuted one unless he suffers for 
righteousness. ot Se8wwy. (perf. part.): 
the persecuted are not merely men who 
have passed through a certain experience, 
but men who bear abiding traces of it in 
theiy character. They are marked men, 
and bear the stamp of trial on their faces. 
It arrests the notice of the passer-by: 
commands his respect, and prompts the 
question, Who and whence? ‘They are 
veteran soldiers of righteousness with an 
unmistakable air of dignity, serenity, and 
buoyancy about them.—atvrtév éoviv 7 B. 
v.oup. The common refrain of all the 
Beatitudes is expressly repeated here to 
hint that theirs emphatically is the 
Kingdom of Heaven. It is the proper 
guerdon of the soldier of righteous- 
ness. It is his now, within him in 
the disciplined spirit and the heroic 
temper developed by trial—vVer. 11. 
paxdprot éote. The Teacher ex- 
patiates as if it were a favourite theme, 
giving a personal turn to His further re- 


It may have been added to make the 


flections—‘“‘ Blessed are ye.” Is it 
likely that Jesus would speak so early 
of this topic to disciples? Would He 
not wait till it came more nearly within 
the range of their experience? Nay, is 
the whole discourse about persecution 
not a reflection back into the teaching of 
the Master of the later experiences of the 
apostolic age, that suffering disciples 
might be inspired by the thought that 
their Lord had so spoken? It is possible 
to be too incredulous here. If it was not 
too soon to speak of Pharisaic righteous- 
ness it was not too soon to speak of 
suffering for true righteousness. The 
one was sure to give rise to the other. 
The disciples may already have had ex- 
perience of Pharisaic disfavour (Mk. ii., 
lil.). In any case Jesus saw clearly what 
was coming. He had had an apocalypse 
of the dark future in the season of tempta- 
tion, and He deemed it fitting to lift the 
veil a little that His disciples might get 
a glimpse of it.—érav dveSiowow ... 
évexey nov: illustrative details pointing 
to persistent relentless persecution by 
word and deed, culminating in wilful, 
malicious, lying imputations of the gross- 
est sort—ma@v trovnpoy, every conceivable 
calumny—wWevddpevor, lying: not merely 
in the sense that the statements are 
false, but in the sense of deliberately 
inventing the most improbable lies; their 
only excuse being that violent prejudice 
leads the calumniators to think nothing 
too evil to be believed against the objects 
of their malice.—éverev €uov: for Him 
who has undertaken to make you fishers 
of men. Do yourepent following Him ? 
No reason why.—Ver. 12. yatpete kal 
ay. In spite of all, joy, exultation is 
possible—nay, inevitable. I not only 
exhort you to it, but I tell you, youcannot 
help being in this mood, if once you 
throw yourselves enthusiastically into 
the warfare of God. “AyahAide is a 
strong word of Hellenistic coinage, from 
ayay and GAAopat, to leap much, signify- 
ing irrepressible demonstrative gladness. 
This joy is inseparable from the heroic 


1I—I3. 


13. “‘Ypets eore 74 “Ghag Tis yas: €dv SE 7d Gas * pwpavOs, uM 


EYATTEAION 


10! 


k. ix. 50,* 
Lk. xiv. 


4 c ~ 
ev tive” GhuoOyjoeTar ; eis ovdey ioxter Et, et ph BAnOAvar! Fw, 34. Col. 
iv. 6 


v Lk. xiv. 34. Rom. i. 22. 


1 Cor. i. 20. w here and in Mk. ix. 49. 


1 Bn? v in SBC 1, 33, Origen, which carries along with it the omission of Kat 


after cw. 


temper. It is the joy of the Alpine 
climber standing on the top of a snow- 
clad mountain. But the Teacher gives 
two reasons to help inexperienced dis- 
ciples to rise to that moral elevation.— 
Sti 6 pigGds ... ovpavots. For evil 
treatment on earth there is a com- 
pensating reward in heaven. ‘This hope, 
weak now, was strong in primitive 
Christianity, and greatly helped martyrs 
and confessors.—ottws yap ¢. Tovs 
wpodytas. If we take the yap as giving 
areason for the previous statement the 
sense will be: you cannot doubt that the 
prophets who suffered likewise have 
received an eternal reward (so Bengel, 
Fritzsche, Schanz, Meyer, Weiss). But 
we may take it as giving a co-ordinate 
reason for joy = ye are in good com- 
pany. There is inspiration in the 
“goodly fellowship of the prophets,” 
quite as much as in thought of their 
posthumous reward. It is to be noted 
that the prophets themselves did not get 
much comfort from such thoughts, and 
more generally that they did not rise to 
the joyous mood commended to His 
disciples by Jesus; but were desponding 
and querulous. On that side, therefore, 
there was no inspiration to be got from 
thinking of them. But they were 
thoroughly loyal to righteousness at all 
hazards, and reflection on their noble 
career was fitted to infect disciples with 
their spirit.—rovs wpd tpav: words skil- 
fully chosen to raise the spirit. Before you 
not only in time but in vocation and 
destiny. Your predecessors in function 
and suffering; take up the prophetic 
succession and along with it, cheerfully, 
its tribulations. 

Vv. 13-16. Disciple functions. It is 
quite credible that these sentences 
formed part of the Teaching on the 
Hill. Jesus might say these things at a 
comparatively early period to the men 
to whom He had already said: I will 
make you fishers of men. The functions 
assigned to disciples here are not more 
ambitious than that alluded to at the 
time of their cali. The new section 
rests on what goes before, and postulates 
possession of the attributes named in 
the Beatitudes. With these the disciples 


will be indeed the salt of the earth and 
the light of the world. Vitally important 
functions are indicated by the two 
figures. Nil sole et sale utilius was a 
Roman proverb (Pliny, H. N., 31, 9). 
Both harmonise with, the latter points 
expressly to, a universal destination of 
the new religion. The sun lightens all 
lands. Both also show how alien it was 
from the aims of Christ to be the teacher 
of an esoteric faith. 

Ver. 13. GAas, a late form for GAs, 
aos, masculine. The properties of salt 
are assumed to be known. Com- 
mentators have enumerated four. Salt 
is pure, preserves against corruption, 
gives flavour to food, and as a manuring 
element helps to fertilise the land. The 
last mentioned property is specially 
insisted on by Schanz, who finds a 
reference to it in Lk. xiv. 35, and thinks 
it is also pointed to here by the expres- 
sion tHs ys. The first, purity, is a 
quality of salt per se, rather than a con- 
dition on which its function in nature 
depends. The second and third are 
doubtless the main points to be insisted 
on, and the second more than the third 
and above all. Salt arrests or prevents 
the process of putrefaction in food, and 
the citizens of the kingdom perform the 
same function for the earth, that is, for 
the people who dwell on it. In Schanz’s 
view there is a confusion of the 
metaphor with its moral interpretation, 
Fritzsche limits the point of comparison 
to indispensableness= ye are as 
necessary an element in the world as 
salt is; a needlessly bald interpretation. 
Necessary certainly, but why and for 
what ?—rjs ys might mean the land of 
Israel (Achelis, Bergpredigt), but it is 
more natural to take it in its widest 
significance in harmony with kéopov. 
Holtzmann (H. C.) sets kéapov down to 
the account of the evangelist, and thinks 
ys in the narrow sense more suited to 
the views of Jesus.—Ver. 14. pwpavdq. 
The Vulgate renders the verb evanuerit. 
Better Beza and Erasmus, infatuatus 
fuerit. If the salt become insipid, so as 
to lack its proper preserving virtue— 
can this happen? Weiss and others 
reply: It does not matter for the point 


102 
x Ch. vii. 6 Kail *xaramatetoba bd tov avOpdtrwv. 
Lk. viii. 5. 


KATA MATOAION 


V. 


14. ‘Ypeis éore Td pds 


Heb.x.29 toG kdopous of BSuvarar médtis KpuBAvar emdvw Spous Keipevy* 15. 


y part. pass. 
35- 
3 18 al. 


in Lk xii, obS€ F katouor AUxvoy Kal TYWdacw adrdv dd Tov pddiov, GAN’ ent 


1 Omitted in MSS. named in preceding note. 


of the comparison. Perhaps not, but it 
does matter for the felicity of the 
metaphor, which is much more strikingly 
apt if degeneracy can happen in the 
natural as well as in the spiritual sphere. 
Long ago Maundrell maintained that it 
could, and modern travellers confirm his 
statement. Furrer says: ‘'As it was 
observed by Maundrell 200 years age} so 
it has often been observed in our time 
that salt loses somewhat of its sharpness 
in the storehouses of Syria and Palestine. 
Gathered in a state of impurity, it under- 
goes with other substances a chemical 
process, by which it becomes really 
another sort of stuff, while retaining its 
old appearance” (Ztscht. fir M. und 
R., 1890). Asimilar statement is made 
by Thomson (Land and Book, p. 381). 
There is no room for doubt as to whether 
the case supposed can happen in the 
spiritual sphere. The “‘salt of the earth” 
can become not only partially but 
wholly, hopelessly insipid, losing the 
qualities which constitute its conservative 
power as set forth in the Beatitudes and 
in other parts of Christ’s teaching (e.g., 
Mat. xvili.). Erasmus gives a realistic 
description of the causes of degeneracy 
in these words: ‘‘ Si vestri mores fuerint 
amore laudis, cupiditate pecuniarum, 
studio voluptatum, libidine vindicandi, 
metu infamiae damnorum aut mortis 
infatuati,”’ etc. (Paraph. in Evan. Matt.). 
—éy rlvit Gdts : not, with what shall the 
so necessary salting process be done? 
but, with what shall the insipid salt be 
salted? The meaning is that the lost 
property is irrecoverable, A stern state- 
ment, reminding us of Heb. vi. 6, but 
true to the fact in the spiritual sphere. 
Nothing so hopeless as apostate disciple- 
ship with a bright past behind it to which 
it has become dead—begun in the spirit, 
ending in the flesh.—eis ov8év, useless 
for salting, good for nothing else any 
more (ért).—«l pH BAnOev, etc. This is a 
kind of humorous afterthought: except 
indeed, cast out as refuse, to be trodden 
under foot of man, i.e., to make foot- 
paths of. The reading BAn@év is much 
to be preferred to BAn@yvat, as giving 
prominence to xatamartetofat as the 
main verb, pointing to a kind of use 
to which insipid salt can after all be put. 


But what a downcome: from being 
saviours of society to supplying materials 
for footpaths ! 

Ver, 14. 1d as 7. x., the light, the 
sun of the moral world conceived of as 
full of the darkness of ignorance and 
sin. The disciple function is now viewed 
as illuminating. And as under the figure 
of salt the danger warned against was 
that of becoming insipid, so here the 
danger to be avoided is that of obscuring 
the light. The light will shine, that is 
its nature, if pains be not taken to hide 
it.—ov Svvarat méhis, etc. As a city 
situate on the top of a hill cannot be 
hid, neither can a light fail to be seen 
unless it be expressly prevented from 


shining. No pains need to be taken to 
secure that the light shall shine. For 
that it is enough to be a light. But 


Christ knew that there would be strong 
temptation for the men that had it in 
them to be lights to hide their light. It 
would draw the world’s attention to 
them, and so expose them to the ill will 
of such as hate the light. Therefore He 
goes on to caution disciples against the 
policy of obscuration. 

Ver. 15. A parabolic word pointing 
out that such a policy in the natural 
sphere is unheard of and absurd.—xat- 
ovat, to kindle, accendere, ordinarily 
neuter = uveve; not as Beza thought, a 
Hebraism ; examples occur in late Greek 
authors (vide Kypke, Obser. Sac.). The 
figure is taken from lowly cottage life. 
There was a projecting stone in the wall 
on which the lamp wasset. The house 
consisted of a single room, so that the 
tiny light sufficed for all. It might now 
and then be placed under the modius, an 
earthenware grain measure, or under the 
bed (Mk. iv. 21), high to keep clear of 
serpents, therefore without danger of 
setting it on fire (Koetsveld, De Ge- 
lijkenissen, p. 305). But that would be 
the exception, not the rule—done occa- 
sionally for special reasons, perhaps dur- 
ing the hours of sleep. Schanz says 
the lamp burned all night, and that when 
they wanted darkness they put it on the 
floor and covered it with the ‘ bushel ”’. 
Tholuck also thinks people might cover 
the light when they wished to keep it 
burning, when they had occasion to leave 


14—I16. 


Thy Auyviav Kat "\dprer Wao Tots €v TH olka. 


EYATTEAION 


103 


16. odtw Aap partw z Lk. xvii 


rs a a a 24- 
TO GOs bpav Eptpoober tay dvOpdmwy, Stas tSwow Spov Ta “Kaha Acts x1i.7. 


mm” A a c ~ 7 > a > ~ 
Epya, kai Sofdowor Tor Tatépa Gpdy Tov év Tois ovpavois. 


2 Cor. iv. 


6. 
a Cf. Mt. 


xxvi. 10, Mk. xiv. 6, for an example of a “ good work”. 


the room for a time. Weiss, on the 
other hand, thinks it would be put under 
a cover only when they wished to put it 
out (Matt:-Evan., p. 144). But was it 
ever put out? Not so, according to 
Benzinger (Heb. Arch., p. 124). 

Ver. 16. ottw. Do ye as they do in 
cottage life: apply the parable.—dap- 
Ware, let your light shine. Don’t use 
means to prevent it, turning the rare 
exception of household practice into the 
rule, so extinguishing your light, or at 
least rendering it useless. Cowards can 
always find plausible excuses for the 
policy of obscuration—reasons of pru- 
dence and wisdom: gradual accustom- 
ing of men to new ideas; deference to 
the prejudices of good men; avoidance 
of rupture by premature outspokenness ; 
but generally the true reason is fear of 
unpleasant consequences to oneself. 
Their conduct Jesus represents as dis- 
loyalty to God—émrws, etc. The shining 
of light from the good works of disciples 
glorifies God the Father in heaven. 
The hiding of the light means withhold- 
ing glory. The temptation arises from 
the fact—a stern law of the moral world 
it is—that just when most glory is likely 
to accrue to God, least glory comes to 
the light-bearer; not glory but dishonour 
and evil treatment his share. Many are 
ready enough to let their light shine 
when honour comes to themselves. But 
their “light” is not true heaven-kindled 
light; their works are not nada, noble, 
heroic, but wovnpa (vii. 17), ignoble, 
worthless, at best of the conventional 
type in fashion among religious people, 
and wrought often in a spirit of vanity 
and ostentation. This is theatrical 
goodness, which is emphatically not what 
Jesus wanted. Euthy. Zig. says: ov 
keever Oeatp(Lery thy aperiyy. 

Note that here, for the first time in the 
Gospel, Christ’s distinctive name for God, 
“Father,” occurs. It comes in as a 
thing of course. Does it presuppose 
previous instruction ? (So Meyer.) One 
might have expected so important a topic 
as the nature and name of God to have 
formed the subject of a distinct lesson. 
But Christ’s method of teaching was not 
scholastic or formal. He defined terms 
by discriminating wse; Father, ¢.g., as a 
name for God, by using it as a motive to 


noble conduct. The motive suggested 
throws light on the name. God, we 
learn, as Father delights in noble conduct; 
as human fathers find joy in sons who 
acquit themselves bravely. Jesus may 
have given formal instruction on the 
point, but not necessarily. This first use 
of the title is very significant. It is full, 
solemn, impressive: your Father, He 
who is in the heavens; so again in ver. 
45. It is suggestive of reasons for faith- 
fulness, reasons of love and reverence. 
It hints at a reflected glory, the reward 
of heroism. The noble works which 
glorify the Father reveal the wcrkers to 
be sons. The double-sided doctrine of 
this /ogion of Jesus is that the divine is 
revealed by the heroic in human conduct, 
and that the moral hero is the true son 
of God. Jesus Himself is the highest 
illustration of the twofold truth. 

Vv. 17-20. Fesus defines His position. 
At the period of the Teaching on the Hill 
Jesus felt constrained to define His ethi- 
cal and religious position all round, with 
reference to the O. T. as the recognised 
authority, and also to contemporary 
presentations of righteousness. The 
disciples had already heard Him teach in 
the synagogues (Matt. iv. 23) ina manner 
that at once arrested attention and led 
hearers to recognise in Him a new type 
of teacher (Mk. i. 27), entirely different 
from the scribes (Mk. i. 22). The sen- 
tences before us contain just such a 
statement of the Teacher’s attitude as 
the previously awakened surprise of His 
audiences would lead us to expect. 
There is no reason to doubt their sub- 
stantial authenticity though they may not 
reproduce the precise words of the 
speaker; no ground for the suggestion of 
Holtzmann (H. C.) that so decided a 
position either for or against the law was 
not likely to be taken up in Christ’s time, 
and that we must find in these vv. an 
anti-Pauline programme of the Judaists. 
At a first glance the various statements 
may appear inconsistent with each other. 
And assuming their genuineness, they 
might easily be misunderstood, and give 
rise to disputes in the apostolie age, or 
be taken hold of in rival interests. The 
words of great epoch-making men gene- 
tally have this fate. Though apparently 
contradictory they might all proceed 


104 


b with dre 
here and i 
in x. 34  Tpodpytas - 
(Ore HA- 


, «< “~ o 
Gov), héyw Gpty, ews av 
oftener t 
with inf. 
oran 
accus. with inf. 


Cor. v.17. James i. 10. ¢ here only. 


from the many-sided mind of Jesus, and 
be so reported by the genial Galilean 
publican in his Logia. The best guide to 
the meaning of the momentous declara- 
tion they contain is acquaintance with the 
general drift of Christ’s teaching (vide 
Wendt, Die Lehre Fesu, ii., 330). Verbal 
exegesis will not do much for us.” We 
must bring to the words sympathetic 
insight into the whole significance of 
Christ’s ministry. Yet the passage by 
itself, well weighed, is more luminous 
than at first it may seem. 

Ver. 17. Mi voptonre: These words 
betray a consciousness that there was 
that in His teaching and bearing which 
might create such an impression, and 
are a protest against taking a surface 
impression for the truth.—xatadtoat, to 
abrogate, to set aside in the exercise of 
legislative authority. What freedom of 
mind is implied in the bare suggestion 
of this as a possibility! To the ordinary 
religious Jew the mere conception would 
appear a profanity. A greater than the 
O. T., than Moses and the prophets, is 
here. But the Greater is full of rever- 
ence for the institutions and sacred 
books of His people. He is not come 
to disannul either the law or the pro- 
phets. 4 before 7. mpod. is not = cal. 
“Law” and “ Prophets” are not taken 
here as one idea = the O. T. Scriptures, 
as law, prophets and psalms seem to 
be in Lk. xxiv. 44, but as distinct parts, 
with reference to which different atti- 
tudes might conceivably be taken up. 
4 implies that the attitude actually taken 
up is the same towards both. The pro- 
phets are not to be conceived of as 
coming under the category of law 
(Weiss), but as retaining their distinc- 
tive character as revealers of God’s 
nature and providence. Christ’s attitude 
towards them in that capacity is the 
same as that towards the law, though 
the Sermon contains no _ illustrations 
under that head. ‘The idea of God 
and of salvation which Jesus taught bore 
the same relations to the O. T. revelation 
as His doctrine of righteousness to the 
O. T. law” (Wendt, Die L. F., ii., 344): 
—nhnpacat: the common relation is ex- 
pressed by this weighty word. Christ 


KATA MATOAION 


17. “Mh “vopionre Ste FOov 
otk WAGov Katahioar, ddAd wAnpdoa. 
*rapeAOy 6 otpavds Kal 4 yi, 


c in same sense Acts vy. 38, 39. Rom. xiv. go. 
f Lk. xvi. 17 (xepéa in both pl. 


WV. 


*xatahioa: tov vdpov H Tods 


18. duty yap 
*i@ra ev H pia 


Kepaia ob ph mapéXOn dws tod vépou, Ews dv mdvta yévyntat. 


d Ch. ret Lk. xvi. 17. 2 


protests that He came not as an abro- 
gator, but as a fulfiller. What rdle does 
He thereby claim? Such as belongs to 
one whose attitude is at once free and 
reverential. He fulfils by realising in 
theory and practice an ideal to which 
O. T. institutions and revelations point, 
but which they do not adequately ex- 
press. Therefore, in fulfilling He neces- 
sarily abrogates in effect, while repudi- 
ating the spirit of a destroyer. He 
brings in a law of the spirit which 
cancels the law of the letter, a kingdom 
which realises prophetic ideals, while 
setting aside the crude details of their 
conception of the Messianic time. 

Vv. 18-19. These verses wear on first 
view a Judaistic look, and have been 
regarded as an interpolation, or set down 
to the credit of an over-conservative 
evangelist. But they may be reconciled 
with ver. 17, as above interpreted. Jesus 
expresses here in the strongest manner 
His conviction that the whole O. T. is 
a Divine revelation, and that therefore 
every minutest precept has religious 
significance which must be recognised 
in the ideal fulfilment.—Apay, formula 
of solemn asseveration, often used by 
Jesus, never by apostles, found doubled 
only in fourth Gospel.—é€ws Gv wapehOp, 
etc.: not intended to fix a period after 
which the law will pass away, but a 
strong way of saying never (so Tholuck 
and Weiss).—iora, the smallest letter in 
the Hebrew alphabet.—xepate, the little 
projecting point in some of the letters, 
e.g., of the base line in Beth; both 
representing the minutiz in the Mosaic 
legislation. Christ, though totally op- 
posed to the spirit of the scribes, would 
not allow them to have a monopoly of 
zeal for the commandments great and 
small. It was important in a polemical 
interest to make this clear.—evd py m., 
elliptical =do not fear lest. Vide Kihner, 
Gram., § 516, 9; also Goodwin’s Syntax, 
Appendix ii.—éws &v a. yev., a second 
protasis introduced with ws explanatory 
of the first ws Gv mapédOy ; vide 
Goodwin, § 510; not saying the same 
thing, but a kindred: eternal, lasting, 
till adequately fulfilled ; the latter the 
more exact statement of Christ’s thought. 


17—20. 


1g. 8g édv obv * ion play tay ” évrohdy TovTwy Tay 
S8déq oUTW Tods avOpdmous, EAdxioTos KAnOAcETaL 


tav otpavav: Ss 8 av trojoy Kat Bddfy, obros péyas KAynPiycetar 


> a , an > lal 
ev TH Bacileia TOY ovpavar. 


‘repscedon 1) Stxatocvvn Sudv! mhetoy tov ) ypappotéwy Kai 


A A 1 
Papisaiwy, ob pi eioédOnte cis thy Bacihetay tay odpavar. 


EYATTEAION 


20. héyw yap spiv, Gtr édy pH 


10S 


€Laxlotwv, Kal g John v.18; 
i 2 ; Vii. 23; x. 
év TH Baoweta 35. 
Z Ch. xv. 3; 
Xix. 17; 
XXii. 40. 
Lk. i. 6. 
Jobn xiit. 
34. 
with wapa 
in Eccles. 
iii. 19. Cf. 


Rom.v.15.  j sim. ellipt. const. 1 John ii, 2. 


1 yuov before 7 Sux. (= your righteousness) in {BLAal. T. R. as in SUZ. 


Ver. 19. 4s éav otv Avog, etc.: obv 
pointing to a natural inference from what 
goes before. Christ’s view being such 
as indicated, He must so judge of the 
setter aside of any laws however small. 
When a religious system has lasted long, 
and is wearing towards its decline and 
fall, there are always such men. The 
Baptist was in some respects such a man. 
He seems to have totally neglected the 
temple worship and sacred festivals. He 
shared the prophetic disgust at formal- 
ism. Note now what Christ’s judgment 
about such really is. A scribe or Phari- 
see would regard a breaker of even the 
least commandments as a miscreant. 
Jesus simply calls him the Jeast in the 
Kingdom of Heaven. He takes for 
granted that he is an earnest man, with 
a passion for righteousness, which is the 
key to his iconoclastic conduct. He 
recognises him therefore as possessing 
real moral worth, but, in virtue of his 
impatient radical-reformer temper, not 
great, only little in the scale of true 
moral values, in spite of his earnestness 
in action and sincerity in teaching. John 
the Baptist was possibly in His mind, 
or some others not known to us from 
the Gospels.—és 8 &v roujoy Kal Sdaéq, 
etc. We know now who is least: who 
is great? The man who does and 
teaches to do all the commands great 
and small; great not named but under- 
stood—otros péyas. Jesus has in view 
O. T. saints, the piety reflected in the 
Psalter, where the great ethical laws and 
the precepts respecting ritual are both 
alike respected, and men in His own 
time living in their spirit. In such was 
a sweetness and graciousness, akin to 
the Kingdom as He conceived it, lacking 
in the character of the hot-headed law- 
breaker. The geniality of Jesus made 
Him value these sweet saintly souls. 

Ver. 20. Here is another type still, 
that of the scribes and Pharisees. We 
have had two degrees of worth, the little 
and the great. This new type gives us 


the moral zero.—Aéyw yap. The yap is 
somewhat puzzling. We expect 82, 
taking our attention off two types de- 
scribed in the previous sentence and 
fixing it on a distinct one. Yet there 
is a hidden logic latent in the yap. It 
explains the éAdxueros of the previous 
verse. The earnest reformer is a small 
character compared with the sweet 
wholesome performer, but he is not a 
moral nullity. That place is reserved 
for another class. I call him least, not 
nothing, for the scribe is the zero.— 
ahelov TOY yp. K. o., a compendious 
comparison, ths SiKxatorvvns being 
understood after wAciov. Christ’s state- 
ments concerning these classes of the 
Jewish community, elsewhere recorded, 
enable us to understand the verdict He 
pronounces here. They differed from 
the two classes named in ver. 18, thus: 
Class 1 set aside the least command- 
ments for the sake of the great; class 2 
conscientiously did all, great and small ; 
class 3 set aside the great for the sake 
of the little, the ethical for the sake of 
the ritual, the divine for the sake of the 
traditional. That threw them outside 
the Kingdom, where only the moral has 
value. And the second is greater, higher, 
than the first, because, while zeal for 
the ethical is good, spirit, temper, dispo- 
sition has supreme value in the Kingdom. 
These valuations of Jesus are of great 
importance as a contribution towards 
defining the nature of the Kingdom as 
He conceived it. 

Nothing, little, great : there is a higher 
grade still, the highest. It belongs to 
Christ Himself, the Fulfiller, who is 
neither a sophistical scribe, nor an im- 
patient reformer, nor a strict performer 
of all laws great and small, walking 
humbly with God in the old ways, with- 
out thought, dream or purpose of change, 
but one who lives above the past and the 
present in the ideal, knows that a change 
is impending, but wishes it to come 
gently, and so as to do full justice to all 


106 


KATA MATOAION 


Vv. 


k Rom. ix. 21. "Hxovoare St * éppéOn! tois 'dpxators, OF ovedcers: bs 8 Ay 


12. 


Lagain ver. dovedon, ™ Evoxos EoTta TH "Kpioer’ 22. éyd Sé Aéyw Spiv, Ore Tas 


33. Lk. ix. 
8, 19. 
XV. 7. 


Acts 6 dpyidopevos TO AdeAPa adtod cixi? Evoxos Eorar TH Kploe: bs F 
2 


Pet. ii, 5.Av etry TO A8eAGO adtod, ‘Paxd,® Evayos Eotat TG °auvedpiw: os 


(ethical) 
2 Cor. v. 17. 
n of the tribunal, here only. 


1 eppyOy in BD; text in LMA al. pl. (W.H.). 


Greek. 


m with dat. here four times; with gen. of punisht. 
o Ch, xxvi. 59. Mk. xiv. 55. Lk. xxii. 66 


Ch. xxvi. 66. Mk. xiv. 64. 


Often in Acts. 


eppeOn was more usual in later 


2 «xy is an ancient gloss found in many late MSS. but omitted in SB, Origen, 


Vulgate, and in the best modern editions. 


5 paxa in ${*D abc (Tisch.); text in DBE (W.H.). 
A 


that is divine, venerable, and of good 
tendency in the past. His is the unique 
greatness of the reverently conservative 
yet free, bold inaugurator of a new time. 
Vv. 21-26. First illustration of Christ's 
ethical attitude, taken from the Sixth 
Commandment. In connection with 
this and the following exemplifications of 
Christ’s ethical method, the interpreter 
is embarrassed by the long-continued 
strifes of the theological schools, which 
have brought back the spirit of legalism, 
from which the great Teacher sought to 
deliver His disciples. It will be best to 
ignore these strifes and go steadily on 
our way.—Ver. 21. "“Hxovoate. The 
common people knew the law by hearing 
it read in the synagogue, not by 
reading it themselves. The aorist ex- 
presses what they were accustomed to 
hear, an instance of the ‘‘gnomic”’ use. 
Tholuck thinks there may be an allusion 
to the tradition of the scribes, called 
Shema.—rtois apxaiors might mean: in 
ancient times, to the ancients, or by the 
ancients. The second is in accord with 
N. T. usage, and is adopted by Meyer, 
Weiss and Holtzmann (H.C.). How far 
back does Christ go in thought? To 
Moses or to Ezra? The expression is 
vague, and might cover the whole past, 
and perhaps is intended to do so. There 
is no reason @ priori why the criticism 
should be restricted to the interpretation 
of the law by the scribes. Christ’s 
position as fulfiller entitled Him to point 
out the defects of the law itself, and we 
must be prepared to find Him doing so, 
and there is reason to believe that in the 
sequel He actually does (so Wendt, L. F., 
ii., 332).—Ob dovetoers . . . xploet. 
This is a correct statement, not only of 
the Pharisaic interpretation of the law, 
but of the law itself. Asa law for the 
life of a nation, it could forbid and punish 
only the outward act. But just here lay 
its defect as a summary of human duty. 


It restrained the end not the beginning 
of transgression (Euthy. Zig.).—évoxos = 
évexdpevos, with dative of the tribunal 
here.—Ver. 22. éymw 8& A€yw piv. 
Christ supplies the defect, as a painter 
fills in a rude outline of a picture 
(oxtaypadiav), says Theophy. He goes 
back on the roots of crime in the feel- 
ings: anger, contempt, etc.—was... 
avrov. Every one; universal interdict 
of angry passion.—4&8e9$@: not in blood 
(the classical meaning) or in faith, but 
by common humanity. The implied 
doctrine is that every man is my brother ; 
companion doctrine to the universal 
Fatherhood of God (ver. 45).—eix7 is of 
course a gloss; qualification of the 
interdict against anger may be required, 
but it was not Christ’s habit to supply 
qualifications. His aim was to impress 
the main idea, anger a deadly sin.— 
Kpioet, here as in ver. 21. The reference 
is to the provincial court of seven (Deut. 
xvi. 18, 2 Chron. xix. 5, Joseph. Ant. iv. 
8, 14) possessing power to punish capital 
offences by the sword. Christ’s words 
are of course not to be taken literally as 
if He were enacting that the angry man 
be tried as a criminal. So understood 
He would be simply introducing an ex- 
tension of legalism. He deserves to go 
before the seven, He says, meaning he is 
as great an offender as the homicide 
who is actually tried by them. 

‘Paxa: left untranslated in A. V. and 
R. V.; aword of little meaning, rendered 
by Jerome “inanis aut vacuus absque 
cerebro”. Augustine saysa Jew told him 
it was not properly a word at all, but an 
interjection like Hem. Theophy. gives 
as an equivalent ot spoken by a Greek 
to aman whom he despised. And the 
man who commits this trivial offence (as 
it seems) must go before, not the pro- 
vincial seven, but the supreme seventy, 
the Sanhedrim that tried the most heinous 
offences and sentenced to the severest 


21—2§, 


> A 

S &y ety, Mwpé, Evoxos eorar eis Thy yéevvay tod mupds. 
> A A 
Eav odr mpoohépyns TO SHpdv gou émt Td Ouctactrptoy, Kaxet 


pynobis Ste 6 adehpds cou Péxar Ti 


Sapdv aou Epmpoodev tod Oucractypiou, Kal Umaye, mp@roy * Siahhd- 

yn TH GdeAPG cou, nai tote EMOWY mpdahepe 16 SHpdv cov. 

ry > A lol , @ > ~ x 
ict *edvody TH *dyTiBikw cou TaxU, “ws Grou ef év TH 630 per 


EYATTEAION 


107 


23. Pp €xeww Tek, 
Tivos here. 
Mk, xi. 25. 
Rev. ii. 4. 
Cf. Acts 
Xxiv. 19 
(pos ttva). 
q here only 
25. inN. T. 
>T ioc with 
part. Lk. 


KaTad Gov, 24. Ges exe TO 


avtoo,! pimoté ve Yrapade 6 dvribikos TO Kpirf, Kai 6 KpiTis oes herksonly 
in N 


t Lk. xii. 58; xviii.3. 1 Peter v. 8. 
34; xx. 18; xxvii. 2, etc. 


1 ner avrov before ev r. 086, BDL. 


penalties, e.g., death by stoning! Trivial 
in appearance, the offence is deadly in 
Christ’s eyes. It means contempt for a 
fellow-man, more inhuman than anger— 
a violent passion, prompting to words 
and acts often bitterly regretted when 
the hot temper cools down. Mupé, if a 


Greek word, the equivalent for 73} = 


fool, good for nothing, morally worthless. 
It may, as Paulus, and after him Nésgen, 


suggests, be a Hebrew word, myn 


(Num. xx. 24, Deut. xxi. 18), a rebel 
against God or against parents, the most 
worthless of characters. Against this 
Field (Otium Norvicense) remarks that it 
would be the only instance of a pure 
Hebrew word in the N. T. In either 
case the word expresses a more serious 
form of contempt than Raca. Raca ex- 
presses contempt for a man’s head = you 
stupid! More expresses contempt for 
his heart and character = you scoundrel. 
The reckless use of such opprobrious 
epithets Jesus regarded as the supreme 
offence against the law of humanity.— 
tvoxos ... wupés. He deserves to go, 
not to the seven or the seventy, but to 
hell, his sin altogether damnable. 
Kuinoel thinks the meaning is: He 
deserves to be burned alive in the valley 
of Hinnom: is dignus est qui in valle 
Hinnomi vivus comburatur. This in- 
terpretation finds little approval, but it is 
not so improbable when we remember 
what Christ said about the offender of 
the little ones (Matt. xviii. 6). Neither 
burning alive nor drowning was actually 
practised. In these words of Jesus 
against anger and contempt there is an 
aspect of exaggeration. They are the 
strong utterance of one in whom all 
forms of inhumanity roused feelings of 
passionate abhorrence. They are of the 
utmost value as a revelation of character. 

Vv. 23,24. Holtzmann (H. C.) regards 


U és S6rov=while, here only. 


in N. T. 
v Tuva Tu here and Ch. xviii 


these verses, as well as the two following, 
as an addition by the evangelist. But 
the passage is at least in thorough 
harmony with what goes before, as well 
as with the whole discourse.—Eav ovv 
apoodépys, if thou art in the very act of 
presenting thine offering (present tense) 
at the altar.—kaket pvyobis .. . Kata 
cov, and it suddenly flashes through thy 
mind there that thou hast done some- 
thing to a brother man fitted to provoke 
angry feeling in him. What then? Get 
through with thy worship as fast as 
possible and go directly after and make 
peace with the offended? No, interrupt 
the religious action and go on that 
errand first.—ades éxei. Lay it down on 
the spur of the moment before the altar 
without handing it to the priest to be 
offered by him in thy stead.—xat traye 
mpatrov. The wpartov is to be joined to 
traye, not to the following verb as in A. 
V. and R. V. (mp@tov stands after the 
verb also in chaps. vi. 33, vii. 5). First 
go: remove thyself from the temple, 
break off thy worship, though it may 
seem profane to doso.—éiadhdaynit . . 
kal téte ... mpdadepe: no contempt 
for religious service expressed or implied. 
Holtzmann (H. C.) asks, did Jesus offer 
sacrifice ? and answers, hardly. In any 
case He respected the practice. But, 
reconciliation before sacrifice: morality 
before religion. Significant utterance, 
first announcement of a great principle 
often repeated, systematically neglected 
by the religion of the time. Placability 
before sacrifice, mercy before sacrifice, 
filial affection and duty before sacrifice ; 
so always in Christ’s teaching (Matt. ix. 
13, xv.5). mpdéodepe: present; set about 
offering: plenty of time now for the 
sacred action. 

Vv. 25, 20. There is much more 
reason for regarding this passage as an 
interpolation. It is connected only ex- 
ternally (by the references to courts of 


108 KATA MATOAION Vv. 
w ver 33. wapadSd! 7H Sanpéry, Kal eis gudaxiy PryOjoy. 26. dphy Adyw 
25; xxii. got, od pip CEOs exeiBer, Ews Gv * dtrodas Tov Ecxutov * kodSpdvTHy. 
21. ivom. > , e . a , > , eS 
xiii. 7 27. ‘Hxodgate Gti eppéOy tois dpxaiots,? OF jrorxedoets: 28. eya 
- xu ‘4 , « & a A c A 4 A > ~ > Lol 
42. “TSO héyw Spty, Ste was 6 PAerrwv yuvaika mpds 7d EmBupjoa abtijs ° 


} This second oe rap. is omitted in $QB. Luke’s text may have suggested the 


addition. 


7 ros apxatots is wanting in MSS. except LMA. 
Sem@upynoat without pronoun, $¥* (Tisch.); with aurnv, BDL al, (W.H. 


brackets). MZ have avtys. 
law) with what goes before, and*it is out 
of keeping with the general drift of the 
teaching on the hill. It occurs in a 
different connection in Luke xii. 58, 
there as a solemn warning to the Jewish 
people, on its way to judgment, to re- 
pent. Meyer pleads that the logion 
might be repeated. It might, but only 
on suitable occasions, and the teaching 
on the hill does not seem to offer such 
anoccasion. Kuinoel, Bleek, Holtzmann, 
Weiss and others regard the words as 
foreign to the connection. Referring to 
the exposition in Luke, I offer here only 
a few verbal notes mainly on points in 
which Matthew differs from Luke.—ioft 
evvoéy, be in a conciliatory mood, ready 
to come to terms with your opponent in 
a legal process (a4vrf8ixos). It is a case 
of debt, and the two, creditor and debtor, 
are on the way to the court where they 
must appear together (Deut. xxi. 18, xxv. 
1). Matthew’s expression implies will- 
ingness to come to terms amicably on 
the creditor’s part, and the debtor is 
exhorted to meet him half way. Luke’s 
80s épyaciay throws the willingness on 
the other side, or at least implies that the 
debtor will need to make an effort to bring 
the creditor to terms.—7apadg, a much 
milder word than Luke’sxatacvpy, which 
points to rough, rude handling, dragging 
an unwilling debtor along whither he 
would rather not go.— vrnpérp, the officer 
of the court whose business it was to 
collect the debt and generally to carry 
out the decision of the judge; in Luke 
wpaxtwp.—Kodpavtyny = guadrans, less 
than a farthing. Luke has Aerrov, half 
the value of a xod., thereby strengthening 
the statement that the imprisoned debtor 
will not escape till he has paid all he 
owes. 

Vv. 27-30. Second illustration, taken 
from the seventh commandment. A 
grand moral law, in brief lapidary style 
guarding the married relation and the 
sanctity of home. Of course the Hebrew 
legislator condemned lust after another 


aurqv is probably the true reading. 


man’s wife; it is expressly prohibited in 
the tenthcommandment. But in practical 
working as a public law the statute laid 
main stress on the outward act, and it 
was the tendency of the scribes to give 
exclusive prominence to this. Therefore 
Christ brings to the front what both 
Moses and the scribes left in the back- 
ground, the inward desire of which 
adultery is the fruit—Ver. 28.—6 Bdérev: 
the looker is supposed to be a husband 
who by his look wrongs his own wife.— 
yvvaike; married or unmarried.—pds 73 
emBupyoat. The look is supposed to 
be not casual but persistent, the desire 
not involuntary or momentary, but 
cherished with longing. Augustine, a 
severe judge in such matters, defines the 
offence thus: ‘‘ Qui hoc fine et hoc animo 
attenderit ut eam concupiscat; quod 
jam non est titillari delectatione carnis 
sed plene consentire libidini” (De ser. 
Domini). Chrysostom, the merciless 
scourge of the vices of Antioch, says: 
6 éavtd thy émibvptay auddéyev, 6 
pndevds avayxalovros Td Oyptov éreio- 
aywv pepotyTt TO Aoyitopo. Hom. 
xvii. The Rabbis also condemned 
unchaste looks, but in how coarse a 
style compared with Jesus let this 
quotation given by Fritzsche show: 
‘“Intuens vel in minimum digitum 
feminae est ac si intueretur in locum 
pudendum”. In better taste are these 
sayings quoted by Winsche (Beitrage) : 
“The eye and the heart are the two 
brokers of sin”; ‘‘ Passions lodge only 
in him who sees”’.—avrhy (bracketed as 
doubtful by W. H.): the accusative after 
éwt@. is rare and late.—We cannot but 
think of the personal relations to woman 
of One who understood so well the subtle 
sources of sexual sin. Shall we say that 
He was tempted in all points as we are, 
but desire was expelled by the mighty 
power of a pure love to which every 
woman was as a daughter, a sister, or a 
betrothed: a sacred object of tender 
respect ? 


26—31. 


EYATTEAION 


109 


5 epotxeucey adthy dv TH Kapdia adrod.! 29. «i Sé 6 dbOadpds y Ch. xviii. 


cou & Seftds 7 oxavdahifer oe, *efehe adtov kai Bdde awd coo- 
*cuudéper yap cou tva dwéhytat év Tay ped@y cou, Kal pi) ddov Td 


vapcd cou ByOf cis yéervar. 


Sadiler ce, Exkooy aithy Kal Bade dd cod- cupddper ydp aor iva 
A A A ~ Zz 
drddyntar évy Tay peAGy gov, Kat pi) GAov Td cdc cou Bry OF eis 


yéevvay.8 


31. “"Eppé0n 8é, S113 Sg av dmodton Thy yuvaika attod, dérx 


1 B has eavrov. 


30. Kal et 1 Seid cou xeip oKay- 


6,8, parall. 
1 Cor. viii. 
13 (= 
tempt). 
Ch. xv. 12; 
XVii. 27(to 
give 
offence). 
Ch. xviii. 
a Ch. xviii. 
6 with iva. 
Ch. xix. 10 
with inf, 


=) 


3 For the reading in text ${B have es yeevvav ameXOy. The T. R. has doubtless 


been conformed to the reading in ver. 29. 


Had it stood here in the copies used by 


the scribes they would not have substituted the reading in $B. 


> BDL omit ott. 


Vv. 29, 30. Counsel to the tempted, 
expressing keen perception of the danger 
and strong recoil from a sin to be shunned 
at all hazards, even by excision, as it 
were, of offending members; two named, 
eye and hand, eye first as mentioned 
before.—6 dé. 6 Seftos: the right eye 
dvemed the more precious (1 Sam. xi. 2, 
Zech. xi. 17). Similarly ver. 30 the right 
hand, the most indispensable for work. 
Even these right members of €2e body 
must go. But as the remaining ieft eye 
and hand can still offend, it is obvious 
that these counsels are not meant to be 
taken literally, but symbolically, as ex- 
pressing strenuous effort to master 
sexual passion (vide Grotius). Mutila- 
tion will not serve the purpose; it may 
prevent the outward act, but it will not 
extinguish desire.—oxavdakife, cause 
xo stumble; not found in Greek authors 
but in Sept. Sirach, and in N. T. ina 
tropical moral sense. The noun oxdy- 
Sadov is also of frequent occurrence, a 
late form for oxavSdaAnOpov, a trap-stick 
with bait on it which being touched the 
trap springs. Hesychius gives as its 
equivalent épwoSicpds. It is used in a 
literal sense in Lev. xix. 14 (Sept.).— 
oupdeper . . . tva aaod.: tva with sub- 
junctive instead of infinitive (vide on 
ch. iv. 3). Meyer insists on tva having 
here as always its telic sense and praises 
Fritzsche as alone interpreting the 
passage correctly. But, as Weiss ob- 
serves, the mere destruction of the 
member is not the purpose of its ex- 
cision. Note the impressive solemn 
repetition in ver. 30 of the thought in 
ver. 29, in identical terms save that for 
$An67q is substituted, in the true reading, 
am&\@y. This logion occurs again in 


Matthew (xviii. 8, 9). Weiss (Marc.- 
Evang., 326) thinks it is taken here 
from the Apostolic document, i.e., 
Matthew’s book of Logia, and there from 
Mark ix. 43-47. 

Vv. 31-32. Third illustration, sub- 
ordinate to the previous one, connected 
with the same general topic, sex rela- 
tions, therefore introduced less formally 
with a simple éppé0y 8é. This instance 
is certainly directed against the scribes 
rather than Moses. The law (Deut. 
xxiv. I) was meant to mitigate an existing 
usage, regarded as evil, in woman’s 
interest. The scribes busied themselves 
solely about getting the bill of separation 
into due legal form. They did nothing 
to restrain the unjust caprice of 
husbands; they rather opened a wider 
door to licence. The law contemplated 
as the ground of separation a strong 
loathing, probably of sexual origin. The 
Rabbis (the school of Shammai excepted) 
recognised whimsical dislikes, even a 
fancy for another fairer woman, as 
sufficient reasons. But they were 
zealous to have the bill in due form that 
the woman might be able to show she 
was free to marry again, and they 
probably flattered themselves they were 
defending the rights of women. Brave 
men! Jesus raised the previous question, 
and asserted a more radical right of 
woman—not to be put away, except 
when she put herself away by unfaithful- 
ness. He raised anew the prophetic 
cry (Mal. ii. 16), I hate putting away. It 
was an act of humanity of immense signi- 
ficance for civilisation, and of rare cour- 
age; for He was fighting single-handed 
against widely prevalent, long - estab- 
lished opinion and custom.—damodvoyq: 


110 


KATA MATOAION V, 


b here and aiti “dwootdotoy: 32. éyd 8é Aéyw Spiv, Ste bs Av daroddoy! thy 


xix. 7. 
Acts xxvi. 


o 


xi. 28, 


a 


in N 


a9. 2Cor. kal dg dy drohehupévny yauyon, porxarar.® 


yuraixa adtov, °mapextos Adyou topvelas, woret adthy porxao0a 2 - 


33+ Nddw jKodcare 


here only tt €ppéOy Tots dpxaiors, Odx *emopkijcers, droddcers 82 7H Kupiw 


twice in "TOUS Spkous gous 34. €yd S€ héyw Syiv ph *dpdoat Sdus: prjre ev 


Sept. 


a a ae ‘ ‘ a a in > 
e Ch. xxiii, TO obpav@ St Opdvos oti tod Oeod+ 35. pyte év TH yh, Ste 


16-22(with ¢ ¢ 


ty). Heb, Otorrddudy éore Tay wodGv abtod: pire eis ‘lepooddupa, Sti © wddts 


vi. 13 
(with 
xara), ver. 


a 
35 (with eis). f Lk. xx. 43. Heb. i. 13. 


l ras o atrodvev in BLA al. 
3 49BD have porxev8nvar. 


§ The clause kat os eav . 
In B it runs 0 arroeAvperny yapyoas. 


the corresponding word in Greek 
authors is dmromeprewv.— atrootdcoy 
=B.iBAlov amoctaciov in Deut. xxiv. 
The husband is to give her her dismissal, 
with a bill stating that she is no longer 
his wife. The singular form in tov is to 
be noted. The tendency in later Greek 
was to substitute tov for ta, the plural 
ending. Vide Lobeck, Phryn., p. 517. 
—map. A. wopvefas: a most important 
exception which has given rise to much 
controversy that will probably last till 
the world’s end. The first question is: 
Did Christ really say this, or is it not 
rather an explanatory gloss due to the 
evangelist, or to the tradition he 
followed? De Wette, Weiss, Holtz- 
mann (H. C.) take the latter view. It 
would certainly be in accordance with 
Christ’s manner of teaching, using 
strong, brief, unqualified assertions to 
drive home unfamiliar or unwelcome 
truths, if the word as He spoke it took 
the form given in Lk. xvi. 18: ‘‘ Every 
one putting away his wife and marrying 
another committeth adultery’’. This 
was the fitting word to be spoken by one 
who hated putting away, in a time when 
it was common and sanctioned by the 
authorities. A second question is: What 
does wopvefa mean? Schanz, a master, 
as becomes a Catholic, in this class of 
questions, enumerates five senses, but 
decides that it means adultery committed 
by a married woman. Some, including 
Déllinger (Christenthum und Kirche: The 
First Age of Christianity and the Church, 
vol. ii., app. iii.), think it means fornica- 
tion committed before marriage. The 
predominant opinion, both ancient and 
modern, is that adopted by Schanz. A 
third question is: Does Christ, assuming 
the words to have been spoken by Him, 


éoti Tod peyddou Bacthéws: 36, pyre ev TH Kepadf cou dpdoys, Sr 
g this title for J. here and in Ps. xlvii. 3 
Text in D al. 


+ + PotXarat is wanting in D and bracketed in W.H. 


recognise adultery as a ground of absolute 
divorce, or only, as Catholics teach, of 
separation a toro et mensa ? Is it possible 
to be quite sure as to this point? One 
thing is certain. Christ did not come to 
be a new legislator making laws for 
social life. He came to set up a high 
ethical ideal, and leave that to work on 
men’s minds. The tendency of His 
teaching is to create deep aversion to 
rupture of married relations. That 
aversion might even go the length of 
shrinking from severance of the tie even 
in the case of one who had forfeited all 
claims. The last clause is bracketed by 
W. H. as of doubtful genuineness. It 
states unqualifiedly that to marry a dis- 
missed wife is adultery. Meyer thinks 
that the qualification ‘unjustly dis- 
missed,” z.e., not for adultery, is under- 
stood. Weiss (Meyer) denies this. 

Vv. 33-37. Fourth illustration: con- 
cerning oaths. A new theme, therefore 
formally introduced as in ver. 21. awdadw 
points to a new series of illustrations 
(Weiss, Mt.-Evan., p. 165). The first 
series is based on the Decalogue. Thou 
shalt not swear falsely (Lev. xix. 12), 
and thou shalt perform unto the Lord 
thy vows (Num. xxx.3: Deut. xxiii. 22)— 
what is wrong in these dicta ? Nothing 
save what is left unsaid. The scribes 
misplaced the emphasis. They had a 
great deal to say, in sophistical style, of 
the oaths that were binding and not 
binding, nothing about the fundamental 
requirement of truth in the inward parts. 
Again, therefore, Jesus goes back on the 
previous question: Should there be any 
need for oaths? — Ver. 34.  6Aws: 
emphatic = wavtek@s, don’t swear at 
all, Again an unqualified statement, to 
be taken not in the letter as a new law, 





Rites 


we tees 


32—38. 


of Bivaca piay tpixa Aeukhy f péAavay worfoa.! 


- EYATTEAION 


II! 


a7. éotw 2 Sé h 2 Cor. i. 
17-19. 


« dé e nw bh a , a md x Se A , > an 
1) YoOs UpPwy, vat val, Ou OU TO € TWEeplogov TOUTWVY EK TOU James v. 


Tovypou é€ativ. 


189BL place womjoat before n pedatvay. 


scribes to give a smoother reading. 


38. "Hxovcate Str éppéOn, ‘’OPboApdv dvti dp0ad- iEx. xxi.24. 


Lev. xxiv. 
ao. Deut. xix. 21. 


The T. R. represents an effort by the 


2 For exrw (NDL al.) BE have eorat, which expresses the injunction in the 
strongest way and is to be preferred (W.H. on margin). 


but in the spirit as inculcating such a 
love of truth that so far as we are con- 
cerned there shall be no need of oaths. 
In civil life the most truthful man has to 
take an oath because of the untruth and 
consequent distrust prevailing in the 
world, and in doing so he does not sin 
against Christ’s teaching. Christ Him- 
self took an oath before the High Priest 
(Mt. xxvi. 63). What follows (vv. 34- 
6) is directed against the casuistry which 
laid stress on the words t@ kvpig, and 
evaded obligation by taking oaths in 
which the divine name was not 
mentioned : by heaven, earth, Jerusalem, 
or by one’s own head. Jesus points out 
that all such oaths involved a reference 
to God. This is sufficiently obvious in 
the case of the first three, not so clear in 
case of the fourth.—Aeuvxhy 4 péAauvav: 
white is the colour of old age, black of 
youth. We cannot alter the colour of 
our hair so as to make our head look 
young or old. A fortiori we cannot 
bring on our head any curse by perjury, 
of which hair suddenly whitened might 
be the symbol. Providence alone can 
blast our life. The oath by the head is 
a direct appeal to God. All these oaths 
are binding, therefore, says Jesus; but 
what I most wish to impress on you is: 
do not swear at all, Observe the use of 
#yT€ (not wn) to connect these different 
evasive oaths as forming a homogeneous 
group. Winer, sect. lv. 6, endorses the 
view of Herrmann in Viger that ore and 
pare are adjunctival, ovSé and pydé dis- 
junctival, and says that the latter add 
negation to negation, while the former 
divide a single negation into parts. 
Jesus first thinks of these evasive oaths 
as a bad class, then specifies them one 
after the other. Away with them one 
and all, and let your word be vai vat, 
od} ov. That is, if you want to give 
assurance, let it not be by an oath, but 
by simple repetition of your yes and no. 
Grotius interprets: let your yea or nay in 
word be a yea or nay in deed, be as good 
as your word even unsupported by ar 


oath. This brings the version of Christ's 
saying in Mt. into closer correspond- 
ence with Jas. v. 12—Tw 76 Nai vat, 
Kal To OU ov. Beza, with whom Achelis 
(Bergpredigt) agrees, renders, “Let your 
affirmative discourse be a simple yea, 
and your negative, nay”’.—ro 8€ wepic- 
oov, the surplus, what goes beyond these 
simple words.—ék to¥ wovypod, hardly 
“from the evil one,” though many 
ancient and modern interpreters, including 
Meyer, have so understood it. Meyer 
says the neuter “‘ of evil”’ gives a very 
insipid meaning. 1 think, however, that 
Christ expresses Himself mildly out of 
respect for the necessity of oaths in a 
world full of falsehood. I know, He 
means to say, that in certain circum- 
stances something beyond yea and nay 
will be required of you. But it comes of 
evil, the evil of untruthfulness. See that 
the evil be not in you. Chrysostom 
(Hom. xvii.) asks: How evil, if it be 
God’s law? and answers: Because the 
law was good in its season. God acted 
like a nurse who gives the breast to an 
infant and afterwards laughs at it when 
it wants it after weaning. 

Vv. 38-42. Fifth illustration, from the 
law of compensation. Ver. 38 contains 
the theme, the following vv. Christ’s 
comment.—Op@adpoy... 636vros. An 
exact quotation from Ex. xxi. 24, Christ’s 
criticism here concerns a precept from the 
oldest code of Hebrew law. Fritzsche 
explains the accusatives, é@adpov, 
é8dvra, by supposing etvat to be under- 
stood: ‘* Ye have heard that Moses wrote 
that an eye shall be foran eye”. The 
simplest explanation is that the two 
nouns in the original passage are under 
the government of 8ec0e, Ex. xxi. 23. 
(So Weiss and Meyer after Grotius.) 
Tersely expressed, a sound principle o1 
civil law for the guidance of the judge, 
acted on by almost all peoples: Christ 
does not condemn it: if parties come 
before the judge, let him by all means 
give fair compensation for injuries re- 
ceived, He simply leaves it on one side. 


112 


j Ch. xxvi. pod, Kal d8dvra dvr d8dvrTos - 


KATA MATOAION 


Vv. 


39+ ey S€ Adyw Sply ph dvrrorivat ra 


. Sept. . 
2 ie xi, rornp@* GAN’ Sotis oe Sfamioer emi! thy Sefidv cov * craydva,? 


k Lk. vi. 29. oTpéyov attG Kai Thy GAAnv: 40. Kal TO ONovti cor KpiOfvar Kat 


(Hosea xi. 


4): Tov xtT@vd gov AaPeiv, apes adT@ Kat Td tpdtiov: 41. Kal Satis ve 


1 For pamire. emt NBX have pamiLe (pres.) es. 


to the parall. in Luke. 


The em of the T. R. conforms 


3 For cov oiayova BD have ciayova gov. Tisch. (with &) omits cov. W.H. 


bracket it. A 


“Though the judge must give redress 
when demanded, you are not bound to 
ask it, and if you take My advice you 
will not.” In taking up this position 
Jesus was in harmony with the law itself, 
which contains dissuasives against vin- 
dictiveness, e.g., Lev. xix. 18: ‘ Thou 
shalt not avenge nor bear any grudge 
against the children of thy people”. 
The fault of the scribes did not lie in 
gainsaying this and introducing the jus 
talionis into private life, but in giving 
greater prominence to the legal than to 
the ethical element in the O. T. teaching, 
and in occupying themselves mainly with 
discussing the casuistry of compensation, 
e.g., the items to be compensated for in 
a case of wounding—the pain, the cure, 
the loss of time, the shame, etc., and the 
money value of the whole. Jesus turned 
the minds of His disciples away from 
these trivialities to the great neglected 
ethical commonplace. 

Ver. 39. py avtTioryvat: resist not, 
either by endeavouring to prevent injury 
or by seeking redress for it.— 76 wovnp@, 
not the devil, as Chrys. and Theophy. 
thought ; either the evil doer or the evil 
doing or done. Opinion is much divided 
between the last two meanings. The 
sense is the same in either case. The 
A. V. takes twovnp@ as neuter, the 
R. V. as masculine. The former is on 
the whole to be preferred. Instances 
of injury in various forms are next speci- 
fied to illustrate the general precept. 
These injuries have been variously dis- 
tinguished—to body, and property, and 
freedom, Tholuck; exemplum citatur in- 
juriae, privatae, forensis, curialis, Bengel; 
injuries connected with honour, material 
good, waste of time, Achelis, who points 
out that the relation of the three, Ex. in 
vv. 39-41, is that of an anti-climax, in- 
juries to honour being felt most, and 
those involving waste of time least.—éorts 
..+ @AAny. In the following instances 
there is aclimax: injury proceeds from 
bad to worse. It is natural to expect 
the same in thisone. But when the right 


cheek has been struck, is it an aggrava- 
tion to strike the left? Tholuck, Bleek, 
and Meyer suggest that the right cheek 
is only named first according to common 
custom, not supposed to be struck first. 
Achelis conceives the right cheek to be 
struck first with the back of the hand, 
then the left with a return stroke with 
the palm, harder than the first, and ex- 
pressing in a higher measure intention to 
insult.—famifw in class. Greek = to beat 
with rods; later, and in N. T., to smite 
with the palm of the hand; wide Lobeck, 
Phryn., p. 175.—Ver. 40, kpt6jvar = 
kpiveo@ar in 1 Cor. vi. I, to sue at law as 
in A. V. Grotius takes it as meaning 
extra-judicial strife, while admitting that 
the word is used in the judicial sense in 
the Sept., e.g., Job ix. 3, Eccles. vi. 
1o. Beza had previously taken the same 
view.—xtTa@va, ipatiov. The contention 
is supposed to be about the under gar- 
ment or the tunic, and the advice is, 
rather than go to law, let him have not 
only it but also, kai, the more costly 
upper robe, mantle, toga. The poor 
man might have several tunics or shirts 
for change, but only one upper garment, 
used for clothing by day, for bed-cover 
by night, therefore humanely forbidden 
to be retained over night as a pledge, Ex. 
xxii. 26. 

Ver. 41. dyyapevoet: compel thee to 
go one mile in A. V.and R. V. Hatch 
(Essays in Biblical Greek, p. 37) thinks it 
means compel thee to carry his baggage, 
a very probable rendering in view of the 
history of the word as he gives it. A 
Persian word, originally, introduced into 
the Greek, Latin, and Rabbinic languages, 
it denoted first to requisition men, beasts, 
or conveyances for the courier system 
described in Herod. viii. 98, Xen. Cyr. 
vill. 6, 17; mext in post-classical use 
under the successors of the Persians in 
the East, and under the Roman Em- 
pire, it was applied to the forced trans- 
port of military baggage by the inhabit- 
ants of a country through which troops 
were passing, Hatch remarks: ‘ The 





39—44- 


‘@yyapedoer ™pidtoy év, *Umaye pet adtod Suo. 
ge Sisoul- xat tov P€Xovta Amd cod SaveicacOar? ph dmootpadys. xv. 21. 
43. Hxodoare Stu éppéOy, Ayamnycets Tov ? wAnoloy cou, 
rov €xOpdv cou: 44. éyo Sé héyw bpty, dyamGre rods éxOpods Spar, 


A 


eUoyette Tods KaTapwpévous UpPGs, 


Spds,® kat mpooedxecbe bmép Tay érnpealdvtuy bpas, xai* Siwxdytwy 


o with acc. of person asked here, Ch. vi. 8. Lk. vi. 30. 


EYATTEAION 


KaNGs Toiette TOUS pucodyTas 


113 


XXVii. 


42. 70 ° aitodyti! Ch. av 


32. 


x is m here only. 
KQL PLONTELS followed 
by pLeTa 
and gen. 
here and 
in Lk. xii. 
58 (exc 
Tiva 
: added). 

p Ch. xix. 19. Lk. x. 27 


1$0s in NBD. 8i80v (T. R.) conforms to Luke (vi. 30). 


2.W.H. giveSavicacGat after RB*DA. 


3 One of the more important various readings occurs here. 


From ev\oyete to 


vpas is omitted in QB, some ancient versions (including Syr. Sin.), and some 


cursives. 
spirit from Lk. vi. 27. 


The omitted part may be regarded as an importation in a harmonistic 
It is left out by most modern editors. 


Sry erypeatovrwy vpas kat also wanting in §{B, and also imported from Lk. 


(vi. 28). 


extent to which this system prevailed is 
seen in the elaborate provisions of the 
later Roman law: angariae came to be 
one of those modes of taxing property 
which, under the vicious system of the 
empire, ruined both individuals and com- 
munities”. An instance in N. T. of the 
use of the word in this later sense occurs 
in Mt. xxvii. 32, Mk. xv. 21, in reference to 
Simon compelled to carry Christ’s cross. 
We may conceive the compulsion in the 
present case to proceed from a military 
man.—péiAvov, a Roman mile, about 1600 
yards, a late word.—8vo, in point of time, 
the additional mile = two, there and 
back, with proportional fatigue, a 
decided climax of hardship. But it is 
not merely a question of time, as Achelis 
thinks, The sense of oppression is in- 
volved, subjection to arbitrary military 
power. Christ’s counsel is: do not sub- 
mit to the inevitable in a slavish, sullen 
spirit, harbouring thoughts of revolt. Do 
the service cheerfully, and more than you 
are asked. The counsel is far-reaching, 
covering the case of the Jewish people 
subject to the Roman yoke, and of slaves 
serving hard masters. The three cases 
of non-resistance are not meant to foster 
an abject spirit. They point out the 
higher way to victory. He that mag- 
nanimously bears overcomes. 

Ver. 42. This counsel does not seem 
to belong to the same category as the 
preceding three. One does not think of 
begging or borrowing as an injury, but 
at most as a nuisance. Some have 
doubted the genuineness of the logion as 
a part of the Sermon. But it occurs in 
Luke’s redaction (vi. 30), transformed 
indeed so as to make it a case of the 


sturdy beggar who helps himself to what 
he does not get for the asking. Were 
there idle, lawless tramps in Palestine in 
our Lord’s time, and would He counsel 
such treatment of them? If so, it is the 
extreme instance of not resisting evil.— 

\ > ~ 5 Ss i > 
#3] awoorpadys with tov 6éAovta in 
accusative. One would expect the geni- 
tive with the middle, the active taking an 
accusative with genitive, ¢.¢., 2 Tim. iv. 
4, THY akony ame TAS GAnOetas. But the 
transitive sense is intelligible. In turn- 
ing myself away from another, I turn 
him away from me. Vide Heb. xii. 25, 2 
time 15; 

Vv. 43-48. Sixth and final illus- 
tration: from the Law of Love. To an 
old partial form of the law Jesus opposes 
anew universal one.—Ver. 43. 7KkovcaTe 
Sti éppeby: said where, by whom, and 
about whom? The sentiment Jesus 
supposes His hearers to have heard is not 
found in so many words in the O., T. 
The first part, ‘‘ Thou shalt love thy 
neighbour,” occurs in Lev. xix. 18. The 
contrary of the second part is found in 
Ex, xxiii. 4, where humanity towards 
the straying or overburdened beast of an 
enemy is enjoined. It is to be hoped 
that even the scribes did not in cold blood 
sin against the spirit of this precept by 
teaching men to love their private friends 
and hate their private enemies. Does 
aAnotov then mean an Israelite, and 
éx9pdy a Gentile, and was the fault of 
the traditional law of love that it con- 
fined obligation within national limits ? 
The context in Lev. xix. 18 gives mA. that 
sense: ‘* Thou shalt not bear any grudge 
against the children of thy people”. On 


, the other hand, the tendency of Israel’s 


114 KATA MATOAION v. 


qtransitive- Gpas* 45. Omws yévnobe viot rod watpds bpdv rod év odfpavois, Ste 


ly here 


only in N. Toy HAcovy abrod Sdvaré&\Xer ei wovnpods Kat dyabous, al * Bpdyer 


T.; vide 
Gen. iii. tt Stxatous Kal aS{kous. 


46. €dv yap dyamjoyre tods dyawavtas 


18. me a a 
r Lk. vii. 38, OpGs, tiva proOdv €xere; odxi Kal of reX@var Td abtd! trovodc ; 


44; XViL. 
29. Jas. v. 17. 


1 Some editors, following DZ, prefer ovtws to To avro. 


W.H., while retaining 


ro avto, which has the support of )}BL, put ovtrws (DZ) in the margin. 


election, and of certain texts (vide Ex. 
xxiii., Deut. vii.), was to foster aversion 
to the outside nations, and from Ezra 
onwards the spirit of Judaism was one of 
increasing hostility towards the goyim— 
vide Esther. The saying quoted by 
Jesus, if not an exact report of Rabbinical 
teaching, did no injustice to its general 
attitude. And the average Jew in this 
respect followed the guidance of his 
teachers, loving his own countrymen, 
regarding with racial and religious 
aversion those beyond the pale.—Ver. 
44. &y8pods may be taken in all senses: 
national, private, religious. Jesus abso- 
lutely negatives hatred as inhuman. 
But the sequel shows that He has in 
view the enemies whom it is most diff- 
cult to love—8wxédvrwy: those who 
persecute on account of religion. The 
clauses imported into the T. R. from 
Luke have a more general reference to 
enmities arising from any cause, although 
they also receive a very emphatic mean- 
ing when the cause of alienation is 
religious differences. There are no 
hatreds so bitter and ruthless as those 
originating therein. How hard to love 
the persecutor who thinks he does God 
service by heaping upon you all manner 
of indignities. But the man who can 
rejoice in persecution (ver. 12) can love 
and pray for the persecutor. The 
cleavage between Christians and un- 
believers took the place of that between 
the chosen race and the Gentiles, and 
tempted to the same sin. 

Vv. 45-47. Characteristically lofty in- 
ducements to obey the new law; like- 
ness to God (ver. 45) ; moral distinction 
among men (vv. 46, 47).—viol rod 
matpos Upev: in order that ye may be 
indeed sons of God: noblesse oblige ; 
God’s sons must be Godlike. ‘ Father” 
again. The new name for God occurs 
sixteen times in the Sermon on the Mount; 
to familiarise by repetition, and define 
by discriminating use.—6tt, not = 8s, but 
meaning ‘‘ because’’: for so your Father 
acts, and not otherwise can ye be His 
sons.—a@yv« “€AXeL, Sometimes intransitive, 


as in Mt, iv. 16, Lk. xii. 54, here 
transitive, also in Sept., Gen. iii. 18, 
etc., and in some Greek authors (Pindar, 
Isth. vi., 110, ¢.g.) to cause to rise. The 
use of xalew (ver. 15) and avaréAXew in 
an active sense is a revival of an old 
poetic use in later Greek (exx. of the 
former in Elsner).—Bpéxer= pluit (Vulg.), 
said of God, as in the expression towros 
rot Avos (Kypke, Observ. Sac.). The 
use of this word also in this sense is a 
revival of old poetic usage.—ovnpods, 
Gyabous; Sikalous, aSlxovs, not mere 
repetition. There is a difference between 
aycebds and Sfkatos similar to that 
between generous and just. tmovnpovs 
may be rendered niggardly—vide on vi. 
23. Thesentiment thus becomes: “ God 
makes His sun rise on niggardly and 
generous alike, and His rain fall on just 
and unjust”. A similar thought in 
Seneca, De benif. iv. 26: “Si deos 
imitaris, da et ingratis beneficia, nam et 
sceleratis sol oritur, et piratis patent 
maria’. The power of the fact stated 
to influence as a motive is wholly 
destroyed by a pantheistic conception of 
God as indifferent to moral distinctions, or 
a deistic idea of Him as transcendent, 
too far above the world, in heaven, as it 
were, to be able to take note of such 
differences, The divine impartiality is 
due to magnanimity, not to indifference 
or ignorance. Another important re- 
flection is that in this word of Jesus we 
find distinct recognition of the fact that 
in human life there is a large sphere 
(sun and rain, how much these cover !) 
in which men are treated by Providence 
irrespectively of character; by no means 
a matter of course in a Jewish teacher, 
the tendency being to insist on exact 
correspondence between lot and charac- 
ter under a purely retributive conception 
of God’s relation to man.—Ver. 46. pio Gov: 
here, and three times in next chapter; one 
of several words used in this connection of 
thought—reptoa oy (ver. 47), TéAevon (ver. 
48)—having a legal sound, and capable 
of being misunderstood. The scribes 
and Rabbis had much to say about merit 





45—48. 


47. kat édv Sdundonobe tods ddedpods ! 
Woueite ; ovXl Kai ot TeA@var OUTw? toLodaw ; 


*t&evor, dowep ® 6 marnp spay & ey trois odpavois * téNerds éote. 


EYATTEAION 


IIs 


judy pdvov, ti Teptaady 8 Ch. x. 12, 


! Many copies have @uAovs, but adeddous is the reading of NBDZ. 


7 ’2BDZ have eSyixor instead of reXwvar and to avro for ovtw. 
womep possibly a literary refinement of the scribes, 


S@s in NBLZZ. 


IO ae orb 
48. €veoGe obv pets Cf. Heb. 
xi. 13 (Sal- 
uting the 
promises), 
t Ch. xix. ar. Jamesi. 4; iiil.a. Heb. v. 14. 
See below. 


* © ovpavios instead of o a r. ovpavois in NBDbLZ2. 


and reward—vide Weber, Die Leliren des 
Talmud, c. xix. § 59, on the idea of 
Sechith (merit). Totally opposed to 
Rabbinism, Jesus did not lose His 
balance, or allow Himself to be driven 
into extremes, after the usual manner 
of controversialists (Protestants and 
Catholics, ¢g.). He speaks of probes 
without scruple (cf. on Lk. vi. 32).— 
red@vat (réhos, tax, @véopat), first men- 
tion of a class often referred to in the 
Gospels, unpopular beyond their deserts ; 
therefore, like women unjustly treated by 
husbands, befriended by Jesus; the 
humble agents of the great farmers of 
taxes, disliked as representing a foreign 
yoke, and on account of too frequent 
acts of injustice, yet human and kindly 
within their own class, loving those that 
loved them. Jesus took advantage of 
this characteristic to win their love by 
friendly acts.—Ver. 47. dondoqode, 
“Salute,” a very slight display of love 
from our Western point of view, a mere 
civility; more significant in the East; 
symbolic here of friendly relations, hence 
Tholuck, Bleek and others interpret, ‘ to 
act in a friendly manner,’’ which, as 
Meyer remarks, is, if not the significatio, 
at least the adsignificatio.—repiooov, 
used adverbially, literally ‘‘ that which is 
over and above’”’; A. V., “more”; here, 
tropically = distinguished, unusually good 
= “quid magnum, eximium, insigne’ 

(Pricaeus), soin Rom. iii. 1. In Plutarch, 
Romulus, xi., of one who excelled in cast- 
ing horoscopes. Christ would awaken 
in disciples the ambition to excel. He 
does not wish them to be moral 
mediocrities, men of average morality, 
but to be morally superior, uncommon. 
This seems to come perilously near to 
the spirit of Pharisaism (cf. Gal. i. 14, 
mpockowtov), but only seems. Christ 
commends being superior, not thinking 
oneself supérior, the Pharisaic charac- 
teristic. Justin, Apol. i. 15, mixes yv. 
46 and 47, and for wepiowoy puts katvdv, 
and for reA@vat, or é6viKxol, wépvoe ; ‘ If 


ye love those who love you what new 
thing do ye? for even fornicators do 
this.” —éOvixol, here as elsewhere in tha 
Gospels associated with veAdvar (Mt. 
xvill. 17). A good many ofthe publicans 
would be Gentiles. For a Jew it was a 
virtue to despise and shun both classes. 
Surely disciples will not be content to 
be on a moral level with them! Note 
that Jesus sees some good even in 
despised classes, social outcasts. 

Ver. 48. Concluding exhortation. obv, 
from an ancient form of the participle of 
the verb etva: (Klotz, Devar.) = “‘ things 
being so;”’ either a collective inference 
from all that goes before (vv. 21-47) or 
as a reflection on the immediately pre- 
ceding argument. Both come to the 
same thing. Godlike love is commended 
in vv. 44-47, but the gist of all the six 
illustrations of Christ’s way of thinking 
is: Love the fulfilling of the law; 
obviously, except in the case of oaths, 
where it is truth that is enjoined. But 
truth has its source in love; Eph. iv. 15: 
édyPevovtes éy Gyawy, “truthing it in 
love ”’.—éceo Oe, future, ‘‘ ye shall be”? = 
BE.— pets, ye, emphatic, in contrast with 
veh. and é6y., who are content with 
moral commonplace and conventional 
standards.—TéAevotrin general, men who 
have reached the end, touched the ideal, 
that at least their purpose, not satisfied 
with anything short of it. The réXevor are 

not men with a conceit of perfection, but 
aspirants—men who seek to attain, Hie 
Paul: S:0x@ el cal xaraddBo, Phil. 

12, and like him, single-minded, eae 
motto: éy 8. Single-mindedness is a 
marked characteristic of all genuine 
citizens of the kingdom (Mt. vi. 33), 
and what the Bible means by perfection. 
All men who attain have one great 
ruling aim. That aim for the disciple, 
as here set forth, is Godlikeness—ds 6 
TwaTynp ... TéAeLds eorty. God is what 
His sons aspire to be; He never sinks 
below the ideal: impartial, benignant, 
gracious love, even to the unworthy ; for 


TI6 


KATA MATOAION 


VI. 


« followed VI. 1. “*MPOXEXETE! tiv éXenpoodrny® Spdv pi) movety ep- 
eth ot Tpooey tay avOpuTrer, “aie TO Beabyvat ) abrrots - €1 dC paye, erty 
net ouK EXETE Tapa TO Tarpt open To ev Tos” oupavots. 2. oTayv ouv 
xxi. 34. TOUS * Zhen poodrny, ph “ cadnions seAcansy cou, Ootrep ot b7r0- 
a oe KptTat totodcw éy Tais ouvaywyais kat év Tats * pdpats, oTws 

came — Sofacbdow bwd tay GvOpdmev: dphy Aéyw spiv, daéxouor Tov 
Ore. ok Tobit iv. 7. Acts x. 2; xxiv.'17. d 1 Cor. xv. 52 and several times in Revel. e@ Lk. 
xiv. 21. Acts ix. 11; xii. 10. 


1 $¢ after mpocexere in KLZ, inserted by Tisch. and by W.H. within brackets. BD 


have no 8e. 


It might have fallen out by similar ending (re); on the other hand, 


it would stand here appropriately as a connecting particle of transition. 


2 NBD have 8ixatorvvny ; doubtless the true reading, as a general caution against 
counterfeit righteousness was to be looked for first ; then particular rg alms, 


prayer, fasting. 


3 Tisch., on the authority of ND 1, 33, omits Tots. 


that, not all conceivable attributes, is 
what is in view. ds, not in degree, that 
were a discouraging demand, but in 
kind. The kind very necessary to be 
emphasised in view of current ideas and 
practice, in which holiness was dis- 
sociated from love. The law ‘‘ Be holy 
for I am holy ’’ (Lev. xi. 44) was taken 
negatively and worked out in separation 
from the reputedly sinful. Jesus gave it 
positive contents, and worked it out in 
gracious love. 

CuaPTeR VI. THE SERMON Con- 
TINUED. From Scribe law, the main 
theme of wv. 21-48, the Teacher passes to 
speak of Pharisaic practice. Ver. & 
describes the general character of 
Pharisaic righteousness. Then follow 
three special examples: alms, vv. 2-4; 
prayer, vv. 5-6; fasting, vv. 16-18. The 
transition from the one theme to the 
other was almost inevitable, and we may 
be sure that what follows formed part of 
the instruction on the hill. 

Ver. 1. mpooéyete (Tov vovw under- 
stood), to attend to; here, with py 
following, take heed, be on your guard 
against.—S8ixatoovyny, not éhenpoovvny 
(T. R.), is thereading demanded in a gene- 
tral introductory statement. Alms formed 
a very prominent part of Pharisaic right- 
eousness, and was in Rabbinical dialect 


called righteousness, ryt (vide Weber, 


p. 273), but it was not the whole, and it 
is a name for the whole category that is 
wanted in ver. 1. If Jesus spoke in 
Aramaic He might, as Lightfoot (Hor. 
Hebr.) suggests, use the word tsedakah 
both in the first and in the following 


three verses; in the first in the general 


sense, in the other places in the special 
sense of alms.—éprpoodey tr. avOparwv. 
In chap. v. 16 Christ commands 
disciples to let their light shine before 
men. Here He seems to enjoin the 
contrary. The contradiction is only 
apparent. The two places may be com- 
bined in a general rule thus: Show 
when tempted to hide, hide when 
tempted to show. The Pharisees were 
exposed, and yielded, to the latter 
temptation. They did their righteous- 
ness, wpos Td Oeabjvar, to be seen. 
Their virtue. was theatrical, and that 
meant doing only things which in 
matter and mode were commonly ad- 
mired or believed by the doers to be. 
This spirit of ostentation Christ here and 
elsewhere represents as the ene 
feature of Pharisaism.—el 82 prjye, a 

combination of four particles frequently 
occurring in the Gospels, meaning: if at 
least ye do not attend to this rule, then, 
etc. yéis a very expressive particle, de- 
rived by Klotz, Devar. ii. 272, from TEQ, 
i.¢., EA®, or from aye, and explained as 
meant to render the hearer attentive. 
Baumlein, dissenting from  Klotz’s 
derivation, agrees substantially with his 
view of its meaning as isolating a thought 
from all else and placing it alone in the 
light (Untersuchungen iiber Griechische 
Partikeln, p. 54) = ‘‘ Mark my words, 
for if you do not as I advise then,” etc.— 
piobdev ox exere: on prodoy, vide v. 46. 
The meaning is that theatrical virtue 
does not count in the Kingdom of God. 
Right motive is essential there. There 
may be a reward, there must be, else 
theatrical religion would not be so 
common; but it is not wapa t@ warpi. 





I—4. 


proGdy auray. 


EYArTEAION 


Li7 


3. gov Se wootytos edenpoadvyy, ph yvatw 4 


dpatepd cou ti worer } Sektd cou, 4. Sus 4 Tou H éenpoodvy! ev 


ae A x , ~ ~ . 
7@ *xpumTG- Kat 6 waTyp gou 6 Bdétwy év 14 KpuTTd, abtos? f Rom. ii. 2g 


1 Tisch. has y cov ekenpoovvy 9, following SD (n ©. ere. 4). 


editors as in text. 


2 $$BL omit autos, which is found in D. 


Vv. 2-4. Almsgiving. Ver 2. édenpo- 
ovvynv, mercy in general, but specifically 
alms, as a common mode of showing 
mercy. Compare our word charity.— 
gadniays: to be understood metaphori- 
cally, as there is no evidence of the 
literal practice. Furrer gives this from 
Consul Wetstein to illustrate the word. 
When a man (in Damascus) wants to do 
a good act which may bring a blessing 
by way of divine recompense on his own 
family, ¢.g., healing to a sick child, he 
goes to a water-carrier with a good 
voice, gives him a piece of money, and 
says ‘‘Sebil,” i.e. give the thirsty a 
fresh drink of water. The water-carrier 
fills his skin, takes his stand in the 
market, and sings in varied tones: ‘*O 
thirsty, come to the drink-offering,” the 
giver standing by, to whom the carrier 
says, as the thirsty drink, “‘ God forgive 
thy sins, O giver of the drink”? (Zscht. 
fiir M.und R., 1890. Vide also his Wand- 
erungen d. d. H. L., p. 437).—tworptral, 
stage-players in classics, used in N. T. 
in a moral and sinister sense, and for the 
Christian mind heavily burdened with evil 
connotation—hypocrites | What a deep- 
ening of the moral sense is implied in 
the new meaning! ‘The abhorrence of 
acting for effect in religion is due to 
Christ’s teaching. It has not yet quite 
banished the thing. There are religious 
actors still, and they draw good houses. 
—ovvaywyats : where alms were col- 
lected, and apparently also distributed.— 
pvpats, streets, in eastern cities narrow 
lanes, a late meaning; in earlier Greek = 
impetus—onset. Vide Rutherford’s New 
Phryn., 488. Cf. whdarer@y, ver. 5. 
m\areta, Supp. 6865 = a broad street.— 
Sofac0Gorv: in chap. v. 16 God is 
conceived as recipient of the glory; 
here the almsgiver, giving for that 
purpose.—é@piy: introducing a solemn 
statement, and a very serious one for 
the parties concerned.—améyouat, they 
have in full; they will get no more, 
nothing from God: so in Lk. vi. 24, 
Phil. iv. 13 (vide on Mk. xiv. 41). The 
hypocrite partly does not believe this, 
partly does not care, so long as he gets 


(phrase). 


Most modern 


the applause of his public.—Ver. 3. py 
yv4tw: in proverbial form a counsel to 
give with simplicity. Let not even thy 
left hand, if possible even thyself, know, 
still less other men; give without self- 
consciousness or self-complacency, the 
root of ostentation.—éy 76 xpuT7@: 
known to the recipient, of course, but 
to no other, so far as you are concerned, 
hardly even to yourself. ‘‘ Pii lucent, et 
tamen latent,’”’ Beng.—o Bdérwv é. 7. x., 
who seeth in the dark. ‘ Acquainted 
with all my ways.’’ Ps. cxxxix., a 
comfort to the sincerely good, not to 
the counterfeits.—amoSaaer cor: a cer- 
tainty, and not merely of the future. 
The reward is present; not in the form 
of self-complacency, but in the form of 
spiritual health, like natural buoyancy, 
when all physical functions work well. 
A right-minded man is happy without 
reflecting why; it is the joy of living 
in summer sunshine and bracing moun- 
tain air. The év r@ aveo@ here and in 
vv. 6 and 18, a gloss by some superficial 
copyist, ignores the inward present re- 
ward, and appeals in a new form to the 
spirit of ostentation. 

Vv. 5-6. Prayer. as ot toxpurat, 
as the actors. We shrink from the 
harshness of the term “hypocrite”. 
Jesus is in the act of creating the new 
meaning by the use of an old word in 
a new connection.—didroter stands in 
place of an adverb. They love to, are 
wont, do it with pleasure. This con- 
struction is common in classics, even in 
reference to inanimate objects, but here 
only and in Mt, xxiii. 6-7 in N. T.— 
éor@tes, ordinary attitude in prayer. 
orivat and xa0jc8ar seem to be used 
sometimes without emphasis to denote 
simply presence in a place (so Pricaeus). 
—ovvaywyais, ywviais tT. wAat.: usual 
places of prayer, especially for the 
“actors,” where men do congregate, in 
the synagogue for worship, at the 
corners of the broad streets for talk o1 
business; plenty of observers in both 
cases. Prayer had been reduced to 
system among the Jews. Methodising, 
with stated hours and forms, began after 


118 


Ch. xviay.* droduce cor dv TO havepd.} 


KATA MATOAION 


Vi. 


5: Kai Stay mpocedyy, obk eon ? 


» Ch, xxiii, Gorrep * of Sroxpitai, Er. *gidodow ey tais cuvraywyais kal év tats 


6. Lk 
46. 


iCh. xxiv. 
26. Lk. 
xii. 3, 24. 
Sir. xxix. 
12 ai. in 
Sept. 


1 NBD omit. 
Doubtless a gloss, vide below. 


* ywviats tov mhaterav éorStes mpocedyecbat, Stus byt havact Tois 
dvOpdrois* phy Aéyw Spiv, Ste® dwéxoucr tov prcBdv adrav. 


6. 


od 8€, Grav mpocedxy, eloedOe eis Td ‘tapteidy® cou, Kal Kdeioas 
Thy Bipay gov, mpdceufar TO watpt cov TH év TH KpuTTd: Kat 6 
matyip cou 6 Bhérwy é€v TO KpuTT@ droddce. cor ev TH paveps.? 


This time L goes with the MSS. which have this reading. 


2 For mporevxy ovK ern YB have mpocevx yobs ovK eocc Os, adopted by W.H. and 


other editors. 
7 asin NBDZ. 
‘ av omitted in NBDL, 
5 ort omitted in REDZ. 


* rapeov in W.H. So in $BDL (raptoy, ND), 
? NBDZ omit ¢ tw davepw, followed by most modern editors, 


Ezra, and grew in the Judaistic period; 


traces of it even in the later books of 


O. T., ¢.g., Dan. vi. 10, 11 (vide Schultz, 
Alt. Theol.), The hour of prayer might 
overtake aman anywhere. The ‘‘actors”’ 
might, as De Wette suggests, be glad 
to be overtaken, or even arrange for it, 
in some well-frequented place. — S7rws 
davaow T. o. in order that they may 
appear to men, and have it remarked: 
how devout! Ver. 6: true prayer in 
contrast to the theatrical type.—ow 82, 
thou, my disciple, in opposition to the 
‘* actors ’’.—érTav, when the spirit moves, 
not when the customary hour comes, 
freedom from rule in prayer, as in 
fasting (Mt. ix. 14), is taken for 
granted. —71d tapetov, late form for 
Taptetov (Lobeck, PAryn., 493), first a 
store-chamber, then any place of privacy, 
a closet (Mt. xxiv. 26). Note the cov 
after trop. and @vpav and warpl, all em- 
phasising isolation, thy closet, thy door, 
thy Father.—«Aefoas, carefully shutting 
thy door, the door of thine own retreat, 
to exclude all but thy Father, with as 
much secrecy as if you were about a 
guilty act. What delicacy of feeling, 
as well as sincerity, is implied in all 
this ; greatly to be respected, often 
sinned against.—r@ év t@ xpumTg, He 
who is in the secret place; perhaps 
with allusion to God’s presence in the 
dark holy of holies (Achelis). He is 
there in the place from which all fellow- 
men are excluded. Is social prayer 
negatived by this directory? No, but 
it is implied that social prayer will be 


a reality only in proportion as it pro- 
ceeds from a gathering of men accus- 
tomed to private prayer. 

Vv. 7-15. Further instruction tn 
prayer. Weiss (Mt.-Evan.) regards 
this passage as an interpolation, having 
no proper place in an anti-Pharisaic dis- 
course. Both the opinion and its ground 
are doubtful. As regards the latter, it is 
true that it is Gentile practice in prayer 
that is formally criticised, but it does 
not follow that the Pharisees were not 
open to the samecensure. They might 
make long prayers, not in ignorance, 
but in ostentation (Lutteroth), as a dis- 
play of devotional talent or zeal. But 
apart from the question of reference to 
the Pharisees, it is likely that prayer 
under various aspects formed one of the 
subjects of instruction in the course of 
teaching on the hill whereof these chap- 
ters are a digest. 

Ver. 7. Barradoyjonre: a aat Acy. 
in N. T., rarely used anywhere, and of 
doubtful derivation. Some (Erasmus, 
e.g.) have thought it was formed from 
Battus, the stammerer mentioned by 
Herod. (iv. 155), or from a feeble poet of 
the name who made long hymns full of 
repetitions (Suidas, Lexicon), but most 
now incline to the view that it is onoma- 
topoetic. Hesychius (Lex.) takes this 
view of the kindred word Barrapifew 
(€mot pev Sonei kata pipnow THs devijs 
metro.fjooar). It points to the repetition 
without end of the same forms of words 
as a stammerer involuntarily repeats the 
same syllable, like the Baal worshippers 





5—9. 


EYATTEAION 


119 


7+ Mpogevydspevor S¢ pt Bartrodoynonte,! Gowep ot ) 2vixol-2j Ch. v. 47 


A a A , A 
Soxoton yap Ste ev tH wohudoyia adtav * eicaxouabjcorrat. 
ody '6powOiTe abtois: oid< yap 6 warhp® Guay dy ™ypelay éxere, k 


pd TOO Spas airfica: adtév. 


v. 7. 


Q. otTws otv mpocedxerbe tpeis- 


in critical 
8. pi notes); 
XViii. 17. 
Lk. i. 13. 
Acts x, 31. 


1 Ch. vit. 24, 26; xiii. 24. m Ch. ix. 12; xxi. 3. 


1 SB have Barra., which Tisch. and W.H. follow. Lasintext. D has BXarrod. 


2 B and Syr. Cur. have vrroxpitat. 


3 3B Sah. version have o 8¢0s before o warnp (W.H. within brackets). 


shouting from morning till noon, ‘“O 
Baal, hear us” (x Kings xviii. 26, cf. 
Acts xix. 34, ‘‘Great is Diana of the 
Ephesians’’). This repetition is charac- 
teristic of Pagan prayer, and when it 
recurs in the Church, as in saying many 
Aves and Paternosters, it is Paganism 
redivivus.—é0v.kol, the second of three 
references to Pagans (v. 47, vi. 32) in the 
Sermon on the Mount, not to be wondered 
at. The Pagan world was near at hand 
for a Jew belonging to Galilee with its 
mixed population. Pagan customs would 
be familar to Galileans, and it was 
natural that Jesus should use them as well 
as the theory and practice of scribes and 
Pharisees, to define by contrast true piety. 
—ohvioyia, epexegetical of Barrahoy. 
The Pagans thought that by endless 
repetitions and many words they would 
inform their gods as to their needs and 
weary them (‘‘fatigare deos’’) into 
granting their requests. Ver. 8, ovy, 
infers that disciples must not imitate the 
practice described, because it is Pagan, 
and because it is absurd. Repetition 
is, moreover, wholly uncalled for.— 
olSev yap: the God whom Jesus 
proclaims—‘t your Fatner ’—knows be- 
forehand your needs. Why, then, pray 
at all? Because we cannot receive un- 
less we desire, and if we desire, we will 
pray; also because things worth getting 
are worth asking. Only pray always as 
to a Being well informed and willing, in 
few words and in faith. With such 
thoughts in mind, Jesus proceeds to give 
a sample of suitable prayer. 

Vv. 9-13. The Lord's Prayer. Again, 
in Lk. xi. 1-4—vide notes there. Here 
I remark only that Luke’s form, true 
reading, is shorter than Matthew’s. 
On this ground Kamphausen (Das Gebet 
des Herrn) argues for its originality. 
But surely Matthew’s form is short and 
elementary enough to satisfy all reason- 
able requirements! ‘The question as to 
the original form cannot be settled on 
such grounds. The prayer, as here given, 


is, indeed, a model of simplicity. Be- 
sides the question as to the original form, 
there is another as to the originality of 
the matter. Wetstein says, ‘‘tota haec 
oratio ex formulis Hebraeorum concin- 
nata est”. De Wette, after quoting 
these words, asserts that, after all the 
Rabbinical scholars have done their ut- 
most to adduce parallels from Jewish 
sources, the Lord’s Prayer is by no 
means shown to be a Cento, and that it 
contains echoes only of well-known O. T. 
and Messianic ideas and expressions, 
and this only in the first two petitions. 
This may be the actual fact, but there is 
no need for any zeal in defence of the 
position. I should be very sorry to think 
that the model prayer was absolutely 
original. It would be a melancholy 
account of the chosen people if, after 
thousands of years of special training, 
they did not yet know what to pray for. 
Jesus made a new departure by inaugu- 
rating (1) freedom in prayer; (2) trustful- 
ness of spirit; (3) simplicity in manner. 
The mere making of a new prayer, 
if only by apt conjunction of a few 
choice phrases gathered from Scripture 
or from Jewish forms, was an assertion 
of liberty. And, of course, the liberty 
obtains in reference to the new form as 
well as to the old. We may use the 
Paternoster, but we are not bound to use 
it. It is not in turn to become a fetish. 
Reformers do not arise to break old 
fetters only in order to forge new ones. 
Ver. g.  ovtws, thus, not after the 
ethnic manner.—mpocevxeo0e: present, 
pray so habitually.—tpeis: as opposed 
to the Pagans, as men (.e.) who believe in 
an intelligent, willing God, your Father. 
The prayer which follows consists of six 
petitions which have often been elabor- 
ately explained, with learned discussions 
on disputed points, leaving the reader 
with the feeling that the new form is any- 
thing but simple, and wondering how it 
ever came into universal use. Gospel 
has been turned into law, spirit inte 


120 


KATA” MATOAION 


VI. 


nr Pet. iii. Mdrep Hpdv 6 év trois odpavots, ™AytacOjtrw 1d Svopd gou: fo. 


15. (Is. 
xxix. 23.) é\Oétw D 
o Ch. xxvi. 


42. Acts xxi. 14 (same phrase). 


letter, poetry into prose. We had better 
let this prayer alone if we cannot catch 
its lyric tone.—Nldrep. In Luke’ssform 
this name stands impressively alone, 
but the words associated with it in 
Matthew’s version of the address are 
every way suitable. Name and epithet 
together—Father, in heaven—express 
reverential trust.—‘AytacO4Tw T. 0. cov: 
first petition—sanctified, hallowed be 
Thy name. Fritzsche holds that gov in 
this and the next two petitions is empha- 
tic, gov not gov enclitic. The suggestion 
gives a good direction for the expositor = 
may God the Father-God of Jesus be- 
come the one object of worship all the 
world over. A very natural turn of 
thought in view of the previous reference 
to the Pagans. Pagan prayer corre- 
sponded to the nature of Pagan deities 
—indifferent, capricious, unrighteous, 
unloving ; much speaking, iteration, dun- 
ning was needed to gain theirear. How 
blessed if the whole pantheon could be 
swept away or fall into contempt, and 
the one worshipful Divinity be, in fact, 
worshipped, as év ovpavg kai emi ys; for 
this clause appended to the third petition 
may be conceived as common to all the 
first three. The One Name in heaven 
the One Name on earth, and reverenced 
on earth asin heaven. Universalism is 
latent in this opening petition. We 
cannot imagine Jesus as meaning merely 
that the national God of Israel may be 
duly honoured within the bounds of His 
own people. 

Ver. 10. “EAOérw 4 Bacthela cov: 
second petition. The prayer ofall Jews. 
Even the Rabbis said, that is no prayer 
in which no mention of the kingdom is 
made. All depends on how the kingdom 
is conceived, on what we want to come. 
The kingdom is as the King. It is the 
kingdom of the universal, benignant 
Father who knows the wants of His chil- 
dren and cares for their interests, lower 
and higher, that Jesus desires to come. 
It will come with the spread of the wor- 
ship of the One true Divine Name; the 
paternal God ruling in grace over believ- 
ing, grateful men. Thus viewed, God’s 
kingdom comes, is not always here, as 
in the reign of natural law or in the 
moral order of the world.—yevn8yTw 7. 8. 
o.: third petition. Kamphausen, bent 
on maintaining the superior originality of 


Baodeia cou: *yernOjtw Td GAnpd cou, P ds ev odpavd, 
p Acts vii. 51 (as xai). 


Luke’s form in which this petition is 
wanting, regards it as a mere pendant to 
the second, unfolding its meaning. And 
it is true in a sense that any one of the 
three first petitions implies the rest. 
Yet the third has its distinct place. The 
kingdom, as Jesus preached it, was a 
kingdom of grace. The second petition, 
therefore, is a prayer that God’s gracious 
“will may be done. ‘The third, on the 
other hand, is a prayer that God's com- 
manding will may be done; that the 
right as against the wrong may every- 
where prevail. as év ovp. Kal emt yijs. 
» This addendum, not without application 
to all three petitions, is specially appli- 
cable to this one. ‘Translated into 
modern dialect, it means that the divine 
will may be perfectly, ideally done on 
this earth: as in heaven, so also, ete. 
The reference is probably to the angels, 
described in Ps. ciii., as doing God's 
commandments. Inthe O. T. the angels 
are the agents of God’s will in nature as 
well as in Providence. The defining 
clause might, therefore, be taken as 
meaning : may God’s will be done in the 
moral sphere as in the natural; exactly, 
always, everywhere. 

The foregoing petitions are regarded 
by Grotius, and after him Achelis, as pia 
desideria, evyat, rather than petitions 
proper—airrpara, like the following 
three. The distinction is not gratuitous, 
but it is an exegetical refinement which 
may be disregarded. More important 
is it to note that the first group refers to 
the great public interests of God and 
His kingdom, placed first here as in vi. 
33, the second to personal needs. There 
is a corresponding difference in the mode 
of expression, the verbs being in the 
third person in Group I., objective, im- 
personal; in the second in Group II., 
subjective, personal. 

Ver. 11. Fourth petition. tov aptov 
jpev: whatever the adjective qualifying 
Gptoy may mean, it may be taken for 
granted that it is ordinary bread, food 


for the body, that is intended. All 
spiritualising mystical meanings of 
émtovotoy are to be discarded. This is 
the one puzzling word in the prayer. It 


is a Gwag Aey., not only in O. and N, T., 
but in Greek literature, as known not 
only to us, but even to Origen, who 
(De Oratione, cap. xxvil,) states that it 





to---I2. 


EYATTEAION 121 
kal émt tHS! yis- II. tov Gptov Hpay tov *émovoroy Sds Hyiv a There and 
= A ’ Sul a Ri Ve ~ in . ZL 
onpepov’ 12. Kat Ghes Ftv Ta “Sherlypata Apdv, ds Kal Hpets 3 (not 
found in 
Greek literature). r Rom. iv. 4. 


149BZA and some cursives omit ty. 


is not found in any of the Greeks, or 
used by private individuals, and that it 
seems to be a coinage (€orxe wevTAAo Pat) 
of the evangelists. It is certainly not 
likely to have proceeded from our Lord. 
This one word suffices to prove that, if 
not always, at least in uttering this 
prayer, Jesus spoke in Aramaean. He 
would not in such a connection use an 
obscure word, unfamiliar, and of doubt- 
ful meaning. The problem is to account 
for the incoming of such a word into the 
Greek version of His doubtless simple, 
artless, and well-understood saying. 
The learned are divided as to the deriva- 
tion of the word, having of course 
nothing but conjecture to go on. Some 
derive it from él and oveta, or the parti- 
ciple of elvat; others from émévar, or 7 
émvovoa = the approaching day (npépa 
understood). In the one case we geta 
qualitative sense—bread for subsistence, 
bread needed and sufficient (ra SéovrTa 
kal airdpkyn. Prov. xxx. 8, Sept.) ; 
in the other, a temporal—bread of the 
coming day, panem quotidianum (Vulg., 
Lk., xi. 3), “daily bread”. Either 
party argues against the other on gram- 
matical grounds, e¢.g., that derived from 
ovota the word should be érevatos, and 
that derived from émvotea it should be 
émtovcaios. In either case the dis- 
putants are ready with their answer. 
Another source of argument is suitable- 
ness of the sense. Opponents of the 
temporal sense say that to pray for 
to-morrow’s bread sins against the 
counsel, ‘* Take no thought for the 
morrow,” and that to pray, ‘‘ Give us 
to-day our bread of to-morrow,” is 
absurd (ineptius, Suicer, Thesaurus, 8.v. 
émtovatos). On the other side it is said: 
Granting that the sense ‘‘ sufficient” 
can be got from émi, ovata, and granting 
its appropriateness, how comes it that 
a simpler, better-known word was not 
chosen to represent so plain a meaning ? 
Early tradition should have an important 
bearing on the question. Lightfoot, in 
the appendix on the words émtovotos 
and meptovetos, in his work ‘‘ On a fresh 
Revision of the N. T.,” summarises the 
evidence to this effect: Most of the 
Greeks follow Origen, who favoured 
derivation from ecigia. But Aramaic 


So most modern editors. 


Christians put for émota.os Mahar = 
crastinum. (Jerome comm. in Mt.) 
The Curetonian Syriac has words mean- 
ing, ‘‘ our bread continual of the day give 
us”. The Egyptian versions have 
similar readings. The old Latin ver- 
sion has quotidianum, retained by Jerome 
in revision of L. V. in Lk. xi. 2, while 
supersubstantialem is given in Mt. 
vi. 11. The testimony of these early 
versions is important in reference to the 
primitive sense attached to the word. 
Still the question remains: How account 
for the coinage of such a word in Greek- 
speaking circles, and for the tautology : 
give us to-day (ovpepov, Mt.) or daily 
(ro xa@’ yyépav, Luke), the bread of 
to-morrow? In his valuable study on 
‘The Lord’s Prayer in the early 
Church ” (Texts and Studies, 1801), 
Principal Chase has made an important 
contribution to the solution of this difh- 
culty by the suggestion that the coinage 
was due to liturgical exigencies in con- 
nection with the use of the prayer in 
the evening. Assuming that the original 
petition was to the effect: ‘‘to us give, 
of the day, our bread,’ and that the 
Greek equivalent for the day was 7 
émtoveoa, the adjective émtovcros was 
coined to make the prayer suitable 
at all hours. In the morning it 
would mean the bread of the day now 
begun, in the evening the bread of 
to-morrow. But devotional conserva- 
tism, while adopting the new word as 
convenient, would cling to the original 
“of the day”’; hence orjpepov in Matt. 
and +6 xa@’ jpépav in Luke, along with 
émtovetos. On the whole the temporal 
meaning seems to have the weight of 
the argument on its side. For a full 
statement of the case on that side vide 
Lightfoot as above, and on the other 
the article on émtovoros in Cremer’s Bib. 
Theol., W. B., 7te Aufl., 1893. 

Ver. 12. Fifth petition. dderypara, 
in classics literal debts, here moral debts, 
sins (Gpaptias in Lk, xi. 4). The more 
men desire God’s will to be done the 
more conscious they are of shortcoming. 
The more conscious of personal short- 
coming, the more indulgent towards the 
faults of others even when committed 
against themselves. Hence the added 


122 


s Ch. xviii. 
24 (literal). 


(moral). 
Gal. v. 3 
(logical 
obliga- 
tion). 

t Lk. xi. 4. 
u Mk. xi. 25. 
Rom. v. 

15-18. ‘< 
ae. vi. i. TrOHaTa Spar. 
ai. 

v Lk. xxiv. 
17. 


KATA MAT@OAION 


Baorheia kat 4 Sdvapis Kat 4 8déa eis Tos aldvas. 
"Edy ydp ddire tots dvOpdiras ta “rapantdpata abrav, apyjoe 
kal dpiv 6 warhp Sway 6 obpdnos: 15. édy Se ph adire Tors dvOpd~ 
Trois TA Tapartépata adtay,® obSé & warhp UpOy adijce: Ta Tapa- 
16. “Orav 52 vnorednre, ph ylvecbe Somep4 ot 
imoxpital “oxuSpwroi: “dpaviLovo. ydp ta mpdcwra adtav,5 


Vi, 


ddiepev? rois *dperérats Hpav- 13. Kal pi *eloeveynys Apas ets 
Lk. xiii 4 qretpagpdy, GhAd pioat Huds dad tod movnpod. 


ome god éorw 4 


Gpyy.2 14. 


wv. 19, 20.6m%wWs avaot tots dvOpwmors vyotedovtes: dphy Adyw piv, dro 


Acts xiii, | 
4t. James iv. 14. 


1\9BZ have adyxapey, adopted by modern editors. adepev (T. R.) has probably 


come in from Luke (xi. 4). 
2 The Doxology ott cov. . 


modern critics as an ancient liturgical insertion. 


- apyy is wanting in {BDZ and is regarded by most 


It is found in LAZ al. 


37a TapaTT@paTa avrev wanting in ${D, omitted by Tisch., bracketed by W.H., 


though found in BL. 
4 ws in MBDA. 
5 For avrwy B has cavrev. 
6 T, R. has ote with Lal. 


words: as Kol H. adykapev, etc. It is 
natural and comforting to the sincere 
soul to put the two things together. ws 
must be taken very generally. The 
prayer proceeds from child-like hearts, 
not from men trained in the distinctions 
of theology. The comment appended 
in vv. 14, 15 introduces an element of 
reflection difficult to reconcile with the 
spontaneity of the prayer. It is pro- 
bably imported from another connection, 
z.g., Mt. xviii. 35 (so Weiss-Meyer). 
Ver. 13. Sixth petition : consists of two 
members, one qualifying or limiting the 
other.—py . . . weipacpdy, expose us 
not to moral trial. All trial is of doubt- 
ful issue, and may therefore naturally 
and innocently be shrunk from, even by 
those who know that the result may be 
good, confirmation in faith and virtue. 
The prayer is certainly in a different key 
from the Beatitude in V. 10. There 
Jesus sets before the disciple a heroic 
temper as the ideal. But here He does 
not assume the disciple to have attained. 
The Lord’s Prayer is not merely for 
heroes, but for the timid, the inex- 
perienced. The teacher is considerate, 
and allows time for reaching the heights 
of heroism on which St. James stood 
when he wrote (i. 2) wacav xapav 
Hyjcacde, GdeApol pov, Stay wetpacpots 
mepiteoyte workihots.—G@ Aa, not purely 
adversative, cancelling previous clause, 
but confirming it and going further 


NSBD omit. 


(Schanz, in accordance with original 
meaning of a@dAa, derived from &\Ao or 
aAXa, and signifying that what is going 
to be said is another thing, aliud, in 
relation to what has been said, Klotz, 
Devar. ii., p. 2)= Lead us not into 
temptation, or so lead us that we may 
be safe from evil: may the issue ever 
be beneficent.—ptoa: a6, not éx; the 
latter would imply actual implication in, 
the former implies danger merely. Both 
occur in N, T. (on the difference ef. 
Kamphausen, Das G. des H.).—-ot 
awovnpov, either masculine or neuter, 
which? Here again there isan elaborate 
debate on a comparatively unimportant 
question. The probability is in favour 
of the masculine, the evil one. The 
Eastern naturally thought of evil in the 
concrete. But we as naturally think of 
it in the abstract; therefore the change 
from A. V. in R. V. is unfortunate. It 
mars the reality of the Lord’s Prayer on 
Western lips to say, deliver us from the 
evil one. Observe it is moral evil, not 
physical, that is deprecated.—étt cod 
éorw ... Auyv: a liturgical ending, 
no part of the original prayer, and tend- 
ing to turn a religious reality into a 
devotional form. 

On wy. 14-15 vide under ver. 12. 

Vv. 16-18. Fasting. Ver. 16. Stay 
$2: transition to a new related topic.— 
akv0pwroi, of sad visage, overdone of 
course by the ‘‘actors”. Fasting, like 





13—-22. 


dméyouct tov prc8dy abtav. 


EYATTEAION 


17. od dS€ ynoTedov 


123 


*aXeupat cou thy x Mk. vi. 13 
Lk. vii. 38, 


Kepahiy, Kal To mpdcwrdv cou viva: 18. Srws py avis Tots 46. James 


, , 1 an , mt ie. ~ ~ 2 
&vOpdmors vynotedwv,) &AAG TE ToTpi gou TH év TO KpuTTO 


AL v.14. 
Kata 


maTyp gou 6 Bkérwr év TO KpuTTa? Groddce cor ev TH Pavepa.3 
19. “Mi” Onoaupifete Sutv Oncaupods emi THs yis, Sou o7j5 Kai y Lk. xit. 2x. 


Bpaois ddaviler, Kat Sou Kdéwrat *Siopiccoucr Kai KdemToOvGL- 
20. Onaaupifere SE byiv Onoavpods ey odpaya, Strou oUTE O75 
Bpdors davifer, kat Sou Kdémtar ob Siopiocouow odd€ Khémrouawy. 
21. 8rov ydp éotw 6 Oycaupds Spay,* éxet Eorar Kat? 


ipav.4 


Rom. ii. 5. 
1 Cor. xvi. 
» 2al, 
OUTE z Ch. xxiv. 
igs, AOE 
Xil. 329. 


4 Kapdia 


22. ‘O Abxvos Tod cwpatds éotw 6 dOadpds °- édy ouv 6 


1 B places vyotevwy before tors avOperors. 


2 kpudate in SBD. 
3 SBDL omit ev Tw pavepa. 


4 S9B have cov, which makes the reflection more pointed. 


5 B omits kat. 
6 B adds gov. 


prayer, was reduced to a system ; twice a 
week in ordinary Pharisaic practice: 
Thursday and Monday (ascent and 
descent of Moses on Sinai), artificial 
gloom inevitable in such circumstances. 
In occasional fasting, in circumstances 
of genuine affliction, the gloom will be 
real (Lk. xxiv. 17).—ébavilovoty—itres 
pavao.v, a play upon words, may be 
endered in English ‘they disfigure 
that they may figure”. In German: 
Unsichtbar machen, sichtbar werden 
(Schanz and Weiss).—Wer.17. dAeupar, 
vipar: not necessarily as if preparing 
for a feast (Meyer and Weiss), but 
performing the usual daily ablutions 
for comfort and cleanliness, so avoiding 
parade of fasting by neglect of them 
(Bleek, Achelis). : 

The foregoing inculcations of sincerity 
and reality in religion contribute in- 
directly to the illustration of the divine 
name Father, which is here again defined 
by discriminating use. God as Father 
desires these qualities in worshippers. 
All close relations (father, son: husband, 
wife) demand real affection as distinct 
from parade. 

Vv. 19-34. Counsels against covetous- 
ness and care (reproduced in Lk. xii. 22- 
34, with exception of vv. 22-23, which 
reappear in Lk. xi. 34-36). An inter- 
polation, according to Weiss. Doubtless, 
if the Sermon on the Mount was ex- 
clusively an anti-Pharisaic discourse. 
But this homily might very well have 
formed one of the lessons on the hill, in 
connection with the general theme of 


the kingdom, which needs to be defined 
in contrast to worldliness not less than 
to spurious types of piety. 


Vv. 19-21. Against hoarding. 
Oncavpots él ris ys, treasures 
upon earth, and therefore earthly, 


material, perishable, of whatever kind.— 
os, moth, destructive of costly garments, 
one prominent sort of treasure in the 
East.— Bpa@ors, not merely “‘rust,”’ but a 
generic term embracing the whole class 
ofagents which eat or consume valuables 
(so Beza, Fritzsche, Bleek, Meyer, etc.). 
Erosionem seu corrosionem quamlibet 
denotat, quum vel vestes a tineis vel 
vetustate et putredine eroduntur, vel 
lignum a cossibus et carie, frumentum a 
curculionibus, quales tp@yas Graeci 
vocant, vel metalli ab aerugine, ferrugine, 
eroduntur et corroduntur (Kypke, Ods. 
Sac.).—8toptaoovewy, dig through (clay 
walls), easier to get in so than through 
carefully barred doors (again in Mait. 
xxiv. 43). The thief would not find 
much in such a house.—Ver. 20. Oyo. év 
ovpav@: not = heavenly treasures, says 
Fritzsche, as that would require rots 
before éy. Grammatically this is correct, 
yet practically heavenly treasure is 
meant.—Ver. 21. Sov Oyo... . eet 
kapdta. The reflection goes back on 
the negative counsel in ver. 19. Do not 
accumulate earthly treasures, for then 
your heart will be there, whereas it 
ought to be in heaven with God and the 
Kingdom of God. 

Vv. 22-24. Parable of the eye. A 
difficult passage ; connection obscure, 


124 


KATA MATOAION 


VI, 


® Lk. xi. 34. 6f8adpds cou *Amdois 7,) Sdov 73 cad cou *pwrewdv Eotar* 23. 


b Ch. xvii. 5 


Lk. xi. “re .éav Sé 6 ilbabiaie cou Tovnpds tb Shov Td odd gou *oKorewdy 


c tk xi. 34, éortat. 


et obv 1d G5 TS ev col axdtos eoti, Td oKdToS wéoy ; 


ar " xvi.13. 24. Obdeis Sdvarar Sucl Kuplors Soukedew> 4 eR Tov Eva ptoyjoer, 


1 Thess. 
V. 14. 
Tit. i 


e Ch. xii. pporyjcer. 
a: 13. Rom. ii. 4 al. f Lk. xvi. 13. 


ob Stvacbe GcG Soudeverw xa 


kal tov Etepov dyampote: 4H évds “AvOdg|erar, Kal Tod érépou ° KaTa- 


‘appovg.? 25. Sa 


1 y before o of@adpos wov amAous in NB. 


? papwva in all uncials. 
and the evangelic report apparently 
imperfect. The parallel passage in 
Luke (xi. 33-36) gives little help. The 
figure and its ethical meaning seem to 
be mixed up, moral attributes ascribed 
to the physical eye, which with these 
still gives light to the body. This con- 
fusion may be due to the fact that the 
eye, besides being the organ of vision, 
is the seat of expression, revealing inward 
dispositions. Physically the qualities 
on which vision depends are health and 
disease. The healthy eye gives light for 
all bodily functions, walking, working, 
etc. ; the diseased eye more or less fails 
in this service. If the moral is to be 
found only in last clause of ver. 23, all 
going before being parable, then amdots 
must mean sound and trovypds diseased, 
meanings which, if not inadmissible, one 
yet does not expect to find expressed by 
these words. They seem to be chosen 
because of their applicability to the 
moral sphere, in which they might suit- 
ably to the connection mean “ liberal ’’ 
and “niggardly”. GmAdétms occurs in 
this sense in Rom. xii. 8, and Hatch 
(Essays in B. G., p. 80) has shown that 
Tovypes occurs several times in Sept. 
(Sirach) in the sense of niggardly, grudg 
ing. He accordingly renders: ‘ The 
lamp of the body is the eye. If therefore 
thine eye be liberal thy whole body shall 
be fuli of light; but if thine eye be 
grudging, thy whole body shall be full 
of darkness.” Of course this leaves the 
difficulty of the mixing of natural and 
moral untouched. The passage is 
elliptical, and might be paraphrased 
thus: The eye is the lamp of the body: 
when it is healthy we see to do our 
daily work, when diseased we are in 
darkness. So with the eye of the soul, 
the heart, seat cf desire: when it is free 
from covetousness, not anxious to hoard, 
all goes well with our spiritual functions 
—we choose and act wisely. When 
sordid passions possess it there is dark- 


ness within deeper than that which 
afflicts the blind man. We mistake the 
relative value of things, choose the 
worse, neglect the better, or flatter our- 
selves that we can have both. 

Ver. 24. Parable of the two masters. 
OvSeis: In the natural sphere it is im- 
possible for a slave to serve two masters, 
for each claims him as his property, and 
the slave must respond to one or other of 
the claims with entire devotion, either 
from love or from interest.—4 yap... 
ployoe... ayarnoe: We may take this 
clause as referring to the case of honest 
preference. A slave has his likes and 
dislikes like other men. And he will not 
do things by halves. His preference will 
take the form of love, and his aversion 
that of hate.—% évis avOeterar, etc.: 
this clause may be taken as referring to 
the case of interest. The slave may not 
in his heart care for either of the rival 
masters. But he must seem to care, and 
the relative power or temper of one as 
compared to the other, may be the 
ground of his decision. And having 
decided, he attaches himself, av@égerat, 
to the one, and ostentatiously disregards 
the other. In ordinary circumstances 
there would be no room for such a com- 
petition of masters. But a case might 
occur in time of war when the conquered 
were sold into slavery.—ov Svacde, etc. 
Application of the parable to God and 
earthly possessions.—ppapwvq, wealth per- 
sonified= Plutus, a Chaldee, Syriac, and 
Punic word (“lucrum punice mammon 
dicitur,” Aug. de S. D.) derived from 


ee to conceal or Yas to trust 


(vide Buxtorf, Lex. Talm., p. 1217). 
The meaning is not, ‘‘ ye cannot serve 
God and have riches,” but “‘ ye cannot 
be faithful to God and make an idol of 
wealth”. ‘* Non dixit, qui habet divitias, 
sed qui servit divitiis,”” Jerome. 

Vv. 25-34. Counsels against care. 
More suitable to the circumstances of the 





23 —27. 


EYArPEAION 


125 


rodto héyw Spiv, ph “pepypvate tH Woxh Spay, th ddyynte kai} rig Ch x. 19. 


~~ lol , 
niqte* pydé TO odmare bpav, Th ® évouonode. 


928) e 8 iad Lk a CES 
ovdXL FH Wuxi) wetov wii 25. 


éort THs Tpopys, Kal TS Copa Tod evSsparos; 26. 'enPdépare eis (various 


,j 8 n > na @ > k 
Ta “TWETELVG TOU OUPAaVOU, OTt Ov 


, 2 Ul b, eek 4 “ G ~ « > , , > , 
cuvcéyouow eis &rolijKas, Kal 6 maTip bay 6 odpdyos Tpcher aiTa- 6, 
a A a , fal a 
odx Spets paddov | Sahepete abtay ; 27. Tis dé €F GnGv peptpvay ddva- 


8 (last three exx. metaphorical). 
x.12. kJohniv. 36, 37. 


omeipouow, oude * GepiLouciv, od8€ h 


i Acts i. 11 (with eis). 
1Ch. x. 31; xii. 12. Lk. xii. 24 (with waddAoyv). 


const.). 
Ch. xxii. 
11. Mk. i. 


xiii. 12. 

Eph.vi.11. 
: yp ma 1 Thess. v. 
j Ch. viii. 20; xiii. 4. Lk. viii. 5. Acts 


14 7. muyre in B. This clause is wanting in $8, omitted by Tisch., and bracketed 


by W.H. 


disciples than those against amassing 
treasures. ‘* Why speak of treasures to 
us who are not even sure of the neces- 
saries of life? It is for bread and cloth- 
ing we are in torment” (Lutteroth).— 
Ver. 25, Sta tovro: because ye can be 
unfaithful to God through care as well as 
through covetousness.—py pepipvare: 
péptnva from pepis, peptfw, because care 
divides and distracts the mind. The 
verb is used in N. T. in various construc- 
tions and senses; sometimes in a good 
sense, as in x Cor. vii. 32: ‘‘ The un- 
married care for the things of the Lord,” 
and xii. 25 in reference to the members 
of the body having the same care for 
each other. But the evil sense predom- 
inates, What is here deprecated is not 
work for bread and raiment, but worry, 
“Labor exercendus est, solicitudo toll- 
enda,” Jerome.—ovxt 4 puyh . . . évd0- 
patos: the life not the soul; the natural 
life is more than meat, and the body more 
than the clothing which protects it, yet 
these greater things are given to you 
already. 
gave the greater to give the less? But 
a saying like this, life is more than meat, 
in the mouth of Jesus is very pregnant. 
It tends to lift our thoughts above materi- 
alism to a lofty conception of man’s 
chiefend. It is more than an argument 
against care, it is a far-reaching principle 
to be associated with that other /ogion— 
a man is better than a sheep (Matt. xii. 
12).—Ver. 26. épBdépare els, fix your 
eyes on,so as to take a good look at (Mk. 
X. 21, xiv. 67).—1a werewva 7. ov., the birds 
whose element is the air; look, not to 
admire their free, careless movements on 
the wing, but to note a very relevant 
fact—Srt, that without toil they get their 
food and live—oweipovow, Gepifovor, 
guvayovot «. 4: the usual operations 
of the husbandman in producing the staff 
of life. In these the birds have no part, 
yet your Father feedeth them. The 
careworn might reply to this: yes; they 


Can you not trust Him who. 


feed themselves at the farmer’s expense, 
an additional source of anxiety to him. 
And the cynic unbeliever in Providence: 
yes, in summer ; but how many perish in 
winter through want and cold! Jesus, 
greatest of all optimists, though no 
shallow or ignorant one, quietly adds: 
ovX Upets paAAov Siadepere avtav: do 
not ye differ considerably from them? 
They fare, on the whole, well, God’s 
humble creatures. Why should you fear, 
men, God’s children ? 

Ver. 27. rls Se, etc. The question means: 
care is as bootless as it is needless. But 
there is much difference of opinion as to 
the precise point of the question. Does 
it mean, who by care can add a cubit to 
his height, or who can add a short space 
of time, represented by a cubit, to the 
length of his life? Atkia admits of 
either sense. It means stature in Lk. 
xix. 3; agein John ix. 21, Heb. xi. 11. 
Most recent commentators favour the 
latter interpretation, chiefly influenced 
by the monstrosity of the supposition as 
referring to stature. Who could call 
adding a cubit, 14 feet, to his height a 
very small matter, the expression of Lk. 
(€X\dyorov, xii. 26)? The application of 
a measure of length to length of days is 
justified by Ps. xxxix. 5: ‘Thou hast 
made my days as handbreadths”. But 
Dr, Field strongly protests against the 
new rendering. Admitting, of course, 
that 7Atxfa is ambiguous, and that in 
classic authors it oftener means age than 
stature, he insists that wixvs is decisive. 
“arayus,” he remarks (Ot. Nor.), ‘is not 
only a measure of length, but that by 
which a man’s stature was properly 
measured.” Euthy. on this place 
remarks: ‘kat pyv o¥8é ombopryy (half 
a cubit) o¥8€ SdxtvAov (a 24th part): 
hourdy ov wh etme, SidTL Kvplws 
péetpov TOV MALKLOY 6 THXVSeoTL. Thus 
a short man is tpimyxvs, a tall man 
TeTpaTyxvs.” But how are we to get 
over the monstrosity of the supposition ? 


126 KATA MATOAION 

a ae rat mpooGetvar emt Thy HAixlay adrod 
a = évSUparos Ti HEplvate ; Katapdabere Ta 

D Lk. xii. 27, aeees ; s “3 Siete 

° ee pov ev mdon TH Sdfy abrou 


Eas xil- a7. OP Py dprov tou ayRAN, 


its i. 10 
of grass). 

Ch. xiii. 26. Mk. iv. 28 (of grain). 
& Ch. viii. 26; xiv. 31; xvi. 8. Lk. xii..28. 


NSB have plurals (W.H.). 


°mwepreBddeto ds Ev ToUTur. 


Vi, 


" nixuy eva; 28. kal wepl 
*xpiva tod dypod, was 


ob Komd,! od5e vyOer?+ 29. Néyw Sé Spty, Ste obS€ Eodo- 


30. et Se 


ovpepov Svra, Kai avpov eis *xhiPavoy 
. Badddpevov, 6 Geds obrws *dudidvvuci, od Tokko paddov dpas, 
*ddtydmeotor; 31. ph ody pepisvyonte, A€yortes, Ti pdywpev, F 
1 Cor. iii, 12 (of hay). 


q here and Lk. xii. 28. tr Ch. xi. 8. 


The singulars are a grammatical correction («xpwa 


neut. pl. nom.) wholly unnecessary. The lilies are viewed singly. 


Lutteroth helps us here by finding in the 
question of Jesus a reference to the 
growth of the human body from infancy: 
to maturity. By that insensible process, 
accomplished through the aid of food, 
Gods adds to every human body more 
than one cubit. ‘* How impossible for 
you to do what God has done without 
your thinking of it! And if He fed you 
during the period of growth, can you not 
trust Him now when you have ceased to 
grow?” Such is the thought of Jesus. 

Vv. 28-30. Lesson from the flowers. 
Katapabere, Observe well that ye may 
learn thoroughly the lesson they teach. 
Here only in N.T., often in classics. 
Also in Sept., e.g., Gen. xxiv, 21: The 
man observed her (Rebekah), learning 
her disposition from her actions.—ra 
kpiva, the lilium Persicum, Emperor's 
crown, according to Rosenmiller and 
Kuinoel; the red anemone, according to 
Furrer (Zscht. fur M. und R.) growing 
luxuriantly under thorn bushes. All 
flowers represented by the lily, said 
Euthy. Zig. long ago, and probably he 
is right. No need to discover a flower 
of rare beauty as the subject of remark. 
Jesus would have said the same thing of 
the snowdrop, the primrose, the bluebell 
or the daisy. After dypod should come 
a pause. Consider these flowers! Then, 
after a few moments’ reflection: és, 
not interrogative (Fritzsche), but ex- 
pressive of admiration ; vague, doubtful 
whether the growth is admired as to 
height (Bengel), rapidity, or rate of mul- 
tiplication. Why refer to growth at all? 
Probably with tacit reference to question 
in ver, 27. Note the verbs in the plural 
(vide critical note) with a neuter nomi- 
native. The lilies are viewed individ- 
ually as living beings, almost as friends, 
and spoken of with affection (Winer, § 
58, 3). The verb avfdvw in active voice 
is transitive in class., intransitive only in 


later writers. —koTL@oty, vygovow: ‘il- 
lud virorum est, qui agrum colunt, hoc 
mulierum domisedarum ” (Rosenmiiller). 
The former verb seems to point to the 
toil whereby bread is earned, with back- 
ward glance at the conditions of human 
growth; the latter to the lighter work, 
whereby clothing, the new subject of 
remark, is prepared.—Ver. 29. héyw 8e: 
the speaker is conscious He makes a 
strong statement, but He means it.— ov8e, 
not even Solomon the magnificent, most 
glorious of the kings of Israel, and on 
state occasions most gorgeously attired. 
—tv rovrwv: the lilies are in view, and 
one of them is singled out to vie with 
Solomon.—Ver. 30. ei 8é tov ydprov. 
Application. The beautiful flowers now 
lose their individuality, and are merged 
in the generic grass: mere weeds to be 
cut down and used as fuel. The natural 
sentiment of love for flowers is sacrificed 
for the ethical sentiment of love for 
man, aiming at convincing him of God’s 
care.—khiBavoy (Attic «plBavos, vide 
Lobeck, Phryn., 179), a round pot of 
earthenware, narrow at top, heated by a 
fire within, dough spread on the sides; 
beautiful flowers of yesterday thus used 
to prepare bread for men! éAtyémicrtor: 
several times in Gospels, not in classics ; 
not reproachful but encouraging, as if 
bantering the careworn into faith. The 
difficulty is to get the careworn to con- 
sider these things. They have no eye 
for wild flowers, no ear for the song of 
birds. Not so Jesus. He had an in- 
tense delight in nature. Witness the 
sentiment, ‘‘ Solomon in all his glory,” 
applied to a wild flower! These golden 
words are valuable as revealing His 
genial poetic nature. They reflect also 
in an interesting way the holiday mood 
of the hour, up on the hill away from 
heat, and crowds, and human misery. 
Vv. 31-33. Renewed exhoriation 





28—34. 


ri wimpey, H th weprBardpeba ; 32. 


EYATTEAION 


127 


Ory t Lk. xii. 30. 


g A 
ndvta yap TauTa Ta 
Rom. xi.7. 


*émLyret?+ ofde yap 6 warhp Spay 6 obpdvos Om “ypyfere toUTwy Heb. xi. 


dwdvrwv* 33. intette be mpGrov Ti 


, a : 14. 
Bacitelay tod Ocod Kat Thy u Lk. xi. 8 


Rom. xvi. 


Sixatoovyyy® adtod, kal tadTa wdyta * mpooteOhcerat bwiv: 34. py 2 (gen. of 


obv peptpyyonte eis Thy adproy’ % yap avptoy pepiprjoet TO éautis.® 


” dpkerov TH hpepa i *kaxia adris. 


19 wCh.x.25. 1 Pet. iv.3 
1. Amos iii.6. Sir. xix. 6. 


x here only in N. T. in sense of trouble. 


pers.). 2 
Cor. iii. 1. 
v Mk. iv. 24. 
Lk. xii. 31. 
Heb. xii. 
Sept. Eccl. vii. 15; xii. 


1 Another grammatical correction (neut. pl. nom. é6vy). SB have ewfyrovor. 
2$9B omit row Geov, and B transposes the nouns and has ryy Bix. kar thy Bao. 


auTou. 


Tisch. and W.H. retain the order as in T. R., omitting tov Oeov. 


3 ra eauTys in EX (A ta wept avtys). B*L have simply avrns. 


against care, Wer. 31. ovv, goes back 
on ver. 25, repeating the counsel, re- 
inforced by intervening argument.—Ver. 
32. va €0vn, again a reference to 
heathen practice ; in vi. 7 to their ‘* bat- 
tology”? in prayer, here to the kind of 
blessings they eagerly ask (éarilyrovety) - 
material only or chiefly ; bread, raiment, 
wealth, etc. I never realised how true 
the statement of Jesus is till I read the 
Vedic Hymns, the prayer book and song 
book of the Indian Aryans. With the 
exception of a few hymns to Varuna, 
in which sin is confessed and pardon 
begged, most hymns, especially those to 
Indra, contain prayers only for material 
goods: cows, horses, green pastures, 
good harvests. 

To wifeless men thou givest wives, 

And joyful mak’st their joyless lives ; 

Thou givest sons, courageous, strong, 

To guard their aged sires from wrong, 

Lands, jewels, horses, herds of kine, 

All kinds of wealth are gifts of thine, 

Thy friend is never slain; his might 


Is never worsted in the fight. 
—Dr. Muir, Sanskrit Texts, vol. v., p. 137- 


—otSev yap 6 marine v.: Disciples must 
rise above the pagan level, especially as 
they worship not Indra, but a Father in 
heaven, believed in even by the Indian 
Aryans, in a rude way, under the name 
of Dyaus-Pitar, Heaven-Father. yap 
explains the difference between pagans 
and disciples. The disciple hasa Father 
who knows, and never forgets, His 
children’s needs, and who is so regarded 
by all who truly believe in Him. Such 
faith kills care. But such faith is 
possible only to those who comply with 
the following injunction. — Ver. 33. 
tyretre mpatov. There is considerable 
variation in the text of this counsel. 
Perhaps the nearest to the original is 
the reading of B, which omits tot Q<ov 


with §, and inverts the order of Bac. 
and Sixat. Seek ye His (the Father’s) 
righteousness and kingdom, though it 
may be against this that in Luke (xii. 31) 
the kingdom only is mentioned, mpdrov 
also being omitted: Seek ye His king- 
dom. This may have been the original 
form of the logion, all beyond being in- 
terpretation, true though unnecessary. 
Seeking the kingdom means seeking 
righteousness as the summum bonum, 
and the wp@tov is implied in such a 
quest. Some (Meyer, Sevin, Achelis) 
think there is no second, not even a 
subordinate seeking after earthly goods, 
all that to be left in God’s hands, our 
sole concern the kingdom. That is in- 
deed the ideal heroic attitude. Yet 
practically it comes to be a question of 
first and second, supreme and subordi- 
nate, and if the kingdom be indeed first 
it will keep all else in its proper place. 
The wperov, like the prayer against 
temptation, indicates consideration for 
weakness in the sincere.—mpoore)yoerat, 
shall be added, implying that the main 
object of quest will certainly be secured. 

Ver. 34. Final exhortation against 
care. Not in Luke’s parallel section, 
therefore regarded by Weiss as a re- 
flection appended by the evangelist, not 
drawn from apostolic doctrine. But it 
very fitly winds up the discourse. In- 
stead of saying, Care not about food and 
raiment, the Teacher now says finally, 
Care not with reference to to-morrow, 
els THY avptov (jwépav understood). It 
comes to the same thing. To restrict 
care to to-day is to master it absolutely. 
It is the future that breeds anxiety and 
leads to hoarding.—pepipvyoer: future, 
with force of an imperative = let it, with 
genitive (atrys, W.H.) like other verbs of 
care ; in ver. 25, with accus.—apxerov: a 


128 


a Lk. vi. 37. 
Rom, it. 


Vi. 4 
a 


1 Most uncials have the simple perpnOqoerar. 


KATA MATOAION 


VIT. 1. “MH “xpivere, tva pi) Kpubire 2. 


VIL. 


> # 
ev w 


yap Kplyare Kpl- 


; “nd ; oy 
vere, KpiOyjocabe* Kal év & pérpw petpeite, dvrTipetpnOyoerat! bpiv. 


re tok Ti S€ Brewers 1d Kappos 1d ev 1G ShOahp~@ Tod adeApou cou, 


The compound (T. R.) is in 


minusc. and Z. Doubtless it came in originally from Lk. (vi. 38), being there the 


most probable reading. 


neuter adjective, used as a noun; a 
sufficiency.—rq 7pépq, for each successive 
day, the article distributive— Kaka, 
not the moral evil but the physical, the 
misery or affliction of life (not classical 
in this sense). In the words of Chrys. 
H. xxii., kaxiav yo, od THY Tovnplay, 
py) yévotro, GAAG Thy Tadatrwplav, Kal 
Tov Trévoy, kal Tas ounddpas. Every day 
has some such troubles: ‘ suas afflic- 
tiones, quas nihil est necesse metu con- 
duplicare”. Erasmus, Paraph. Fritzsche 
proposes a peculiar arrangement of the 
words in the second and third clauses. 
Putting a full stop after peptpvyoe, and 
retaining the ra of T.R. before éavrijs, 
he brings out this sense: The things of 
itself are a sufficiency for each day, viz., 
the evil thereof. 

CHAPTER VII. THE SERMON Con- 
TINUED AND CLOSED. The contents of 
this chapter are less closely connected and 
more miscellaneous than in the two pre- 
ceding. In vv. 1-12 the polemic against 
Pharisaism seems to be continued and 
concluded. Vv. 6-11 Weiss regards as 
an interpolation foreign to the connec- 
tion. It seems best not to be too 
anxious about discovering connecticns, 
but to take the weighty moral sentences 
of the chapter as they stand, as embody- 
ing thoughts of Christ at whatever time 
uttered, on the hill or elsewhere, or in 
whatever connection. Section 1-5 
certainly deals with a Pharisaic vice, 
that of exalting ourselves by disparaging 
others, a very cheap way of attaining 
moral superiority. Jesus would have 
His disciples rise above Pagans, 
publicans, Sadducees, Pharisees, but not 
by the method of detraction. 

Vv. 1-5. Against judging. Ver. I. 
#2) Kptvere, judge not, an absolute pro- 
hibition of a common habit, especially 
in religious circles of the Pharisaic type, 
in which much of the evil in human 
nature reveals itself. ‘* What levity, 
haste, prejudice, malevolence, ignorance; 
what vanity and egotism in most of the 
judgments pronounced in the world” 
(Lutteroth). ¥udge not, said Christ. 
Fudge, it is your duty, said the Dutch 


pietists of last century through a literary 
spokesman, citing in proof Matt. xxiii. 
33, wherethe Pharisees are blamed for 
neglecting “judgment”. Vide Ritschl, 
Geschichte des Pietismus, i., p. 328. 
How far apart the two types |—iva py 
xp.6yre; an important, if not the highest 
motive ; not merely a reference to the 
final judgment, but stating a law of the 
moral order of the world: the judger 
shall be judged ; to which answers the 
other: who judges himself shall not be 
judged (x Cor. xi. 31). In Rom. ii. 1 
St. Paul tacitly refers to the Jew as 
6 xplvwy. The reference there and here 
defines the meaning of «ptvew. It 
points to the habit of judging, and the 
spirit as evinced by the habit, censorious- 
ness leading inevitably to sinister judging, 
so that «pfveuv is practically equivalent to 
Kataxptvery or kaTadicdtew (Lk. vi. 37). 
—Ver.2. évd yap, etc.: Vulgatissimum 
hoc apud Judaeos adagium, says Light- 
foot (Hor. Heb.). Of course; one would 
expect such maxims, based on ex- 
perience, to be current among all 
peoples (vide Grotius for examples). It 
is the lex talionis in a new form: 
character for character. Jesus may have 
learned some of these moral adages at 
school in Nazareth, as we have all when 
boys learned many good things out of 
our lesson books with their collections of 
extracts. The point to notice is what 
the mind of Jesus assimilated—the best 
in the wisdom of His people—and the 
emphasis with which He inculcated the 
best, so as to ensure for it permanent 
lodgment in the minds of His disciples 
and in their records of His teaching. 

Vv. 3-5. Proverb of the mote and 
beam. Also current among Jews and 
Arabs (vide Tholuck).—xapdos, a minute 
dry particle of chaff, wood, etc.—Soxés, 
a wooden beam (let in, from Séxopat) or 
joist, a monstrous symbol of a great 
fault. A beam in the eye is a natural 
impossibility; cf. the camel and the 
needle eye. The Eastern imagination 
was prone to exaggeration. This is a 
case of tu quoque (Rom. ii. 2), or rather 
of ‘thou much more”. The faults may 





1—6. 


EYAITEAION 


129 


Thy Sé év TO oO SHOaAnG °Soxdv ob *xatavoeis; 4. 4 TOs épeis TH c Lk. vi. 41, 
~ , a > Lol 2. 
ABEAO aou, “Ades ExBdhw 1d Kdphos dxd! tod db9ahpod cou: Kald ie irre 


iSo0U, 4 Soxds ev TO SHOahpd cou; 5. toxpitd, éxBade Tp@Tov Thy 
Soxdy ex Tol dpOadpoU cou,” kal Tore © Sia Bddiers ExBadetv 7d Kdpdos 


éx Tov 6pGahpov To ddeAhoU cou. 


6. Mi) STE 75 Gytoy Tots Kuat- 
pndé Bddnte tods papyapitas spay éumpoobey tav xoipwy, pryrote © 


XX. 23. 
Acts xxvii. 
39. Cf. 
Lk. xii. 24, 
27. Rom. 
iv. 19. 
Mk. viii. 
25. Lk. 
Vi. 42. 


£Ch. xiii, 45. 1 Tim.ii.g, Rev. xvii. 4; xviii. 16; xxi. a1. 


1B have ex, which is preferred by most modern edd. Weiss suspects con- 


formity to the ex in exBodo. 


7 SSBC place «x tov of8. gov before tnv Soxov, so giving to the censor’s own eye 


due emphasis. 


be of the same kind: xapdos, a petty 
theft, So0xés, commercial dishonesty on 
a large scale—‘‘thou that judgest doest 
the same things” (Rom. il. 2); or of a 
different sort: moral laxity in the 
publican, pride and inhumanity in the 
Pharisee who despised him (Lk. xviii. 9- 
14).—BAérrets, ov Kkatavoeis: the contrast 
is not between seeing and failing to see, 
but between seeing and not choosing to 
see; ignoring, consciously overlooking. 
The censorious man is not necessarily 
ignorant of his own faults, but he does 
not let his mind rest on them. It is more 
pleasant to think of other people’s faults. 
—Ver. 4. ékBarw, hortatory conjunc- 
tive, first person, supplies place of im- 
perative which is wanting in first person ; 
takes such words as aye, dépe, or as 
here ades, before it. Vide Goodwin, 
section 255. For ages modern Greek 
has ds, a contraction, used with the 
subjunctive in the first and third 
persons (vide Vincent and Dickson, 
Modern Greek, p. 322).— Ver. 5. 
twoxpita: because he acts as no one 
should but he who has first reformed 
himself. ‘‘ What hast thou to do to 
declare my statutes?” Ps. |. 16.—8.a- 
BAepers, thou will see clearly, vide Mk. 
viii. 24, 25, where three compounds of 
the verb occur, with ava, 8ta, and év. 
Fritzsche takes the future as an im- 
perative and renders: se componere ad 
aliquid, curare ; i.e., set thyself then to 
the task of, etc. 

Ver. 6. <A complementary counsel. 
No connecting word introduces this 
sentence. Indeed the absence of con- 
necting particles is noticeable throughout 
the chapter: vv. 1, 6, 7, 13, 15. Itis 
a collection of ethical pearls strung 
loosely together. Yet it is not difficult 
to suggest a connecting link, thus: I 
have said, ‘‘ Judge not,” yet you must 
know people, else you will make great 


mistakes, such as, etc. Moral criticism 
is inevitable. Jesus Himself practised 
it. He judged the Pharisees, but in the 
interest of humanity, guided by the law 
of love. He judged the proud, pre- 
tentious, and cruel, in behalf of the weak 
and despised. All depends on what we 
judge and why. The Pharisaic motive 
was egotism; the right motive is de- 
fence of the downtrodden or, in certain 
cases, self-defence. So here.—xata- 
mwatyoovot: future well attested, vide 
critical note, with subjunctive, pygwor, 
in last clause; unusual combination, 
but not impossible. On the use of the 
future after pywore and other final 
particles, vide Burton, Syntax of the 
Moods and Tenses in N. T. Greek, § 
199.—T6 Gy.ov, Tos papyapitas: what 
is the holy thing, and what are the 
pearls? In a moral aphorism special 
indications are not to be expected, and 
we are left to our own conjectures. The 
“holy”? and the ‘pearls’? must define 
themselves for each individual in his own 
experience. They are the things which 
are sacred and precious for a man or 
woman, and which natural feeling teaches 
us to be careful not to waste or expose to 
desecration. For this purpose knowledge 
of the world, discrimination, is necessary. 
We must not treat all people alike, and 
show our valuables, religious experiences, 
best thoughts, tenderest sentiments, to 
the first comer. Shyness, reserve, goes 
along with sincerity, depth, refinement. 
In all shyness there is implicit judgment 
of the legitimate kind. A modest woman 
shrinks from a man whom her instinct 
discerns to be impure; a child from 
all hard-natured people. Who blames 
woman or child? It is but the instinct 
of self-preservation.—xvotyv, xoipwv. The 
people to be feared and shunned are 
those represented by dogs and swine, 
regarded by Jews as shameless and 


9 


130 


c Ch. ix. 7. Katatratjowow! aitods év 
. 1x, 15, 
Lk. ix. 42.® py§wow spas. 
Gal. iv. 27 4 
(to break edprjoere 
out into 


h 12. 9, 


10; xii. 36. 9. 
Acts xi. 
16. Rev. &PTOV, 
iii. 20. é 
i Lk. xi. rr; xxiv. 30, 42. Acts xv. 30; xxvii. 15. 


KATA MATOAION 


h , ‘ , ea 
Kpovete, Kal dvotyjoeTar dptv. 
AapBdve, Kat 6 {yTdv' eipioxe, Kal To Kpovovtt 


Vil, 


Tois tooty aitay, Kal otpadévtes 


7. Alreite, kal SoOjcerar Spiv: Lnretre, nat 


8. mwas ydp 6 aitay 
dvouyjoetat.? 


} tis €orw® & Spy advOpwios, dv édv4 aityon 6 vids abtod 
HA) ABov *émBdcer abt; 10. Kal dav ixSdv airjoy,® ph 


lxataratygovew in BCLXX. Weiss against most critics thinks this combina- 


tion of the fut. ind. with the subj. (py§wotv) impossible, 
Vide below. 


W.H. in margin. 


ov to a confusion of ov with o. 
2 avovyerat in B Cop. Syr. Cur. 


He ascribes the reading 


Weiss decides for this reading. 


3 BL omit eortv, and among modern editors Treg. and W.H. 


4 For eav attnoy WECLA have actyoet. 


Tisch. and W.H. adopt this. 


® For cat eav attnon NBC have y Kat atryoe, which modern critics generally 


adopt. 


unclean animals. There are such people, 
unhappily, even in the judgment of 
charity, and the shrewd know them and 
fight shy of them; for no good can come 
of comradeship with them. Discussions 
as to whether the dogs and the swine 
represent two classes of men, or only 
one, are pedantic. If not the same they 
are at least similar; one in this, that 
they are to be avoided. And it is gratu- 
itous to limit the scope of the gnome to 
the apostles and their work in preaching 
the gospel. It applies to all citizens of 
the kingdom, to all who have a treasure 
to guard, a holy of holies to protect from 
profane intrusion.—prmorte, lest per- 
chance. What is to be feared ?—xata- 
watTyncovet, pygwow: treading under 
foot (év +t. m., instrumental, with, de 
Wette ; among, Weiss) your pearls 
(attovs), rending yourselves. Here 
again there is trouble for the com- 
mentators as to the distribution of the 
trampling and rending between dogs and 
swine. Do both do both, or the swine 
both, or the swine the trampling and the 
dogs the rending? The latter is the 
view of Theophylact, and it has been 
followed by some moderns, including 
Achelis. On this view the structure of 
the sentence presents an example of 
érdvodos or vartépyots, the first verb 
referring to the second subject and the 
second verb to the first subject. The 
dogs—street dogs, without master, living 
on offal—rend, because what you have 
thrown to them, perhaps to propitiate 
them, being of uncertain temper at the 
best, is not to their liking; the swine 
trample under foot what looked like peas 
or acorns, but turns out to be uneatable. 


Before passing from these verses (1-6) 
two curious opinions may be noted. (1) 
That @y.ov represents an Aramaic word 
meaning ear-ornaments, answering to 
pearls. This view, once favoured by 
Michaelis, Bolten, Kuinoel, etc., and 
thereafter discredited, has been revived 
by Holtzmann (H.C.). (2) That ép8ad- 
pos (vv. 3, 5) means, not the eye, but a 
village well. So Furrer. Strange, he 
says, that a man should need to be told 
by a neighbour that he has a mote in his 
eye, or that it should be a fault to propose 
to take it out! And what sense in the 
ideaofabeamintheeye? But translate 
the Aramaic word used by Jesus, well, 
and all isclear and natural. A neighbour 
given to fault-finding sees a small im- 
purity in a villager’s well and tauntingly 
offers to remove it. Meantime his own 
boys, in his absence, throw a beam into 
his own well (Zeitsch. fir M. und R. 
Vide also Wanderungen, p. 222). 

Vv. 7-11. Admonition to prayer: pre- 
supposes deferred answer to prayer, 
tempting to doubt as to its utility, and 
consequent discontinuance of the practice. 
A lesson more natural at a later stage, 
when the disciples had a more developed 
religious experience. The whole subject 
more adequately handled in Luke xi. 
I-13.—Ver. 7. Altreire, (nreite, kpovere, 
threefold exhortation with a view to 
impressiveness ; first literally, then twice 
in figurative language: seek as for an 
object lost, knock as at a barred door, 
appropriate after the parable of the 
neighbour in bed (Lk. xi. 5-8). The 
promise of answer is stated in corre- 
sponding terms.—do0@rjcerar, evpyoerte, 
avotyynoerat.—Ver. 8, iteration in form 





7—I12. 


™” 
Op emddcer adTo ; 


*Sduata dyad Si8dvar tots téxvors Sudv, wécw paddov 6 warhp 


EYATTEAION 


131 


II. €t ov pets, movynpot dytes, ? otdate j Lk. xii. 56 


2 Pet. ii. 9. 
(vide be- 
low, also 


Spay 6 év tois odpavois Bdcer dyaba Tots aitodow adtéy; 12. MdvTa Mt. xxvii 


otv doa Gy! Oédnte iva ' 


1 


Woueite adTois: ovTOS ydp eat 6 vdpos kal ol mpodiTar. 


aA ean c ” 4 A c ~ 65). é 
TOLMOLW ULLLY Ob é&vO@pwrrot, OUTW KOL Upetsk Lk. xi. 13, 


Eph. iv.8 
Phil. v. 


17. 
1Ch. xviii. 35; xx. 32; xxi. 40; xxv. 40,45. Mk. v. 19,20. Lk. i 49 al. (with dat. of setae in all 


cases cited. Not usual in classics). 


1 For av WC have eav, which has been adopted by Tisch. and W.H. 


of a general proposition: was yap, for 
every one, etc.—Ver. 9. # answers to a 
state of mind which doubts whether God 
gives in answer to prayer at all, or at 
least gives what we desire.—tls é& tpov 
av.: argument from analogy, from the 
human to the divine. The construction 
is broken. Instead of going on to say 
what the man of the parable will do, the 
sentence changes into a statement of 
what he will not do. Well indicated in 
W.H.’s text by a — after Gptov. The 
anacolouthon could be avoided by 
omitting the éor. of T. R. after tis and 
py before Alfov, when the sentence 
would stand: tis é& tpay ay., dv airyoes 
& vids aitod Gptov, Al@ov émidacer 
aitg. But the broken sentence, if 
worse grammar, is better rhetoric.—py 
X. éruBace, he will not give him a stone, 
will he? Bread, stone; fish, serpent. 
Resemblance is implied, and the idea is 
that a father may refuse his child’s 
request but certainly will not mock him. 
Grotius quotes from Plautus: ‘ Altera 
manu fert lapidem, panem ostentat al- 
tera”. Furrer suggests that by é¢wv is 
meant not a literal serpent, but a scale- 
less fish, therefore prohibited to be eaten 
(Lev. xi. 12); serpent-like, found in the 
Sea of Galilee, three feet long, often 
caught in the nets, and of course thrown 
away like the dogfish of our waters.— 
Ver. I1, wovypot, morally evil, a strong 
word, the worst fathers being taken to 
represent the class, the point being that 
hardly the worst will treat their children 
as described. There is no intention to 
teach a doctrine of depravity, or, as 
Chrysostom says, to calumniate human 
nature (ov S:aBaddov thy avOpwrivny 
vow). The evil specially in view, as 
required by the connection, is selfish- 
ness, a grudging spirit: “If ye then, 
whose own nature is rather to keep what 
you have than to bestow it on others, 
etc.”” (Hatch, Essays in B. Gr., p. 81).— 
oidate S.Sdvar soletis dare, Maldon. 
Wetstein; rather, have the sense to 
give; with the infinitive as in Phil. v. 


12, 1 Tim. iii. 5. Perhaps we should 
take the phrase as an elegant expression 
for the simple 8(80Te. So Palairet.— 
Sépara, four times in N. T. for the attic 
Sapov, Smpypa ; Sop. ayaba, gifts good 
not only in quality (bread not stone, etc.) 
but even in measure, generous, giving 
the children more than they ask.—1réo@ 
paddov, a fortiori argument.—6é warip, 
etc., the Father whose benignant nature 
has already been declared, v. 45.—aya@a, 
good things emphatically, insignia dona, 
Rosenm., and only good (Jas. i. 17, an 
echo of this utterance). This text is 
classic for Christ’s doctrine of the Father- 
hood of God. 

Ver. 12. The golden rule.  ovv 
here probably because in the source, cf. 
kat in quotation in Heb. i. 6. The con- 
nection must be a matter of conjecture— 
with ver. 11, a, ‘‘ Extend your goodness 
from children to all,” Fritzsche; with 
ver. 11, b, ‘Imitate the divine good- 
ness,’’ Bengel; with vii. 1-5, vv. 6-11 
being an interpolation, Weiss and Holtz. 
(H.C.). Lk. vi. 31 places it after the 
precept contained in Matt. v. 42, and 
Wendt, in his reconstruction of the logia 
(L. J., i. 61), follows that clue. The 
thought is certainly in sympathy with 
the teaching of Matt. v. 38-48, and 
might very well be expounded in that 
connection. But the meaning is not 
dependent onconnection. The sentence 
is a worthy close to the discourse begin- 
ning at v. 17. ‘‘ Respondent ultima 
primis,” Beng. Here as there “law and 
prophets”’.—tva with subjunctive after 
0éAnre, instead of infinitive-—mdvra ovv 
. « « Wovetre avrois. The law of 
nature, says Rosenmiller. Not quite. 
Wetstein, indeed, gives copious instances 
of something similar in Greek and 
Roman writers and Rabbinical sources, 
and the modern science of comparative 
religion enables us to multiply them. 
But recent commentators (includiny 
Holtz., H.C.) have remarked that, in 
these instances, the rule is stated in 
negative terms. So, ¢.g., in Tobit, 


132 


m (with &a 
and gen. 
of way). 
Lk. xiii, =, e.8 - 
24. John €LoLY OL ELoOEpXOEvoL 


KATA MATOAION 


13. ‘*™ EicéOere 51a Tis * 
kat Pedptxwpos 6805 4 dwdyouoa eis thy darddevav, Kat moddoi 
80 adrijs* 14. Ste orev} 4 wUAy,? Kal © reOAup- 


Vil. 


otevis TWUANS* Ste °wAaTeta H Wy,’ 


x. I. : - 
nLk. xiii, pévy 1) 680s 7) drdyouoa eis Thy Lwiy, Kai ddiyou eioly ot edpioKxovtes 


o here only in N. T., several times in Sept. 
only in the sense of contracted. 


p here only in N. T., Sept. Ps. ciii. (iv.) 25. 


q here 


1 wvAy is wanting in \ and many Fathers (Clem, Orig.), and omitted by W.H. 
and bracketed by Tisch. Weiss thinks it very suspicious. 

2 Some copies have tt for ort and omit » wvAn, but the text as it stands is 
approved by W.H. ‘Tisch. brackets » wuAne 


iv. 15, 8 puceis, pdevi troijoys, quoted 
by Hillel in reply to one who asked him 
to teach the whole law while he stood on 
one leg. So also in the saying of Con- 
fucius: ‘Do not to others what you 
would not wish done to yourself,’ Legge, 
Chinese Classics, i. 191 f. The negative 
confines us to the region of fustice ; the 
positive takes us into the region of gener- 
osity or grace, and so embraces both law 
and prophets. We wish much more 
than we can claim—to be helped in need, 
encouraged in struggles, defended when 
misrepresented, and befriended when 
our back is at the wall. Christ would 
have us do all that in a2 magnanimous, 
benignant way; to be not merely Sixatos 
but aya@ds.—vopos Kat mpopytar: per- 
haps to a certain extent a current phrase 
= all that is necessary, but, no doubt, 
seriously meant; therefore, may help us 
to understand the statement in v. 17, 
‘‘T came not to destroy, but to fulfil”’. 
The golden rule was Law and Prophets 
only in an ideal sense, and in the same 
sense only was Christ a fulfiller.—Vide 
Wendt, L. J., ii. 341. 

Vv. 13, 14. The two ways (Lk. 
xiii. 23-25). From this point onwards 
we have what commentators call the 
Epilogue of the sermon, introduced with- 
out connecting particle, possibly no part 
of the teaching on the hill, placed here 
because that teaching was regarded as 
the best guide to the right way. The 
passage itself contains no clue to the 
right way except that it is the way of the 
few. The allegory also is obscure from 
its brevity. Is the gate at the beginning 
or end of the way, or are gate and 
way practically one, the way narrow 
because it passes through a narrow door- 
way? Possibly Christ’s precept was 
simply, “‘ enter through the narrow gate” 
or “door’’ (@vpa, Luke’s word), all the 
rest being gloss.—vAys, the large en- 
trance to an edifice’or city, as distinct 
from @¥pa, a common dvor; perhaps 


chosen by Lk. because in keeping with 
the epithet orevfs.—Ort, etc.: explana- 
tory enlargement to unfold and enforce 
the precept.— 6885: two ways are con- 
trasted, either described by its qualities 
andend. The “way” in the figure is a 
common road, but the term readily 
suggests a manner of life. The Christian 
religion is frequently called ‘‘the way” 
in Acts (ix. 2, xix. g, etc.). The wrong 
road is characterised as mwAateia and 
evpvxwpos, broad and roomy, and as 
leading to destruction (amé\erav). The 
right way (and gate, 7 mvAn, is to be 
retained in ver. 14, though omitted in 
ver. 13) is described as orev Kat 
vTe@Atppevn, narrow and contracted, and 
as leading to life.—fwyv, a pregnant 
word, true life, worth living, in which 
men realise the end of their being—the 
antithesis of dw#de1ra. The one is the 
way of the many, mroAAot ior of eicep. ; 
the other of the few, dAtyo. ... at 
evpioxovtes. Note the word “ finding”. 
The way is so narrow or sc untrodden 
that it may easily be missed. It has to 
be sought for. Luke suggests the idea 
of difficulty in squeezing in through the 
very narrow door. Both points of view 
have their analogue in life. The practi- 
cal application of this counsel requires 
spiritual discernment. No verbal direc- 
tory will help us. Narrow? Was not 
Pharisaism a narrow way, and the mon- 
astic life and pietism with its severe rules 
for separation from the ‘ world” in 
amusement, dress, etc. ? 

Vv. 15-20. . Warning against pseudo- 
prophets. Again, without connecting 
particle and possibly not a part of the 
Sermon on the Mount. But the more 
important question here is: Does this 
section belong to Christ’s teaching at all, 
or hasit been introduced by the Evangelist 
that false teachers of after days appear- 
ing in the Church might be condemned 
under the authority of the Master? 
(Holtz., H.C.). What occasion had 





13—19. EYAITEAION 1233 
adryy. 15. "Mpooexere 8€! dad tOv "Weuvdompodytay, oirevest Ch. x. 17; 
a Pas 2 A xvi. 6, 11. 
EpxovTar mpds Gwds ev evOupacr mpoBdtwv, eowley Sé cio *AvKor Lk. xx. 46 
ASW yi & P i (all with 

Gpwayes. 16. awd Tav kapway adtdy " émyvdcecde attous- PTL asd tev0s). 
a = 8 Ch. xxiv. 

Youhhéyouow amd dxavOdvy atapudyy,” 4% dws tpBddwv cdka; 17. 11,24 al. 
°F, ~ , > x ‘ ‘ 3 x .w a t Acts xx. 29 

oUtTw tay Sevdpov dyadv Kkapmots Kahods moret?- 1d S€ “campdy  trop.,soin 
m Wee Sent alee! 

Sév8pov Kapmods wovnpods Tovet. 18. 08 Svvatar SévSpoy dyabdv v6 PLE 


u Ch. xi. 27. 


kapTovs Tovypots trovety,* obS€ SévSpov campov Kapmovs Kadods y Ch. xiii. 


A a a 28, 41 
movelv.4 19. wav SévSpov pi wovouv Kkapmov KaNdv exkdmrerar Kal (with éx). 


1 S8B omit 8 (so W.H.). 
2 SSBC have oradvlas. 
2 B has move. kadovs (W.H. margin). 


ee w Ch. xii. 33; 
xiii, 48. Eph. iv. ag. 


The sing. comes from Lk. (vi. 44). 


4 For vrovery $8 has eveyxeww (Tisch. both places, W.H. rst place). 


Christ to speak of false prophets? The 
reference can hardly be to the Pharisees 
or the Rabbis. They were men of tradi- 
tion, not prophetic, either in the true or 
in the false sense. But, apart from 
them, there might be another class of 
men in evidence in our Lord’s day, who 
might be so characterised. It was a 
time of religious excitement; the force of 
custom broken, the deep fountains of the 
soul bursting forth; witness the crowds 
who followed John and Jesus, and the 
significant saying about the kingdom of 
heaven suffering violence (Matt. xi. 12). 
Such times call forth true prophets and 
also spurious ones, so far in religious 
sympathy with prevalent enthusiasms, but 
bent on utilising them for their own 
advantage in gain or influence, men of 
the Judas type. If such men, as is 
likely, existed, Jesus would have some- 
thing to say about them, as about all 
contemporary religious phenomena. 

Ver. 15. Mpooéyetre amd, take heed 
to and beware of.—oitrives, I mean, such 
as.—év évSvpact mpoBatwv. Grotius, 
Rosenm. and Holtz. (H.C.) take this as 
referring to the dress worn (év pnAwrtais, 
Heb. xi. 37) as the usual badge of a 
prophet, but not without reference to 
the plausible manner of the wearer; 
deceptive and meant to deceive (Zechar. 
xiii. 4); gentle, innocent as_ sheep; 
speaking with “ unction,” and all but 
deceiving ‘‘ the very elect’. The manner 
more than the dress is doubtless in- 
tended. éowfev 5: manner and nature 
utterly different ; within, Avxot apwayes ; 
greedy, sometimes for power, ambitious 
to be first ; often for gain, money. The 
Didache speaks of a type of prophet 
whom it pithily names a yptoreprropos 
(chap. xii.), a Christ-merchant. There 


have always been prophets of this type, 
“each one to his gain” (Is. lvi. rz), 
Evangel-merchants, traders in religious 
revival.— Ver. 16. amd 7. kaptdayv. 
By the nature of the case difficult to 
detect, but discernible from their fruit. 
—émyvececte. Ye shall know them 
through and through (émt) if ye study 
carefully the outcome of their whole 
way of life. 

Vv. 16-20. An enlargement in parabolic 
fashion on the principle of testing by 
Fruit. Ver. 16. pyr, do they perhaps, 
wt suggesting doubt where there is 
none = men never do collect, or think 
of collecting, grapes from thorns or figs 
from thistles. And yet the idea is not 
absurd. There were thorns with grape- 
like fruit, and thistles with heads like 
figs (Holtz., H.C.). But in the natural 
sphere these resemblances never de- 
ceived ; men saw at a glance how the 
matter stood.—Ver. 17. Another illus- 
tration from good and bad trees of the 
same kind. aya@dyv, sound, healthy; 
oampov, degenerate, through age or bad 
soil. According to Phryn., camwpés was 
popularly used instead of aioypds in a 
moral sense (wampayv ot tod)ot avtl Tov 
aloxpav, p. 377). Each tree brings forth 
fruit answering to its condition.—Ver. 
18. ov Svvarat, etc. Nothing else is 
possible or looked for in nature.—Ver. 
19. Men look on this as so certain that 
they do not hesitate to cut down and 
burn a degenerate tree, as if it were 
possible it might bring forth good fruit 
next year.—p7 wovody, if it do not, that 
once ascertained. Weiss thinks this 
verse is imported from iii. 10, and foreign 
to the connection.—Ver. 20. Gpaye: final 
inference, a very lively and forcible com- 
posite particle; again with similar efiect 


134 
x Ch. xii. 50; eis wOp Bddderat. 
xxi. 31 al, 
y Ch. bf xiv adtous. 
36. Lk. x. 
I2, 2 
Thess. i. 


ro al, 


z Mk. ix.38. 796 éyl 


otjpavots. 
| as. V. 10 


Heb. x 


KATA MATOAION vit. 
20. dpaye dwé tdy Kaptay abtdv émyi doecde 


21. “O0 mas & Aéywr*por, Kupte, Kipte, eioededoetar eis Thy 
Baowdeiay tOv otpavdy: GAN’ 6 *ody 73 OAnpa Tod matpds jou 
22. woddol épovoi por ev 7 €xeivy tH Hpeépa, 
John i. 20. Kupte, Kupie, ob TO od sidelined Tpoepyteioaper,” kal "TO a dvdpart 


13 (ron 7 Satpdvia ing kat TO o@ dydpatt Suvdpers BENNAS étroun- 


ort, 


xxiv. may capev; 23. kal TéTe * 


Snohoyhow abtois, Ott obdémoTe Eyvwy Spas - 


1 NBC have rots before ovpavots, which T. R., following many MSS., omits. 
2S8BCLZ have the augment at the beginning (empod.) ; adopted by modern 


editors. 


in Matt. xvii. 26. The ye should have 
its full force as singling out for special 
attention ; ‘tat least from their fruits, if 
by no other means”. It implies that to 
know the false prophet is hard. Ver. 
22 explains why. He has so much to 
say, and show, for himself: devils cast 
out, souls saved, spiritual if not physical 
miracles done. What other or better 
“ fruit’? would you have? What in 
short is the test? Doctrine, good moral 
life? Is the false prophet necessarily a 
false teacher or an immoral man? Not 
necessarily though not unfrequently. 
But he is always a self-seeking man. 
The true prophet is Christ-like, 1.e., 
cares supremely for truth, righteousness, 
humanity; not at all for himself, his 
pocket, his position, his life. None but 
such can effectively preach Christ. This 
repetition of the thought in ver. 16 is not 
for mere poetical effect, as Carr (Camb. 
G. T.), following Jebb (Sacred Litera- 
ture, p. 195), seems to think. 

Vv. 21-23. False discipleship. From 
false teachers the discourse naturally 
passes to spurious disciples. Luke’s 
version contains the kernel of this 
passage (Luke vi. 46). Something of 
the kind was to be expected in the teach- 
ing on the hill. What more likely than 
that the Master, who had spoken such 
weighty truths, should say to His 
hearers: ‘“‘In vain ye call me Master, 
unless ye do the things which I say”? 
As it stands here the logion has pro- 
bably, as Weiss suggests (Matt. Evang., 

219), undergone expansion and 
modification, so as to give to the title 


“Lord,” originally = "\7Q, Teacher, the 


full sense it bore when applied to Christ 
by the Apostolic Church, and to make 
the warning refer to false prophets 
of the Apostolic age using Christ’s 


name and authority in support of anti- 
Christian tendencies, such as_ anti- 
nomianism (avoptav, ver. 23).—Ver. 21. 
6 A€ywv, 6 woreyv: Of all, whether disciples 
or teachers, the principle holds good with- 
out exception that not saying ‘‘ Lord” 
but doing God’s will is the condition of 
approval and admittance into the king- 
dom. Saying ‘“Lord’”’ includes taking 
Jesus for Master, and listening to His 
teaching with appreciation and admira- 
tion; everything short of carrying out 
His teaching in life. In connection 
with such lofty thoughts as the Beati- 
tudes, the precept to love enemies and 
the admonition against care, there is a 
great temptation to substitute senti- 
mental or esthetic admiration for heroic 
conduct.—td 6éAnpa Tod watpds pov. 
Christ’s sense of His position as Master 
or Lord was free from egotism. He 
was simply the Son and Servant of the 
Father, whose will He and all who 
follow Him must obey ; my Father here 
for the first time.—Ver. 22. év éxelvy 
7] pepe, the great dread judgment 
day of Jehovah expected by all Jews, 
with more or less solemn awe; a very 
grave reference.—76 o@ dvépart: thrice 
repeated, the main ground of hope, 
Past achievements, prophesyings, exor- 
cisms, miracles are recited; but the 
chief point insisted on is: all was done 
in Thy name, honouring Thee, as the 
source of wisdom and power.—Ver 23. 
7vétTe. When they make this protesta- 
tion, the Judge wiil make a counter- 
protestation —épodoyyjow aidrois, I will 
own to them. Bengel’s comment is: 
aperte. Magna fotestas hujus dicti. But 
there is a certain apologetic tone in the 
expression, ‘‘I will confess ”’ (‘‘ profess,” 
A.V. and R.V.), as if to say: I ought to 
know men who can say so much for 
themselves, but I do not.—émr, recita- 





20—26. 


*daroxwpeire dw’ épod ot *épyalduevor thy * dvopiay. 

Gatts Gkover frou ToUs Adyous ToUTous,! Kal ToLet atTous, dporwow 
eit ‘\ , a ? , , a 

autov? dvBpi °ppovipw, Sorts Gkoddunoe Ty oiklay adrod > émt Thy 

métpav’ 25. kat KatéBy % Bpoxy Kal AABov of morapol Kal 


EYATTEAION 


135 


24. Mas obv b Lk. ix. 39 
Acts xill. 


13 

c ch. XXVi. 
Io. 

d Ch. xiii. 
41. 1 John 
iii. 4. 


™» A ~ , 
Emveuoay ot GvEpor, Kal * npooémecov TH oikla exelyy, kal ouk €1ece * Ch. x. 16; 


teBevedhiwro yap emt thy métpav. 


Adyous roUTous Kal ph mod avTous, SpowOycerar dvdpi * pwpd, 


in sense of beat against. 


A ~ 
26. kal was 6 dkodwy hou Tous 


XXiv. 45; 


A f here only 
g Ch. xxiii.17, 19; xxv. 2, 8 


’ B omits tovtovs, which is bracketed by W.H. It seems needed, and may have 


fallen out by homceot. 


* ABZ have oporwOyoetat for oporwow avTor. 


So W.H. 


¥ avrov before thy oav in $BCZX, so giving the pronoun due emphasis—his 


house. 


tive, the exact words directly reported.— 
ovdérote, never: at no point in that 
remarkable career when so many wonder- 
ful things were done in my name.— 
amoywpette, etc.: an echo of Ps. vi. 9, 
and sentence of doom, like Matt. xxv. 41. 

Vv. 24-27. Epilogue (Lk. vi. 47-49, 
which see for comparative exegesis). 
ovv, ver. 24, may be taken as referring to 
the whole discourse, not merely to vv. 
21-23 (Tholuck and Achelis). Such a 
sublime utterance could only be the 
grand finale of a considerable discourse, 
or series of discourses. It is a fit ending 
of a body of teaching of unparalleled 
weight, dignity, and beauty. The rov- 
tous after Adyous (ver. 24), though 
omitted in B, therefore bracketed in 
W. H., is thoroughly appropriate. It 
may have fallen out through similar 
ending of three successive words, or have 
been omitted intentionally to make the 
statement following applicable to the 
whole of Christ’s teaching. Its omission 
weakens the oratorical power of the 
passage. It occurs in ver. 26. 

Ver. 24. [Mas Sotus. Were the read- 
ing é6po.wcw adopted, this would be a 
case either of attraction was for wavra 
to agree with éarts (Fritzsche), or of a 
broken construction: nominative, with- 
out a verb corresponding, for rhetorical 
effect. (Meyer, vide Winer, § Ixiii., 2, d.) 
—Gkovel, wovet: hearing and doing, both 
must go together ; vide James i. 22-25, for 
a commentary on this logion. ‘‘ Doing” 
points generally to veality, and what it 
means specifically depends on the nature 
of the saying. ‘‘ Blessed are the poor in 
spirit’; doing in that case means being 
poor in spirit. To evangelic ears the 
word has a legal sound, but the doing 
Christ had in view meant the opposite 


of legalism and Pharisaism.—épow6n- 
oetau: not at the judgment day (Meyer), 
but, either shall be assimilated by his 
own action (Weiss), or the future passive 
to be taken as a Gerund = comparandus 
est (Achelis).—dpovipw: perhaps the best 
rendering is “thoughtful”. The type of 
man meant considers well what he is 
about, and carefully adopts measures 
suited to his purpose. The undertaking 
on hand is building a house—a serious 
business—a house not being meant for 
show, or for the moment, but for a 
lasting home. A well-selected emblem 
of religion.—rhv wétpav: the article used 
to denote not an individual rock, but a 
category—a rocky foundation. 

Ver. 25. What follows shows his 
wisdom, justified by events which he had 
anticipated and provided for; not abstract 
possibilities, but likely to happen every 
year—certain to happen now and then. 
Therefore the prudence displayed is not 
exceptional, but just ordinary common 
sense.—kat: observe the five Kal in 
succession—an eloquent folysyndeton, 
as grammarians call it; note also the 
thythm of the sentence in which the war 
of the elements is described: down came 
the rain, down rushed the rivers, blew 
the winds—sudden, fell, terrible.—mrpooé- 
meooyv, they fell upon that house; rain on 
root, river on foundation, wind on walls. 
And what happened? kal ov« émeceyv. 
The elements fell on it, but it did not 
fall.—reBepedtwro yap: for a good reason, 
it was founded on the rock. The 
builder had seen to that. 

Vv. 26-27. pwpe, Jesus seems here to 
offend against His own teaching, v. 22, 
but He speaks not in passion or con- 
tempt, but in deep sadness, and with 
humane intent to prevent such folly. 


36 


KATA MATOAION 


VII. 27—29. 


bLk. ii. 34. otis WKoddpnoe Thy oixiav adtod! él thy Gppov: 27. kal katéBy 


Cf. Rom. 
xi, SX, 
i Ch. xxii. 


e ‘ ae 
7) Bpox?) kai HAOov ot Torapol Kal emvevoay ot dvewor, Kat mpood- 


33. Mk. i. Koay? TH olkia éxeivy, Kat émece* Kal hv Pwrdots adris peyddy.” 


22; xi. 18, 


Lk. iv. 3228. Kat é€yévero Ste ouvetédecev? § "Inoods Tods Adyous TovTous, 


(all in ref. 


toChrist's '€SemAyjooorto of Sxdor emi TH SiSay¥ avrod: 29. hv yap Siddokwr 


doctrine). 
j Mk. i.22. 


aurods ds ) éfougiay éxwv, kal obx ds of ypappareis.t 


} avrov before thy oixtav in $BZE as in ver. 24. 


? Some copies have wpocweppytav. 
3 ereheoev in NBCZE. 


* After ypappaters SBA have avtww (W.H. and other editors). 


add kat ot dapicator (W.H. margin). 


Wherein lay the second builder’s folly? 
Not in deliberately selecting a bad 
foundation, but in taking no thought of 
foundation; in beginning to build at 
haphazard and anywhere; on loose sand 
(Gos) near the bed of a mountain 
torrent. His fault was not an error in 
judgment, but inconsiderateness. It is 
not, as is commonly supposed, a question 
of two foundations, but of looking to, 
and neglecting to look to, the foundation. 
In the natural sphere no man in his 
senses commits such a mistake. But 
utterly improbable cases have to be 
supposed in parables to illustrate human 
folly in religion.—Ver. 27. kal... Gvepor: 
exactly the same phrases as in ver. 25, to 
describe the oncome of the storm.— 
mpooéxoWav: a different word for the 
assault on the house—struck upon it 
with immediate fatal effect. It was not 
built to stand such rough handling. The 
builder had not thought of such an 
eventuality. €mecev, kal qv  wWraots 
avTi7s peyadn: not necessarily implying 
that it was a large building, or that the 
disaster was of large dimensions, like the 
collapse of a great castle, but that the 
ruin was complete. The fool’s house 
went down like a house of cards, not one 
stone or brick left on another. 
Allegorising interpretation of the rain, 
rivers and winds, and of the foundations, 
is to be avoided, but it is pertinent to 
ask, what defects of character in the 
sphere of religion are pointed at in this 
impressive parabolic logion ? What kind 
of religion is it that deserves to be so 
characterised? The foolish type is a 
religion of imitation and without fore- 
thought. Children play at building 
houses, because they have seen their 
seniors doing it. There are people who 
play at religion, not realising what 
religion is for, but following fashion, 


Some copies 


doing as others do, and to be seen of 
others (Matt. vi. 1). Children build 
houses on the sea sand below high-tide 
mark, not thinking of the tide which will 
in a few hours roll in and sweep away 
their houselet. There are men who have 
religion for to-day, and think not of the 
trial to-morrow may bring. 

Ver. 28. Concluding statement as to 
the impression made by the discourse. 
A similar statement occurs in Mk. i. 22, 
27, whence it may have been transferred 
by Matthew. It may be assumed that 
sO unique a teacher as Jesus made a pro- 
found impression the very first time He 
spoke in public, and that the people 
would express their feelings of surprise 
and admiration at once. ‘The words 
Mark puts into the mouth of the audience 
in the synagogue of Capernaum are to 
the life (vide comments there). They 
saw, and said that Christ’s way of speak- 
ing was new, not like that of the scribes 
to which they had been accustomed. 
Both evangelists make the point of 
difference consist in ‘‘authority”’. 

Ver. 29. ws éfovoiav €xywv: Fritzsche 
supplies, after €xwv, tot S:8acKerv, and 
renders, He taught as one having a right 
to teach, because He could do it well, 
“scite et perite,’? a master of the art. 
The thought lies deeper. It is an ethical, 
not an artistic or esthetical contrast that 
is intended. The scribes spake by 
authority, resting all they said on tradi- 
tions of what had been said before. 
Jesus spake with authority, out of His 
own soul, with direct intuition of truth; 
and, therefore, to the answering soul of 
His hearers. The people could not quite 
explain the difference, but that was what 
they obscurely felt. 

CuHaprers VIII., IX. THE HEALING 
Ministry oF Jesus. These two chap- 
ters consist mainly of miracle narratives, 





VIII. 1—3. 


VIII. 1. KATABANTI 8€ aut@! did Tod Spous, ixohovOyoay airs a 
SxAou Toho: 2, Kal tov, *Aewpds EAOdY? mpogeKUver avTa, héywr, 


“Kupte, eay Oédys, Suvacal pe "Kabapioa.” 


A ° 2 A ec | ~ 3 Me 
XElpa, Hato autou 6 Ingous,” Aéyav, 


xvii. 14,17.  c with ryv xetpa often in Sept. 


EYATTEAION 


137 


Ch. x. 8; 
xi. 5; xxvi. 
3- Kal * éxtelvas thy 
Kat 
73 


iv. 2 
and frequently in the Gospels (Ch. xii. 13, 49, etc.). 


12. 
b Ch. x. 8 


“ @ého, ka8apicOntr.” xi. 5. Lk 


1 For xataBavtt Se avrw (the reading of §& al. adopted by Tisch.) s°BC have 


cataBayros Se avtTov. 
matical ‘‘ improvement ’’. 


2 For eh@wv (in CKL, etc.) BAZ have mpovedOwy. 


fallen out through homeeot. (Aempos). 


Z has the gen. also (kat kat. av.). 


The dative is a gram- 


The wpos has probably 


3 8 BCZ omit o Ingous, which T. R. often introduces. 


the greater number being reports of 
healing acts performed by Jesus, nine in 
all, being the second part of the pro- 
gramme sketched in chap. iv. 23-25. 
These wonderful works are not to be 
regarded, after the manner of the older 
apologists, as evidential signs appended 
to the teaching on the hill to invest it 


with authority. That teaching needed 
no extern ials; it spoke for 
itself then as now. These histories are 
an integral part of the self-revelation of 
Jesus by word and deed; they are _de- 
monstrations not merely oO is Power, 
but above all, of His sjivit. Therein lies 
their chief permanent interest, which is 
entirely independent of all disputes as 
to the strictly miraculous character of 
the events. This collection is not 
arranged in chronological order. The 
connection is topical, not temporal. 

CuHaprTerR VIII. 1-4. The leper (Mk. 
i. 40-45; Lk. v. 12-16). This is the first 
individual act of healing reported in this 
Gospel, chap. iv. 23-24 containing only 
a general notice. Itis avery remarkable 
one. No theory of moral therapeutics will 
avail here to eliminate the miraculous 
element. Leprosy is not a disease of 
the nerves, amenable to emotional treat- 
ment, but of the skin and the flesh, 
covering the body with unsightly sores. 
The story occurs in all three Synoptics, 
and, as belonging to the triple tradition, 
is one of the best attested. Matthew’s 
version is the shortest and simplest here 
as often, his concern being rather to re- 
port the main fact and what Christ said, 
than to give pictorial details. Possibly 
he gives it as he found it in the Apostolic 
Document both in form and in position, 
immediately after Sermon on Mount, so 
placed, conceivably, to illustrate Christ’s 
respectful attitude towards the law as 
stated in v. 17 (cf. viii. 4 and vide Weiss, 
Matt. Evan., p. 227). 


Ver. 1. xaraBdvros avrov (for the 
reading vide above). Jesus descended 
from the hill towards Capernaum (ver. 5), 
but we must beware of supposing that 
the immediately following events all 
happened there, or at any one place or 
i connect the cure 
of the leper with the preaching tour 


in Galilee (i. 40), and that of the palsied 
man with Christ’s return Ty 


“Jésus had ascended the hill to escape the 


pressure of human need. He descends, in 
Matt.’s parzative, to encounter it again— 
HxoAovOynoav, large crowds gather about 


and follow Him.—i8dot, the sign mark of 
the Apostolic Document according to 
Weiss; its lively formula for introducing a 
Narrative.—mpooexvvet, prostrated him- 
self to the ground, in the abject manner 
of salutation suitable from an inferior to 
one deemed much superior, and also to one 
who had a great favour to ask.—Kvpte: 
not implying in the leper a higher idea 
than that of Master or Rabbi.—éay 
@éhys: the leper’s doubt is not about the 
power, for he probably knows what mar- 
vellous things have been happening of late 
in and around Capernaum, but about the 


‘//,_a doubt _natural_in_one_suffering __ 
om a loathsome diseas j 

1 €asi elieve in miraculou r 
than in miraculous love. éAys, present 


subjunctive, not aorist, which would ex- 
press something that might happen at a 
future time (vide Winer, § xlii., 2, b).— 
xa0apiooar—of course the man means to 
cleanse by healing, not merely to pro- 
nounce clean. This has an important 
bearing on the meaning of the word 
in next ver.—7pato, touched him, not 
to show that He was not under the 
law, and that tothe pure nothing is un- 
clean (Chrys., Hom. xxv.), but to evince 
His willingness and sympathy. ‘The 
stretching out of the hand does not mean _ 
that, in touching, He might be.as far affas_. 


138 KATA MATOAION 


d here and evOéws éxabapio§n! adrod 
in parall. 


e Ch. xviii. “*"Opa prdevt eins: add’ 
mpocéveyke ? Td SGpov & mpoceTage Mworjs, ‘eis paptuptoy autos.” 
5. EicehOdvre 8€ TG “Inoot® eis Kaepvaotp, mpooyOer auvta 


10. Heb. 
viii. 5. 

f Gh. x5.385 
xxiv. 14. 
Heb. iii. 5. 


VIII, 


“hémpa. 4. kal Aéyer adTd 6 "Inaods, 


Md 4 Las lol c Lal ‘ 
Umaye, oeautov Setgov TW LEPEL, KAL 


a“ > a 
ger. 34 éxatdvTapXxos tapakahGv autdv, 6. Kat héywy, “ Kupte, 6 tats pou 


ix.2. M 
Vii. 30. 
b Lk. xi. 53. 


*BeBAyntrac ev tA oixia apadutiKds, “Sewas Pacan{dpevos. 


' BLX& have the less correct, but none the less likely, exadepto Oy. 


* BC have mpoceveyxov. 
3 The dative is here also a correction, 


possible to avoid defilement and infection 
(Weiss-Meyer). It was action suited to 
the word.—@érw, “I will,’ pronounced 
in firm, cordial tone, carefully recorded 
by all the evangelists. xaSapio@nrtt, 
naturally in the sense of the man’s 
request. But that would imply a real 
miracle, therefore naturalistic interpre- 
ters, like Paulus and Keim, are forced to 
take the word in the sense of pronounc- 
ing clean, the mere opinion of a shrewd 
observer. The narrative of Matthew 
barely leaves room for this hypothesis. 
The other evangelists so express them- 
selves as to exclude it.—éxadapicOy : 
forthwith the leprosy disappeared as if by 


magic. The man was and looked per- 
fectly well. 
Ver. 4. Spa, seetoit! Look you!— 


imperative in mood and tone (vide 
Mark’s graphic account). Christ feared 
the man would be content with being 
well without being officially pronounced 
clean—physically healed, though not 
socially restored. Hence pydevt etarys, 
GN’ traye, etc.: speak of it to nobody, 
but go at once and show thyself (8etgov), 
7@ tepei, to the priest who has charge of 
such matters. What was the purpose of 
this order? Many good commentators, 
including Grot., Beng. and Wetstein, say 
it was to prevent the priests hearing of 
the cure before the man came (lingering 
on the road to tell his tale), and, in spite, 
declaring that he was not clean. The 
truth is, Jesus desired the benefit to be 
complete, socially, which depended on 
the priest, as well as physically. Ifthe 
man did not go at once, he would not go 
at all_—ré S@pov: vide Lev. xiv. 10, 21; 
all things to be done according to the 
law; no laxity encouraged, though the 
official religion was little worthy of re- 
spect (cf. Matt. v. 19).— eis paptuptoy, as 
a certificate to the public (avrots) from 
the constituted authority that the leper 
wasclean. The direction shows Christ’s 


hg asin T. R. 


NBCZ have the gen. as in ver. 1. 


confidence in the reality of the cure. 

The whole story is a picture of character. 
hr hy ; the 

panying word, “I will, be clean,” 


rompt, cordial, laconic, immense energy 
vitality; the 1_ord nce 


fearlessness 
? 


for existing i 
umane solicitude for the su 
well-being in every sense (vide on Mk.). 
v. 5-13. The centurion’s son or 
servant (Lk. vii. 1-10). Placed by both 
Matthew and Luke after Sermon on 
Mount, by the latter immediately after. 
—Ver. 5. eloeh@dvros, aorist participle 
with another finite verb, pointing to 
a completed action. He had entered 
Capernaum when the following event 
happened. Observe the genitive ab- 
solute again with a dative of the same 
subject, avrg, following mpoo7ndOev. 
éxatévtapxos: a Gentile (ver. 10), pro- 
bably an officer in the army of Herod 
Antipas.—Ver. 6. Kvpte again, not 
necessarily expressing any advanced 
idea of Christ’s person.—rais may mean 
either son or servant. Luke has dovAos, 
and from the harmonistic point of view 
this settles the matter. But many, in- 
cluding Bleek and Weiss (Meyer), insist 
that mais here means son.—BéBAyrat, 
perf. pointing to a chronic condition; 
bed-ridden in the house, therefore not 
with the centurion.—aapadvutikés: a 
disease of the nerves, therefore emotional 
treatment might be thought of, had the 
son only been present. But he could 
not even be brought on a stretcher as in 
another case (Matt. ix. 1) because not 
only wapak., but Saves Bacavildpevos, 
not an ordinary feature of paralysis.— 
Ver. 7. This is generally taken as an 
offer on Christ’s part to go to the house. 
Fritzsche finds in it a question, arranging 
the words (T. R.) thus: Kal, Aéyer a. 6 
*|., "Ey® €X@dav Ocparevow attév; and 
rendering: “And,” saith Jesus to him, 
“shall I go and heal him?” = is that 


_—— 


— ee 


i ete alin 





4-—I10. 


EYATTEAION 


iy) 


7- Kai? héyer atrd & “Inoods,? “"Eyd eMOdv Ocpamedow atrdv.” 


‘ x > , > 
8. Kat dioxpweis * 6 Exatévrapxos Edn, “ Kipte, ovk cipl tikavds iva i with iva 


pou Umd Thy otéyny eiceAOns~ GANG pdvov cimé Adyov,* Kal iaOn- 


‘ A m4 A ” , 
Q. kal yap éyo dvOpwirds eips Jind eEouciay,5 


ceTa. 6 Tats pou. 


” Cee aS} x , \ , ? 
exov ut €p.QUTOV OTPATLWTAS * KQL héyw TOUT®, 


, ‘ » ad ‘ ” A 
Topevetat* Kat GANw, “Epxou, Kat éepyetar: Kal 


lol mm»? 
Moingov todro, Kal rotet. 


here and 
in Lk. vii 
6; vide at 
ee iii. 11. 
j Lk. vii. 8. 
Noped@nt, Kai?“ %™ 


A , 
TG Sodho pou, 


10. “Axodoas 8€ 6 “Inoots eaipace, 


kal etme tots dxohouBovow, “"Auhy héyw spiv, odd€ ev Td “lopahd 


1B and many vers. (including Syr. Sin, and Cur.) omit the kat, so giving an 


expressive asyndeton. 
9 


2 $B, Syr. Sin. omit o Ingovs. 
* arroxpulers Se in KYB 33. 


+ $8BC have Aoyw, adopted by both Tisch. and W.H., and to be preferred. 


® SSB al, add racwopevos, adopted within brackets by W.H. 


¥ 


Lk.,”’ Weiss in Meyer. 


what you wish? The following verse 
then contains the centurion’s reply. 
This is, to say the least, ingenious.— 
Ver. 8, txavés: the Baptist’s word, chap. 
ili. Ir, but the construction different in 
the two places, there with infinitive, 
here with tva: I am not fit in order 
that. This is an instance illustrating 
the extension of the use of fva in later 
Greek, which culminated in its super- 
seding the infinitive altogether in modern 
Greek. On the N. T. use of tva, vide 
Burton, M. and T., §§ 191-222. Was it 
because he was a Gentile by birth, and 
also perhaps a heathen in religion, that 
he had this feeling of unworthiness, or 
was it a purely personal trait? If he 
was not only a Gentile but a Pagan, 
Christ’s readiness to go to the house 
would stand in remarkable contrast to 
His conduct in the case of the Syro- 
Pheenician woman. But vide Lk. vii. 5. 
—elmé Ady, speak (and heal) with a 
word. A bare word just where they 
stand, he thinks, will suffice.—Ver. 9, 
kai yap éy®: he argues from his own 
experience not with an air of self- 
importance, on the contrary making 
light of his position as a commander — 
uo éfovctay, spoken in modesty. He 
means: I also, though a very humble 
person in the army, under the authority 
of more important officers, still have a 
command over a body of men who do 
implicitly as I bid them. Fritzsche 
tightly suggests that Gv@pwires tro 
tEovoiav does not express a single idea 
= ‘‘a man under authority”. He re- 
presents himself as a man with authority, 
though in a modest way. A comma 


““ Manifestly out of 


might with advantage be placed after 
elut. The centurion thinks Jesus can 
order about disease as he orders his 
soldiers—say to fever, palsy, leprosy, 
go, and it will go. His soldiers go, his 
slaves do (Carr, C. G. T.). 

Ver. 10. In ver. 13 we are told that 
Jesus did not disappoint the centurion’s 
expectation. But the interest of the 
cure is eclipsed for the evangelist by the 
interest of the Healer’s admiration, 
certainly a remarkable instance of a 
noteworthy characteristic of Jesus: His 
delight in signal manifestations of faith. 
Faith, His great watchword, as it was St. 
Paul’s. This value set on faith was not 
a mere idiosyncrasy, but the result of 
insight into its nobleness and spiritual 
virtue.—xal ele: Christ did not conceal 
His admiration ; or His sadness when 
He reflected that such faith as this 
Gentile had shown was a rare thing in 
Israel.—Apiv: He speaks solemnly, not 
without emotion.—map’ ovSevi: this is 
more significant than the reading of 
T. R., assimilated to Lk. vii. 9. The 
ovdé implies that Israel was the home of 
faith, and conveys the meaning not even 
there. But wap’ ovSevi means not even 
in a single instance, and implies that 
faith in notable degree is at a discount 
among the elect people. Sucha sentiment 
at so early a period is noteworthy as show- 
ing how far Jesus was from cherishing 
extravagant hopes of setting up a theo- 
cratic kingdom of righteousness and 
godliness in Israel. 

Vy. 11-12. This logion is given by 
Luke (xiii. 28-29) in a different connec- 
tion, and it may not be in its historical 


140 


k Ch. ax sogadtyy wiotw! eSpov. 11. 


19, parall. 


KATA:«:MATOCAION VIL 


Aéyw Be dytv, Gre wool dws dva- 


Lk. xiii. Toh@v Kai Suopav Afoucr, Kal “dvakdOijcovrar pera “ABpadp kai 


29 (parall. : i 
to ~ ‘load Kal "lax®B év tH Baorhela tav ovpavav: 12, of dé ulol THs 
ext). 

1 Ch, xxii, Baowdelas exBAnOijcovta eis ‘1d oxdros Td ebdtepov: exet Eorar 
T5 XXV. mm ¢ ‘ ‘ Q an 2S ” 
30 (same 5 kAaubuds Kat 6 Bpuypds Tay d8dvTwr. 
phrase). 


13. Kat elirevy 6 “Ingous 


= ‘lee ~ @, ‘ , 
m Ch, xiii, TO Exarovtdépyw, “"Yraye, kal? ds émloctevoas yernOijtw co.” 


42, 50; a “ s 

xxv. 30 Kat id@n 6 rails avrod § év tH Spa exeivy.4 

same x ‘ 

phrase). 14. Kat éOdv 6 *ingods eis thy oiklay Métpou, ede Tiv wevPepdy 
n eg 


ohn iv. AUTOO BeBAnpevny Kal wupégcoucay, 15. Kal aro THS XELpds 


52. Acts 


xxviii, 8, GUTHS, Kal abijxey adtiy 6 “mupetds+ Kal HyépOn, Kal Sinxdver 


1 Authorities are much divided between the reading ovde ev tw I. . 


+ + €Upov 


(T. R.), which is found in S$CLAX al. (Tisch.), and wap ovSev. tooauTyy mioTi ev 
tw |. evpov, found in B, old Latin verss., Syr. Cur., Egypt. verss., and several cursives 


(W.H.). 
27 S8B omit wat. Vide below; 
3 QB omit avtov, also superfluous. 
4 amo THs wpas exervns in CAE 33. 


place here. But its import is in thorough 
harmony with the preceding reflection on 
the spiritual state of Israel. One who 
said the one thing was prepared to say 
the other. At whatever time said it 
would give offence. _It_is € 
heavy burdens_of the piophet_that_he 
Cannot be a mere 1 - 
plimentary things ab i i i 

urch. avaxAi8yocovTar: Jesus ex- 
presses Himself here and throughout 
this Jogion in the language of His time 
and people. The feast with the 
patriarchs, the outer darkness, the weep- 
ing and the gnashing of teeth (observe 
the article before oxétos, KxAavOpés, 
Bpvypos, implying that all are familiar 
ideas) are stock phrases. The imagery 
is Jewish, but the thought is anti-Jewish, 
universalistic, of perennial truth and 
value. 

Ver. 13. . Uaraye, etc.: compressed im- 
passioned utterance, spoken under 
emotion = Go, as thou hast believed be 
it to thee; cure as thorough as thy faith. 
The «at before ds in T. R. is the addition 
of prosaic scribes. Men speaking under 
emotion discard expletives, 

Weizsacker (Untersuchungen uber die 
Evang. Gesch., p. 50) remarks on the 
felicitous juxtaposition of these two 
narratives relatively to one another and 
to the Sermon on Mount. ‘In the first 
Jesus has to do with a Jew, and demands 
of him observance of the law. In this 
respect the second serves as a com- 
panion piece, the subject of healing 


The former has probably come in from Lk. vii. 9. 


being a heathen, giving occasion for a 
word as to the position of heathens. 
The two combined are happily appended 
to a discourse in which Jesus states His 
attitude to the law, forming as comple- 
ments of each other a commentary on 
the statement.” 

Vv. 14-15. Cure of a fever: Peter's 
mother-in-law (Mark i. 29-31 ; Luke iv. 
38, 39). This happened much earlier, at 
the beginning of the Galilean ministry, 
the second miracle-history in Mark and 
Luke. Mark at this point becomes 
Matthew’s guide, though he does not 
follow implicitly. Each evangelist has 
characteristic features, the story of the 
second being the original.— Ver. 14. 
é\Oav, coming from the synagogue on a 
Sabbath day (Mark i. 29) with fellow- 
worshippers not herenamed. ‘The story 
here loses its flesh and blood, and is cut 
down to the essential fact.—«is +. o. 
llérpov: Peter has a house and is 
married, and already he receives his dis- 
ciple name (Simon in Mark).—7evOepayv. 
It is Peter’s mother-in-law that is ill._— 
oe kal mupéocovcay, lying in 

ed, feyered. Had she taken ill since 
they left to attend worship, with the 
suddenness of feverish attacks in a 
tropical climate? BeBAnpévny is against 
this, as it naturally suggests an illness 
of some duration; but on the other 
hand, i: she had been ill for some time, 
why should they need to tell Jesus after 
coming back from the synagogue ? (Mark 
i, 30). wvpeoo. does not necessarily 


EYArTEAION 


rI—Ig. 141 
Ce eae | e? ’ x , an 
auTots. oo dé yevoudyns moor _0 same 
S16 vas) ye one WSOPE Ett Sarporilo ee 
pévous trodous: Kat eféBake Ta Tveduata Adyw, Kal mdvtas Tods a 
’ 23 ; 
KaKG@S Exovtas EOepdmevcevs 17. dws TANPWOR TO pybev Bid xxvii. 57, 
¢ a aA , , Co, HS x : 2 , eon andin Mk. 
Hoatov tod mpopytov, Aéyovtos, ‘AbTos Tas Pdobevelas pay Le John. 
p Lk. v. 15; 
ZdaBe, Kai tas vogous €Bdotacev.” viii. 2. 
Acts 


18. “ISav 8€ 6 "Incods moods Sydous? epi adtév, exéAeucey xxviii. 9. 
I 


GameOety “cis TO 4 épav. 
p 


19. kal wpooehOdy els ypappateds elev v. 23. 
in Mt. and Mk. (ver. 28, Ch, xiv. 22. 


Tim. 


q phr. freq. 
Mk. iv. 35 ai.). 


lavrw in $BCX al. avrois (in LA) has come in from parall. 
2B has oxdov; $§ oxAovs, which once introduced was enlarged into troAXous 
oxAous (N°CLAZ al.), not a usual expression in Mt. 


imply a serious attack, but vide Luke iv. 
38.—Ver. 15. * ato. He touched her 
hand; here to cure, in Mark to raise her 
up.—yép6n, Sinxéver: she rose up at 
once and continued to serve at the meal ; 
all present but Jesus only referred to 
here (avt», plural in Mark, but in- 
appropriate here). Not only the fever 
but the weakness it causes left her. 
‘Ordinarily a long time is required for 
recovery, but then ail things happened 
at once” (Chryst., Hom. xxvii.). Nota 
great miracle or interesting for anything 
said; but it happened at an early 
tume and in the disciple circle; Peter 
the informant; and it showed Christ’s 
sympathy (ver. 17), the main point for Mt. 

Vv. 16-17. Events of that Sabbath 
evening (Mark i. 32-34; Luke iy. yo, 41). 
A general statement, which, after iv. 
23 f., might have been dispensed with; 
but it is in the source (Mark) in the same 
context, and it gives our evangelist a 
welcome opportunity of quoting a pro- 
phetic text in reference to Christ’s heal- 
ing work. Ver. 16. “Owias yevouévas: 
vague indication of time on any day, but 
especially a Sabbath day. There were 
two evenings, an early and a late (Ex. 
xxx. 8). Which of them was it; before 
or after sunset? Mark is more exact.— 
Sa.poy. modAovs : why a crowd just then, 
and why especially demoniacs brought 
to be healed? For explanation we must 
goto Mark. The preaching of Jesus in 
the synagogue that Sabbath day, and the 
cure of a demoniac (Mark i. 21-28), had 
created a great sensation, and the result 
is a crowd gathered at the door of Peter’s 
house at sunset, when the Sabbath 
ended, with their sick, especially with 
demoniacs.—Ver. 17. Prophetic cita- 
tion, apposite, felicitous ; setting Christ’s 
healing ministry in a true light; giving 
prominence not to the thaumaturgic but 


to the sympathetic aspect; from the 
Hebrew original, the Sept. making the 
text (Is. lili. 4) refer to sin. The 
Hebrew refers to sicknesses and pains. 
It is useless to discuss the precise mean- 
ing of €\aBew and éBdaragev: took and 
bore, or took and bore away ; subjective 
or objective? The evangelist would 
note, not merely that Jesus actually did 
remove diseases, but that He was minded 
to do so: such was His bent. 

Vv. 18-34. Excursion to the eastern 
shore with its incidents (Mark iv. 35—v. 
20; Luke viii. 22-39). These narratives 
make a large leap forward in the history. 
As our evangelist is giving a collection 
of healing incidents, the introduction of 
vv. 18-22, disciple interviews, and even 
of vv. 23-27, a nature miracle, needs an 
explanation. The readiest is that he 
found these associated with the Gadara 
incident, his main concern, in his source 
or sources, the whole group in the Apos- 
tolic Document (so Weiss). We must 
not assume a close connection between 
§ 18-22 and the excursion to the eastern 
shore. Luke gives the meeting with the 
scribe, etc..a different setting. Possibly 
neither is right. The scribe incident 
may belong to the excursion to thé north 
(xv. 21), 

Ver. 18. "“ISav . . . weptairdy. The 
evangelist makes a desire to escape from 
the crowd the motive of the journey. 
This desire is still more apparent in 
Mark, but the crowd and the time are 
different. The multitude from which 
Jesus escapes, in Mark’s narrative, is 
that gathered on the shore to hear the 
parable-discourse from a boat on the 
lake.—éxéAevorev are Oeiv. Grotius thinks 
this elliptical for: éxéXevoe wdvra érot- 
pdoateis Toa. Beza renders: indixit 
profectionem = He ordered departure. 
Tovs padyrdas is understood, not men- 


142 


r Lk. ix. 8; abTd, “ AvSdoxade, dxodoubijow oor, Sou édvy drépyy.” 


Xiii. 32. 


KATA MATOAION 


VII. 


20. Kai 


s Lk. ix. 58. Méyer adT@ 6 “Ingots, “At *dddrexes “dwdeods Exouvot, Kal Ta 


t Lk. ix. 58. 


u Ch. xix.8. weTetva Tod odpavod ‘xaragknvdces: 5 S€ vids tod dvOpdrou obx 


Lk. viii. 


32 (with €xel, TOU Thy Keay KAivp.’ 


inf.). 1 


21. “Erepos 3€ tay pabyrav adtod ! 


~ , aA an 
Cor. xvi. trey adT@, “ Kupte, “ émitpeysv pot mp@toy dweNOetv Kal * Odipar Tov 


7. Heb. vi. 3 

3 (absol.). WaTEpa pou. 
v Ch, xiv. f 

12. Lk. ix. 59; xvi. 22. 


22. ‘O 8€ “Incois? eitwev® adta, “’Axodovber por, 


1 $3B omit avrov, which here as often elsewhere occurs in T. R., where it is not 


required, 


2 On the authority of §¥, Tisch. omits o Invovs found in BCLA al. 


3 Neyer in NBC 33. 


tioned because they alone could be 
meant.—Ver. 19, els, either ‘‘one, a 
scribe” (Weiss and very decidedly Meyer, 
who says that els never in N. T. = tis), 
or ‘“‘a certain scribe,” indefinite reference, 
so Fritzsche, falling back on Suicer, 
I., p. 1037, and more recently Bleek 
and others. Vide Winer, § xviii. 9, who 
defends the use of els for tls as a feature 
of later Greek.—ypappareds, a scribe! 
even one of that most unimpressionable 
class, in spirit and tendency utterly op- 
posed to the ways of Jesus. A Saul 
among the prophets. He has actually 
become warmed up to something like 
enthusiasm. A striking tribute to the 
magnetic influence of Jesus.—éxodov- 
@yow: already more or less of a disciple— 
perhaps he had been present during the 
teaching on the hill or at the encounter 
between Jesus and the scribes in re 
washing (xv. 1 f.), and been filled with 
admiration for His wisdom, moral 
earnestness and courage; and this is 
the result. Quite honestly meant, but. 
—Ver. 20, Aéyer atte 6 |. Jesus dis- 
trusted the class, and the man, who 
might be better than the average, still 
he was a scribe. Christ’s feeling was 
not an unreasoning or invincible pre- 
judice, but a strong suspicion and aversion 
justified by imsight and _ experience. 
Therefore He purposely paints the pro- 
spect in sombre colours to prevent a 
connection which could come to no 
good.—at adurexes, etc.: a notable say- 
ing; one of the outstanding logia of 
Jesus, in style and spirit characteristic ; 
not querulous, as if lamenting His lot, 
but highly coloured to repel an undesir- 
able follower. Foxes have holes, and 
birds resting places, roosts (not nests, 
which are used only for breeding), but— 
6 8 vids tod Gv8pdrov;: a remarkable 
designation occurring here for the first 


time. It means much for the Speaker, 
who has chosen it deliberately, in con- 
nection with private reflections, at whose 
nature we can only guess by study of 
the many occasions on which the name 
is used. Here it seems to mean the 
man simpliciter (son of man = man in 
Hebrew or Syriac), the unprivileged Man: 
not only no exception to the rule of 
ordinary human experience in the way of 
being better off, but rather an exception 
in the way of being worse off; for the 
tule is, that all living creatures, even 
beasts, and still more men, have their 
abodes, however humble. If it be Mes- 
sianic, it is in a hidden enigmatical way. 
The whole speech is studiously enigma- 
tical, and calculated to chill the scribe’s 
enthusiasm. Was Jesus speaking in 
parables here, and hinting at something 
beyond the literal privations of His life 
as a wanderer with no fixed home? The 
scribe had his spiritual homein Rabbinical 
traditions, and would not be at ease in 
the company of One who had broken with 
them. Jesus had no place where He could 
lay His head in the religion of His time 
(vide my With Open Face, chap. ix.). 
Vv. 21-22. Another disciple. “Erepos, 
another, not only numerically (a@Aos), 
but intype. The first was enthusiastic ; 
this one is hesitating, and needs to be 
urged; a better, more reliable man, 
though contrasting with his neighbour 
unfavourably.—_r@v padntev: the ex- 
pression seems to imply that the scribe 
was, or, in spite of the repellent word of 
Jesus, had become, a regular disciple. 
That is possible. If the scribe insisted, 
Jesus might suffer him to become a 
disciple, as He did Judas, whom doubtless 
He instinctively saw tkrough from the 
beginning. But not likely. The in- 
ference may be avoided by rendering with 
Bleek : ‘‘another, one of the disciples ’.— 


EE OO Se 


20--25. 


Kat does tods vexpods Odar Tods EéauTav vexpots.” 
€uBdvr7e ait eis 5! mrotov, HKohoPnoay adt@ ot palytal adzod. 

\ > , ow N ’ Peay? > a P) x 
24. Kat idov, “ceopds péyas éyévero év tH Oaddoon, date 1d 
WAotov *kahvnrecOa. bw Tov Kupdtwv: attos Sé éxdGeude. 
2 


Kat mpovehOdytes of pabytai adtoi 


1 ro omitted in SQbBC 33. 


EYAITEAION 


143 


23. Kat w here only 
=tempest. 
Ch. xxiv. 
7; XXxvii. 
54 al. 
(earth- 
quake). 

x Lk. viii. 
16 (ri Tuve). 

- X. 26. 

2 Cor. iv. 3 (hide from knowledge), 


25. 


~ > la id 
Nyelpav avtov, Aéyovtes, 


2 or padnTar avtrov wanting in $B; added for clearness, but not needed. 


éritpedv pot: he wished, before setting 
out from home to enter on the career 
of discipleship, to attend to an urgent 
domestic duty; in fact to bury his 
father. In that climate burial had to 
take place on the day of death. Per- 
mission would have involved very little 
delay of the voyage, unless, with Chrysos- 
tom, we include under @dypat all that 
goes along with death and burial, ar- 
ranging family affairs, distribution of 
inheritance, etc. There would not pro- 
bably be much trouble of that sort in the 
case of: one belonging to the Jesus- 
circle.—Ver. 22. “AxoAov@et pou: the 
reply is a stern refusal, and the reason 
apparently hard and unfeeling—ades 
Tovs vekpovs . . . vekpovs: word for 
word the same in Luke (ix. 60), an 
unforgettable, mystic, hard saying. The 
dead must be taken in two senses = let 
the spiritually dead, not yet alive to the 
claims of the kingdom, bury the naturally 
dead. Fritzsche objects, and finds in 
the saying the paradox: ‘let the dead 
bury each other the best way they can,”’. 
which, as Weiss says, is not a paradox, 
but nonsense. Another eccentric idea of 
some commentators is that the first 
vexpovs refers to the vesfillones, the 
corpse-bearers who carried out the bodies 
of the poor at night, in Hebrew phrase, 
the men of the dead. Take it as we 
will, it seems a hard, heartless saying, 
difficult to reconcile with Christ’s de- 
nunciation of the Corban casuistry, by 
which humanity and filial piety were 
sacrificed on the altar of religion (Matt. 
xv. 3-6). But, doubtless, Jesus knew to 
whom He was speaking. The saying 
can be understood and justified ; but it 
can also very easily be misunderstood 
and abused, and woe to the man who 
does so. From these two examples we 
see that Jesus had a startling way of 
speaking to disciples, which would create 
reflection, and also give rise to remark. 
The disciple-logia are original, severe, 
fitted to impress, sift and confirm. 

Vv. 23-27. Storm on the lake (Mk. 


iv. 35-41, Lk. viii. 22-25). Ver. 23. 
épBavre at’t@ might be called a dative 
absolute ; if taken as dative after jxohov- 
O@noav, the ait@ after this verb is 
superfluous. This short sentence is 
overcharged with pronouns (avvod after 
pabytai).—rd wdotov (7d omitted in Lk.), 
the ship in readiness in accordance with 
previous instructions (ver. 18). Ver. 24, 
iSov indicates sudden oncome.—cetopds 
év vt. 9., literally an earthquake of the 
sea, the waters stirred to their depths by 
the winds referred to in vv. 26, 27; 
AaiAary in Mark and Luke=hurricane.— 
Gore, here with infinitive, used also with 
finite moods (e.g., Gal. ii. 13). In the 
one case éere indicates aim or tendency, 
in the other it asserts actual result (vide 
Goodwin, p. 221, also Baiimlein, Schul- 
grammatik, §§ 593,594). Klotz, Devar., 
li. p. 772, gives as the equivalent of 
Sore, with infinitive, ita ut; with in- 
dicative, itaque or guare).—Kahvrreo Oat, 
was covered, hidden, the waves rising 
high above the boat, breaking on it, and 
gradually filling it with water (cf. Mark 
and Luke).-—atrés $¢ €xadevdev: dramatic 
contrast = but He was sleeping (im- 
perfect), the storm notwithstanding. 
Like a general in time of war Jesus 
slept when He could. He had fallen 
asleep before the storm came on, pro- 
bably shortly after they had started (Lk. 
viii. 23, mAcévTwy avTay adimvwcer : 
while they sailed He went off to sleep), 
soothed by the gliding motion. It was 
the sleep of one worn by an intense life, 
involving constant strain on body and 
mind. ‘he mental tension is apparent 
in the words spoken to the two disciples 
(vv. 20-22). Words like these are not 
spoken in cold blood, or without waste 
of nervous power. Richard Baxter de- 
scribes Cromwell as ‘of such vivacity, 
hilarity, and alacrity as another man 
hath when he hath drunken a cup too 
much” (Reliquiae Baxt.). ‘ Drunken, 
but not with wine,” with a great epoch- 
making enthusiasm. The storm did not 
wake the sleeper. A tempest, the sublime 
_—_ 


144 KATA MATOAION VilT. 
a 


» Mk. iv. go.“ Kudpie, o@oov Hpds,? dwodddpeba.” 26. Kai Aéyer adrois, “Ti 


R < : ¢ , ” ‘ , a] 

a et *Sehot ore, SdtydmtcTor ; Tére eyepOeis *eretipnoe Tots 
* here an 

parall. of dvénors Kal TH Oaddoon, Kal eyévero *yahivy peyddyn. 27. ot Be 
e win 


and sea GvOpwrot eBadpacay, Adyovtes, “’Motamds éotiw odTos, St. Kal of 
(Ps. cv. 9): oe V € c , > A 2 

ahere and Gvepor Kal  Oddacoa braKovouoww adTa ; 
arall, 


b Mk. xiii. 1. Lk. i. 29; vii. 39. 1 John iii. x. 


1 mpas, another addition for clearness, wanting in QB; more expressive without. 
7 NB transpose vrak, avrw (so Tisch., W.H.). 


j e irit-- portenti nuntium acceperant,’” and 
The Fathers viewed the sleep and the Weiss). Holtzmann (H. C.) says they 
storm theologically, both arranged for might be the men in the other ships 
beforehand, to give time for cowardice mentioned in Mk. iv. 36, but in reality 
to show itself (Chrys., Hom. xxviii.), to the expression may simply point to the 
let the disciples know their weakness and contrast between the disciples as men 
to accustom them to trials (Theophyl.). and the divine power displayed.—rora- 


A docetic Christ, an unreal man, a més . . . otros, what manner of person ? 
theatrical affair !—Ver. 25. wpoaeA@dvres: The more classic form is wodamés = from 
one of our evangelist’s favourite words.— what land? where born? possibly from 


nyetpay: they would not have waked Him rod and azo, with a euphonic 8 (Passow). 
if they could ee helped it. They were rotamds, in later use, = of what sort? 
Beruine’y terrilec, tough experienced vide Lobeck, Phryn., p. 56.—This story 
sailors accustomed to rough weather.— of the triple tradition is a genuine re- 


KUpte, caoov . . . dwodAvpefa: laconic miniscence of disciple life. There was a 
speech, verbs unconnected, utterance storm, Jesus slept,the—disciples awoke 
of fear-stricken men. Luke’s breo-rane Him in terror He rebuked the wince 
émiotata is equally descriptive. Who and waves, and they forthwith subsided. 
could tell exactly what they said? All The only escape of naturalism from a 
three evangelists report differently.— Ver. miracle of power or Providence (Weiss, 
26, Sedol, dAtydmiotor, He chides them Leben Fesu) is to deny the causal 
first, then the winds, the chiding meant sequence between Christ’s word and the 
to calm fear. Cowards, men of little ensuing calm and suggest coincidence. 
faith! harsh in tone but kindly meant; The storm sudden in its rise, equally 
expressive really of personal fearlessness, sudden in its lull. , 

i ency Over panic-stricken Vv. 28-34. The demoniacs of Gadara 
spirits (cf. Luke).—réretyepvets: He had (Mk. v. 1-20, Lk. viii. 26-39). This 
uttered the previous words as He lay, narrative raises puzzling questions of all 
then with a sudden impulse He rose and sorts, among them a geographical or 
spoke imperial words to the elements: topological one, as to the scene of the 
animos discipulorum prius, deinde mare occurrence. The variations in the read- 
composuit (Bengel).—avépots, Pakdooq: ings in the three synoptical gospels 
He rebuked both. It would have been reflect the perplexities of the scribes. 
enough to rebuke the winds which caused The place in these readings bears three 
the commotion in the water. But the distinct names, It is called the territory 
speech was impassioned and poetic, not of the Gadarenes, the Gerasenes, and the 
scientific.—yaAnvn peyaAy: antitheticto Gergesenes. The reading in Mk. v. I 
geiopos péyas, ver. 24.—Ver. 27, ot inB, and adopted by W.H.., is Cepacnvay, 
a&vOpwrot: who? Naturally one. would and, since the discovery by Thomson 
say the disciples with Jesus in t'ne boat, (Land and Book, ii. 374) of a place 
called men to suit the tragic situation. called Gersa or Kersa, near the eastern 
But many think others are referred to, shore of the lake, there has been a grow- 
men unacquainted with Jesus: * quibus ing consensus of opinion in favour of 
nondum innotuerat Christus” (Calvin); Gerasa (not to be confounded with 
either with the disciples in the boat, and Gerasa in Gilead, twenty miles east of 
referred to alone (Jerome, } feyer) or the Jordan) as the true name of the 
jointly (De Wette, Bleek), or : who after- scene of the story. A place near the sea 
wards heard the story (Hilar y, Euthy., seems to be demanded by the circum- 
Fritzsche: ‘‘homines, quotc jyot hujus_ stances, and Gadara on the Hieromax 


26—ag. EYATTEAION 145 

28. Kai é\@dvm atta! cis 1 wepay eis Thy xdpay Tov Pepyeonvay,?c Ch. xxviii 

ce , 2 A $ , 5 , > A , > , 9. k. viii. 
impvtycay abt@ Svo Saipovifdpevor ek TOV pyypelwy eLepxdpevor 27; xiv. 

da =) ~ [3 a > i 

xaderot Aiay, dore pi toxvew Twa wapedetv 81a THs 6300 exeivys - as 

2g. kat iSou, éxpagay, Aéyovtes, “© Ti Hpiv Kal col, "Inood,? vie Tod) here ead 2 

x Tim. iii. 1 

(Isa. xviii, 2). e Mk. i. 24. Lk. iv. 34. 


} Dat. again by way of grammatical correction for the gen. abs. found in §Q>BC 
and adopted by Tisch., W.H., etc. 


2 So in °C8L al., Memph. vers., Origen. TaSapynvey in BC*MAX ail., adopted 
by Tisch., Treg., W.H., Weiss. Vide below. 


3 Inoov is wanting in BCL. Comes in from Mk. Modern editors omit. 


was too far distant. The true reading 
in Matthew (ver. 28) nevertheless is Tada- 
pyvev. He probably follows Mark as 
his guide, but the village Gerasa being 
obscure and Gadara well known, he 
prefers to define the locality by a general 
reference to the latter. The name 
Gergesa was a suggestion of Origen’s 
made incidentally in his Commentary on 
John, in connection with the place 
named in chap. i. 28, Bethabara or 
Bethany, to illustrate the confusion in 
the gospel in connection with names. 


fierce exceedingly; Alav, one of our 
evangelist’s favourite words. These 
demoniacs were what one would call 


dangerous madmen; that, whatever 
more; no light matter to cure them, say 
by ‘moral therapeutics ”.—dore py 


loyvewv: again dere with infinitive (with 
py for negative). The point is not that 
nobody passed that way, a 

presence of the madmen tended to make 
it a place to be shunned as dangerous. 


Nobody cared to go n t 
came near their lair by accident, but He 


a 


ot would not have been sc 


His words are: [épyeoa, ad’ Fs 
Tepyeraior, wédis dpxaia mepi tHv viv” had known of their ae 
kahoupevny TiBepiada Aipvyv, wepl 7 Ver. 29. idov éxpagav: sudden, start- 


Kpnpvos Tapakeipevos TH Alpvg, ad’ od 


Seixvutat Tos xotpovs V1rd TOY Satpdvwv 


xataPeBArjoOar (in Ev. Ioan., T. vi. c. 
24). 


Gerasa ‘‘impossible”’. 


Prof. G. A. Smith, Historical 


Geography, p. 459, note, pronounces 
But he means arrived in the neighbourhood, 


ling, unearthly cry, fitted to shock weak 
nerves. But not the cry of men about 
to make an assault. The madmen,whom 
all feared and shunned, were subdued 
by the aspect of the stranger who had 
To be 
taken as a fact, however strange and 


Gerasa in Decapolis, thirty-six miles 
away. He acceptS Khersa, which he mysterious, partly explained by the fact 
identifies with Gergesa, as the scene of that Jesus was not afraid of them any 
the incident, stating that it is the only more than He had been of the storm. 


place on the east coast where the steep 
hills come down to the shore. 

Ver. 28. 8vo, two, in Mark and Luke 
one. According to some, ¢.g., Holtz- 
mann (H. C.), the two includes the case 
reported in Mk. i. 23-27, Lk. iv. 31-37, 
omitted by Matthew. Weiss’ hypothesis 
is that the two is an inference from 


They felt His power in the very look of 
His eye. ti qpiv xat vol: an appropri- 
ate speech even in the mouth of one 
demoniac, for he speaks in the name of 
the legion of devils (Mk. v. 9) by which 
he conceives himself possessed. Identi- 
fying himself with the demons, he 
shrinks from the new comer with an 





the plurality of demons spoken of instinctive feeling that He is a foe.—vié 
in his source (vide Matt.-Evan., p. Tov Qeot: 6 dytos 7. 0. in the Capernaum 
239). The harmonists disposed of the synagogue case; strange, almost incred- 
difficulty by the remark that there might ible divination. Yet “insanity is much 
be two, though only one is spoken of in _ nearer the kin dom of God than worldly- 
the other accounts, perhaps because he Sr PRE There was, doubtless, 
was the more violent of the two (so something in the whole aspect and man- 
Augustine and Calvin).—ék Tév pynpetwv: ner of Jesus which was fitted to produce 
the precipitous hills on the eastern shore almost instantaneously a deep, spiritual 
are a limestone formation full of caves, impression to which child-like, simple, 
which were doubtless used for burying ingenuous souls like the Galilean fisher- 
the dead. There the demoniacs made men, sinful, yet honest-hearted men 
their congenial home.— yadeoi Aiav, like those who met at Matthew’s feast, 


10 


146 


KATA MATOAILON 


Vill. 


{same phr. @eod ; AOes Ode ‘pd ‘katpod Bacavioa: hpas ;" 30. “Hy Sé paxpdr 


1 Cor. iv 


5 (Sir. ' ‘da abray dyn xolpwy woddav ” Bookopérn. 
xxx. . 
z here an Tapexddouy aitév, héyovtes, 


arall. 


h Mk. v. 14. GareNOetv! ig thy dyéAny tv yxolpwy.” 


Lk. viii. ¢ ” 
2; xv.15. Yrdyere. 
Nan xxi. 
15, 17. 
i parall. and 


31. ot Sé Saipoves 
“EL éxBddders pads, emitpepov tpiv 
32. Kat etwev atrois, 


Oi Se efehOdvres dawydOov eis thy dyédqy Tay 
xotpwr 2+ Kal i8od, ‘Spynoe waca i ayé\y Tav yoipwrv® J card 


Acts xix. TOU 1 kpypvod eis Thy Oddaccay, cal dméGavov évy Trois SSaouy. 


29 (Acts 


vii. 57, éri rtva). j parall. 


! For the reading emirpewov naw amedOew in T. R. SB have amooretAov; adopted 


by modern editors. 


The T. R. conforms to Lk. (viii. 32). 


2 For ets Thy ayeAnv Twv xotpwy WBC have tous xotpous (Tisch., W.H.). 


5 NBCAX omit tev xotpev. 


readily surrendered themselves. Men 
with shattered reason also felt the 
spell, while the wise and the strong- 
minded too often used their intellect, 
under the bias of passion or prejudice, to 
resist the force of truth. In this way 
we may account for the prompt recogni- 
tion of Jesus by the Gadarene demoniac. 
All that is uecessary to explain it is the 
Messianic hope prevalent in Gadara as 
tlsewhere, and the sight of Jesus acting 
pn an impressionable spirit” (Bruce, The 
Miraculous Element in the Gospels p. 
187).—1po katpov: before the appointed 
time of jsdgment. The article wanting 
here before x. as in other phrases in 
N. T., ¢.g., év katp@, Matt. xxiv. 45.— 
Bacavicat, to torment with pain in 
Hades, described as a place of torment 
in Lk. xvi. 28, cf. ver. 23. 

Ver. 30. paxpav: the Vulgate renders 
non longe, as if ov had stood in the Greek 
before pax. But there are no variants 
here. Mark and Luke have éxet, which 
gives rise to an apparent discrepancy. 
Only apparent, many contend, because 
both expressions are relative and elastic: 
at a distance, yet within view; there, in 
that neighbourhood, but not quite at 
hand. Elsner refers to Lk. xv. 20: 
pakpay, “et tamen in conspectu, ut, 
Luc. xv. 20: “Ere 8 atrov paxpav 
biréxovrTos, eldevy avToy 6 watyp”. On 
hxet he remarks: ‘‘docet in ea regione 
et vicinia fuisse, nec distantiam descri- 
bit”. Weiss against Meyer denies 
the relativity of paxpav, and takes it as 
meaning ‘‘a long way off,’’ while visible. 
—Bookopnévy: far removed from jy, and 
not to be joined with it as if the feeding 
were the main point, and not rather the 
existence of the herd there. The ill 
attested reading Bookopévev brings out 
the meaning better: a herd of swine 


which were feeding in the hill pastures. 
The swine, doubtless, belonged to Gen- 
tiles, who abounded in Perza.-—Ver. 
31. ot Satwoves: unusual designation, 
commonly datpdvia.—apexcddouvy : the 
request was made by the possessed in the 
name of the demons.—améarethov: the 
reading of the T. R. (€mitpeov atedOeiv) 
taken from Luke expresses, in a milder 
form,. Christ’s share of responsibility ina 
transaction of supposed doubtful charac- 
ter. The demoniac would have no 
scruple on that score. His request was: 
if you are to cast us out, send us not 
to hell, but into the swine.—Ver. 32. 
tmayete: Christ’s laconic reply, usually 
taken to mean: go into the swine, but 
not necessarily meaning more than ‘‘be- 
gone”. So Weiss, who holds that 
Jesus had no intention of expressing 
acquiescence in the demoniac’s request. 
(Matt. Evan. and Weiss-Meyer, “ Hin- 
weg mit euch ’’.)—ot 8 . . . yotpous: the 
entrance of the demons into the swine 
could not, of course, be a matter of 
observation, but only of inference from 
what followed.—idov, introducing a sud- 
den, startling event—dppycev waca F 
ayéAn—the mad downrush of the herd 
over the precipice into the lake. Assum- 
ing the full responsibility of Jesus for the 
catastrophe, expositors have busied them- 
selves in inventing apologies. Euthy. 
gives four reasons for the transaction, 
the fourth being that only thereby could 
it be conclusively shown that the devils 
had left the demoniacs. Rosenmiiller 
suggests that two men are worth more 
than ever so many swine. The lowest 
depth of bathos in this line was touched 
by Wetstein when he suggested that, by 
cutting up the drowned swine, salting the 
meat or making smoke-dried hams (fum- 
osas pernas), and selling them to Gen- 


39—34- 


{P A X ~ , 
TavTa, Kal TA TOV SatpoviLonevar. 


efnOev eis ouvdvryow ! 


EYATTEAION 


147 
33. ot S€ Bdaxovtes Epuyov, Kal diweNOdvtes cis Thy WAL dariyyyernav 
34. kal i8ou, maga tH wédu 
u ae h 

a2? a, \2g7 Ch. xi. 1, 
TO * ‘Ingo’ Kat iddvtes adtév, TapEeKGAETOV — xii: xv. 

29 (with 

éxetdev). 


dtws* * petaBH did Tov éplwy adtay. 


1 For ovvaytnow (CLAZ) SB 1, 33, have vravrqow (Tisch., W.H.), a preferable 


word. Vide below. 


? For tw (B) $§C have tov, adopted by Tisch. and put in margin by W.C, 


3 For omws B has wa. 


tiles who did not object to eat suffocated 
animals, the owners would escape loss. 
But the learned commentator might be 
jesting, for he throws out the suggestion 
for the benefit of men whom he describes 
as neither Jews, Gentiles, nor Christians. 

Vv. 33-34. The sequel. é&pvyov: the 
swineherds fled. No wonder, in view of 
such a disaster. If the demoniacs, in 
the final paroxysm before return to 
sanity, had anything to do with bringing 
it about, the superstitious terror with 
which they were regarded would add to 
the panic.—amyyyerhkav: they reported 
what had happened to their masters and 
to everybody they met in the town.— 
mwdavra, what had befallen the swine.— 
kal Ta T. Satpovilopévwy: they could 
not know the whole truth about the 
demoniacs. The reference must be to 
some visible connection between the 
behaviour of the madmen and the 
destruction of the herd. They told the 
story from their own point of view, not 
after interviewing Jesus and His com- 
pany.—Ver. 34. mwaoa 7 wddts: an ex- 
aggeration of course, cf. accounts in 
Mark and Luke.—eis twdvrynow .. . I., 
to a meeting with Jesus. The noun 
occurs again in Matt. xxv. 1, and John 
xii. 13; in Matt. xxv. 6 amdvryowy is 
used instead of it. eis amav. occurs in 


Sept. for map. The two nouns 


are little used in Greek authors. The 
change from one to the other in Matt. 
xxv. 1,6 implies aslight difference in mean- 
ing; twavryots = accidental chance, or 
stealthy meeting ; dmwdvrynois = an open 
designed meeting. The stealthy charac- 
ter of the meeting implied in t7ré is well 
illustrated in trjvrqcay, ver. 28, of this 
narrative. The statement that the whole 
city went out to meet Jesus implies a 
report laying the blame of the occurrence 
on Him. But Matthew’s account is 
very summary, and must be supple- 
mented by the statements in Mark and 
Luke, from which it appears that some 


came from the town to inquire into the 
matter, ‘‘to see what had happened,” 
and that in the course of their inquiries 
they met Jesus and learned what they 
had not known before, the change that 
had come over the demoniac. [t was 
on their giving in their report to their 
fellow-townsmen, connecting the cure 
with the catastrophe, that the action re- 
ported in ver. 34 took place.—Ver. 34. 
mTapekdderay: same word as in ver. 31 
in reference to the demoniacs. They 
did not order or drive Him out. They 
besought in terms respectful and even 
subdued. They were afraid of this 
strange man, who could do such wonder- 
ful things; and, with all due respect, 
they would rather He would withdraw 
from their neighbourhood. 

This would be an oft-told tale, in 
which different versions were sure to 
arise, wherein fact and explanation of 
fact would get mixed up together. The 
very variations in the synoptical accounts 
witness to its substantial historicity. 
The apologist’s task is easy here, as 
distinct from that of the harmonist, 
which is difficult. The essential outline 
of the story is this. A demoniac, alias 
a madman, comes from the tombs in the 
limestone caves to meet Jesus, exhibiting 
in behaviour and conversation a double 
consciousness. Asked his name, he 
calls himself Legion. In the name of 
the ‘‘ Legion” he begs that the demons 
may enter the swine. Jesus orders the 
demons to leave their victim. Shortly 
after a herd of swine feeding on the 
hills rushed down the steep into the sea 
and were drowned. Tradition connected 
the rush of the swine with the demons 
leaving their former victim and entering 
into them. But, as already remarked, 
the causal connection could not be a 
matter of observation but only of in- 
ference. The rush might, as Weiss 
suggests, be caused by the man, in his 
final paroxysm, chasing them. But 
that also is matter of conjecture. The 


148 
a Ch, xiv. 
34. Mk. 


Vv. 21; vi. b idiay awoXu. 


KATA MAT@AION 


IX. 


IX. 1. KA) éuBas eis rd! wrotoy “Stemépace kal 7AOev eis Thy 
2. kal i8ou, mpooépepory abtS mapadutixdy éml Kdivys 


53- Lk. a 2» A a 
xvi.26. BeBAnpévovs Kat isov 6 “Inoots Thy wiotw adtay elwe 7H Tapa- 


b Lk. ii. 3 


(in various huTiKd, “*@dpoe, téxvov, ddéwvtai? gor ai dpaptiat gov.” ® 
M 


ps 
c again ver. 22. Ch. xiv. 27 (plur., to the 12), Mk. x. 49. 


1 ro omitted by NBLX. 


7 NB have the form agvevrat (Tisch., W.H.). 


8 The reading adewvrar oo: at ap. gov in T. R. is from Lk. (v. 20). 


govatapap. D has cor at ap. 

real cause of the catastrophe is a mystery. 
Rosenmiller suggests that at a hot 
season of the year one in a herd of swine 
might undergo a morbid seizure, begin 
to run wildly about, and be followed 
sequaciously by the whole flock. He 
mentions an occurrence of the kind at 
Erfurt, recent when he wrote. Lutteroth, 
no rationalist, suggests ‘‘ vertigo,”’ per- 
mitted by Jesus to befall the swine, that 
the demoniac might have in their be- 
haviour a sensible sign of deliverance, 
and so be rid of his fixed idea (vide 
his Essai D’Interp,, 3eme Partie, p. 27, 
note). On the nature of demoniacal 
possession, vide my Miraculous Element 
in the Gospels, pp. 172-190; vide also 
notes on Mark. 

CHAPTER IX. THE HEALING MINISTRY 
CONTINUED. Vv. 1-8. The palsied man 
(Mark ii. 1-12; Luke v. 17-26). Ver. 1. 
éuBas: Jesus complied with the request 
of the men of Gerasa, who had inti- 
mated so plainly that they did not want 
any more of Hiscompany. Whatever 
His purpose in crossing over to the 
eastern shore may have been, it was 
frustrated by an event which in some 
respects was an unexpected disaster. 
Was it rest only or a new sphere of 
work He was seeking there? Vide notes 
on Mark.—eis t. l8fav w.: entering the 
boat which had been moored to the 
shore, Jesus returned with His disciples 
to His own city, to distinguish it from 
Gerasa, the city that shut its gates 
against Him; so named here only. 
When precisely the following incident 
happened cannot be ascertained. Luke’s 
indication of time is the vaguest possible ; 
“on one of the days”. Matthew and 
Mark give it in different sequence, but 
their narratives have this in common, 
that they make the incident occur on 
arrival in Capernaum after an excursion ; 
in either case the first mentioned, though 
not the same in both. Vide notes on 
Mark. 


Ver. 2. «at tSov: usual formula for 


WB have 


introducing an important incident.— 
awpooépepov, the imperfect, implying a 
process, the details of which, extremely 
interesting, the evangelist does not give. 
By comparison with Mark and Luke the 
Narrative is meagre, and defective even 
for the purpose of bringing out the 
features to which the evangelist attaches 
importance, ¢.g., the value set by Jesus 
on the faith evinced. His eye is fixed 
on the one outstanding novel feature, 
the word of Jesus in ver. 6. In 
view of it he is careful, while omitting 
much, to mention that the invalid in this 
instance was brought to Jesus, ém 
wAivyns BeBAnpevoy, lying on a couch. 
To the same cause also it is due that a 
second case of paralysis cured finds a 
place in this collection, though the two 
cases have different features: in the one 
physical torments, in the other mental 
depression.—loriv aitav, the faith of 
the men who had brought the sick man 
to Him. The common assumption that 
the sick man is included in the avrév 
is based on dogmatic grounds.—@dpoet, 
téxvov: with swift sure diagnosis Jesus 
sees in the man not faith but deep 
depression, associated probably with sad 
memories of misconduct, and uttering 
first a kindly hope-inspiring word, such 
as a physician might address to a 
patient: cheer up, child! He deals first 
with the disease of the soul.—adievrat: 
Jesus declares the forgiveness of his 
sins, not with the authority of an ex- 
ceptional person, but with sympathy and 
insight, as the interpreter of God’s will 
and the law of the universe. That law 
is that past error need not be a doom; 
that we may take pardon for granted ; 
forgive ourselves, and start anew. The 
law holds, Jesus believed, both in the 
physical and in the moral sphere. In 
combining pardon with healing of bodily 
disease in this case, He was virtually 
announcing a general law. ‘ Who 
forgiveth all thine iniquities, who healeth 
all thy diseases,” Ps. ciii. & 





I—7. 


EYATTEAION 


149 


3. Kat i80u, tes Tay ypapparéwy etrov év éautois, “ Odtos * BAas- d Ch. avi. 


npet.” 


“ft Wari Spets? 


“~ > 
yap éotw Sedxomdrtepov, eiwetv, “Apéwytai® cot ai dpaptiac: 4 


Mk. ii. 


€ ~ > a! 5. 
4. Kat i8mv! 6 “Incots tds *évOupyjoers adtav elwev, 7 (W.H.) 


used 


€vOupetabe tovnpa év Tats Kapdiats duavy; 5§. TL absolutely. 


e Ch. xii. 25. 
Heb. iv. 


A » ~ 12. 
ciety, “Eyerpar> kal wepimdrer; 6. iva S€ eidite, Ste ebouciav Exerf Ch. xxvii 


© ..€ a 2 a a € ms 6. 
5 uids Tod dvOpdmou emi ris ys dprévar Gpaptias,” (Tote Neyer TO iii. 7x 


Cor. x. 29, 


TapahuteKd,) “EyepQets® dpdv gou thy KNivyy, Kal Omaye eis Tov g Mk. ii, g. 


oF ” 
OLKOY gGoU. 


1 For ev (NCD, Tisch.) BM have edas. 
W.H. 


to use the same word as in ver. 2. 
margin. 


2 SBCD omit vpers. 
7 adrevtar SB. 

4 gov in NBCDL. 

5 eyetpe NBCDLE. 


7. Kat éyepOeis dmqdOev eis tov oikov adrod. 


k. v. 2 
(with inf.). 
; Mt. xix. 
24. Lk. xvi. 17 (with acc, and inf.), 


The tendency of the scribes would be 
has eds in text but bracketed, sSev in 


6 eyetpe in B and D with at; the more forcible word. 


Ver. 3. Ties T. ypappatéwy : some 
scribes present on this occasion. Ominous 
fact duly introduced by t8ov; its signifi- 
cance still more distinctly recognised by 
Luke, who gives it prominent mention 
at the beginning of his narrative (ver. 17). 
Sure sign of the extent, depth, and 
quality of Christ’s influence.--BAaogypet: 
of course; the prophet always is a 
scandalous, irreverent blasphemer from 
the conventional point of view. The 
scribes regarded forgiveness purely under 
the aspect of prerogative, and in self- 
defence Jesus must meet them on their 
own ground. His answer covers the 
whole case. There is more than preroga- 
tive in the matter; there is the right, 
duty, privilege, and power of every man 
to promote faith in pardon by hearty 
proclamation of the law of the moral 
world. This is dealt with first.—Ver. 4. 
évOupyoets : Jesus intuitively read their 
thoughts as He read the mental state of 
the sick man.—tva rt: elliptical for tva 
vt yévnra: understood = in order that 
what may happen, do you, etc. (vide 
Baumlein, Schul. Gram., § 696, and 
Goodwin’s Syn., § 331).— Ver. 5. 
evxoTétepov (from ey and Ké7ros, whence 
evkotros ; in N.T. (Gospels) only the 
comparative neuter is found, as here). 
The question as to ability, Svvapis, is 
first disposed of ; which is easier — 
eiweiv: they are both alike easy to 
say; the vital matter is saying with 
effect. Saying here stands for doing. 
And to do the one thing was to do the 


other. To heal was to forgive. It is 
implied that it is easier to forgive than 
to make a palsied man strong. Christ 
means that the one is ordinary, the 
other extraordinary; the one is within 
the power of any man, the other belongs 
only to the exceptional man ; there is na 
assumption in declaring pardon, there is 
pretension in saying “‘arise and walk ”.— 
Ver. 6. tva 8 elSire: transition tc the 
other aspect, that of éfovota, the point 
raised by the scribes when they looked a 
charge of blasphemy.--6 vids tod 4av., 
émt THs yns: these two phrases point at 
supposed disabilities for forgiving. ‘‘ For- 
giveness takes place in heaven, and is 
the exclusive prerogative of God,” was 
the thesis of the scribes. ‘‘It may be 
exercised even on earth, and by the Son 
of Man,” is the counter thesis of Christ. 
Therefore ‘‘Son of Man” must be a 
title not of dignity but of humiliation. 
Here = one whom ye think lightly of ; 
even He can forgive.—réte Aéyet. Jesus 
stops short in His speech to the scribes 
and turns to the sick man, saying: 
éyetpe, etc., also in ver. 6, intransitive. 
The reading €yetpar in T.R., ver. 6, is a 
correction of style, the use of the active 
intransitively being condemned by 
grammarians. Hence this various read- 
ing always occurs. (Vide Suidas, s.v., 
and Buttmann, Gramm., p. 56.)—tiv 
kAivny, a light piece of furniture, easily 
portable. —Umaye: all three actions, 
arising, lifting, walking, conclusive 
evidence of restored power. — Ver. 


150 


bh ver. 27 
(with 


KATA MATOAION 


IX. 


8. iSdvres S€ of SyAor COavpacay,! Kai eSdgacay Tov Gedy, Tov SévTa 


éxeider). @fougiay Toradrny Tois dvOpatross. 


1 Cor. vii. 
31 (= 
passeth 
away). 

i hereandin 


pou.” 


Kai !dvacras jKohodOnoev 


g. Kat ® rapdywv 6 "Incods éxeidev eidev GvOpwrov Kabjpevov emi 
15 ‘rehdviov, MarOatov Neydpevovy, kat Adéyer adra, “ Axohouvber 


2 


aitG. 10. Kat éyéveto adroit 


Lk. v. 28. ¥ dvaxetevou ® ev TH oikia, Kat* iSou, wodhot TehOvar Kal dpapTwroi 


(Hebrew 
idiom; cf. Num. xxii. 20). 


k Ch. xxii. 10; xxvi. 7, 20. 


Mk. xiv. 18. Lk. xxii. 27. 


1 epoBnOnoav in NBD (Tisch., W.H.) e@avpacav (CLA al.) gives a commonplace 


idea more to the taste of the scribes. 
2 yxoAovGer in SYD (Tisch.). 


3 avaxetpevou avtov in $¥°C, as in text in most MSS. 


4 kat omitted in KD. 


Said, done; a convincing ar- 
gumentum ad hominem. Who would 
dispute the right to forgive to one who 
could do that, or persist in the charge of 
blasphemy against Him? At least those 
who do will get little sympathy from the 
mass of spectators.—Ver. 8. t8évres 
ot GxAot. The people are free from the 
petty jealousies and pedantic theories of 
the professional class ; broad facts settle 
the matter for them. They probably 
had no scruples about the forgiving, but 
if they, hadthe miracle would put an end 
to them: the manifest authority and 
power a witness of the non-apparent 
(rovetrar THY pavepay [éEovelay] Texpr- 
ptov THs adavovs. Euthy.).—éhoByOyncav, 
they feared; may point to a change of 
mind on the part of some who at first 
were influenced by the disapproving 
mood of the scribes. The solemn frown 
of those who pass for saints and wise 
men is a formidable thing, making many 
cowards. But now a new fear takes the 
place of the old, perhaps not without a 
touch of superstition. 

Vv. 9-13. The publican feast (Mk. 
ii. 13-17; Lk. v. 27-32). The point of 
interest for the evangelist in this narra- 
tive is not the call of the publican disci- 
ple, but the feast which followed, a 
feast of publicans and “sinners” at 
which Jesus was present proclaiming 
by action what He formerly proclaimed 
by word: a sinful past no doom. The 
story, though not a miracle-history, 
finds a place here because it follows 
the last in Mark, in whose Gospel the 
incident of the palsied man forms the 
first of a group serving one aim—to show 
the beginnings of the conflict between 
Jesus and the religious leaders. The 
same remark applies to the next section. 

Ver. 9. wapayuy éxetbev: passing 


. prejudice. 


along from the scene of the last incident, 
Jesus arrives at the custom-house of 
Capernaum (reAdytov).—eiSev . . . Mar- 
Qaiov hey.: there He saw a man named 
Matthew. (On the identity of Matthew 
with Levi in Mark and Luke, vide 
Mark.) Capernaum being near the 
boundary and on the caravan road be- 
tween Egypt and Damascus, Matthew 
would be a busy man, but, doubtless, 
Christ and he have met before.—Akoh- 
ovGer por: Jesus acted on His own plans, 
but the recent encounter with the scribes 
would not be without influence on this 
new departure—the call of a publican. 
It was a kind of defiance to the party 
who cherished hard thoughts not only 
about pardon but about those who 
needed pardon. An impolitic step the 
worldly-wise would say; sure to create 
But those who are too 
anxious to conciliate the prejudices of 
the present do nothing for the future.— 
a@vactTas HKohov@yoev: prompt compli- 
ance, probably with some astonishment 
at the invitation. 

Ver. 10. Kaléyévero,etc. The narra- 
tive of this incident in all three Syn- 
optists is condensed, and the situation 
not clear. What house is meant (év 7] 
oix.), and why so many (aodXot)? 
“There were many,’”’? Mark remarks, 
emphatically (ii. 15), and the t8od here 
implies that something important took 
place. Luke infers (for we need not 
suppose independent information) that it 
is a feast (SoxyHy), and, doubtless, he is 
right. But given by whom? Levi, 
according to Luke. It may have been 
so, but not necessarily as the prime 
mover; possibly, nay, probably, as the 
agent of his new Master. Our thoughts 
have been too much biassed by the 
assumption that the call of Matthew in 





8—13. 


€XOdvres ouvavéxewro TH “Ingo Kai Tots palytats adtou. 


EYATTEAION 


151 


II. Kat 


iSdvtes of Sapicator etrov! tots padytais adtod, “ Atati werd tay 


a ~ , ~ 
Tehwvay Kai dpaptwhav éoOier 6 BiSdoKxahos spay; ” 
> A ~) 

Incods? dxovcas etwev autots,® “Od xpeiav éxougw ot isyvortes 


tatpod, GAN’ of KaK@s ExovTes. 
‘™”EXeov* Oddw, Kat ob Obuciay:’ 


GN’ Gpaptwdous eis petdvoray.” 5 


13. wopeuOevtes S€ pdbere th €or, 
ob yap HAVov Kaddoat Sikatous, 


12. ‘O 8e 

1 Mk. ix. 10, 
Lk. viii. 9. 
Acts x. 17 
(=means). 


1 eXeyov NBCL (Tisch., W.H.). exwov in D al 


2 &SBD omit Ingous (Tisch., W.H.). 
® \8BCD omit avtots (Tisch., W.H.). 
4 &8BCD have edeos. 


5 eis peravoray is wanting in BDAY. 
tion. 


this section is the main thing, and the 
feast an accompanying incident, a fare- 
well feast of Matthew’s in which Jesus 
passively partook. The truth, probably, 
is that the call was a preliminary to the 
feast, the first step in the working out of 
aplan. Jesus aims at a mission among 
the reprobated classes, and His first step 
is the call of Matthew to discipleship, 
and His second the gathering together, 
through him, of a large number of these 
classes to a social entertainment; the 
place of meeting being, possibly, not a 
private house, whether Christ’s or Mat- 
thew’s, but a public hall. If Matthew’s 
house or Simon’s (in which Jesus pro- 
bably had His home, vide Mark) was 
large enough to have a quadrangular 
court, the gathering might be there, 
where, according to Faber, Archdologie 
der Hebréer, p. 408, meetings of various 
sorts were held. In any case it was a 
great affair—scores, possibly hundreds, 
present, too large for a room in a house, 
a conventicle meeting, so to speak; a 
meeting with such people in the Syna- 
gogue not being possible. For further 
remarks vide on Mark.—vreA@var Kal 
GpaptwAot: publicans naturally, if Mat- 
thew was the host, but why Gpap.? He 
was arespectable man; are the apap. 
simply the teAX@vat as viewed from the 
outside, so named in anticipation of the 
Pharisaic description of the party? If 
Jesus was the inviter, they might be a 
distinct class, and worse, very real sin- 
ners, for His aim was a mission among 
the social Pariahs. 

Ver. 11. iSdvres ot Pap. Here wasa 
good chance for the critics, really a 
scandalous affair !—tois pafytats. They 
spoke to the disciples, possibly, as Euthy. 


eXeov is a gram. cor. 


It is a clear case of harmonising assimila- 


Vide on Lk. v. 32 for its effect on the sense. 


Zig. suggests, to alienate them from the 
Master, possibly lacking courage to attack 
Him face to face. 

Ver. 12. 6 8€ a. elev: to whom? 
Were the fault-finders present to hear? 
—ov xpetav, etc.: something similar can 
be cited from classic authors, vide in- 
stances in Grotius, Elsner, and Wetstein. 
The originality lies in the application= 
the physician goes where he is needed, 
therefore, I am here among the people 
you contemptuously designate publicans 
and sinners. The first instalment, this, 
of Christ’s noble apology for associating 
with the reprobates—a great word. 
Ver. 13. wopevOévres padere: a common 
expression among the Rabbis, but they 
never sent men to learn the particular 
lesson that God prefers mercy to sacri- 
fice.—xat ov, does not imply that sacri- 
fice is of no account.—é€Xeos (€Xeov in T. 
R., a correction by the scribes), accusa- 
tive neuter. Masculine nouns of 2nd de- 
clension are often neuter 3rd in N. T. and 
Sept.—7\ov: Jesus speaks as one having 
a mission.—apaptwdods: and it is to the 
sinful, in pursuance of the principle em- 
bodied in the prophetic oracle—a mission 
of mercy. The words ic yvovtes, ver. 
12, and S.xatovus, ver. 13, naturally sug- 
gest the Pharisees as the class meant. 
Weiss, always nervously afraid of allegor- 
ising in connection with parabolic utter- 
ances, protests, contending that it is 
indifferent to the sense of the parable 
whether there be any ‘“whole’”’ or 
righteous. But the point is blunted if there 
be no allusion. «adéocat here has the 
sense of calling to a feast. 

Vv. 14-17. The fast-question (Mk. 
ii. 18-22; Lk. v. 33-39). Tére. Our 
evangelist makes a temporal connection 


152 KATA MATOAION x. 


a in parall. 
Vide also 


14. Téte wpoogpxovrat ait ot pabytai “Iwdvvou, éyovtes, 


Tobit vi. Atari fpets Kat of Papioator vnotedopey moddd,! ot Sé€ palyrat 


14, 17 


LU $ ”? 
02 Pet.i1390U 08 vynoredouat ; 15. 


(same 


Kai elwey attois 6 “Ingots, “Mh 


hrase). SUvavTat ol ulot TOO ® vuLdavos trevOeiv, ° eb Sooy wet abTav éotw 6 
Pp ) » ’ 


p in parall. 
and Ch. 
XXV. I. . : 
Johniig;Kat TOTe vynoTevcouow. 
lii. 29. 


Pyupdtlos ; eXedoovtat S€ Hpépar Stay *dmapO7 dm’ abtav 6 vupdlos, 
16, otSeis S€ *emBddrer * ewiBAnpa 


Rev. xviii. * pdkous * &yvddou €ml ipatiw tmaka@: “aiper yap 7d mAjnpapa 


23. 
q here and in parall, 
t same phr. in Mk. ii. 21. 


1 wodXa. is in a large number of uncials, including SCDLAZ. 
Tisch, and W.H. omit. 


gloss and is wanting in $Q*B 27, 71. 


out of what in Mark is merely topical, 
another of the group of incidents showing 
Jesus in conflict with current opinion 
and practice. Where it happened can- 
not be determined, but it is brought in 
appositely after the feast of the publicans, 
serving with it to illustrate the free 
unconventional life of the Jesus-circle.— 
wpowépxovTar... oi pad. lwavvov. The 
interrogants here are John’s disciples; 
in Mark, unknown persons about John’s 
disciples with the Pharisees; in Luke, 
who treats this incident as a continuation 
of the last, the fault-finders are the same 
as before (ot 8€). Mark probably gives 
the true state of the case. Some persons 
unknown, at some time or other, when 
other religious people were fasting, and 
the Jesus-circle were observed not to be 
fasting, came and remarked on the dis- 
sidence.—8.art: the interrogants wanted 
to know the reason. But the important 
thing for us is the fact, that Jesus and 
His disciples did not conform to the 
common custom of religious people, in- 
cluding the disciples of the Baptist. It 
is the first instance of an extensive 
breach with existing religious usage.— 
ov vynoTevovet: the broad patent fact; if 
they did any fasting it was not apparent. 

Ver. 15. wat elmev: The question 
drew from Jesus three pregnant para- 
bolic sayings: bright, genial, felicitous 
impromptus; the first a happy apology 
for His disciples, the other two the 
statement of a general principle.—ol viol 
TOU vungdovos. The mere suggestion of 
this name for the disciples explains all. 
Paranymphs, friends of the bridechamber, 
companions of the bridegroom, who act 
for him and in his interest, and bring the 
bride to him. How can they be sad (ph 
Sévavrat wevOeiv) ? The point to note is 
that the figure was apposite. The life 
of Jesus and His disciples was like a 


r here, in parall., in same sense. 
u without object here and in Mk. ii. ar. 


Cf. Mk, xi. 7. s here and in parall. 


Yet it looks like a 


wedding feast—they the principal actors. 
The disciples took their tone from the 
Master, so that the ultimate fact was the 
quality of the personal piety of Jesus. 
Therein lay the reason of the difference 
commented on. It was not irreligion, as 
in the case of the careless; it was a 
different type of religion, with a Father- 
God, a kingdom of grace open to all, 
hope for the worst, and spiritual spon- 
taneity.—édevoovrat Hepat. While the 
Bridegroom is with them life will be a 
wedding feast; when He is taken from 
them it will make a great difference; 
then (rére) they will grieve, and therefore 
fast: a hidden allusion to the tragic end 
foreseen by Jesus of this happy free life, 
the penalty of breaking with custom. 
Vv. 16,17. The substitution of yyo- 
tevovoryv for mevGety, in the close of ver. 
15, implicitly suggested a principle which 
is now explicitly stated -in parabolic 
form: the great law of congruity ; practice 
must conform to mood; the spirit must 
determine the form. ‘These sayings, 
apparently simple, are somewhat ab- 
struse. They must have been over the 
head of the average Christian of the 
apostolic age, and Luke’s version shows 
that they were diversely interpreted. 
Common to both is the idea that it is 
bootless to mix heterogeneous things, 
old and new in religion. This cuts two 
ways. It defends the old as well as the 
new; the fasting of John’s disciples as 
well as the non-fasting of Christ’s. Jesus 
did not concern Himself about Pharisaic 
practice, but He was concerned to defend 
His own disciples without disparagement 
of John, and also to prevent John’s way 
and the respect in which he was justly 
held from creating a prejudice against 
Himself. The double application of the 
principle was therefore present to His 
mind,—Ver. 16, ovdels ... madara. No 





14—19. 


adtod dw6 Tod ipatiou, nat xetpoy oxiopa yiverat. 
Aouvow otvoy véov eis doxods wadatols: et S€ prye, pryvuvTat ot 
, a lol 
doxol, kai 6 otvos éxxetTat, Kal ot doKol dmohodvtar!- &AAG Bdd- 
Aoucw otvoy véov eis GoKous Katvous, Kal duddtepa * ” cuvrnpoovTat. 
18. Taira adtod hadoGvtos abtots, iSou, dpywy eMOav? mpocekdver w 
2 A co”, 3 ” > 
aitd, Adywv, "OTe 4 Ouydtnp pou Gpt érehedTyGEv> AAA EAOy x 
x2 / ay A pe > ¢ Ay, , »” 
émiOes Thy xelpd cou éw attHy, Kai 7 Licerat. 


6 “Ingods jKohodOnoev 4 


EYAITEAION 


AA ‘ ce ‘ > A 
QUT® kat ot pabyTat adTod. 


£53 


17. obde ” Bah- v here, 
arall. 
ohn xiii 

5 (of 

liquids). 

Ch. xxvi 

12 (eni 

Ttvos). 
Lk. v. 38 

(T. R,). 
Mk. xvi 

18. Acts 

ixc27 

(same 

const.), 

y Mk. xvi. 

Rom. xiv. 9. 


19. Kat éyepQels 


Ir. John v.25. Acts ix. 41. 


1 For the future, in most MSS., QB have awohAvvrat (Tisch., W.H.). 


2 All uncials have apdortepor. 


3 The reading is in confusion here. B has after apywv,es mpooedOwy, probably 
the true reading out of which all variants arose (t1s for ets; evs om.; eAPwv for poo. ; 


eis eAPwv, ehOwv.)o 
488CD have the imp. B as in text. 


one putteth a patch of an unfulled, raw 
piece of cloth (fdxos from prjyvupt) on 
an old garment.—ré 7rAyjpwpe aro, the 
filling, the patch which fills; of it, z.¢., 
the old garment, not of the unfulled cloth 
(Euthy., Grotius, De W., etc.).—aiper 
amo, taketh from = tears itself away by 
contraction when wetted, taking a part 
of the old garment along with it.—xat 
. .. ylverat, and so a worse rent takes 
place. This looks in the direction of an 
apology for John and his disciples (so 
Weiss) = they and we are in sympathy 
in the main, but let them not assimilate 
their practice to ours; better remain as 
they are; imitation would only spoil a 
good type of piety. What is to be done 
with the unfulled cloth is not indicated, 
but it goes without saying. Let it 
remain by itself, be fulled, and then 
turned into a good new garment. 

Ver. 17. The new parable of the 
wine and wine-skins is introduced, nct 
merely because the Speaker is full of 
matter, but because it enables Him aptly 
to show both sides of the question, the 
twofold application of the principle.— 
ovSé BadAovertv: nobody puts new wine 
into old skins; véos applied to wine, 
xatvés to skins (4oKkots Katvovs). véos 
is new in time, katvés in quality. That 
which is new in time does not necessarily 
deteriorate with age; it may even im- 
prove. That which is new in quality 
always deteriorates with age, like skins 
or cloth, vide Trench’s Synonyms, 1x.— 
ei 8¢ prye (vide ad vi. 1): two disastrous 
consequences ensue: skins burst, wine 
spilt. The reason not stated, assumed 
to be known. New wine ferments, old 


skins have lost their toughness and 
stretchableness. ‘‘ They have become 
hard leather and give no more”? (Koets- 
veld, De Gelijkenissen, p. 99). That is 
the one side—keep the old to the old.— 
GAAa BaddAovet . . . cvvTnpodvrat: this 
is the other—the new to the new; new 
wine in fresh skins, and both are pre- 
served as suiting one another. With 
reference to the two parables, Schanz 
remarks that, in the first, the point of 
comparison is the distinction between 
part and whole, in the second form and 
contents are opposed to each other. 
So after him, Holtzmann in H.C. 
Weiss takes both parables as explaining 
the practice of John’s disciples, Holtz- 
mann as giving reasons why Christ’s 
disciples differed from all others. The 
truth as above indicated lies between. 
Vv. 18-26. The daughter of Fairus, 
with interlude (Mk. v. 21-43; Lk. viii. 
40-56). Given by Matthew in immediate 
connection with the discourse on fast- 
ing, but by Mark, and Luke following 
him, in connection with the return from 
the eastern shore, after the story of the 
demoniac. Ver. 18. iS0b... Ad€yov: 
exactly the same formula as in viii. 2.— 
G&pxwv, an important person, a ruler 
of synagogue, according to Mark,—els: 
peculiar here, but taken from Mark 
where it is intelligible, the suppliant 
being there described as one of the rulers 
of the synagogue. The word puzzled 
the scribes, and gave rise to many variants 
(vide crit. note).—@ptu éreXcvTHGEV: this 
statement of Matthew, compared with 
those of Mark and Luke, which make 
the father say his daughter was dying, 


154 


«here only 
in N.T. 


“ -~ , ~ 
Lev.xv. 33. Omer, Hato Tod “kpaomédou Tod ipariou abtod. 


a Ch. xiv. 


KATA MATOAION IX. 


20. Kat iS8ov, yur) “atpoppootoa Sddexa Em, mpocedodca 


21. €Xeye yap 


36; xxiii. €v €auTq, “Edy pdvov aywpar Tod tnatiou adrod, cwOjcopat.” 22. 


5. Mk. vi. . 
56. Lk. 

viii. ; 
(Num. xv. mitts cou céowké oe. 
38). 


1 erpaders NBDE (Tisch., W.H.). 


has created work for the harmonists. 
The patristic view (Chrys., Theophy., 
Euthy.), that the statement was an 
inference from the condition in which he 
left her, or a natural exaggeration, has 
been adopted by many. Probably it is 
an inaccuracy of the evangelist’s due to 
abbreviation. The girl was dead when 
Jesus arrived; that was all he cared 
about. The ruler thought Jesus could 
do anything short of raising from the 
dead, save even in articulo mortis. But 
our evangelist gives him credit for more 
faith ; that Jesus can bring back from the 
dead, at least when death has just taken 
place.—{joerat, not remain living, but 
revive, come to life again (Fritzsche).— 
Ver. 19. éyepOels apparently refers back 
to ver. 10, implying close sequence— 
feasting, fasting, dying; such is life 
indeed. 

Vv. 20-22. The story is suspended at 
this point by an interlude.—Ver. 20, kal 
t8ov:a new applicant for help appears on 
the scene, on the way to Jairus’ house.— 
yvvi) . . . €rm,a woman who had suffered 
for twelve years from some kind of bloody 
flux.—omicbev: realistic feature; from 
womanly shame or the morbid shrinking 
of chronic ill-health, or out of regard to 
the law concerning uncleanness (Lev. 


xy.).—xpaomédou, Hebrew VY (Num. 


xv. 38), fringes at the four corners of the 
outer garment, to remind of the com- 
mandments. In dress Jesus was not 
nonconformist. His mantle, tpartov, 
had its kpdoeda like other people’s.— 
Haro, touched one of the tassels; the 
least possible degree of contact enough 
to ensure a cure, without notice; faith, 


superstition and cunning combined. 
Ver. 21. eye yap év éavtq: such was 
her little private scheme. Ver. 22, 6 
Se |. otpadeis kai i8dy. Matthew’s 


narrative here is simple as compared 
with that of Mark and Luke, probably a 
transcript from Apostolic Document, 
concerned mainly about the words of 
Jesus. So far as our evangelist is con- 


O 8é Inaods emotpadels! Kal iSdv adriy elie, “Odpoe, Biyarep’ 
Kat éow0n i) yuri) dard tis Spas éxelvys. 
23. Kat édOdv 6 ‘Inaois eis Thy oixiay Tod dpxovtos, Kal Sav Tods 


cerned the turning round of Jesus might 
be an accident, or due to consciousness 
of a nervous jerk instinctively understood 
to mean something.—Odpoe, Oiyartep, 
again as in ix. 2, a terse, cordial sym- 
pathetic address; there child to a man, 
here daughter to a mature woman.— 
mioris, no notice taken of the super- 
stition or the cunning, only of the good 
side; mark the rhythm: 4 wiotts cov 
céowxév oe, again in Lk. vii. 50, where, 
with mopevov eis eipryny, it forms a 
couplet.—oéoawxey, perfect, not future, 
to convey a feeling of confidence = you 
are a saved woman.—xai éoé@n, and so 
she was from that hour. A true story in 
the main, say Strauss and Keim, strictly 
a case of faith-cure. 2 
Vv. 23-26. The narrative returns to 
the case of Jairus’ daughter. Ver. 23, 
éhLOOv . . . Kat idav, circumstantial 
participles leading up to what Jesus 
said, the main fact.—rots avAnras, etc.: 
the girl was only just dead, yet already 
a crowd had gathered about the house, 
brought together by various motives, 
sympathy, money, desire to share in the 
meat and drink going at such a time (so 
Lightfoot, Hor. Heb., ut ederent et 
biberent), and of course making a con- 
fused din.—@opvPovpevov, the part.=a 
relative with finite verb =the crowd 
which was making a din. The crowd, 
besides the avAnrtai, tibicines, flute- 
players, would include some hired 
mourning women (Jerem. ix. 17), prefice, 
whose duty it was to sing n@nza in praise 
of the dead. Mourning, like everything 
else, had been reduced to system, two 
flutes and one mourning woman at the 
burial of a wife incumbent on the 
poorest man (Lightfoot, Hor. Heb.). 
The practice in Greece and Rome was 
similar ; proofs in Grotius, Elsner, Wet- 
stein. Vide also Marquardt, Handbuch 
der Rom. Alterthiimer, vol. vii., p. 341, 
where it is stated that by the twelve 
Tables the number of tibicénes was 
limited to ten, and that before the Punic 
war, at least, prefice were employed.— 








20—31. 


EYATTEAION 


5 


»addntas Kat Tov Sxhov *OopuBotpevoy, 24. Aéyer adtots,! “ "Ava- b Rev. xviii. 


Xpette: oF yap dwébave Td Kopdatov, GAG “Kabedder.” 


Kateyéhwy adTod. 


‘éxpdtnoe Tis xelpds aitis, Kat jyép0y 1d Kopdorov. 
efqrOev F © pypy alry eis SAny Thy yiv exetvyy. 


\.. 22: 
Katc Mk. v. 39. 
Acts xvii 


25. “Ore S€ °efeBAHOn 5 Sydos, EigehOy 5; xx. 10. 


di Thess. v. 
Io (= to 
be dead). 

e Ch. xxi. 12. 

f Mk. i. 31. 


26. Kat 


‘ , > Ce) a ? A > A 
27. Kal mapdyovt: exetQev TO ‘Inood, AKohod@noay att SUo g Lk iv. 14. 


tuphot, kpdlovtes Kat eyovtes, ‘ 


? , yee 4 ay, a Sintaty nie , \ , 
28. “ENOdvte S€ €is Thy otKtav, mpoonAGoy att ot tupdoi, Kal héyer 
autots 6 ‘Ingods, “ Morevete ott Stvapat TOUT Trova ;” 


AA , a”? 
adt@, “ Nat, Kupte. 


“ x , Cnn , 2 BD 
Kara tiv miotw Spav yernOyte opiv. 
aitav ot ép0adpot- Kat ' éveBpipyoaro 


““Opate pydels yuwoketw.” 
adtoy év Sky TH yi éxetvy. 
1 For Xeyet avtois NBD have edeyev. 


2 For ute B has vios. 
3 nvewx. in BD. 


31. Ot BE efeOdvtes | Srepiproay j Ch. xviii 
15. 


‘M’EXénoov tpds, ule? AaPid.”’ bhCh. xv.22; 


XX. 30; 


Aéyoucuw 


29. TétTe Hato tov 6pbahpay aitay, éywr, 


30. Kal dvewxOynoay * 


4 abtois 6 ‘Ingots, Aéywv, i Mk. i. 43. 


ki 
45- 


4 eveBptpnOy in SB, a less usual form avoided by scribes. 


Ver. 24. Gvaywpeite, retire! Hired 
mourners. distasteful to Jesus, who 
gladly avails Himself of this opportunity 
of dismissing them.—ov yap amé@8ave: no 
need of you yet, for the maid (kopdctov, 
dim. for xépy, but = puella in late 
Greek) is not dead. A welcome word 
to naturalistic commentators, giving a 
plausible basis for the hypothesis of an 
apparent death or swoon (Schleier., Keim, 
etc.), mot to be taken prosaically as 
meant to deny death. Yet Carr (C. G. 
T.) thinks it open to question whether 
it ought not to be taken literally, and 
doubtful whether kowpao@ar is ever used 
in a metaphorical sense in the N. T. or 
elsewhere. The derisive laughter of the 
crowd (kateyéAwy) is good evidence to 
the contrary.—éfeBAyOn: not to be 
pressed as implying physical force, 
non vi et manibus, sed voce jussuque 
(Fritzsche), a tone and manner not to 
be resisted, the house therefore soon 
cleared of the noisy crowd.—Ver. 26, 
eiqAGev 7 ., against the wish of Jesus, 
who did not desire raising the dead to be 
regarded as a part of His ordinary work. 
Perhaps that was why He said: ‘‘she 
sleepeth”’ (Weiss, L. J., Marcus-Evang.). 
—thv yiv éxetvnv: Weiss thinks the ex- 
pression implies that the evangelist is a 
stranger to Palestine (Weiss- Meyer). 

Vv. 27-31. Two blind men.—This 
miracle-narrative and the next 


paratively colourless and uninteresting. 
They bring under notice two new types 
of disease, blindness and possession 
accompanied with dumbness. The 
interest in both cases, however, lies not 
so much in the cures as in the words 
spoken.—Ver. 27. tvuddAot: blindness 
common from limestone dust in the air 
and changing temperature.—vids A., 
Messianic appellation, first time ad- 
dressed to Jesus, a point of interest for 
the evangelist; not welcome to Jesus, 
who feared the awakening of false ex- 
pectations. Therefore He took no notice 
of them on the way to His house, whither 
He retired after the last incident.—Ver. 
28. édOdvtt eis T. 0. mpoaAAOov: they 
follow, and Jesus at last takes notice of 
them, asking if they have faith in His 
power. His previous conduct might 
throw doubt on His willingness, but that 
is dispelled by speaking to them.—vat: 
a prompt glad ‘“‘yes”’ is their answer.— 
Ver. 30. qvedy@qoav, a Hebraism. The 
Jews thought of blind eyes as shut, and 
of seeing eyes as open.—éveBpip7On, 
sternly enjoined (vide Mk. i. 43). The 
paraphrase of Euthy. Zig. gives a vivid 
idea of the meaning, “looked severely, 
contracting His eyebrows, and shaking 
His head at them, as they are wont to 
do who wish to make sure that secrets 
will be kept ’’.—Ver. 31. év 6AnT. y. éx. 
(vide remarks on ver. 26). 


156 


k Ch. xii. a2. 
Acts xvii. | 5 
gr. 1 Cor.“ kwpdv SatpovLduevor. 
Wig Gee 5 

ai (same €AdAngev 6 Kwhds° 


use of ev, 


vide also OUSéroTe epdvyn olTws ev TO ‘lopanh.” 


Sir. xiii. 


4: xxx. 13). €Xeyov, “!’Ev 7O 'dpxovte TOv Sapovioy ékBdddcr TA Sarpdvea. 
35: KAI ™arepuijyey 6 ‘Ingots tas méders mdcas Kal Tas Kadpas, 


m Ch. iv. 23, 
but there 
intrans., 


KATA MATOAION 


32. Adrav S€ éfepxopevwr, i8odu, mpoojveyxay abt avOpwrov 


33: 


Kal @Bavpacay ot dxAdot, A€yovtes, “ "OT? 
p X v 


IX. 


1 


kal éxBAnOévtog tod Satpovion, 


34. Ot 8€ dapicaian 
» 3 


here with OtOdoKwy év Taig cuvaywyais adTay, Kal Kkynpicowy 1d edayyéAroy 


accus, 


1SQB omit avOpwrov. 


~ a an , 
THs Baowdelas, kal Gepamedwy macav védcov Kal Tacav pahaktay év 


2 S8BCD omit ott. 


3D, a, k, Syr. Sin. omit ver. 34; W.H. bracket. 


Vv. 32-34. The dumb demoniac ‘Lk. 
xi. 14). A slight narrative, very meagre 
in comparison with the story of the Gera- 
sene demoniac, the interest centring in 
the conflicting comments of spectators 
which probably secured for it a place in 
the Logia of Matthew. Ver. 32. Avtav 
tLepxopnévav: while the two blind men are 
going out they bring another sufferer to 
the great Healer; an incessant stream of 
applicants for aid flowing towards His 
door.—xwgdv: dumbness the apparent 
symptom. The word literally means blunt, 
and in Homer (I1., ii. 390) is applied to a 
weapon. InN. T. it is used with refer- 
ence to the senses and faculties, here the 
faculty of speech (ver. 33, é\dAncey), 
in xi. 5, that of hearing.—8arpovifdpevov: 
the inferred cause. It was known that 
the dumbness was not due to any physi- 
cal defect. Speech seemed to be prevent- 
ed by some foreign spiritual power; the 
mental disease, possibly, melancholy.— 
Ver. 33. éAdAnoev: that cured, speech 
followed.—€@atpacayv: the crowd present 
wondered, hearing one speak whom they 
had so long known to be dumb.— ov8émorte 
é€davn, etc.: thus they expressed their 
surprise; the like was never seen in 
Israel. édavn is impersonal, the refer- 
ence being to the change in the man; 
the manner of expression is colloquial, 
end it is idle to discuss the precise mean- 
ing of otrws, and what nominative is to 
be supplied to épavy. It is more to the 
purpose to inquire why this seemingly 
minor miracle should make so great an 
impression. Perhaps we should not 
isolate it, but take it along with the other 
marvels that followed in quick succession 
as joint causes of admiration. The 
people were worked up into a high 
measure of astonishment which, at last, 
found vent in these words. So in effect 
Euthy., also Rosenmiller (‘‘tot signa, tam 
admirabilia, tam celeriter, neque con- 
tactu tantum, sed et verbo, et in omni 


morborum genere”’).—Ver. 34. of 5 Pap. 
€Xeyov. The multitude admired, but the 
Pharisees said. They are watching 
closely the words and acts of Jesus and 
forming their theories. They have got 
one for the cures of demoniacs.—év r@ 
a&pxovTt tT. 5: He casts out demons in 
the power of the prince of demons. 
Probably they did not believe it, but it was 
plausible. How differently men view 
the same phenomenon (vide on Matt. 
Kile 22pis)e 

Vv. 35-38. These verses look both 
backwards and forwards, winding up the 
preceding narrative of words and deeds 
from chap. v. onwards, and introducing 
a new aspect of Christ’s work and experi- 
ence. The connection with what follows 
is strongest, and the verses might, with 
advantage, have formed the commence- 
ment of chap. x. Yet this general state- 
ment about Christ’s teaching and healing 
ministry (ver. 35) obviously looks back to 
iv. 23, 24, and, therefore, fitly ends the 
story to which the earlier summary 
description of the ministry in Galilee 
forms the introduction. It is, at the 
same time, the prelude to a second act 
in the grand drama (chap. ix. 35—xiv. 
12). In the first act Jesus has appeared 
as an object of general admiration; in 
the second He is to appear as an object 
of doubt, criticism, hostility. 

Ver. 36. dav 8 rods SxAovs: in the 
course of His wanderings Jesus had 
opportunities of observing the condition 
of the people, and at length arrived at a 
clear, definite view as to the moral and 
religious situation. It was very sombre, 
such as to move His compassion (éomlay- 
xvlo@n, post classical, in Gospels only). 
The state of things suggested two 
pictures to His mind: a neglected flock 
of sheep, and a harvest going to waste 
for lack of reapers. Both imply, not 
only a pitiful plight of the people, but 
a blameworthy neglect of duty on the 


32—38. 


76 Aa.! 36. iSdy Sێ Tods Sxdous, 
Stt Hoav exdeupévor ” 
TOUeva.. 


EYATTEAION 


kat é€ppippévor® doet modBata pi) Exovta 
37. ToTE héyer Tots pabyTats adtov, “‘O pév °Bepropos 14. 


157 


*éomhayxvicbn wept adtay, x here only 


with wept; 
with emt, 
Ch. xiv. 


Mk. 


a m Vi. 34; 
modus, of S€ épydrar dAlyou: 38. SeAOnte ody Tod Kuplou Tod Bepio- viii 2 al. 


pod, Stas ” exBddy epydtas eis tov Oepropdy adtod.” 


ley tw Aaw brought in probably from iv. 23. 


o Ch. xiii. 
30, 39. 
Mk. iv. 26 


Lk. x. 2. John x. s 


p Lk. x. 2, 


BCDAX omit (Tisch., W.H.). 


2 exhehupevor (T. R.) is a very weakly-supported reading, having only one im- 


portant uncial, L, on its side. 


SBCDAY¥ al. have eoxvApevo.—the true reading. 


° The variation here is simply a matter of spelling: ep. in BCL (Tisch., W.H.), 


epp. (T. R.) TA, pep. D. 


part of their religious guides—the shep- 
herds by profession without the shep- 
herd heart, the spiritual husbandmen 
without an eye for the whitening fields 
and skill to handle the sickle. The 
Pharisaic comments on the Capernaum 
mission festival (ix. 11) were sufficient to 
justify the adverse judgment. Their 
question on that occasion meant much, 
and would not be forgotten by Jesus.— 
éoxvApevor, epippévor, graphic words, 
clear as to general import, though 
variously understood as to their precise 
meaning. The former may mean 
“flayed”? (from oxtAov, Holtz., H. C.), or 
‘‘hunted ”’ and tired out (Weiss-Meyer), 
the practical sense is ‘‘exhausted by 
long, aimless wandering, foot-sore and 
fleece-torn”. The other points to the 
natural sequel—lying down, scattered 
about (piarw), here one, there another, 
on the hill side, just where they found 
themselves unable to go a step further. 
A flock can get into such a condition 
only when it has no shepherd to care for 
it and guide it to the pastures. 

Vv. 37, 38. Qepiopos: a new figure 
coming in abruptly in the narrative, but 
not necessarily so close together in 
Christ’s mind. The one figure suits the 
mood of passive sympathy; the other, 
that of the harvest, suits the mood of 
active purpose to help. It would not be 
long in the case of Jesus before the one 
mood passed into the other. He could 
not be a mere pitying spectator. He 
must set on foot a mission of help. 
The Capernaum feast was the first stage ; 
the mission of the twelve the second, 
The word “harvest”? implies spiritual 
susceptibility. Weiss protests against 
this inference as allegorising interpre- 
tation of a parabolic saying which simply 
points to the want of suitable labourers 


(vide L, J,. ii 119). So also Schanz 
maintains, against Euthy., that not sus- 
ceptibility but need is pointed to. But, 
as against Weiss, it is pertinent to ask: 
what suggested the figure of a harvest 
if not possibilities of gain to the 
kingdom of God, given sympathetic 
workers? This hopeful judgment as to 
the people of the land, contrasted with 
Pharisaic despair and contempt, was 
characteristic of Jesus (vide my Kingdom 
of God, chap. v.).—épydrat édfyou: pro- 
fessional labourers, men busying them- 
selves with inculcation of moral and 
religious observances, abundant; but 
powerless to win the people because with- 
out sympathy, hope, and credible accept- 
able Gospel. Their attempts, if any, 
only make bad worse—(sub legis on- 
ere egrotam plebem, Hilary). “Few” 
—as yet only one expert, but He is train- 
ing others, and He has faith in prayer for 
better men and times.—Ver. 38. SeyOnre: 
the first step in all reform—deep, devout 
desire out of a profound sense of need. 
The time sick and out of joint—God 
mend it !—6rws exBady, etc. The pray- 
er, expressed in terms of the parabolic 
figure, really points to the ushering in of 
a new era of grace and humanity— 
Christian as opposed to Pharisaic, legal, 
Rabbinical. Inthe old time men thought 
it enough to care for themselves even in 
religion ; in the new time, the impulse and 
fashion would be to care for others. 
é€xBdady, a strong word (cf. Mk. iv. 29, 
a@mooré\Aer), even allowing for the 
weakened force in later Greek, implying 
Divine sympathy with the urgent need. 
Men must be raised up who can help the 
time. Christ had thorough faith in a 
benignant Providence. Luke gives this 
logion in connection with the mission of 
the seventy (x. 2). 


158 


« Ch. xii. 43. 
k. i. 23, 


KATA MATOAION X. 


X. 1. Kat mpockaderdpevos tos SuSeka pabytas adtod, edwxey 


26; iii. 11. abTots efouolay mveupdtwv “dKabdptwv, dore ekBdddew, adtd, Kai 


Lk. iv. 


33 
36 al. (in Ssarineuair Tagay vécov kal Tacay padaxktay. 
*Groorékov Ta dydpatd éott taita: mpOtos Lipwy 6 eydpevos 


ret. to 
demons.). 
b once only 


2. Tay dé 3ddexa 


in Mt.and Métpos, Kat “AvSpéas 6 G8ehpds adtod: “IdkwBos! 6 tod ZePedaiov, 
4 hea Kat ‘lwdvyns 6 ddedpds adtod: 3. Pidtmmos, Kal BapPodopatos - 


in 


1 NB have Kat before laxwBos. 


CHAPTER X. THE GALILEAN MISSION. 
The beginnings of the mission to the 
neglected ‘‘ lost’’ sheep of Israel may be 
found in the Capernaum feast (ix. ro). 
As time went on Jesus felt increasingly 
the pressure of the problem and the need 
for extended effort. Matthew’s call was 
connected with the first stage of the 
movement, and that disciple was Christ’s 
agent in bringing together the gathering 
of publicans and sinners. He is now 
about to employ ail the intimate dis- 
ciples He has collected about Him and 
through them to spread the movement 
all over Galilee. They will be a poor 
substitute for Himself, yet not wholly 
useless like the scribes, for they have 
heard His teaching on the hill and 
imbibed somewhat of His spirit of love. 

Vv. 1-15. The Twelve: their names, 
mission, and relative instructions (Mk. 
ili. 14-19, vi. 7-13, Lk. ix. 1-6). 

Ver. I. mpookaherapevos: this does 
not refer to the call to become disciples, 
but to a call to men already disciples to 
enter on a special mission.—rovs 808exa, 
the Twelve. The article implies that a 
body of intimate disciples, twelve in 
number, already existed. The evangelist 
probably had Mk. iii. 14 in view. He 
may also reflect in his language the 
feeling of the apostolic age to which 
the Twelve were familiar and famous. 
Hitherto we have made the acquaintance 
of five of the number (iv. 18-22, ix. g). 
Their calls are specially reported to 
illustrate how the body of twelve grew.— 
é€fouciay, authority, not to preach, as we 
might have expected, but to heal. The 
prominence given to healing in this 
mission may surprise and disappoint, 
and even tempt to entertain the suspicion 
that the exalted ideas concerning the 
Twelve of after years have been read into 
the narrative. This element is certainly 
least prominent in Mark. Yet to some 
extent it must have had a place in the 
mission. The people in Galilee had all 
aeard of Jesus and His work, and it was 


Owpds, Kai Mat@atos 6 Tehwvys * 


‘IldxwBos 6 tov ‘Addaiou, kal 


no use sending the Twelve unless they 
could carry with them something of His 
power. —mveupdtwy a., genitive objective, 
as in John xvii. 3, Rom. ix. 21. ore 
ex. . . kal Oepameveww, dependent also 
on éfovelav (cf. 1 Cor. ix. 5), dare with 


infinitive indicating tendency of the 
power. wacav vécoy, etc., echo of iv. 
23. 


Ver. 2. tov 2 808. arorrdhov: etc,, 
the evangelist finds here a convenient 
place for giving the names of the Twelve, 
called here for the first and last time 
amdéoroXou, with reference at once to the 
immediate minor mission (from amooréh- 
Xewv, vide ver. 5) and to the later great 
one. One half of them are for us mere 
names, and of one or two even the names 
are doubtful, utterly obscure, yet, doubt- 
less, in their time and sphere faithful 
witnesses. They are arranged in pairs, 
as if following the hint of Mark that they 
were sent out by two and two, each pair 
connected with a «at (so in Luke, not in 
Mark).—7p@ros: at the head of the list 
stands Peter, first not only numerically 
(Meyer) but in importance, a sure matter 
of fact, though priestly pretensions based 
on it are to be disregarded. He is first 
in all the lists.—6 dey. Mérpos: a fact 
already stated (iv. 18), here repeated 
probably because the evangelist had his 
eye on Mark’s list (ili. 16) or possibly to 
distinguish this Simon from another in 
the list (No. 11). Ver. 3. Bap@odopatos, 
the 6th, one of the doubtful names, com- 
monly identified with Nathanael (John 
i. 46).—Mart@atos 6 teXavys, one of four 
in the list with epithets: Peter the jirst, 
Simon the zealot, Judas the traitor, 
Matthew the publican ; surely not with- 
out reason, except as echoing ix. g 
(Meyer). Matthew stands second in his 
pair here, before Thomas in Mark and 
Luke. Position and epithet agree, 
indicative, Euthy. suggests, of modesty 
and self-abasement.—Ver. 4. Zipev 6 
Kavavaios: Luke gives tov kak. Zyhwryp 
=the zealot, possibly a piece of in- 





1-8, 


EYATTEAION 


1$9 


AeBBatos 6 émxdnOeis Caddatos! 4. Lipwv 6 Kavavirys,? cai ‘lovdas% 


loxaptdtys 6 Kat * wapadods adréy. 


5. Tobrous Tovs Sddexa dméoredey 6 “Inaods, wapayyeihas adtois, 
héyav, “Eis 686v eOvav pi daréhOnre, Kal eis wédwy Lapapertav pi) 


c again in 
ref, to 
Judas, 
Ch. xxvi. 
15; XXVil. 


rm ,4 al, 
eicehOnte: 6. wopevecGe S€ paddov mpds Ta 4 rpdBara Td 4 drodw- 4 Zhi xv. 24. 


héra * otkou ‘Iopand. 
Hyytxey 7 Bacideia tay odpavar. 


1D has AeBBanos (€0s) alone. 


8. dobevoivtas Gepametere, 


SB have @addatos alone. 


7. twopeudpevar S€ xyptocere, Méyovtes, “Otte Ch. xv. 24. 


Acts ii. 36, 
Vii. 42. 


The reading in T. R. 


as above is simply a conflate reading combining the two by a connecting phrase, 


o emtxAnGets. 


2 BCDL have Kavavatos, probably the true form. 


> o before loxap. in BDA. 


formation based on an_ independent 
reliable source, or his interpretation of 


the Hebrew word YDN3)2. The form 


Kavavatos seems to be based on the idea 
that the word referred toa place. Jerome 
took it to mean ‘‘of Cana,” ‘‘de vico 
Chana Galilaeae”’. *lovSas 6 loxapidrys: 
last in all the lists, as Peter is first. The 
epithet is generally taken as denoting the 
place to which he belonged: the man of 
Issachar (Grotius) ; but most render: the 
man of Kerioth (in Judah, Joshua xv. 25, 
Jer. xlviii, 41) ; in that case the one non- 
Galilean disciple. The ending, -wtys, is 
Greek ; in Mark the Hebrew ending, -w8, 
is given. 

Vv. 5-15. Instructions to the missioners. 
Ver. 5. Totrovus 7. 808: These, the Twelve, 
Jesus sent forth, under the injunctions 
following (aapayyetAas).—els dd6v €0. pn 
a@réhOnre. This prohibition occurs in 
Matthew only, but there is no reason to 
doubt its authenticity except indeed that 
it went without saying. The very pro- 
hibition implies a consciousness that one 
day the Gospel would go the way of the 
Gentiles, just as Mt. v. 17 implies con- 
sciousness that fulfilling, in the speaker’s 
sense, would involve annulling.—é68dv 
€0vav, the way towards (Meyer), the 
genitive being a genitive of motion 
(Fritzsche, Kuhner, § 414, 4), or a way 
within or of, parallel to wéAvv Sapapertav 
in next clause.—eis mw. Zap., not even in 
Samaria should they carry on their 
mission. The prohibition is total. 
mod.v does not refer to the chief city 
(Erasmus, Annot., metropolis) or to the 
towns as distinct from the rural parts 
through which at least they might pass 
(Grotius). It means any considerable 
centre of population. The towns and 
villages are thought of as the natural 


sphere of work (ver. 11). The reason of 
the double prohibition is not given, but 
doubtless it lay in the grounds of policy 
which led Christ to confine His own 
work to Israel, and also in the crude 
religious state of the disciples.—Ver. 6. 
a@mrokwhdéra, ‘the lost sheep,” an ex- 
pression consecrated by prophetic use 
(Jer. 1. 6, Swete’s ed., xxvii. 6), the epithet 
here first introduced, often occurring in 
Gospels, was used by Jesus not in blame 
but in pity. ‘‘Lost”’ in His vocabulary 
meant ‘‘neglected”’ (ix. 36), in danger 
also of course, but not finally and hope: 
lessly given over to perdition, salvable 
if much needing salvation. The term is 
ethical in import, and implies that the 
mission had moral and religious improve- 
ment mainly in view, not mere physical 
benefit through healing agency; teaching 
rather than miraculous acts.—Ver. 7. 
mopevopevor KNpvogere, aS ye go, keep 
preaching; participle and finite verb, 
both present. Preaching first in the 
Master’s thoughts, if not in the evangel- 
ist’s (ver. I).—nyytxey 7 Baowdela 7. o.: 
the theme is, of course, the kingdom 
longed for by all, constantly on the lips 
of Jesus. The message is: It has come 
nigh to you and is here. Very general, 
but much more, it may be taken for 
granted, was said. The apprentice 
apostles could as yet make no intelligent 
theoretic statement concerning the King- 
dom, but they could tell not a little about 
the King, the Master who sent them, the 
chief object of interest doubtless for al! 
receptive souls. It was a house mission 
(not in synagogue) on which they were 
sent (ver. 12). They were to live as guests 
in selected dwellings, two in one, and 
two in another, for a time, and their 
preaching would take the form of familiar 
conversation on what they had seen and 


160 


KATA MATOAION x 


{Rom iil, Nempods kaBapiLete, vexpods éye(pere,! Saipdvia exBdddere. * Swpedv 


24. 
a Lk. xviii. eXdBete, Swpedv Sdre. 
12; xxi. 


9. Mi ®xthonobe xpucdy, pydé€ apyupor, 


19. Acts. pndé xadkor eis Tas Ldvas budv, 10. ph mypav eis Sdov, pyde Slo 
18; 


viii. = 


20; xxii. XtTOvas, pyd€ SrodHpara, pyndé paBSov- aéos yap 6 epydrys THs 
a8. 


' vexpous eyetpete is wanting in L, but well attested by NBCD£. 


The position 


varies in MSS., after Saup. exBadd. in PA, before Aer. kafap. in BCD. 


heard Jesus do and say. They would 
talk by the hour, healing acts would be 
very occasional, one or two in a village. 

Ver.8. vexpots eyelpere. This clause 
is wanting in several Codd., including L, 


so often associated with NB in good read- 


ings. It is, however, too well attested to 
be omitted. It must either have found a 
place in the autograph, or it must have 
crept in as a gloss at avery early period. 
The evangelist’s aim seems to be to 
represent Christ as empowering the 
disciples to do the works He is reported 
to have done Himself in chaps. viii., ix. 
That purpose demands the inclusion of 
raising the dead as the crowning miracle 
of the group (raising of daughter of 
Jairus). Yet it is hard to believe that 
Jesus would give power to the disciples 
to do, as an ordinary part of their 
mission, what He Himself did only on 
one or two exceptional occasions. The 
alternatives seem to be either an early 
gloss introduced into the text, or an 
inaccuracy on the part of the evangelist. 
Meyer takes the former view, Weiss 
apparently the latter. We cannot take 
the phrase in a spiritual sense, the other 
clauses all pointing to physical miracles. 
This clause is not in the accounts of 
Mark and Luke. The seventy on their 
return (Luke x. 17) make no mention of 
raising the dead. 

Ver.9. py xtionode: Vulgate: nolite 
possidere. But the prohibition is directed 
not merely against possessing, but 
against acquiring (kéxTnpat, perfect = 
possess). The question is as to the scope 
of the prohibition. Does it refer merely to 
the way, or also to the mission? Inone 
case it will mean: do not anxiously pro- 
cure extensive provision for your journey 
(Meyer) ; in the other it will mean, more 
comprehensively: do not procure for the 
way, or during the mission, the things 
named. In other words, it will be an 
injunction to begin and carry on the 
mission without reward. Though the 
reference seems to be chiefly to the 
starting point, it must be in reality to 
their conduct during the mission. There 


was no need to say: do not obtain gold 
before starting, for that was practically 
impossible. There was need to say: 
do not take gold or silver from those 
whom you benefit, for it was likely to be 
offered, and acceptance of gifts would be 
morally prejudicial. That, therefore, is 
what Jesus prohibits, true to His habit 
of insisting on the supreme value of 


motive. So Jerome (condemnatio avari- 
tiae), Chrys., Hilary, etc. So also 
Weiss. Holtz. (H.C.), while concurring 


in this interpretation, thinks the pro- 
hibition suits better the conduct of the 
Christ-merchants in the Didache than 
the circumstances of the disciples.— 
Xpvoov, Gpyvpov, xadkdv: an anti- 
climax, not gold, not silver, not even a 
copper.—els tas {dévas, in your girdles, 
used for this purpose as well as for 
gathering up the loose mantle, or in 
purses suspended from the girdle. “It 
was usual for travellers to carry purses 
(paoK#Ava) suspended from their girdles, 
in which they carried the pence”’ (Euthy.). 
—Ver. 10. wypav, a wallet for holding 
provisions, slung over the shoulder 
(Judith xiii. 10, wypav tTév Bpwpatev).— 
Sto xtTavas: not even two under-gar- 
ments, shirts ; one would say very neces- 
sary for comfort and cleanliness in a hot 
climate, and for travellers along dusty 
roads. In Mark the prohibition seems 
to be against wearing two at the same 
time (vi. 8); here against carrying a 
spare one for a change. Possibly we 
ought not to take these instructions 
too literally, but in their spirit.—tody- 
pata: this does not mean that they 
were to go barefooted, but either without 
a spare pair, or without more substantial 
covering for the feet (shoes) than the 
light sandals they usually wore—mere 
soles to keep the feet off the hard road. 
Lightfoot (Hor. Heb.) distinguishes 
between the two thus: ‘ usus delicatoris 
fuerunt calcei, durioris atque utilioris 
sandalia”. He states that there were 
sandals, whose soles were of wood, and 
upper part of leather, the two joined by 
nails, and that they were sometimes 
made of rushes or the bark of palms. 





Q—14. 


A > a 2 il 
Tpodys aUTOU EoTLV. 


EYATTEAION 161 


II. Eis qv 8 dv wodw 7 Kdpyy cic€dOnte, 


» éfetdoate Tis ev altH aids E€oTL- KdKeEt peivate, Ews dy ef€hOnte. h Ch. ii. 8. 


> , A 2 ‘ re , SIP 
12. ELOEPKOWEVOL dé Els THY OLKLOY, doTdoac0e auTny. 


John xxi. 


134 
I3. KOU €av j2, 


pev 7 7 otkia dgia, eXOérw * cipyyy Spav ew adryy: dy 8€ pi qi Ch. xii. 44. 


déla, 4} cipyvy Spar mpds byds * emotpadytw. 
S€éntor Spas, pydé dxovon Tods Adyous Spar, efepydpevor® tis’ 
oikias 4 THs Téews Exelvys, exTiwdgate Tov ) KoviopToy 4 


1 S8BCL omit eorwv. 
4 $8C add ex (Tisch.). 


—paBdov: not even a staff! That can 
hardly be meant. Even from the 
romantic or picturesque point of view 
the procession of pilgrim missioners 
would not be complete without a staff 
each in their hand. If not a necessity, 
at least, it was no luxury. Mark allows 
the staff, creating trouble for the har- 
monists. Grotius suggests: no second 
staff besides the one in hand! Glassius, 
quoted by Fritzsche in scorn, suggests a 
staff shod with iron (scipio) for defence. 
Ebrard, with approval of Godet, thinks 
of two different turns given to the 


rahe) 2h yea 


either “if you take one staff it is 
enough,” or ‘if, etc., it is too much”. 
Really the discrepancy is not worth all 
this trouble. Practically the two ver- 
sions come to the same thing: take only 
a staff, take not even a staff; the latter 
is a little more hyperbolical than the 
former. Without even a staff, is the ne 
plus ultra of austere simplicity and self- 
denial. Men who carry out the spirit of 
these precepts will not labour in vain. 
Their life will preach the kingdom better 
than their words, which may be feeble 
and helpless. ‘* Nothing,” says Euthy., 
‘creates admiration so much as a simple, 
contented life’? (Blos aGoxevos Kai dAt- 
yapkys). — Giios ... 7. Tpodys: a 
maxim universally recognised. A labourer 
of the type described is not only worthy 
but sure of his meat; need have no con- 
cern about that. This is one of the few 
sayings of our Lord referred to by St. 
Paul (x Cor. ix. 14), whose conduct as 
an apostle well illustrates the spirit of 
the instructions to the Twelve. 

Vv. 11-15. éteracare (ex eralw, from 
éreds, true; to inquire as to the truth of 
a matter). A host to be carefully sought 
out ineach place: not to stay with the first 
who offers.—aé.os points to personal 
moral worth, the deciding consideration 
to be goodness, not wealth (worth so 


Aramaic _ original 


2 av in BDL. 
BD omit (with T. R.). 


> mebetani, 
14. kal d5 edy? pi 
x.11. Acts 
A ~ > Abb Bie 
TOV TOOGY xxii. 23, 


3 SBD add eéo. 
W.H. have it on margin, 


much). The host to be a man generally 
respected, that no prejudice be created 
against the mission (ne praedicationis 
dignitas suscipientis infamia deturpetur, 
Jerome).—petvate: having once secured a 
host, abide with him, shift not about 
seeking better quarters and fare, hurting 
the feelings of the host, and damaging 
your character, as self-seeking men.— 
Ver. 12. Hv oixtay, the house selected 
after due inquiry.—_aomdoage, salute it, 
not as a matter of formal courtesy, but 
with a serious mind, saying: ‘‘ peace be 
with you,” thinking the while of what 
peace the kingdom can bring.—Ver. 13. 
éav pev 4 Ho. agia: after all pains have 
been taken, a mistake may be made; 
therefore the worthiness of the house 
is spoken of as uncertain (9, in an 
emphatic position, so py 7, in next 
clause).— €h@étw 7 cipyvy . emTo- 
tpadytw. The meaning is: the word of 
peace will not be spoken in vain; it will 
bless the speaker if not those addressed. 
It is always good to wish peace and good 
for others, however the wish may be 
received. There is a tacit warning 
against being provoked by churlish treat- 
ment. Ver. 14. 65 éav py SeEqrar: Christ 
contemplates an unfavourable result of 
the mission in the host’s house, or in the 
town or village generally. The con- 
struction of the sentence is anacolouthi- 
stic, beginning one way, ending another: 
rhetorical in effect, and suitable to emo- 
tional speech; cf. Lk. xxi. 6: ‘these 
things ye see—days will come in which 
not one stone will be left upon another” 
(vide Winer, § 63, on such constructions). 
—eéfepxopevor: when an_unreceptive 
attitude has once been decidedly taken 
up, there is nothing for it but to go 
away. Such a crisis severely tests the 
temper and spirit of promoters of good 
causes. —extiatate Tov KoviopTov: a 
symbolic act practised by the Pharisees 
on passing from heathen to Jewish soil, 
the former being regarded as unclean 


II 


162 


k Ch. ae Opay. 


KATA MATOAION x. 


I - duty Mie dpiv, * Gvexrétepoy €orat yi Loddpwr Kul 


24. L 
ape 14.  Topdppev ev pepe behave # TH Woden Exeivy. 
x 10; 
xxiii, 4. 16. “"I8od, éyd 'dwoorAAw Spas ds mpdBata ev péow Aikov- 


Rom. x. 


m Rom. a. Rave obv ppdvipor Os ol Shes, Kal 
Phil 


19. il. 


Tapaddcouar yap buds eis 
°pactiy@aoucw dpas- 


il 154 17s *mpogéxete dé dwd tay dvOpdtrev - 
nvideatC 
vii. 15. ouvédpia, Kat év tais cuvaywyais atta 
o Ch. xx. 19; 
xxiii. 34. Mk. x. 34. Lk. xviii. 33. John xix.1. Heb. xii. 6. 
(Light., Hor. Heb.): Easy to perform, doubt as to ver. 16. 


not easy to perform in a right spirit; too 
apt to be the outcome of irritation, dis- 
appointment, and wounded vanity =they 
did not appreciate me, I abandon them 
to their fate. Christ meant the act to 
symbolise the responsibility of the in- 
habitants for the result=leave the place, 
feeling that you have done your duty, 
not in anger but in sadness. ‘The act, 
if performed, would be a last word of 
warning (els paptiptov avtois, Mark and 
Luke). Grotius and Bleek understand it 
as meaning: “we have nothing more to 
do with you”’".—Ver. 15. yq 2. «ai [.: 
Sodom and Gomorrah, a byword for 
great iniquity and awful doom (Is. i. 9), 
yi, land for people.—avexrétepov: yet 
the punishment of these wicked cities, 
tragic though it was, or the punishment 
still in store, more endurable than that 
of city or village which rejects the 
message of the kingdom. This may 
seem an exaggeration, the utterance of 
passion rather than of sober judgment, 
and a dangerous thing to say to raw 
disciples and apprentice missionaries. 
But the principle involved is plain: the 
greater the privilege rejected the greater 
the criminality. The utterance reveals 
the high value Jesus set on the good 
tidings He commissioned the Twelve to 
preach. 

Vv. 16-39. Prophetic picture of future 
apostolic tribulations. An interpolation 
of our evangelist after his manner of 
grouping Jogia of kindred import. The 
greater part of the material is given in 
other connections in Mark, and especially 
in Luke. No feeling of delicacy should 
prevent even the preacher from taking 
this view, as it destroys all sense of the 
natural reality of the Galilean mission 
to suppose that this passage formed part 
of Christ’s instructions to the Twelve in 
connection therewith. Reading into the 
early event the thoughts and experiences 
of a later time was inevitable, but to get 
a true picture of the life of Jesus and His 
disciples, we must keep the two as 
distinct as possible. There may be a 


It stands at the 
beginning of the instructions to the 
Seventy in Luke (x. 2), which, according 
to Weiss (Matth. Evang., p. 263), are 
really the instructions to the Twelve 
in their most original form. But it is 
hard to believe that Jesus took and 
expressed so pessimistic a view of the 
Galilean villagers to whom He was 
sending the Twelve, as is implied in the 
phrase, ‘‘sheep among wolves,” though 
He evidently did include occasional un- 
receptivity among the possible experiences 
of the mission. He may indeed have 
said something of the kind with an 
understood reference to the hostility of 
Pharisaic religionists, but as it stands 
unqualified, it seems to bear a colouring 
imported from a later period. 

Ver. 16. t8o0¥, something important is 
going to be said.—éya, emphatic: Jesus 
is conscious that connection with Him 
will be a source not only of power, but 
of trouble to the Twelve.—év péow: not to 
wolves (apés AvKovg, Chrys.). They were 
not sent for that purpose, which would 
be a mission to destruction, but on an 
errand of which that would be an inci- 
dent. év is used here as often, especially 
in later Greek writers, with a verb of 
motion to indicate a subsequent chronic 
state, ‘the result of a love of concise- 
ness”’ (Winer, § 50, 4, a).—yiveoOe... 
wepiotepal. The serpent, the accepted 
emblem of wisdom (Gen. iii. 1; Ps. lviii. 

5)—wary, sharp-sighted (Grotius); the 
dove of simplicity (Hos. Vile EE; ots silly 
dove,” dvous, Sept.).—axépator (a, kepav- 
vupt), unmixed with evil, purely good. 
The ideal resulting from the combina- 
tion is a prudent simplicity; difficult to 
Tealise. The proverb seems to have 
been current among the Jews. ‘‘ God 
says: ‘with me the Israelites are simple 
as the dove, but against the heathen 
cunning as the serpent’ ” (Wiinsche, 
Beitrage).—Ver. 17. T&v avOpomwev: 
Weiss, regarding ver. 17 as the beginning 
of an interpolation, takes tay generi- 
cally=the whole race of men conceived 
of as on the whole hostile to the truth= 


, 
™dképaror @¢ al WeproTEpat. © 


nat et 


15—22. 


18. kal emt tyeusvas S€ Kai Baordeis axOjcecbe Evexev epod, eis p Ch. xx. 23. 
@ > ~ 1 c cal 
1g. Otay dé wapadiddcw! Spas, 


paptuptoy adtots Kal Tots eOveow. 


py pepipyyionte Was H ti Aadyjonte: ’SoOnceTar yap duiy év exeivy 
TH pa ti Nadycere?- 20. ob yap Gpeis eote of Aadodvres, GAAA 
76 Nvedpa tod watpds Spav 7d Aadody ev Spiv. 
GdedpSs AdeAhov *eis Odvatov, Kal wathp Tékvov’ Kal * éTavacTi-s 
govTat TeKva El yovets, Kal *Pavatdaoucw adtous. 
pioovpevon b1d mdvtwy Sid Td dvoud pour 6 Se ‘dmopetvas “cist 


xii. 12. 


1 S8B have wapodwowy (Tisch., W.H.). 


EYAITEAION 


163 


q Mk. xiii. 

12. 2 Cor. 

iv. 11(same 
phrase). 

r Mk. xiii. 
12. (Deut. 
Xix.1i.- 
Micah vii. 


6.) 

Ch, xxvi. 
22. Kal écecbe 79’ *E0r 
vi. 9. 

Ch. xxiv. 
pt 13. Rom. 
Lk. xviii. 5. John xiii. 1. 


21. *Napaddcer dé 


a Ch. xxiv. 13. 


2 BC have Aakyonre = what ye ought tospeak. The fut. ind. (T. R.) = what 


ye will speak. 


The former is to be preferred. DL omit the whole clause from 


S0OyoeTat to AaAynonrte, an error of similar ending, 


kéopos in the fourth Gospel (xv. 19; 
xvii. 14). It seems more natural to find 
im it a reference to the Avxou of ver. 16, 
Beware of the class of men I have in 
view. So Eras., Elsner, Fritzsche.— 
ovvédpia, the higher tribunals, selected 
-o represent courts of justice of all grades, 
to denote the serious nature of the 
danger.—ovvayoyats. The synagogue 
is referred to here, not merely as a place 
of worship, but as a juridical assembly 
exercising discipline and inflicting penal- 
ties (Grotius). Among these was scourg- 
ing (paatvy@oovewy, vide Acts xxii. 19; 
xxvi. 11; 2 Cor. xi. 24).—Ver. 18. nyepsd- 
vas, provincial governors, including the 
three degrees: Propraetors, Proconsuls, 
and Procurators. From the point of 
view of the evangelist, who conceives the 
whole discourse as connected with the 
Galilean mission confined to Jews, 
the reference can only be to Roman 
governors in Palestine. But in Christ’s 
mind they doubtless had a larger scope, 
and pointed to judicial tribulations in the 
larger, Gentile world.—els papripiov. 
The compensation for the incriminated 
will be that, when they stand on their 
defence, they will have an opportunity 
of witnessing for the Master (évexev 
200) and the Cause. Observe the com- 
bination «at §2 in first clause of this 
verse, kat before émt jyepdvas, Se after 
it. It introduces a further particular 
under a double point of view, with nal 
so far as similar, with 8é so far as different 
(Baumlein, Schulgram., § 675, also Gr. 
Partikeln, 188, 9). A more formidable 
experience. 

Vv. 19-22. pi} peptpvionre, etc.: a 
second counsel against anxiety (Matt. 
vi. 25), this time not as to food and 
raiment, but as to speech at a critical 


hour. With equal emphasis: trouble not 
yourselves either as to manner or matter, 
word or thought (w@s 4 Tt).—So8ycera: 
thought, word, tone, gesture—every- 
thing that tends to impress—all will be 
given at the critical hour (év éxelvg 7G 
pq). In the former instance anxiety 
was restricted to the day (Matt. vi. 34). 
Full, absolute inspiration promised for 
the supreme moment.— ov yap tuets, etc.: 
not you but the divine Spirit the speaker. 
ov, ad\\a, non tam quam, interprets 
Grotius, followed by Pricaeus, Elsner, 
Fritzsche, etc. = not so much you as; 
as if it were an affair of division of 
labour, so much ours, so much, and 
more, God’s. It is, however, all God’s, 
and yet all ours. It is a case of 
immanent action, Td adody éy iptv, 
not of a transcendent power coming in 
upon us to help our infirmity, eking 
out our imperfect speech. Note the 
Spirit is called the Spirit rod warpds 
tpay, echo of vi. 32. Some of the 
greatest, most inspired utterances have 
been speeches made by men on trial for 
religious convictions. A good con- 
science, tranquillity of spirit, and a sense 
of the greatness of the issue involved, 
make human speech at such times touch 
the sublime. Theophy. distinguishes 
the human and the divine in such utter. 
ances thus: ours to confess, God’s tomake 
a wise apology (rd pév dpodoyeiv Apé- 
Tepov, TO 5¢ copas amohoyeiobat Ocod). 
—Ver. 22. ls rédos, to the end (of the 
tribulations) described (vv. 21-22) ; to the 
end, and not merely at the beginning 
(Theophy., Beza, Fritzsche, Weiss, etc.). 
No easy thing to do, when such in- 
humanities and barbarities are going on, 
all natural and family affections out- 
raged. But it helps to know, as is here 


164 


here only « , 
in the téhos, otros owOnceTan. 


sense of 
going over, 

Similar 

phrases in 

Greekand gyQpatrov. 

Latin 

authors. 


TauTn, evyete eis Thy GAAnpy.!} 


KATA MATOAION x 


23. Stay S€ Sidkwow Suds ev tH wore 


dpi yap Adyw Spiv, od ph 


‘reddonte tas méders tod? “lopand, Ews Bv® EM 6 lds Tod 
24. Odx gore palntis bwép tay BiSdcKadov, obdé 


1 erepay in NB (W.H., addAny in margin). 


2 BD omit the article. 


indirectly intimated, that there will be 
an end, that religious animosities will 
not last for ever. Even persecutors and 
guillotineers get weary of their savage 
work. On eis té\os Beza remarks: 
declarat neque momentaneam neque per- 
petuam hanc conditionem fore.—otros 
awiyocerat, he, emphatic, he and no 
other, shall be saved, in the day of final 
award (James i. 12, ‘‘shall receive the 
crown of life”); also, for the word is 
pregnant, shall be saved from moral ship- 
wreck. How many characters go miser- 
ably down through cowardice and lack 
of moral fibre in the day of trial ! 

Ver. 23. Srav 8: the thought takes 
a new comforting turn, much needed 
to reconcile disciples to the grim 
prospect. With courage and loyalty 
effort for self-preservation is quite 
compatible. Therefore, when they per- 
secute here flee there —év Tt] woda 
tavrTy, in this city, pointing to it, this 
standing for one.—dqevyere, flee, very un- 
heroic apparently, but the bravest 
soldier, especially an old campaigner, 
will avail himself of cover when he can. 


cis THY érépav: the reading of NB is 


to be preferred to GAAny of the T.R., the 
idea being: flee not merely to another 
city numerically distinct, but to a city 
presumably different in spirit (vide vi. 24 
and xi. 16), where you may hope to 
receive better treatment. Thus the 
flight, from being a mere measure of 
self-preservation, is raised to the dignity 
of a policy of prudence in the interest of 
the cause. Why throw away life here 
among a hostile people when you may do 
good work elsewhere ?—Ap ty yap: reason 
for the advice solemnly given; an im- 
portant declaration, and a perplexing 
one for interpreters.—ov py, have no 
fear lest, ye will certainly not have 
finished—redéoynre. In what sense? 
“gone over ” (A.V.) in their evangelising 
tour, or done the work of evangelising 
thoroughly ? (ad fidei et evangelicae vir- 
tutis perfectionem—Hilary). The former 
is the more natural interpretation. And 
yet the connection of thought seems to 


* NSBX omit ev. 


demand a mental reference to the quality 
of the work done. Why tarry at one 
place as if you were under obligation to 
convert the whole population to the 
kingdom? The thing cannot be done. 
The two views may be combined thus: 
ye shall not have gone through the 
towns of Israel evangelising them in 
even a superficial way, much less in a 
thorough-going manner. Weiss takes 
the word teX. as referring not to mission 
work but to flight = ye shall not have 
used ali the cities as places of refuge, z.e., 
there will always be some place to flee 
to. This is beneath the dignity of the 
situation, especially in view of what 
follows.—éws @Oy 6 vids r. & Here 
again is the peculiar title Son of Man: 
impersonal, but used presumably as a 
synonym for “I”. What does it mean 
in this connection? And what is the 
coming referred to? The latter ques- 
tion can be best answered at a later 
stage. It has been suggested that the 
title Son of Man is here used by Christ 
in opposition to the title Son of David. 
The meaning of ver. 23 on that view is 
this: do not think it necessary to tarry 
at all hazards in one place. Your work 
anywhere and everywhere must be very 
imperfect. Even success will mean 
failure, for as soon as they have re- 
ceived the tidings of the kingdom they 
will attach wrong ideas to it, thinking of 
it as a national kingdom and of me as 
the “Son of David”. No thorough 
work can be done till the Son of Man 
has come, i.¢., till a universal Gospel for 
humanity has begun to be preached 
(Lutteroth). This is a fresh suggestion, 
not to be despised, on so obscure a sub- 
ject. We are only feeling our way as to 
the meaning of some of Christ’s sayings. 
Meantime, all that we can be sure of is 
that Christ points to some event not far 
off that will put a period to the apostolic 
mission. 

Vv. 24, 25 point to another source of 
consolation—companionship with the 
Master in tribulation. <A hard lot, but 
mine as well as yours; you would not 
expect to be better off than the Master 





23—27. 


EYAITEAION 


165 


Bodog bwép Tov KUpiov abrod. 25. “dpkerov TH pabyrh "ta yévytar w vide Ch. 
vi. 3 


@s 6 Si8dcKxahos attot, cal & Boddos ds 6 


KUptos adtod. et Tov x wa after 


in apK. 
7 oixodeométyy | BeehLeBovd exddeoay,” mécw paGdXov tods oiktaKods? Similar 


aitot ; 26. Mi obv oBnOijte abtous- obdev ydp €or Kexahup- 


phrases in 
Ch. v. 29, 
; XVili. 6. 


pévov, & odx damroxahupOjcerar: Kal xputrdv, 3 ob yrwo8joerar. a cer 
aA im a ty 
27. & Néyw piv €v tH *oxortig, eiwate év TH “puri: Kal b *eis Toy Ch. xx. 1, 


1 B has otxoSeomorn (dat.). 


bi 
z Lk. xii. 3. a Lk. i. 44. Acts xi. 22. 


W.H. put this reading in the margin. 


* ewexadecav in $$°BCAE al.,adopted by most editors. §§ has the middle voice. 


3 B has the dative here also. 


and Lord.—Ver. 25. d&pxerdy, not as in 
vi. 34 a neuter adjective used as a noun, 
but a predicate qualifying the clause tva 
yev., etc., as noun to verb éore under- 
stood. tva yévnrat instead of the infini- 
tive; 6 SotAos instead of tg BovAw de- 
pendent like r@ pafytg on Gpxerov, by 
attraction of the nearer word yévyrat 
(vide Winer, § 66, 5).—olxoSeomdrnyy (-Tp, 
B.) points to a more intimate relation 
between Jesus and the Twelve, that of a 
head of a house to a family, implying 
greater honour for the latter, and suggest- 
ing an added motive for patient endur- 
ance of the common lot.—olkoSeamrérns 
is a late form. Earlier writers said 
olxlas Seamdtys, Lob., Phryn., p. 373. 
—Beedf{eBotA: an opprobrious epithet ; 
exact form of the word and meaning of 
the name have given more trouble to 
commentators than it is all worth. Con- 
sult Meyer ad loc. Weiss (Meyer) re- 
marks that the name of the Prince of the 
demons is not yet sufficiently explained. 
A question of interest is: did the enemies 
of Jesus call Him Beelzebul (or Beelze- 
bub), or did they merely reproach Him 
with connection with Beelzebub? Weiss, 
taking ver. 25 b as an explanatory gloss 
of the evangelist, based on ix. 3, xii. 24, 
adopts the latter view; De Wette and 
Meyer the former. The reading of Co- 
dex B, oixoSeoméry, favours the other 
alternative. The dative requires the 
verb émexaheoay to be taken in the sense 
of to cast up to one. Assuming that 
the evangelist reports words of Jesus 
instead of giving a comment of his own, 
they may quite well contain the informa- 
tion that, among the contemptuous 
epithets applied to Jesus by His enemies, 
was this name. It may have been a 
spiteful pun upon the name, master 
of the house.—éo p.adXov implies that 
still worse names will be applied to the 
Twelve. Dictis respondet eventus, remarks 


Grotius, citing in proof the epithets 
y6y7Tas, impostores, applied to the apos- 
tles and Christians by Celsus and Ulpian, 
and the words of Tacitus: convictos in 
odio humani generis, and the general use 
of Geo. as a synonym for Christians.— 
olx.axovs (again in ver. 36), those belong- 
ing to a household or family (from ol«(a, 
whence also the more common olkeios 
bearing a similar meaning). 

Vv. 26, 27. pr ovv hoBnbire: “ fear 
not,” and again “‘ fear not” in ver. 28, 
and yet again, 31, says Jesus, knowing 
well what temptation there would be to 
fear. ovv connects with vv. 24, 25; fear 
net the inevitable for all connected with 
me, as you are, take it calmly. -ydp sup- 
plies a reason for fearlessness arising out 
of their vocation. It is involved in the 
apostolic calling that those who exercise 
it should attract public attention. There- 
fore, fear not what cannot be avoided if 
you would be of any use. Fear suits not 
an apostle any more than a soldier or a 
sailor, who both take coolly the risks of 
their calling.—kxexaduppevov, amroxahud-= 
Orjcerat; kpuTroyv, yyworOyoerar: the two 
pairs of words embody a contrast be- 
tween Master and disciples as to relative 
publicity. As movements develop they 
come more under the public eye. 
Christ’s teaching and conduct were not 
wholly covered and hidden. There was 
enough publicity to ensure ample criti- 
cism and hostility. But, relatively, His 
ministry was obscure compared to that 
of the apostles in after years to which the 
address looks forward. Therefore, more 
not less, tribulation to be looked for. The 
futures @woxah. yvwo. with the relative’ 
virtually express intention; cf. Mk. iv. 
22, where tva occurs; the hidden is hidden 
in order to be revealed. ‘That is the law 
of the case to which apostles must recon- 
cile themselves.—Ver. 27. oxotia, the 
darkness of the initial stage; the begin- 


166 


b Ch. xxiv. ods Gkovete, knpigate emt tov * Swpdrov. 
dnd tOv dmroxtewdvtav? 7d odpa, Thy Sé Puyhy pi) Suvapever 


17. 
xiii. 15. 
Lk. v. 19; 


KATA MATOAION x 


28. wat pi ° hoBybire ! 


xvii. 31. Gtroxtetvar: oPiOnte® Se paddov Tov Suvdpevoy Kat uxhy Kat 


c with ano. . 
Lk. xii 4, 0Opa drohéoa. év yeévvy. 
d Lk. xii. 6, 


29. odxt 800 Sotpoviia dooapiou 


a A a tas a a“ 
mwheitar; Kat ev ef atta ob meoeitar Ent Thy yh “dveu Tou 


pte ““ratpds Spav: 30 sSpav 8€ Kal at tpixes tis Kepahis waoa 


I; iv. 9. 
f Lk. xii. 7. 
Rev. vil.o, * plOpnpevar iat. 


1 So in DS, adopted by W.H. 


31. ph ov poPyOATe*: woAhGy otpouBiwy Sia- 


NBCLA al. have poBeroe (Tisch.). 


2 s9CDAYX have the Alexandrian form atroxtevvovTov. 


3 hoBerobe here in NBC against D. 


4 hoBeroGe in NBDL (Tisch., W.H al.). 


nings of great epoch-making movements 
always obscure.—¢erl, the light of pub- 
licity, when causes begin to make a noise 
in the wide world.—eis 13 ots: a phrase 
current among Greeks for confidential 
communications. For such communica- 
tions to disciples the Rabbis used the term 


wind, to whisper. AaAdnOév may be 


understood = what ye hear spoken into 
the ear.—dwpdrwv, on the roofs; not a 
likely platform from our western point 
of view, but the flat-roofed houses of 
the East are in view. 8épa in classics 
means house; in Sept. and N. T., the 
flat roof of a house; in modern Greek, 
terrace. Vide Kennedy, Sources of N. T. 
Greek, p. 121.—«npvgare, proclaim with 
loud voice, suitable to your commanding 
position, wide audience, and great theme. 

Vy. 28-31. New antidote to fear 
drawn from a greater fear, and from the 
paternal providence of God. goB7Oyre 


amd like the Hebrew ‘2 NY, but 


also one of several ways in which the 
Greeks connected this verb with its 
object.—76 o@pa: that is all the persecu- 
tor as such can injure or destroy. He 
not only cannot injure the soul, but the 
more he assails the physical side the 
safer the spiritual.—rtov Svvapevov kal 
Ww. kal o Who is that? God, say 
most commentators. Not so, I believe. 
Would Christ present God under this 
aspect in such close connection with the 
Father who cares even for the sparrows ? 
What is to be greatly feared is not the 
final condemnation, but that which leads 
to it—temptation to forsake the cause of 
God out of regard to self-interest or self- 
preservation. Shortly the counsel is: 
fear not the persecutor, but the tempter, 
not the man who kills you for your fidel- 
ity, but the man who wants to buy you 


off, and the devil whose agent he is.— Ver. 
29 orpovOla, dim. for orpovbds, small 
birds in general, sparrows in particu- 
lar.—aooaptov, a brass coin, Latin as, 
py Of a Spaxpr = about 3d. The small- 
ness of the price makes it probable that 
sparrows are meant (Fritzsche). Weare 
apt to wonder that sparrows had a price 
at all.—év . . . od looks like a Hebra- 
ism, but found also in Greek writers, 
‘‘cannot be called either a Graecism or a 
Hebraism; in every case the writer 
aims at greater emphasis than would 
be conveyed by ovSefs, which properly 
means the same thing, but had become 
weakened by usage” (Winer, § 26).—émt 
THV yqv. Chrys. paraphrases: eis rayiSa 
(Hom. 34), whence Bengel conjectured 
that the primitive reading was not yqv 
but wayny, the first syllable of a little 
used word falling out. But Wetstein 
and Fritzsche have pointed out that éari 
does not suit that reading. T1e idea is 
that not a single sparrow dies from any 
cause on wing or perch, and falls dead 
to the earth —avev +. warpds %. Origen 
(c. Celsum, i. 9) remarks: ‘ nothing use- 
ful among men comes into existence 
without God” (d@eet). Christ expresses 
a more absolute faith in Providence: 
‘the meanest Creature passes not out of 
existence unobserved of your Father ”.— 
Ver. 30. pv, emphatic position: your 
hairs.—rplyes: of little value all together, 
can be lost without detriment to life or 
health.—qaoat, all, every one without 
exception.—7prO.npévar, counted. Men 
count only valuable things, gold pieces, 
sheep, etc. Note the perfect participle. 
They have been counted once for all, and 
their number noted; one hair cannot go 
amissing unobserved.—Ver. 31. ™. a. 
Siadépere: once more, as in vi. 26, a 
comparison between men and birds as 
to value: ye of more worth than many 





28—37. 


épete Spets. 


EYATTEAION 


167 


32. Mas odv Sots *Suodoyyoe ey Epo Eumpoodey galso in Lk 


xii. 8 (with 


Tay dvOpdTrwv, Spokoynow Kayo €y adT@ EumpocQev Tod matpds pov ey and 


n~ > 1 > cal 
Tou ev’ ovpavots. 


dvOpdmwv, dpyygopat attév Kayo? Eumpoobey tod martpds pou Tob 


CWS a 
€v oupavols. 


yiiv: obx AAPov Badety eipyyyny, GAAA pdxarpay. 
Sixdoat GvOpwrov Kata Tod warpds adTou, Kai Ouyatépa kata Tijs 


33- Sotts 8 Ov “dpyyontal pe eumpocfey tay bh 


34. Mh vopionte Sti HOov ‘Barely eipHyny emi Thi 


dat.). 
Ch. xxvi 
im 70,72) ek 
xii. 9. 


John xx 
25. Jas. iil. 
35> AAGov 3. Rev. 


riv. 16, 19. 


pyTpos adris, Kal vopdyy Kata THs TwevBepds adTHS: 36. Kal eyOpol 


Tod dyOpuitrou ot oiKtaKxol adrod. 


37- O diddy watépa 7 pytépa 


dmép end, obx €ote pou Géios- Kal 6 hdv uldv % Ouyatépa bméep 


1 ros before ovpayors in BC2. 


2 xayw avtoy in SBDAX. 


3 rows before ovp. in BX (W.H. adopt the art. both in 1 and in 3). 


sparrows; one hair of your head as much 
worth to God as one sparrow. “It isa 
litotes to say that there is a great 
difference between many sparrows and 
a human being” (Holtz., H.C.), There 
is really no comparison between them. 
It was by such simple comparisons that 
Jesus insinuated His doctrine of the 
absolute worth of man. 

Vv. 32, 33- Solemn reference to the 
final Fudgment. otv points back to 
ver. 27, containing injunction to make 
open proclamation of the truth.—das 
Satis: nominative absolute at the head 
of the sentence.—éy époi, év ait7a: 
observe these phrases after the verb in 
ver. 32, compared with the use of the 
accusative pe, avtov in the following 
verse: “confess in me,’’ ‘‘deny me,” 
“confess in him,” “‘deny him”. Chry- 
sostom’s comment is: we confess by the 
grace of Christ, we deny destitute of 
grace. Origen (Cremer, Catenae, i. p. 
80) interprets the varying construction 
as indicating that the profit of the faith- 
ful disciple lies in fellowship with Christ 
and the loss of the unfaithful in the lack 
of such fellowship. (Spa S2, et pr 7d 
ameoventTna Tov éy aiT@ dpohoyoty- 
Tos, Hoy ovtTws évy xproT@ Sydovrar, 
tk Tov, “Kayo év ai7@” Gpohoyetv: TO 
Se kaxdv tod dpvoupdvov, ék Tod py 
ouvapda: Ty apyyge. To “dy enol,” 4 
7d ‘‘éy aiT@ ”.) 

Vv. 34-39. The whole foregoing dis- 
course, by its announcements and con- 
solations, implies that dread experiences 
are in store for the apostles of the faith. 
To the inexperienced the question might 
naturally suggest itself, why ? Can the 
new religion not propagate itself quietly 
and peaceably? Jesus meets the ques- 
tion of the surprised disciple with a de- 


cided negative.—Ver.34. ph voplonte, do 
not imagine, as you are very likely to do 
(cf. v. 17).—Oov Bareiv: the use of the 
infinitive to express aim is common in 
Matt., but Christ has here in view result 
rather than purpose, which are not 
carefully distinguished in Scripture. For 
Badeitv Luke has Sodvat, possibly with a 
feeling that the former word does not 
suit etpyvyny. It is used specially with re- 
ference to payatpay. The aorist points 
to a sudden single action. Christ came 
to bring peace on earth, but not in an 
immediate magical way; peace at last 
through war (Weiss, Matt. Evang.).— 
paxatpav: Luke substitutes diapepiopdy. 
The connecting link may be that the 
sword divides in two (Heb. iv. 12). 
Grotius says that by the word there 
should be understood: ‘‘non bellum sed 
dissidium ”’.—Ver. 35. Description of 
the discord.—8txdeat, to divide in two 
(Stxa), to separate in feeling and in- 
terest, here only in N.T.; verifies the 
truth of Grotius’ comment as to the 
‘sword ’.—dv8pwrov kata Tov TaTpos 
avtov. In this and the following 
clauses it is the young that are set 
against the old. ‘In all great revolu- 
tions of thought the change begins from 
the young” (Carr, Cambridge Gr. T.).— 
vuppyy, a young wife, here as opposed 
to wev@epas, a daughter-in-law. —Ver. 36. 
éy9pol: the predicate standing first for 
emphasis ; enemies, not friends as one 
would expect, the members of one’s 
family (ot«vaxot, as in ver. 25). The 
passage reproduces freely Micah vii. 6.— 
Ver. 37. Such a state of matters imposes 
the necessity of making a very painful 
choice between relatives and truth.— 
dtA@v: this verb denotes natural affec- 
tion as distinct from dyamdw, which 


X. 38—42. 


end, obx Eom pou déios: 38. Kai ds of AapPdver Tov otaupdy 


39- 6 ebpay 


Ti Puxiy adtod dwohécer adtyy: Kal 6 dwoddoas Thy uxt adtod 


40. “O Bexdpevos bpas epe Séxerar: 
41. 6 dex6- 
Tpodytou picdy mpopytou An erat - 


Lk. xiii. 15. Kal 6 Sexdpevos Sixatoy eis Svopa Sixatou probdy Scxatou An perat - 


168 KATA MATOAION 
aitod Kai dkohoubet dticw pou, ok Eat pou aétos. 
: évexey €n00 epyoer aitiy. 
i ¢f. Ch. ‘ al ' x 
4 avi 20. kal 6 epe Sexdpevos Séxerar Tov dwoore(havTd pe. 
XXV.35, 
37,42; BEVOS TPOdHTHY Eis Svopna 
xxvii. 48. 
Rom. xii. Nia an atk , a 
20. 42. kal Os €dvy* “totion Eva 
1 Rev. iii. 
15 (here 


only = aes 
cold water). PLoOdv adTod.” 


los avin BD 33. 


points to love of an ethical kind. The 
distinction corresponds to that between 
amare and diligere. Vide Trench, Syno- 
nyms, and Cremer, s. v., a@yamdw.— 


pov afios. The Master is peremptory; 
eman f j 


cause to all claims of earthly relations. 
—Ver. 38. oravpov. There is here no 


necessary allusion to the death of Jesus 
Himself by crucifixion, though one 
possessing such insight into the course 
of events, as this whole discourse indi- 
cates, must have known quite well 
when He uttered the words what 
awaited Himself, the worst possible pro- 
bable if not certain. The reference is to 
the custom of the condemned person 
carrying his own cross. Death by cruci- 
fixion, though not practised among the 
Jews, would be familiar to them through 
Roman custom. Vide Grotius for Greek 
and Roman phrases, containing figura- 
tive allusions to thecross. This sentence 
and the next will occur again in this 
Gospel (Matt. xvi. 24, 25).—Ver. 30. 
eipov ... awodéoe, amodéoas. .. . 
evpyoe: crucifixion, death ignominious, 
as a criminal—horrible; but horrible 
though it be it means salvation. This 
paradox is one of Christ’s great, deep, yet 
ever true words. It turns on a double 
sense of the term Wvyy as denoting now 
the lower now the higher life. Every 
wise man understands and acts on the 
maxim, “ dying to live’’. 

Vv. 40-42. The following sentences 
might have been spoken in connection 
with the early Galilean mission, and are 
accordingly regarded by Weiss as the 
conclusion of the instructions then given. 
Luke gives their gist (x. 16) at the close 
of the instructions to the seventy. After 
uttering many awful,stern sayings, Jesus 
takes care to make the last cheering. 
He promises great rewards to those 


TOV piKp@v ToUTwy moTnptoy | puxpod 


pdvoy eis Svona pabytod, duty Aéyw Spty, of ph dwodéoy Tov 


who receive the missionaries, thereby 
“ opening the houses of the whole world 
to them,” Chrysos.—Ver. 40. épé Séxerar: 
first the principle is laid down that to 
receive the messenger is to receive the 
Master who sent him (Matt. xxv. 40), as 
to receive the Master is to receive God. 
—Ver. 41. Then in two distinct forms 
the law is stated that to befriend the re- 
presentative of Christ and God ensures 
the reward belonging to that representa. 
tive.—eis Svopa, having regard to the 
fact that he is a prophet or righteous 
man. The prophet is the principal object 
of thought, naturally, inconnection with 
a mission to preach truth. But Christ 
knows (vii. 15) that there are false 
prophets as well as true; therefore from 
vocation He falls back on persona! 
character. Here as everywhere we see 
how jealously He made the ethical in- 
terest supreme. ‘‘ See,” says Chrys., 
commenting on ver. 8, ‘‘ how He cares 
for their morals, not less than for the 
miracles, showing that the miracles 
without the morals are nought” (Hom. 
32). So here He says in effect: let the 
prophet be of no account unless he be 
a just, good man. The fundamental 
matter is character, and the next best 
thing is sincere respect for it. To the 
latter Christ promises the reward of the 
former.—6 Sexdpevos Sikatov ... proBdy 
8. AyWeror: a strong, bold statement 
made to promote friendly feeling towards 
the moral heroes of the world in the 
hearts of ordinary people ; not the utter- 
ance of a didactic theologian scientifi- 
cally measuring his words. Yet there is 
a great principle underlying, essentially 
the same as that involved in St. Paul’s 
doctrine of justification by faith. The 
man who has goodness enough to 
reverence the ideal of goodness approxi- 
mately or perfectly realised in another, 


XI. 1—3. 


EYATTEAION 


169 


XI. 1. Kal éyévero Ste érékevev 6 “Ingods Biatdcowy trois SdSeka 


a a > Lal nA 
pantats adrou, “petéBy exeibev tod SiBdoxew Kal Kypiooew eva Ch. xii.o; 


Tais médeow auTayv. 


xv. 29 (with 
exetOev). 


c > , , > ~ b , a 
2. O AE ‘Iwdvyns dxotcas €v TO ”Seopwrnpiw ta Epya Tod b Acts v.21, 


Xptotod, méppas S00! ray pabytav adtod, 3. citer aitd, ‘Xd 


1 SS BCDAZ have d:a. 


though not in himself, shall, in the 
moral order of the world, be counted as 
a good man.—Ver. 42. The last word, 
and the most beautiful; spoken with 
deep pathos as an aside; about the 
disciples rather than to them, though 
heard by them. ‘‘ Whosoever shall do 
the smallest service, were it but to give 
a drink to one of these little ones (éva 
TOY pikp@v TovTwy, cf. Matt. xxv. 40) 
in the name of a disciple, I declare 
solemnly even he shall. without fail have 
his appropriate reward.”—vuxpov: ex- 
pressive word for water, indicating the 
quality valued by the thirsty ; literally a 
cup of the cool, suggesting by contrast 
the heat of the sun and the fierce thirst 
of the weary traveller. No small boon 
that cup in Palestine! ‘In this hot 
and dry land, where one can wander for 
hours without coming on a brook or an 
accessible cistern, you say ‘thank you’ for 
a drink of fresh water with very different 
feelings than we do at home” (Furrer, 
Wanderungen durch das Heilige Land, 
p. 118). — Fritzsche remarks on the 
paucity of particles in vv. 34-42 as indi- 
cating the emotional condition of the 
speaker. 

CHAPTER XI. JESUS JUDGED BY AND 
Jupainc His CoNTEMPORARIES. We 
are not to suppose any close connection 
in time between the events related in this 
chapter and the Galilean mission. The 
reverse is implied in the vague introduc- 
tory statement, that when Jesus had 
completed His instructions to the Twelve 
He went away on a teaching and preach- 
ing tour among the towns. The impor- 
tant thing is to realise that all that is re- 
lated here must have taken place after 
there had been time for the methods, 
aims, spirit, and way of life of Jesus to 
manifest themselves, and so to become 
the subject of general remark. It wasa 
matter of course that a man of such 
depth, originality, unconventionality, 
energy and fearless independence would 
sooner or latter provoke criticism of all 
shades; from mild, honest doubt, to de- 
cided reprobation. However popular at 
first, He must become at last compara- 


23; XVi. 26. 


Svo is a harmonistic assimilation to Lk, 


tively isolated. By the time the events 
here related occurred, the reaction had 
fully set in, and the narrative shows how 
extensive it was, embracing within its 
sphere of influence the best in the land 
represented by the Baptist; the com- 
mercial class represented by three cities 
named; the professional class—the “ wise 
and understanding”; and the zealots in 
religion. 

Ver. 1. Ste étédkecev Statdcowv. The 
participle here with a verb signifying to 
cease as often with verbs signifying to 
begin, continue, persevere, etc., vide 
Goodwin, § 879. éxei@ev, from that place, 
the place where the mission was given to 
the Twelve. Where that was we do not 
know; probably in some place of retire- 
ment (dans la retraite, Lutteroth).—1é. 
Meow attey: the pronoun does not refer 
to the disciples (ua@nrais) as Fritzsche 
thinks, but to the people of Galilee. 
While He sent out the Twelve to preach, 
He continued preaching Himself, only 
avoiding the places they visited, “ giving 
room to them and time to do their work, 
for, with Him present and healing, no 
one would have cared to go near them,” 
Chrysos., Hom. 36. 

Vv. 2-6. Message from the Baptist 
Lk. vii. 18-23). Ver. 2. Secpwrnply 
ae Seopdw, Seapuds, a bond), in prison 
in the fortress of Machzrus by the Dead 
Sea (Joseph., Antiq.,18,5, 2),a factalready 
alluded toin iv. 12. By this time he has 
been a prisoner a good while, long 
enough to develop a prison mood.—4axov- 
o@as: not so close a prisoner but that 
friends and followers can get access to 
him (cf. Matt. xxv. 36, 43).—1a épya rod 
xptorov: this the subject in which the 
Baptist is chiefly interested. What is Jesus 
doing? But the evangelist does not 
say the works of Fesus, but of the Christ, 
i.e., of the man who was believed to be 
the Christ, the works which were sup- 
posed to point Him out as the Christ. 
In what spirit reported, whether simply 
as news, with sympathy, or with jealousy, 
not indicated.—wépwas: the news set 
John on musing, and led to a message of 
inquiry—8.a +. pa@yrav avrod, by his 


170 


KATA MATOAION 


XI. 


¢ Jobn vi. et & “épydpevos, 4 Erepov “mpoodoxapev; 4. Kal daoxpifels 6 
eb. 


14. 
x. 3 

d Lk. i. ar; 
vii. 19; 
viii. 40, 


7, ‘Ingods elev abrois, “ Mopeubévres dmayyeihate “lwdvyy, & dxovete 
kal Bhémete* 5. Tupdoi *dvaBdeouct, Kat! ywhot mepuratoiar - 


Acts x.24. Nempol KaBapiLovrat, Kal Kwhol dxovouct’ vexpol éyelpovrat, Kal 


2 Pet. iil. 


12, 14 (all with accus.). e Ch. xx. 34. 


Mk. x. 51. Lk. xviii. 41 (= to recover sight). 


1 The texts show some unimportant variations in ref. to the kat in this and the 


following clauses. 


disciples, possibly the same men who 
brought the news. There would be con- 
stant coming and going between Galilee 
and Macherus. The construction is 
Hebraistic = sent by the hand of.—Ver. 
3. «lev atta, said to Jesus, by them, 
of course.—Xv et: the question a grave 
one and emphatically expressed: Thou, 
art Thou 6 épxdpevos? Art Thou He 
whom I spoke of as the One coming after 
me when I was baptising in the Jordan 
(iii. 11)? It is a question whether Jesus 
be indeed the Christ. Lutteroth, basing 
on the hypothesis that for popular Jewish 
opinion the Christ and the coming One 
(a prophet like Moses) were different per- 
sons, interprets the question thus: ‘ Art 
Thou, Jesus, whom I know to be the 
Christ, also the coming Prophet, or must 
we expect another to fill that réle ?”"—4 
Zrepov, not a@\Aov, which would have 
been more appropriate on Lutteroth’s 
view =a numerically distinct person. 
#7. suggests a different kind of person.— 
wpoodoxapev: may be present indicative 
(for future) as Beza and Fritzsche take it, 
or present subjunctive deliberative = 
ought we to look ? (Meyer-Weiss, Holtz., 
H.C.), the latter preferable. What was 
the animus or psychological genesis of 
the question? Doubt in John’s own 
mind, or doubt, bred of envy or jealousy, 
in the minds of his disciples, or not doubt 
on Baptist’s part, but rather incipient 
faith? Alternative (2), universal with 
the fathers (except Tertullian, vide de 
prescrip., 8, de baptis., 10); (1) common 
among modern commentators; (3) fav- 
oured by Keim, Weizsacker, and Holtz., 
H.C.: ‘beginnende Disposition zum 
Glauben an Jesu Messianitat”. The 
view of the fathers is based on a sense of 
decorum and implicit reliance on the 
exact historical value of the statements 
in fourth Gospel; No. (3), the budding 
faith hypothesis, is based on too scepti- 
cal a view as to the historic value of even 
the Synoptical accounts of John’s early 
relations with Jesus; No. (1) has every- 
thing in its favour. The efiect of con- 
finement on John’s prophetic temper, the 


In the best MSS. there is a kat before vexpou. 


general tenor of this chapter which obvi- 
ously aims at exhibiting the moral isola- 
tion of Jesus, above all the wide differ- 
ence between the two men, all make for 
it. Jesus, it had now become evident, 
was a very different sort of Messiah from 
what the Baptist had predicted and de- 
siderated (vide remarks on chap. iii. 11- 
15). Where were the axe and fan and 
the holy wind and fire of judgment? 
Too much patience, tolerance, gentle- - 
ness, sympathy, geniality, mild wisdom 
in this Christ for his taste. 

Vv. 4-6. Answer of Fesus. Ver. 4. 
atayyethare |.: go back and report to 

ohn for his satisfaction.—& ax. xa 

Aéarere, what you are hearing and see- 
ing, not so much at the moment, though 
Luke gives it that turn (vii. 21), but 
habitually. They were not to tell their 
master anything new, but just what they 
had told him before. The one new ele- 
ment is that the facts are stated in terms 
fitted to recall prophetic oracles (Isaiah 
xxxv. 5, lxi. 1), while, in part, a historic 
recital of recent miracles (Matt. viii., ix.). 
Probably the precise words of Jesus are 
not exactly reproduced, but the sense is 
obvious. Tell John your story over again 
and remind him of those prophetic texts. 
Let him study the two together and draw 
his own conclusion. It was a virtual in- 
vitation to John to revise his Messianic 
idea, in hope he would discover that after 
all love was the chief Messianic charism. 
—Ver. 5. dvaBd¢rovow: used also in 
classics to express recovery of sight.— 
xwot, here taken to mean deaf, though 
in ix. 32, 33, it means dumb, showing that 
the prophecy, Isaiah xxxv. 5, is in the 
speaker’s thoughts. —wrwxol: vague 
word, might mean literal poor (De W.) 
or spiritual poor, or the whole people in 
its national misery (Weiss, Matt. Evan.), 
best defined by such a text as ix. 36, and 
such facts as that reported in ix. 10-13.— 
evayyeAtLovras: might be middle = the 
poor preach, and so taken by Euthy. 
Zig. (also as an alternative by Theophy.), 
for ‘‘what can be poorer than fishing 
(aXveutiKys) ?” The poor in that case= 








4—I0. 


EYATTEAION 


171 


mTwxot ‘edayyehiLovrar- 6. kal paxdpids eotwy, ds €dv) ph Soxavda-f Heb. iv. 2 


AioOq ev epoi.” 


7. Tovtwy 8€ opevopevev, yptato 6 “Incods 


(passive 
also). 
g Ch. xiii. 


héyew Tots SxAotg tept “lwdvvou, “Ti efyOete eis Thy Epynpov 57; xxvi 


edcacbar; "“Kddapov iwd dvénou 
eéyOete idetv ; 


iSod, of TA padaka ! hopodvres Ev Tois otkors Tay Pacthéwy cicty 
9 adda ti efyOeTe idelv; mpoytny 4 
adtepoy mpopytou* 10. otros ydp® got wepi o8 yéypamtat, ‘ISou, 
€y2 dmootéAhkw tov Gyyehdv pou mpd tpocwmou cou, Ss KaTa- 


1 av in BD (W.H.). 


‘cadeudpevoyv; 8. &dda Th 
” > oe c , 9 > t 
GvOpwrov €v pahaxots iparios? ipdrecpévoy ; 


, 31. Mk. vi. 
3. Lk. vii. 
23 (all 
with ey). 
yg HCh. xii. 
20 (Is. 
xlii. 3). 
Lk. vii. 24. 
i Ch. xxiv. 
29, parall. 
eb. xii. 
27. 
Ne jJohn xix. s. 
Rom. xiii. 4. 1 Cor. xv. 49. Jas. ii. 3. 


5 , he t at} ‘ 
3 val, Aheyw uty, Kal trepic- 


7BDZ omit tsariois, which has come in from Lk. (vii 25). 


® BOB omit evowy. 


*S8BZ have mpodynrny dev forming a 2nd question. 


So Tisch. and W.H. 


5 9BDZ omit yap, which has been introduced to clear the sense which it rather 


obscures. 


the Twelve sent out to preach the king- 
dom. That, too, was characteristic of 
the movement, though not the character 
istic intended, which is that the poor, the 
socially insignificant and neglected, are 
evangelised (passive, as in Heb. iv. 2). 
—Ver.6. paxdptos (vide v. 3), possessed 
of rare felicity, The word implies that 
those who, on some ground or other, did 
not stumble over Jesus were very few. 
Even John not among them! On oxav- 
SadiLw vide ad. v.29. ev épol, in any- 
thing relating to my public ministry, as 
appearing inconsistent with my Messianic 
vocation. 

Vv. 7-15. Fudgment of fesus concern- 
ing the Baptist (Lk. vii. 24-30). Charac- 
_ teristically magnanimous, while letting it 
be seen that He is aware of John’s limits 
and defects. Ver. 7. rovrwv Sé wrop- 
evopevwy ; while John’s messengers were 
in the act of going, Jesus began at once, 
without any delay, to make a statement 
which He deemed necessary to prevent in- 
jurious inferences from the message of 
the Baptist, or the construction He had 
put on it as implying doubt regarding 
Himself.—roits dxAous : the interrogation 
had taken place in presence of many. 
Jesus was always in a crowd, except 
when He took special steps to escape. 
The spectators had watched with interest 
what Jesus would say about the famous 
man. Therefore, move must be said; a 
careful opinion expressed.—ri é&4\Gere 
... Bedoacar: it might be taken for 
granted that most of them had been there. 
The catechetical method of stating His 


opinion of John lively and impres- 
sive to such an audience. They had 
gone to see as well as hear and be bap- 
tised, curiosity plays a great part in 
popular religious movements.—xaAapoy. 
Plenty of reeds to be seen. ‘‘ What a 
vast space of time lies between the days 
of the Baptist and us! How have the 
times changed! Yet the stream flows 
in the old bed. Still gently blows the 
wind among the sighing reeds.””—Furrer, 
Wanderungen, 185. Many commenta- 
tors (Grot., Wet., Fritzsche, De W.) in- 
sist on taking xaA. literally = did ye go, 
etc., to see a reed, or the reeds on the 
Jordan banks shaken by the wind? This 
is flat and prosaic. Manifestly the indi- 
vidualised reed is a figure of an incon- 
stant, weak man; just enough in John’s 
present attitude to suggest such a 
thought, though not to justify it.—Ver. 
8. adda assumes the negative answer 
to the previous question and elegantly 
connects with it the following = “No; 
well, then, did you, etc. ?”’—év padaxois, 
neuter, tuatiors not necessary : in preci- 
ous garments of any material, silk, 
woollen, linen; the fine garments sugges- 
tive of refinement, luxury, effeminacy.— 
Sod oi +r. p. dopotytes: idod points to a 
well-known truth, serving the same pur- 
pose as 84 here; those accustomed to 
wear, dop., frequentative, as distinct from 
épovres, which would mean bearing 
without reference to habit.—otkots 7. 
Bac., in palaces which courtiers frequent. 
Jesus knows their flexible, superfine ways 
well; how different from those of the 


172 

k Ch. xxlv. oxevdoet Thy 68d cou Eumpoobey gov." 
11,24. Lk. 
vii. 16. 
John vii. . Qy 


1 bens andin 

Lk. vii. 28. §m Ch. xiii. 32. Mk. iv. 31. 
rudely clad and rudely mannered, un- 
compromising Baptist!—Ver. 9. 4AAa 
vt 2€.: one more question, shorter, abrupt, 
needing to be supplemented by another 
(Weiss-Meyer)—why then, seriously, 
went ye out? mpodrryy lSeiv ;—to see 
a Prophet ?—val, yeal right at last; a 
prophet, indeed, with all that one expects 
in a prophet—vigorous moral conviction, 
integrity, strength of will, fearless zeal 
for truth and righteousness; utterly free 
from the feebleness and time-serving of 
those who bend like reeds to every 
breath of wind, or bow obsequiously be- 
fore greatness.—xal wepioodtepov *., 
a prophet and more, something above the 
typical prophet (vide on v. 47). The 
clause introduced by vat, as A€yo tpiv 
shows, expresses Christ’s own opinion, 
not the people’s (Weiss). — Ver. ro. 
otros... yéypamrtor. The wepiood- 
vepov verified and explained by a pro- 
phetic citation. The oracle is taken 
from Malachi iii., altered so as to 
make the Messianic reference apparent— 
pov changed into gov. By applying the 
oracle to John, Jesus identifies him with 
the messenger whom God was to send to 
prepare Messiah’s way. This is his dis- 
tinction, weptoadrepov, as compared with 
other prophets. But, after all, this is an 
external distinction, an accident, so to 
speak. Some prophet must be the fore- 
runner, if Messiah is to come at all, the 
last in the series who foretell His coming, 
and John happens to be that one—a 
matter of good fortune rather than of 
merit. Something more is needed to 
justify the weptooérepov, and make it a 
proper subject foreulogy. That is forth- 
coming in the sequel. 

Vv. 11-12. This is the further justifi- 
cation of the wepico. desiderated. Ver. 
II. Gpnv Aéyw tpiv. First Christ ex- 
presses His personal conviction in 
solemn terms. What follows refers to 
John’s intrinsic worth, not to his historic 
position as the forerunner. The latter 
rests on the prophetic citation. Christ’s 
aim now is to say that the Baptist’s 
character is equal to his position: that 
he is fit to be the forerunner. For 
Christ, being the forerunner is no matter 
of luck. God will see that the right 
man occupies the position; nay, none 
but the right man can successfully per- 


KATA MAT@OAION 


XI. 


11. "Aphy Ayo dpiv, odk 


* éyipyeprat év | yevyntots yuvatkay petLov “iwdvvov tod Bamtiotod - 
é™ pixpdtepos ev TH Baciheia tay obpavir peiLwv abtod €oti- 
Lk. vii. 28; ix. 48. 


form the part.—ote« éyfyeprat, there 
hath not arisen; passive with middle 
sense, but the arising non sine numine, 
“‘surrexit divinitus, quomodo existunt 
veri Prophetae,”’ Elsner; cf. Mt. xxiv. 
11, Lk. vii. 16, vide also Judges ii. 18, 
iii. 9.—€v yervnrois yuvatkavy = among 
mankind, a solemn way of expressing 
the idea. The meaning, however, is not 
that John is the greatest man that ever 
lived. The comparison moves within 
the sphere of Hebrew prophecy, and 
practically means: John the greatest of 
all the prophets. A bold judgment not 
easily accepted by the populace, who 
always think the dead greater than the © 
living. Christ expresses Himself strongly 
because He means to say something 
that might appear disparaging. But He 
is in earnest in His high estimate, only 
it is not to be understood as asserting 
John’s superiority in all respects, ¢.g., 
in authorship. The point of view is 
capacity to render effective service to the 
Kingdom of God.—é 8 puxpdtepos. 
Chrysostom took this as referring to 
Jesus, and, connecting év +. B. +. odp. 
with petfwv, brought out the sense: He 
who is the less in age and fame is greater 
than John in the Kingdom of Heaven. 
The opinion might be disregarded as an 
exegetical curiosity, had it not been 
adopted by so many, not only among 
the ancients (Hilar., Ambr., Theophy., 
Euthy.), but also among moderns (Eras., 
Luth., Fritzsche). Inthe abstract it is 
a possible interpretation, and it expresses 
a true idea, but not one Jesus was likely 
to utter then. No doubt John’s in- 
quiry had raised the question of Christ’s 
standing, and might seem to call for 
comparison between questioner and ques- 
tioned. But Christ’s main concern was 
not to get the people to think highly of 
Himself, but to have high thoughts of 
the kingdom. What He says, therefore, 
is that any one in the kingdom, though 
of comparatively little account, is greater 
than John. Even the least is; for 
though puxpétepos, even with the article, 
does not necessarily mean puxpdétatos 
(so Bengel), it amounts to that. The 
affirmative holds even in case of the 
highest degree of inferiority. The im- 
plication is that John was not in the 
kingdom as a historical movement (a 





tI—I4. 


EYAITEAION 


173 


12. dm $€ Tov Hpepav “lwdvvou tod Bawristod Ews Gpti, 4 Bagidelan here and 
1 


Tov otpavay ” Brdletar, Kai Bracral °dpwdLouow atthy. 


n Lk. xvi. 
16 (middle 


13. WavTes 
there). 


yap ot mpopitar Kat 6 vdpos Ews “lwdvvou mpoepyteugay+- 14. Kal of. Phil. ii 


1S8BCDZ have the augment at the beginning (empod.). 


simple matter of fact), and the point of 
comparison is the dominant spirit. The 
moral sternness of John was his great- 
ness and also his weakness. It made 
him doubt Jesus, kept him aloof from the 
kingdom, and placed him below any one 
who in the least degree understood 
Christ’s gracious spirit, ¢.g., one of the 
Twelve called in x. 42 ‘‘ these little ones ”’. 
Ver. 12. The statement just com- 
mented on had to be made in the in- 
terests of truth and the Kingdom of God, 
but having made it Jesus reverts with 
pleasure to a tone of eulogy. This verse 
has created much diversity of opinion, 
which it would take long to recount. I 
find in it two thoughts: one expressed, 
the other implied. (1) There has beena 
powerful movement since John’s time 
towards the Kingdom of God. (2) The 
movement derived its initial impetus 
from John. The latter thought is 
latent in awd 82 rav fp. lwdv. The 
movement dates from John ; he has the 
credit of starting it. This thought is 
essential to the connection. It is the 
ultimate justification of the weproadrepov 
(ver. 9). The apostle Paul adduced as 
one argument for his apostleship, called 
in question by Judaists, success, which in 
his view was not an accident but God- 
given, and due to fitness for the work 
' (2 Cor. ii. 14, iii. 1-18). So Christ here 
in effect proves John’s fitness for the 
position of forerunner by the success of 
his ministry. He had actually made 
the kingdom come. ‘That was the true 
basis of his title to the honourable 
appellation, ‘‘preparer of the way”; 
without that it had been an empty title, 
though based on any number of pro- 
phecies. That success proved fitness, 
adequate endowment with moral force, 
and power to impress and move men. 
This being seen to be Christ’s meaning, 
there is no room for doubt as to the 
animus of the words Bialerat, Bracrat. 
They contain a favourable, benignant 
estimate of the movement going on, not 
an unfavourable, as, among others, Weiss 
thinks, taking the words to point toa 
premature attempt to bring in the king- 
dom by a false way as a political crea- 
tion (Weiss-Meyer). Of course there 


6 (apray 
0s). 


A has no augment. 


were many defects, obvious, glaring, in 
the movement, as there always are. 
Jesus knew them well, but He was not 
in the mood just then to remark on 
them, but rather, taking a broad, 
generous view, to point to the move- 
ment as a whole as convincing proof of 
John’s moral force and high prophetic 
endowment. The two words fral., 
Biac. signalise the vigour of the move- 
ment. The kingdom was being seized, 
captured by a storming party. The 
verb might be middle voice, and is so 
taken by Beng., ‘‘sese vi quasi obtrudit,”’ 
true to fact, but the passive is demanded 
by the noun following. The kingdom 
is forcefully taken (Buatws xparetrat, 
Hesychius) by the Biacrai. There is 
probably a tacit reference to the kind of 
people who were storming the kingdom, 
from the point of view, not so much of 
Jesus, as of those who deemed themselves 
the rightful citizens of the kingdom. 
‘ Publicans and sinners” (ix. 9-12), the 
ignorant (xi. 25). What a rabble! 
thought Scribes and Pharisees. Cause 
of profound satisfaction to Jesus (ver. 25). 

Vv. 13-15. Conclusion of speech about 
John. Ver. 13. The thought here is 
hinted rather than fully expressed. It 
has been suggested that the sense would 
become clearer if vv. 12 and 13 were 
made to change places (Maldonatus). 
This inversion might be justified by 
reference to Lk. xvi. 16, where the two 
thoughts are given in the inverse order. 
Wendt (L. J., i. 75) on this and other 
grounds arranges the verses 13, 14, 12. 
But even as they stand the words can 
be made to yield a fitting sense, har- 
monising with the general aim, the 
eulogy of John. The surface idea is 
that the whole O. T., prophets of course, 
and even the law in its predictive aspects 
(by symbolic rites and foreshadowing in- 
stitutions) pointed forward to a Kingdom 
of God. The kingdom coming—the 
burden of O. T. revelation. But what 
then? To what end make this observa- 
tion? To explain the impatience of the 
stormers: their determination to have 
at last by all means, and in some form, 
what had so long been foretold ? (Weiss). 
No; but to define by contrast John’s 


174 


ci Oédere SéFacPar, atrds ¢atw “HAlas 6 péddwv epyecOa. 
éxov Ota dxovewv,! dxovérw. 


KATA MATOAION 


XI. 


15.6 
16. Tim 8€ dporwow thy yevedy 


, = 6 , > ‘ 5 ‘ 2 > a ' 8 ‘ 
TAUTHY ; OMoLa EOTL TaLdapiots* ev dyopats KabypeEvots,® Kal mpoc- 


xy a , a ri 
wvota Tots éraipois adtay, 17. Kal Aéyouow,* HdAnoaper dytv, 


kai otk apyjocacbe eOpnvicapev dpiv,® Kai odk exdpande. 


1 BD omit axovety, which has come in from Mk. and Lk. where the addition of 


this word to the phrase is usual. 
? wat8rots in all uncials. 


5 xa@ypevors before ev in NBCDL, etc., with tats before ayopats in NBZ. 


*SBDZ have a wpoopwvouvta . 
have erepots. (Tisch., W.H.). 


. - Aeyovorv, and for eratpors BCDLAE al. 


5 SBDZ omit vpty, which may have been added to assimilate with first clause. 


position. Observe éws |. goes not with 
the subject, but with the verb. Prophets 
(and even law) fill John prophesied. The 
suggestion is that he is not a mere con- 
tinuator of the prophetic line, one more 
repeating the message: the kingdom 
will come. His function is peculiar and 
exceptional. Whatisit? Ver. 14 ex- 
plains. He is the Elijah of Malachi, 
herald of the Great Day, usherer in of 
the kingdom, the man who says not 
merely ‘the kingdom will come,” but 
‘‘the kingdom is here”; says it, and 
makes good the saying, bringing about a 
great movement of repentance.—el Oédere 
S€Eac@ar: the identification of John with 
Elijah to be taken cum grano, not as a 
prosaic statement of fact. Here, as 
always, Christ idealises, seizes the 
essential truth. John was all the Elijah 
that would ever come, worthy to repre- 
sent him in spirit, and performing the 
function assigned to Elijah redivivus in 
prophecy. Some of the Fathers dis- 
tinguished two advents of Elijah, one in 
spirit in the Baptist, another literally at 
the second coming of Christ. Servile 
exegesis of the letter. 8éfac08ar has no 
expressed object: the object is the state- 
ment following. Lutteroth supplies 
“him” =the Baptist. In the @édere 
Weiss finds a tacit allusion to the im- 
penitence of the people: Ye are not 
willing because ye know that Elijah’s 
coming means a summons to repentance. 
—Ver. 15. A proverbial form of speech 
often used by Jesus after important 
utterances, here for the first time in 
Matt. The truth demanding attentive 
and intelligent ears (ears worth having ; 
taking in the words and their import) is 
that John is Elijah. It implies much— 
that the kingdom is here and the king, 
and that the kingdom is moral not 
political. 


Vv. 16-19. Fudgment of Fesus on 
His religious contemporaries (Lk. vii. 
31-35). It is advisable not to assume as 
a matter of course that these words were 
spoken at the same time as those going 
before. The discourse certainly appears 
continuous, and Luke gives this utter- 
ance in the same connection as our 
evangelist, from which we may infer 
that it stood so in the common source. 
But even there the connection may 
have been topical rather than temporal ; 
placed beside what goes before, because 
containing a reference to John, and 
because the contents are of a critical 
nature. Ver. 16. tive épordow: the 
parable is introduced by a question, as if 
the thought had just struck Him.—riyv 
yeveay tavtny. The occasion on which 
the words following were spoken would 
make it clear who were referred to. Our 
guide must be the words themselves. 
The subjects of remark are not the 
Braorai of ver. 12, nor the 6yAor to 
whom Jesus had been speaking. Neither 
are they the whole generation of Jews 
then living, including Jesus and John 
(Elsner) ; or even the bulk of the Jewish 
people, contemporaries of Jesus. It was 
not Christ’s habit to make severe 
animadversions on the “ people of the 
land,”’ who formed the large majority of 
the population. He always spoke of 
them with sympathy and pity (ix. 37, 
x. 6). -yeved might mean the whole body 
of men then living, but it might also 
mean a particular class of men marked 
out by certain definite characteristics. 
It is so used in xii. 39, 41, 42, 45; Xvi. 
4. The class or ‘‘ race” there spoken of 
is in one case the Scribes and Pharisees, 
and in the other the Pharisees and 
Sadducees. From internal evidence the 
reference here also is mainly to the 
Pharisees. It is a class who spoke of 





{5—I9. 


EYATTEAION 


175 


18. *H\Be ydp “lwdvyns prjte eobiwy prjte mivwy, Kat héyoust, 


Aatpovioy eer. 


19. AAPev 6 Ulds Tod aGyOpumov éoblwy Kai mivay, 


Kat Aéyouowy, “ISod, dvOpwros Pdayos Kat Yolvordrns, TeAwvay p Lk. vil. 34. 


dios Kat dpapraday. 


1 NB have epywv, which Tisch. and W.H. adopt. 


array of MSS. (including CDL) texvev 
reading in Lk. 


Jesus as reported in ver. 19. Who can 
they have been but the men who asked: 
Why does He eat with publicans and 
sinners (ix. 11)? These vile calumnies 
are what have come out of that feast, in 
the same sanctimonious circle. Luke 
evidently understood the Pharisees and 
lawyers (voptxol) to be the class referred 
to, guided probably by his own im- 
pression as to the import of the passage 
(vide Lk. vii. 30). — wasdlous ati 
Gyopatg: Jesus likens the Pharisaic 
yevead to children in the market-place 
playing at marriages and funerals, as He 
had doubtless often seen them in Naza- 
reth. The play, as is apt to happen, has 
ended in a quarrel.—arpoc@. tots étépots 
. . A€yovorw. There are two parties, 
the musicians and the rest who are ex- 
pected to dance or mourn according to 
the tune, and they are at cross purposes, 
the moods not agreeing: étépo.s, the 
best attested reading, may point to this 
discrepancy in temper = a set differently 
inclined.—nidyjoapery: the flute in this 
case used for merriment, not, as in ix. 23, 
to express grief.—é0pnvyjcapew : we have 
expressed grief by singing funeral dirges, 
like the mourning women hired for the 
purpose (vide ad ix. 23).—éxéWaode: and 
ye have not beat your breasts in re- 
sponsive sorrow. This is the parable to 
which Jesus adds a commentary. With- 
out the aid of the latter the general 
import is plain. The yeved animadverted 
on are like children, not in a good but 
- ina bad sense: not child-like but childish. 
They play at religion; with all their 
seeming earnestness in reality triflers. 
They are also fickle, fastidious, given to 
peevish fault-finding, easily offended. 
These are recognisable features of the 
Pharisees. They were great zealots and 
precisians, yet not in earnest, rather 
haters of earnestness, as seen in different 
ways in John and Jesus. They were hard 
to please: equally dissatisfied with John 
and with Jesus; satisfied with nothing 
but their own artificial formalism. 
They were the only men in Israel of 
whom these things could be said with 
emphasis, and it may be taken for 


A q 
Kat edtkard0n } cobia dad tay Téxvov! 


Lk. vii. 34. 


Though supported by a great 
may be suspected of assimilation to the 


granted that Christ’s animadversions 
were elicited by pronounced instances of 
the type.—Ver. 18. The commentary on 
the parable showing that it was the 
reception given to John and Himself that 
suggested it.—yrjre oO. prjre wiv.: eat- 
ing and drinking, the two parts of diet; 
not eating nor drinking = remarkably 
abstemious, ascetic, that his religious 
habit; pate not ovre, to express not 
merely the fact, but the opinion about 
John. Vide notes on chap. v. 34.—8at- 
pévioy é€xes: is possessed, mad, with 
the madness of a gloomy austerity. 
The Pharisee could wear gloomy airs in 
fasting (vi. 16), but that was acting. The 
Baptist was in earnest with his morose, 
severely abstinent life. Play for them, 
grim reality for him; and they disliked it 
and shrank from it as something weird. 
None but Pharisees would dare to say 
such a thing about a man like John. 
They are always so sure, and so ready to 
judge. Ordinary people would respect 
the ascetic of the wilderness, though they 
did not imitate him.—Ver. 19. 6 vids 7. 
&-: obviously Jesus here refers to Him- 
self in third person where we might have 
expected the first. Again the now famil- 
iar title, defining itself as we go along by 
varied use, pointing Jesus out as an ex- 
ceptional person, while avoiding all con- 
ventional terms to define the exceptional 
element.—éo@lwyv xat wivwy: the ‘‘Son 
of Man” is one who eats and drinks, .e., 
non-ascetic and social, one of the marks 
interpretative of the title=human, frater- 
nal.—xal héyouver, and they say: what? 
One is curious to know. Surely this 
genial, friendly type of manhood will 
please ! —t80d, lo! scandalised sancti- 
moniousness points its finger at Him 
and utters gross, outrageous calumnies.— 
dyos, olvowdrns, pidos, an eater with 
emphasis = a glutton (a word of late 
Greek, Lob., Phryn., 434), a wine-bibber ; 
and, worse than either, for @fAos is used 
in a sinister sense and implies that Jesus 
was the comrade of the worst characters, 
and like them in conduct. A malicious 
nick-name at first, it is now a name of 
honour; the sinner’s lover. The Son of 


176 


t Mk. xvi. 
14 (with 


aiitis. 


< “ , > “a 
accus.of at mAeltoTat Suvdpers adTou, 


thing). 


KATA MATOAION 


@ > 
ote ob petevdnoay. 


XI. 


20. Tére Hptaro "dveSiLew tas modes, ev ats éyévovro 


21. “Odai cor, 


s Lk. x. 13 Xopaliv, odai oor, ByOoaiddy, Str ci ev Tupw kal E18. eyévovto 


(long ago). 


2Cor. xii, al Suvdpes at yevdpevar ev piv, “wddar avy ev ‘odxxw Kat 


19 (“all as 
thetime,” * omod@ petevdnoar. 


R.V.) 


22. “mh éyw Spuiv, Tépw Kat Save dvextd- 


t Lk. x. a eepen Eorat €v tpépa Kpicews, i Hpiv. 23. Kal ov, Kamepvaoup, 


onab 


). 
u Ch. xviii. 
7; XXxvi. 


eon in Lk.). 


4} ws Tod odpavod bpwhetoa,! Ews adou xataBiBacPyoy?- Sri ei ev 
Loddpors eyévovto® ai Suvduers ai yevdpevar ev aoi, épewav* dy 


TS8BCDL Syr. Cur. read pn ews ovpavov viywiyon, which recent editors adopt. 
Weiss thinks it has no sense, as py implies a negative answer, and gives as the true 


reading # Ews ovp. dWabns. 
2 BD have xaraByon (W.H.). 


3 SSBCD have eyevnOnoav (Tisch., W.H.), 


4 quetvey in NBC 33 (W.H.). 


Man takes these calumnies as a thing of 
course and goes on His gracious way. 
It is not necessary to reflect these char- 
acteristics of Jesus and john back into 
the parable, and to identify them with 
the piping and wailing children. Yet 
the parable is so constructed as to ex- 
hibit them very clearly in their distinctive 
peculiarities by representing the children 
not merely employed in play and quarrel- 
ling over their games, which would have 
sufficed as a picture of the religious Jews, 
but as playing at marriages and funerals, 
the former symbolising the joy of the 
Jesus-circle, the latter the sadness of the 
Baptist-circle (vide my Parabolic Teach- 
ing of Christ, p. 420).—xKat é8txa1o0n, 
etc. This sentence wears a gnomic or 
proverbial aspect (‘‘verba proverbium 
redolere videntur,” Kuinoel, similarly, 
Rosenmiller), and the aorist of ux. may 
be taken as an instance of the gnomic 
aorist, expressive of what is usual; a law 
in the moral sphere, as elsewhere the 
aorist is employed to express the usual 
course in the natural sphere, ¢.g., in 
James i. 11. Weiss-Meyer strongly 
denies that there are any instances of 
such use of the aoristin the N. T. (On 
this aorist vide Goodwin, Syntaz, p. 53, 
and Baumlein, § 523, where it is called the 
aorist of experience, ‘‘der Erfahrungs- 
wahrheit ”.)—a7é, in, in view of (vide 
Buttmann’s Gram., p. 232, on amé in 


N. T.).—€pywv: the reading of S¥B, and 


likely to be the true one just because 
Téxvwy is the reading in Luke. It is an 
appeal to results, to fruit (vii. 20), to the 
future. Historical in form, the state- 


ment is in reality a prophecy. Resch, 
indeed (Agrapha, p. 142), takes é8ux. as 
the (erroneous) translation of the Hebrew 
prophetic future used in the Aramaic 
original = now we are condemned, but 
wait a while. The wai at the beginning 
of the clause is not=‘“‘ but’. It states a 
fact as much a matter of course as is the 
condemnation of the unwise. Wisdom, 
condemned by the foolish, is always, of 
course, justified in the long run by her 
works or by her children. 

Vv. 20-24. Reflections by Fesus on 
the reception given to Him by the towns 
of Galilee (Lk. x. 13-15). Ver.20. téte, 
then, cannot be pressed. Luke gives 
the following words in instructions to the 
Seventy. The real historical occasion is 
unknown. It may be a reminiscence 
from the preaching tour in the syna- 
gogues of Galilee (Mt. iv. 23). The 
reflections were made after Jesus had 
visited many towns and wrought many 
wonderful works (Suvdpets).—ovd ere- 
vénoay: this the general fact; no deep, 
permanent change of mind and heart. 
Christ appearing among them a nine 
days’ wonder, then forgotten by the 
majority preoccupied with material inter- 
ests.—Ver. 21. Xopal(v, ByOoaiddv: the 
former not again mentioned in Gospels, 
the latter seldom (vide Mk. vi. 45, viii. 
22; Lk. ix. 10), yet scenes of important 
evangelic incidents, probably connected 
with the synagogue ministry in Galilee 
(iv. 23). The Gospels are brief records 
of a ministry crowded with events. 
These two towns may be named along 
with Capernaum because all three were 
in view where Christ stood when He 





®y— 25, 


" WEXpL Tis O7pEpor. 


” > ' , n ,3e 
Tepoy €oTat ev *pepa KpicEws, 7 Gol. 


EYATTEALON 


i? 


24. whHy Aێyw dpiv, OT. yi Losdpwy dvexto- v Ch. xxviii. 


15 (same 
phrase). 


> > , fol cal 
25- Ev exelyw TO Kapa 
“ w Ch. xii. 


A 3 rf A 
"daoxpBets & “Ingots etrev, “*Efopohoyotpat cor, mdtep, KUpte 38; xv. 15; 


rou ovpavod Kal ras ys, Ste dwexpupas! taita a&wd 7 copay kai 


aing to speak). 
t Cor. i. 26 (Pagan). 


1#8BD have the simple expuwas. 


uttered the reproachful words, say on 
the top of the hill above Capernaum: 
Bethsaida on the eastern shore o1 Jordan, 
just above where it falls into the lake; 
Chorazin on the western side on the road 
to Tyre from Capernaum (Furrer, Wan- 
derungen, p. 370). They may also have 
been prosperous business centres selected 
to represent the commercial side of 
Jewish national life. Hence the refer- 
ence to Tyre and Sidon, often the subject 
of prophetic animadversion, yet not so 
blameworthy in their impenitence as the 
cities which had seen Christ’s works.— 
év odknw kal owodg: in black sackcloth, 
and with ashes on the head, or sitting 
in ashes like Job (ii. 8).— Ver. 22. 
why: contracted from wAéoy = more- 
over, for the rest, to put the matter 
shortly; not adversative here, though 
sometimes so used.— Ver. 23. ‘The 
diversity in the reading py or 4 Eus, etc., 
does not affect the sense. In the one 
case the words addressed to Capernaum 
contain a statement of fact by Jesus; in 
the other a reference to a feeling prevail- 
ing in Capernaum in regard to the facts. 
The fact implied in either case is dis- 
tinction on some ground, probably be- 
cause Capernaum more than all other 
places was favoured by Christ’s presence 
and activity. But there may, as some 
think (Grotius, Rosen., De Wette, etc.), 
be a reference to trade prosperity. 
‘¢ Florebat C. piscatu, mercatu, et quae 
alia esse solent commoda ad mare sitar- 
um urbium”’ (Grot.). The reference to 
Tyre and Sidon, trade centres, makes 
this not an idle suggestion. And it is 
not unimportant to keep this aspect in 
mind, as Capernaum with the other two 
cities then become representatives of the 
trading spirit, and show us by sample 
how that spirit received the Gospel of the 
kingdom. Capernaum illustrated the com- 
mon characteristic most signally. Most 
yrosperous, most privileged spiritually, 
and—most unsympathetic, the population 
being taken as a whole. Worldliness 
as unreceptive as counterfeit piety re- 
presented by Pharisaism, though not so 


x Lk x.2r. Rom. xiv. 11; xv. 9. 


xvii. 4 al. 
(in sense 

of begin: 
y Lk. x. 21 (Jewish), Mt. xxiii. 34 (Christian). 


offensive in temper and language. No 
calumny, but simply invincible indiffer- 
ence.—€ws ovpavod, éws adov : proverbial 
expressions for the greatest exaltation 
and deepest degradation. The reference 
in the latter phrase is not to the future 
world, but to the judgment day of Israel 
in which Capernaum would be involved. 
The prophetic eye of Jesus sees Caper- 
naum in ruins as it afterwards saw the 
beautiful temple demolished (chap. xxiv. 


2). 

Vv. 25-27. Fesus worshipping (Lk. 
X. 2I, 22). It is usual to call this golden 
utterance a prayer, but it is at once 
prayer, praise, and self-communing in a 
devout spirit. The occasion is unknown. 
Matthew gives it in close connection 
with the complaint against the cities 
(év éxetvw T@ katp@), but Luke sets it in 
still closer connection (év atTq TH dp) 
with the return of the Seventy. Accord- 
ing to some modern critics, it had no 
occasion at all in the life of our Lord, 
but is simply 2 composition of Luke’s, 
and borrowed from him by the author 
of Matthew: a hymn in which the 
Pauline mission to the heathen as the 
victory of Christ over Satan’s dominion 
in the world is celebrated, and given 
in connection with the imaginary mis- 
sion of the Seventy (vide Pfleiderer, 
Urchristenthum, p. 445). But Luke’s 
pretace justifies the belief that he 
had here, as throughout, a tradition 
oral or written to go on, and the 
probability is that it was taken both 
by him and by Matthew from a com- 
mon document. Wendt (L. J., pp. go, 
gI) gives it as an extract from the 
book of Logia, and supposes that 
it followed a report of the return of 
the disciples (the Twelve) from their 
mission. 

Ver. 25. Grroxpieis, answering, 
not necessarily to anything said, but 
to some environment provocative of 
such thoughts.—éfopohoyotpat wor (= 


4 ma, Ps.) lxxven2, In iii. 6 


this compound means to make full con- 


etc.). 


12 


178 KATA MATOAION XI. 


z Lk. x. a1." 
Acts xiii. 7. 


1 Cor.i.19. oOTws €yévero * ed8oxia! Eumpoobev gov. 


az Cor, iL 


« 4 fol , ‘ > 4 
10. Phil. 67d Tod watpds pour Kal oddeis 


iii, 15. - 
b Lk. x. 21, TWATNP * 
Rom. ii. 20. 


1 Cor. iii. 1. Heb. v. 13. 


1 evSoxta eyeveto in WB 33, 


fession (of sin). Here it =to make 
frank acknowledgment of a situation in 
a spirit partly of resignation, partly of 
thanksgiving.—@xpvipas. The fact stated 
is referred to the causality of God, the 
religious point of view; but it happens 
according to laws which can be ascer- 
tained.—_ratra: the exact reference un- 
known, but the statement holds with 
reference to Christ’s whole teaching and 
healing ministry, and the revelation of 
the kingdom they contained.—codav 
Kal ovverov: the reference here doubt- 
less is to the Rabbis and scribes, the 
accepted custodians of the wisdom of 
Israel. Cf. wodds Kal émorypov in 
Deut. iv. 6 applied to Israel. The ren- 
dering ‘wise and prudent” in A. V. is 
misleading ; ‘“‘ wise and understanding ” 
in R. V. is better.—vymious (ff. vy and 
éros, non-speaking) means those who 
were as ignorant of scribe-lore as babes 
(cf. John vii. 49 and Heb. v. 13). Their 
ignorance was their salvation, as thereby 
they escaped the mental preoccupation 
with preconceived ideas on moral and 
religious subjects, which made the scribes 
inaccessible to Christ’s influence (vide my 
Parabolic Teaching, pp. 333,334). Jesus 
gives thanks with all His heart for the 
receptivity of the babes, not in the same 
sense or to the same extent for the non- 
receptive attitude of the wise (with De 
Wette and Bleek against Meyer and 
Weiss). No distinction indeed is ex- 
pressed, but it goes without saying, and 
the next clause implies it.—Ver. 26. vat 
reaffirms with solemn emphasis what 
might appear doubtful, vzz., that Jesus 
was content with the state of matters 
(vide Klotz, Devar., i. 140). Cf. ver. 9.-— 
mat7p: nominative for vocative.—6tt, 
because, introducing the reason for this 
contentment.—otrtws, as the actual facts 
stand, emphatic (‘‘ sic maxime non aliter,” 
Fritzsche).—ev8oxla, a pleasure, an 
occasion of pleasure; hence a purpose, 
a state of matters embodying the Divine 
Will, a Hellenistic word, as is also the 
verb evSoxéw (cf. 1 Cor. i. 21, where the 
whole thought is similar). Christ re- 
signs Himself to God’s will. But His 


guveTOv, Kal *dmexddupas adta 


“yytlos. 26. val & warhp, ore 
27. Mdvra por mapedd0y 


d2 , Sy cy > s 
ETTLYLYWOKEL TOV ULOV, EL py 9 


ide BY vf > ‘ > ‘ € Cw. Lee Foe IC 
QUOE TOV TAaTEpa TL ETTLYLYWOKEL, €l rod | O ULOS, KGL w €ar 
c Eph.i. 5,9. Phil. ii. 13. 


di Cor. xiii. 12. 


making evSoxca more emphatic. 


tranquillity is due likewise to insight 
into the law by which new Divine 
movements find support among the 
vymiot rather than among the codoi.— 

Ver. 27. mdvra, all things necessary 
for the realisation of the kingdom (Holtz., 
H.C.). The wavra need not be restricted 
to the hiding and revealing functions 
(Weiss, Nésgen). Hiding, indeed, was 
no function of Christ’s. He was always 
and only a revealer. For the present 
Jesus has only a few babes, but the 
future is His: Christianity the coming 
religion.—ape5é0n, aorist, were given. 
We might have expected the future. It 
may be another instance of the aorist 
used for the Hebrew prophetic future 
(vide ad ver. 19). In Mt. xxviii. 18 
€866y again to express the same thought. 
The reference probably is to the eternal 
purpose of God: on the use of the 
aorist in N. T., vide note on this pas- 
sage in Camb. G. T.—émywoorer, 
thoroughly knows.—rév vidv .. . waryp, 
Christ’s comfort amid the widespread 
unbelief and misunderstanding in re- 
ference to Himself is that His Father 
knows Him perfectly. Noone else does, 
not even John. He is utterly alone in 
the world. Son here has a Godward 
reference, naturally arising out of the 
situation. The Son of Man is called an 
evil liver. He lifts up His heart to 
heaven and says: God my Father knows 
me, His Son. The thought in the first 
clause is connected with this one thus: 
the future is mine, and for the present 
my comfort is in the Father’s know- 
ledge of me.—ov8é tov watépa... 6 
vids: a reflection naturally suggested 
by the foregoing statement. It is igno- 
rance of the Father that creates mis- 
conception of the Son. Conventional, 
moral and religious ideals lead to mis- 
judgment of one who by all He says and 
does is revealing God as He truly is and 
wills. The men who know least about 
God are those supposed to know most, 
and who have been most ready to judge 
Him, the “wise and understanding ”’’. 
Hence the additional reflection, Kat @ 
éav BovAnrar 6 v. GwoxadvWar. Jesus 


26—29. 
Bodhynrar °6 vids daroxaddpar. 


xxiv. 36; xxviii. 19. Mk. xiii. 32. 


Philem. 20 (Sir. li. 27, the noun). 


here asserts His importance as the re- 
vealer of God, saying in effect: ‘ The 
wise despise me, but they cannot do 
without me. Through me alone can 
they attain that knowledge of God 
which they profess to desire above all 
things.” This was there and then the 
simple historic fact. Jesus was the one 
person in Israel who truly conceived 
God. Theuse of BovAynravis noticeable: 
not to whomsoever He reveals Him, but 
to whomsoever He is pleased to reveal 
Him. The emphasis seems to lie on 
the inclination, whereas in Mt. i. 19 
6édwv appears to express the wish, and 
é€BovAyOy rather the deliberate purpose. 
Jesus meets the haughty contempt of 
the ‘‘ wise” with a dignified assertion 
‘hat it depends on his inclination whether 
they are to know God or not. On the 
distinction between BovAopar and @édo, 
vide Cremer, Worterbuch, s. v. Bov- 
hopat. According to him the former re- 
presents the direction of the will, the 
latter the will active (Affect, Trieb). 
Hence BovX. can always stand for @eX., 
but not vice versd. 

Vv. 28-30. The gracious invitation. 
Full of O. T. reminiscences, remarks 
Holtz., H.C., citing Isaiah xiv. 3 ; xxviii. 
HAS Ne, TEES Meiey Mbbe wieye Soret ey. FAY 
and especially Sirach vi. 24, 25, 28, 29; 
li. 23-27. De Wette had long before 
referred to the last-mentioned passage, 
and Pfleiderer has recently (Urch., 513) 
made it the basis of the assertion that 
this beautiful logion is a composition out 
of Sirach by the evangelist. The passage 
in Sirach is as follows: éyyioate mpos 
pe araldevtor, Kal atAloOyre év otkp 
maiseias. Sidtt vorepette Ev Tovrots, 
kat at wWuyal tpov Supdaor odddpa; 
voila TO oTdpa pov, Kal éd\adyoa, 
KTyoac0e EavTois avev apyuptov. Tov 
tpaxnArov tpav trobere tard Cuyov, Kal 
émideedo8w 4 Wyn Dav mardetav: 
éyyus éotiv etpety avtyiv: Sete ev 
dh9arpots tuav Gre SAtyov éxomiaca, 
kal cvpov éhavt@ woAdhy avamavoty.* 


EYATTEAION 


28. 
*kom@vTes Kal Tepoptiopevor, Kayo * 


f vide Ch. iv. 19. 
the sense of weariness, cf. Is. xl. 31, ob xomitacovor. 


179 


* Acite mpds pe WAVTES OL € 6 vids 

‘ z Lm S absolutely 

QVATAUTW UNAS. 29. apaTeE ae 
in . 


_ g here and in John iv. 6. Rev. ii. 3 (with 
Sir. li. 27, éxomiaca). h 1 Cor, xvi. 18. 


There are unquestionably kindred 
thoughts and corresponding phrases, as 
even Kypke points out (“‘ Syracides magna 
similitudine dicit”), and if Sirach had 
been a recognised Hebrew prophet one 
could have imagined Matthew giving 
the gist of this rhetorical passage, pre- 
faced with an “‘as it is written”. It is 
not even inconceivable that a reader of 
our Gospel at an early period noted on 
the margin phrases culled from Sirach as 
descriptive of the attitude of the one 
true godds towards men to show how 
willing he was to communicate the know- 
ledge of the Father-God, and that his 
notes found their way into the text. 
But why doubt the genuineness of this 
logion ? It seems the natural conclusion 
of Christ’s soliloquy; expressing His 
intense yearning for receptive scholar 
at_a timé when He was painfully con- 
scious of the prevalent unreceptivity. 

he words do not smell of the Jamp. 
They come straight from a saddened 


yet tenderly affectionate, unembittered 
€art; simple, pathetic, sincere. 

y have known Sirach from boyhood, 
and echoes may have unconsciously 
suggested themselves, and been used 
with royal freedom quite compatibly with 
perfect originality of thought and phrase. 
The reference to wisdom in ver. 19 makes 
the supposition not gratuitous that Jesus 
may even have had the passage in Sirach 
consciously present to His mind, and 
that He used it, half as a quotation, half 
as a personal manifesto. The passage 
is the end ofa prayer of Fesus, the Son 
of Sirach, in which that earlier Jesus, 
personating wisdom, addresses his fellow- 
men, inviting them to share the benefits 
which godia has conferred on himself. 
Why should not Jesus of Nazareth close 
His prayer with a similar address in the 
name of wisdom to those who are most 
likely to become her children—those 
whose ear sorrow hath opened? This 
view might meet Martineau’s objection 
to regarding this logion as authentic, that 








* Of the above the R.V. gives the follow- 
ing translation: ‘‘ Draw near unto me, ye 
unlearned, and lodge in the house of in- 
struction. Say wherefore are ye lacking in 
these things, and your souls are very thirsty ? 
I opened my mouth and spake. Get her 


for yourselyes without money. Put your 
neck under the yoke, and let your soul 
receive instruction. She is hard at hand to 
find. Behold with your eyes how that I 
laboured but a little, and found for myself 
much rest.” 


180 KATA MATOAION XI. 30, 


i Acts xv. to, tov 'Luydv pou ed” Spas, kat pdbere dm epnod, Ste mpdds! eipe Kal 

al. v. i. é ( i 4 é 

| Ch. xii. 43. Tamrevds TH KapSla> Kat edpryoere ) dvdmavow tas uxats Spay. 
Rey. xiv. oes x x , > > ” 
ir (Wis 30. 6 yap Luyds pou * xpnotds, kat 7d poptiov pou EXadpdy €or. 
dom iv. 7). 

k Lk. vi.39. Rom. ii. 4. 


‘ arpavs in NBCD (Tisch., W.H.). 


it is not compatible with the humility of 30. ypnotdés, kindly to wear. Christ’s 
Jesus that He should so speak of Him- doctrine fits and_ satisfies our whole 
self (Seat of Authority, p. 583). Why spiritual nature—reason, heart, con- 
should He not do as another Jesus had ‘Science, “the sweet reasonableness. of 


done before Him: speak in the name of Christ ’”.—d¢o tloy, the burden of obliga- 
wisdom, and appropriate her attributes? tion.—éAagpdv: in one respect Christ’s 

Ver. 28. Acitre: vide ad iv. 19, again burden is the heaviest of all because His 
authoritative but kindly.—xomt@vres kat moral ideal is the highest. But just on 
awehoptiopévor, the fatigued and bur- that account it is light. Lofty, noble 
dened. Thisistobetaken metaphorically, ideals inspire and attract ; vulgar idéals 


The kind of people Jesus expects to be- are oppressive. Tist’s commandment 
come ‘disciples indeed” are men who, tS difficult, but not like that of the Rabbis, 


have sought long. earnestly, but in-vaiD, grievous. (Vide With Open Face.) 

or the summum bonum, the knowledge of CHAPTER XII. CONFLICTS WITH THE 

God. There is no burden so heavy as Puariszes. This chapter delineates the 

that of truth sought_and_not found. growing alienation between Jesus and 
cholars of the j j the Pharisees and scribes. The note of 


arsus, knew it weJl. In coming thence time (év ékelv@ tO Katp@, ver. 1) points 


t *s school th back to the situation in which the prayer 
by passing from letter_to spirit, from xi. 25-30 was uttered (vide ver. 25, where 
form to reality, from hearsay to cer- the same expression is used). All the 
tainty, from traditions of the e incidents recorded reveal the captious 


resent voice of God.—xayo,and/,em- mood of Israel’s “saints and sages”’. 
phatic, with side glance at the reputed They have now formed a thoroughly bad 


‘“wise” who do not give rest (with opinion of Jesus and His company. 
Meyer against Weiss).—Ver. 29. {vyédv: They regard Him as immoral in life 
current phrase to express the relation of (xi. 19); irreligious, capable even of 
a disciple to a master. The Rabbis blasphemy (assuming the divine pre- 
spoke of the “ yoke of the law”. Jesus rogative of forgiving sin, ix. 3); an 
uses their phrases while drawing men ally of Satan even in His_beneficence 
away from their influence.—pa@ere Gm’ (xii. 24). He can do nothing right. 
€wov: not merely learn from my example The smallest, most innocent action is 
(Buttmann, Gram., p. 324: on, that is, an offence. 

from the case of), but, more compre-. Vv. 1-8. Plucking ears of corn on the 


hensively, get your learning from me; Sabbath (Mk. ii. 23-28; Lk. vi. 1-5). 
take me as your Master in religi Sabbath observance was one of the lead- 
thing to be learned is not merely a moral ing causes of conflict between Jesus and 
Tesson, humility, but_the tale ete the guardians of religion and morality. 
about God and righteousness. But This is the first of several encounters 
the mood of Master and scholar must reported by the evangelist. According 
correspond, He meek as they have be- to Weiss he follows Mark, but with say- 
come by sorrowful experience. Hence ings taken directly from the Apostolic 
GtTt jwpais . . . TH Kapdig: not that, Source. : 

but for I am, etc. What connection Vv.1,2. odBBao.v: dative plural, as 
is there between 


ledge of God? This: a proud man singular and plural, dative, singular, 





SITs 15. 


XII. xr. ’EN exeiva ar) 
Sid TOv *orropiwy: ot Sé 


, 
>rid\New Sotdyuas Kal eoAiew. 


> ~ 6c? , c , ~ a > »” aA > 
atté, “"I80v, of paytat cou tootow, 0 otk éfeoTt Tovety ev 


caBBdtw.” 


EYATTEAION 


3. “O S€ eiwev adtots, “ OvdK 


181 


Katp@ emopedOy 6 ‘Incods tois od BBacr a here and 


in parall. 


4 aA , 
pabntal aitod emetvacay, Kal rpavTo b here and 


in parall. 


2. ol S€ dapicator iSdvTes eEttrov c here, 


parall. and 
Mk. iv. 28. 
d Ch. xix. 4; 
Xxi. 16,42; 
xxiv. 15 al, 


dita a , 
GVEYVO@TE TL ETTOLNHGE 


AaBis, Gre éreivacey adtos! Kal ot pet attod; 4. mas eionOev ¢ Heb. ix. 2. 


> ne = ~ A ‘\ »” e.7 {is ” 
cig Tov Olkoy TOU GEod, Kat Tods apTous * THs TmpobETEws Epayer, 


ous 3 


© wn , aA 3 5 , > ~ , e lo) , 
lepedot povotg; 5. “H ovK dveyywte Ev TO vopw, ott Tots cdBBacw 


g f Acts xxiv. 
6 (oftenin 


> 2E5 EA 2A a ade a oy espn ters > . a Sept.). 
ouk efov tv adt® dayety, obSE Tots pet adrot, El pt) TOUS ¢ here and 


in ver. 7. 


ol tepets ev TO tep@ 16 adBBatov *BeBndodor, Kal ® dvairiol ein; 


1 The avros (LE) comes from Mk. (ii. 25) ; it is omitted in &BCDA al, 
2 epayov in SB—probably the true reading. 
3qin BD. The reading of T. R. (egayev ovs) is from Mk. 


wpgavro: perhaps emphasis should be 
laid on this word. No sooner had they 
begun to pluck ears than fault was found. 
Pharisees on the outlook for offences. 
So Carr, Camb. G. T.—Ver. 2. 8 ovx« 
teotw mw. €. caBBate. The emphasis 
here lies on the last word. Tohelp one- 
self, when hungry, with the hand was 
humanely allowed in the Deuteronomic 
law (Deut. xxiii. 25), only to use the 
sickle was forbidden as involving waste. 
But according to the scribes what was 
lawful on other days was unlawful on 
Sabbath, because plucking ears was 
reaping. ‘* Metens Sabbato vel tantillum, 
reus est’’ (Lightfoot rendering a passage 
from the Talmud). Luke adds We xovres, 
rubbing with the hands. He took the 
offence to be threshing. Microscopic 
offence in either case, proving primd 
facie malice in the fault-finders. But 
honest objection is not inconceivable to 
one who remembers the interdict placed 
by old Scottish piety on the use of the 
razor on Sabbath. We must be just 
even to Pharisees. 

Vv. 3-8. Christ's defence. It is two- 
fold. (1) He shields disciples by examples: 
David and the priests ; to both the fault- 
finders would defer (vv. 3-5); (2) He 
indicates the principles involved in the 
examples (vv. 6-8). The case of David 
was apposite because (a) it was a case of 
eating, (b) it probably happened on 
Sabbath, (c) it concerned not only David 
but, as in the present instance, followers ; 
therefore ot pet’ avrov, ver. 3, carefully 
added. (b) does not form an element in 
the defence, but it helps to account for 
the reference to David’s conduct. In 
that view Jesus must have regarded the 
act of David as a Sabbatic incident, and 


that it was may not unnaturally be in- 
ferred from 1 Sam. xxi. 6. Vide Light- 
foot, ad loc.—This was probably also the 
current opinion. The same remark 
applies to the attendants of David. 
From the history one might gather that 
David was really alone, and only pre- 
tended to have companions. But if, as 
is probable, it was usually assumed that 
he was accompanied, Jesus would be jus- 
tified in proceeding on that assumption, 
whatever the fact was (vide Schanz, ad 
loc).—Ver. 4. elonOev, Epayoy, he 
entered, they ate. Mark has édayev. 
Weiss explains the harsh change of sub- 
ject by combination of apostolic source 
with Mark. The two verbs point to two 
offences against the law: entering a holy 
place, eating holy bread. The sin of the 
disciples was against a holy time. But 
the principle involved was the same = 
ceremonial rules may be overruled by 
higher considerations.—é otx égdv jy. 
ovs in Mark and Luke agreeing with 
Gprovs, and here also in T. R., but 8 
doubtless the true reading; again pre- 
senting a problem in comparative exegesis 
(vide Weiss-Meyer). 6 ought to mean 
‘‘ which thing it was not lawful to do,” 
but it may be rendered “which kind of 
bread,” etc.—el pH, except; absolutely un- 
lawful, except in case of priests.—Ver. 5. 
This reference to the priests naturally 
leads on to the second instance taken 
from their systematic breach of the 
technical Sabbath law in the discharge 
of sacerdotal duty.—h ovx davéyvwre, 
have ye not read? not of course the 
statement following, but directions on 
which such a construction could be put, 
as in Numb. xxviii. 9, concerning the 
burnt offering of two lambs. They had 


182 


hiorw = 6. N€yw Se dpuiv, Ste Tod tepod peitwy! eotiv ade. 


means, 

vide Lk. 

vilil.9,2%. , 2 
i Lk. vi. 37. TOUS GyvatTious. 

Jas. v.6 9 

(the pass. évOpumov. 

in ver. 37). 


KELTE Tt = 


1 nelov in NBD al. 


KATA MATOAION 


8. kUptos ydp €om kal 


XII. 


9, dé eyvs- 


’ 
éotiv, §"EXeov ? Bedw Kai od Ouciay,” otk Oy !xareduxdoate 


® 00 caBBdrou 4 ulds rod 


pectwy (LA) is a misjudged attempt at correction, 


2 This is another grammatical correction (vide ix. 13), eAeos in NBCD33. 


5 kat omitted in BCD, etc. 


read often enough, but had not under- 
stood. As Euthy. Zig. remarks, Jesus 
reproaches them for their vain labour, as 
not understanding what they read (p7 
émtytveoKovow & avayivaoKovcr).—fe- 
ByAoter, profane, on the Pharisaic view 
of the Sabbath law, as an absolute pro- 
hibition of work. Perhaps the Pharisees 
themselves used this word as a technical 


term, applicable even to permissible 
Sabbath labour. So Schanz after Schott- 
en. 


Vv. 6-8. The principles involved. The 
facts stated raise questions as to the 
reasons. The Pharisees were men of 
rules, not accustomed to go back on 
principles. The passion for minutiz 
killed reflection. The reasons have 
been already hinted in the statement of 
the cases: 6re éqelvacev, ver. 3; év TO 
iep@, ver. 5: hunger, the temple; human 
needs, higher claims. These are referred 
to in inverse order in vv. 6-7.—Ver. 6. 
Aéyw 8€ tpiv: solemn affirmation, with 
a certain tone in the voice.—tov tepov 
petLov. Though they might not have 
thought of the matter before, the claim 
of the temple to overrule the Sabbath 
law would be admitted by the Pharisees. 
Therefore, Jesus could base on it an 
argument a fortiori. The Sabbath must 
give way to the temple and its higher 
interests, therefore to something higher 
still. What was that something? Christ 
Himself, according to the almost unani- 
mous opinion of interpreters, ancient and 
modern; whence doubtless the petfwv of 
T. R. But Jesus might be thinking 
rather of the kingdom than of the king; 
a greater interest is involved here, that 
of the kingdom of God. Fritzsche takes 
peiloy as = teaching men, and curing 
them of vice then going on. It may be 
asked: How did the interest come in? 
The disciples were following Jesus, but 
what was He about? What created 
the urgency? Whence came it that the 
disciples needed to pluck ears of standing 
corn? Wedonot know. That is one 
of the many lacune in the evangelic 
history. But it may be assumed that 


It comes in from the parall. 


there was something urgent going on 
in connection with Christ’s ministry, 
whereby He and His companions were 
overtaken with extreme hunger, so that 
they were fain to eat unprepared food 
(axatépyagrov girovy, Euthy. Zig. on 
ver. 7).—Ver. 7. The principle of human 
need stated in terms of a favourite pro- 
phetic oracle (ix. 13).—et 82 éyvaxeze 
... OUK Gy KkareStxaoave: the form of 
expression, a past indicative in protasis, 
with a past indicative with av in apodosis, 
implies that the supposition is contrary 
to fact (Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, 
§ 248). The Pharisees did not know 
what the oracle meant; hence on a pre- 
vious occasion Jesus bade them go and 
learn (ix. 13). If their pedantry blinded 
them to distinctions of higher and lower 
in institutions, or rather made them 
reckon the least the greatest command, 
minutiz testing obedience, it still more 
deadened their hearts to the claims of 
mercy and humanity. Of course this 
idolatry went on from bad to worse. 
For the Jews of a later, templeless time, 
the law was greater than the temple 
(Holtz., in H.C., quoting Weber).— 
avattiouvs: doubly guiltless: as David 
was through imperious hunger, as the 
priests were when subordinating Sabbath, 
to temple, requirements.—Ver. 8. ‘This 
weighty logion is best understood when 
taken along with that in Mark ii. 27 = 
the Sabbath for man, not man for the 
Sabbath. The question is: Does it 
merely state a fact, or does it also con- 
tain the rationale of the fact? That 
depends on the sense we give to the 
title Son of Man. Asatechnical name = 
Messiah, it simply asserts the authority 
of Him who bears it to determine how 
the Sabbath is to be observed in the 
Kingdom of God. Asaname of humility, 
making no obtrusive exceptional claims, 
like Son of David or Messiah, it suggests 
a reason for the lordship in sympathy 
with the ethical principle embodied in 
the prophetic oracle. The title does not 
indeed mean mankind, or any man, 
homo quivis, as Grotius and Kuinoel 


6—I11. 


g. Kal J petraBas exetOev, AOev cis THY cuvaywyhy adtay. 


EYATTEAION 


133 


10. j Ch. xi. 1. 


Nes. ~ ” 
kal iSou, avOpwiros hv Thy! xeipa exwv “énpdv- Kal émnpdtyoay k parall.and 
Jo 


i 2 
adtév, Méyovtes, “ Et efeort tots o¢BBacr Oepamevery?;” 


yopyjcwow adtod. 


PS hn v. 3. 
iva KOT) = 


c “~ x 
11. ‘O d€ elwev abtots, “Tis eorar® ef spa 


” ~ ~ 
dvOpwros, ds é§er wpdPartov Ev, Kai €dv eumeon TodTo Tors cdBRacw 


I SSBC omit ny TH. 
Mk. (iii. 1). 


The text of Mt. as in T. R. has been influenced by that in 


2 So in BC (W.H.), Sepamevorat in SDL (Tisch.), 
3 exrat is omitted in CLX2, and bracketed in W.H.; it is found in \gBA al. 


think. It points to Jesus, but to Him not 
as an exceptional man (‘‘der einzigartige,”’ 
Weiss), but as the representative man, 
maintaining solidarity with humanity, 
standing for the kuman interest, as the 
Pharisees stood for the supposed divine, 
the real divine interest being identical 
with the human. The radical anti- 
thesis between Jesus and the Pharisees 
lay in their respective ideas of God. It 
is interesting to find a glimpse of the 
true sense of this Jogion in Chrysostom: 
jept €avTov héeywy. “O 8 Mdpxos kai 
mTepl THS KoLVAS HicEews aiTov TOUTO 
eipykévat dyciv. Hom. xxxix.—kvptos, 
not to the effect of abrogation but of in- 
terpretation and restoration to true use. 
The weekly rest is a beneficent institu- 
tion, God’s ‘holiday to weary men, and 
the Kingdom of Heaven, whose royal law 
is love, has no interest in its abolition. 
Vv. g-14. A Sabbath cure (Mk, iti. 
1-6; Lk. vi. 6-11): not necessarily 
happening immediately after. Matthew 
and Luke follow Mark’s order, which is 
topical, not historical; another instance 
of collision as to Sabbath observance.— 
Ver.g. Kal peraBas .. . attav. The 
avTa@v seems to imply that our evangel- 
ist takes the order as one of close tem- 
poral sequence (Mark says simply ‘‘ into 
a synagogue,” ili. 1). In that case the 
avtav would refer to the fault-finding 
Pharisees of the previous narrative, 
piqued by Christ’s defence and bent on 
further mischief (vide Weiss-Meyer). 
The narrative comes in happily here as 
illustrating the scope of the principle of 
humanity laid down in connection with 
the previous incident.—Ver. 10. «at 
i8o0v, here, as in viii. 2, ix. 2, introducing 
in a lively manner the story.—énpdv, a 
dry hand, possibly a familiar expression 
in Hebrew pathology (De Wette) ; use- 
less, therefore a serious enough affliction 
for a working man (a mason, according 
to Hebrew Gospel, Jerome ad loc.), 
especially if it was the right hand, as 


Luke states. But the cure was not 
urgent for a day, could stand over; 
therefore a good test case as between 
rival conceptions of Sabbath law.—éanpo- 
aygav. ‘The Pharisees asked a question 
suggested by the case, as if eager to 
provoke Jesus and put Him to the proof. 
Mark says they observed Him, waiting 
for Him to take the initiative. The 
former alternative suits the hypothesis 
of immediate temporal sequence. —ei 
efeotiv, etc. After Méyowres we expect, 
according to classic usage, a direct ques- 
tion without et, The ei is in its place in 
Mark (ver. 2), and the influence of his 
text may be suspected (Weiss) as ex- 
plaining the incorrectness in Matthew. 
But ei in direct questions is not un- 
Hsualeiny Ns) shee (Me. oxax. 3's) Uke xin: 
23, Xxil. 49), vide Winer, § 57, 2, and 
Meyer ad loc. In Mark’s account 
Christ, not the Pharisees, puts the ques- 
tion. 

Vv. 11, 12. Christ’s reply, by two 
home-thrusting questions and an _ irre- 
sistible conclusion.—tis . . . dv@pwos. 
One is tempted here, as in vii. g, to put 
emphasis on Gv@pwies : who of you not 
dead to the feelings of a man? Such 
questions as this and that in Lk. xv. 4 
go to the root of the matter. Humanity 
was what was lacking in the Pharisaic 
character.—wpéBatov év: one sheep 
answering to the one working hand, 
whence perhaps Luke’s f Se&a (vi. 6).— 
éav éuaeoy. The case supposed might 
quite well happen; hence in the protasis 
éav with subjunctive, and in the apodosis 
the future (Burton, N. T. Moods and 
Tenses, § 250). A solitary sheep might 
fall into a ditch on a Sabbath; and that 
is what its owner would do if he were an 
ordinary average human being, viz., lift 
it out at once. What would the Pharisce 
do? It is easy to see what he would be 
tempted to do if the one sheep were his 
own. But would he have allowed such 
action as a general rule? One would 


184 KATA MATOAION 3 XII, 
I Ch. xv. 14. eis ' BdOuvov, odx! Kpatijoer adtd Kal éyepet; 12. Téa ov diapeper 
. vi. 39. : s . i ie 
mhereand Gv@pwros mpoBdtou; dere Eeate rois cdBBact KahGs ovetv.’ 
in parall. b 3 x Fp “on 4 nent 1” ’ 
insame 13. Téte A€yer TO dvOpwrrw, Extewov tiv xeipa gov. Kat 
sense. Ch. , ‘ . in . 
xvii. x. ef€rewe, Kal “dmroxateotddn? dyths ds 7 GAAn. 14. OL BE 
Mk. iy. 12 eS > a 2 
frsitatare apioaio: “cupBoudrovy *EAaBoy Kar adtod efeNOdvtes ® Srws abrov 
social 
aretey, Heb. xiii. 19 (to friends). n Ch. xxii. 15; xxvii. 1,7; xxviii. 12. 


' SSBL have cov before thy xetpa. 
2 amex. in NBLA al. 


D has emox. as in T. R. 


3 SQBCDE place efeMGovtes at the beginning of the sentence (Z with ras before 


efeX ores). 


infer so from the fact that Jesus argued 
on such questions ex concesso. In that 
case the theory and practice of con- 
temporary Pharisees must have been 
milder than in the Talmudic period, when 
the rule was: if there be no danger, 
leave the animal in the ditch till the 
morrow (vide Buxtorf, Syn. Jud., c. xvi.). 
Grotius suggests that later Jewish law 
was made stricter out of hatred to 
Christians.—Ver, 12. wéaw otv Siagéper, 
etc. This is another of those simple yet 
far-reaching utterances by which Christ 
suggested rather than formulated His 
doctrine of the infinite worth of man. 
By how much does a human being differ 
from a sheep? That is the question 
which Christian civilisation has not even 
yet adequately answered. This illustra- 
tion from common life is not in Mark 
and Luke. Luke has something similar 
in the Sabbath cure, reported in xiv. 1-6. 
Some critics think that Matthew com- 
bines the two incidents, drawing from his 
two sources, Mark and the Logia.— ere, 
therefore, and so introducing here rather 
an independent sentence than a depen- 
dent clause expressive of result.—kahos 
motetv ; in effect, to do good = et woteiv, 
i.¢., in the present case to heal, @epa- 
mevewv, though in Acts x. 33, 1 Cor. vii. 
37, the phrase seems to mean to do the 
morally right, in which sense Meyer and 
Weiss take it here also. Elsner, and 
after him Fritzsche, take it as = preclare 
agere, pointing to the ensuing miracle. 
By this brief prophetic utterance, Jesus 
sweeps away legal pedantries and 
casuistries, and goes straight to the 
heart of the matter. Beneficent action 
never unseasonable, of the essence of 
the Kingdom of God; therefore as per- 
missible and incumbent on Sabbath as 
on other days. Spoken out of the 
depths of His religious consciousness, 
and a direct corollary from His benignant 


ae of God (vide Holtz., H.C., 
p- 91). 

Vv. 13, 14. The issue: the hand 
cured, and Pharisaic ill-will deepened. 
Ver. 13. téte Adyer. He heals by a 
word: sine contactu sola voce, quod ne 
speciem quidem violati Sabbati habere 
poterat (Grotius).—Exrewwdév wou 7. x. 
Brief authoritative word, possessing both 
physical and moral power, conveying 
life to the withered member, and in- 
spiring awe in spectators.—xal éfér. Kat 
a&mexar. The double xal signifies the 
quick result (‘‘celeritatem miraculi,” 
Elsner). Grotius takes the second verb 
as a participle rendering: he stretched 
out his restored hand, assuming that not 
till restored could the hand be stretched 
out. The healing and the outstretching 
may be conceived of as contemporaneous. 
—tyuijs és f GAAn: the evangelist adds 
this to awexar. to indicate the complete- 
ness. We should have expected this 
addition rather from Luke, who ever 
aims at making prominent the greatness 
of the miracle, as well as its benevolence. 
—Ver. 14. é&eA@dvres: overawed for the 
moment, the Pharisaic witnesses of the 
miracle soon recovered themselves, and 
went out of the synagogue with hostile 
intent.—ovpBovAtov €daBov, consulted 
together = ovpBovdreverOar.—xar avTod, 
against Him. Hitherto they had been 
content with finding fault; now it is 
come te plotting against His life—a 
tribute to His power.—®érras, etc.: this 
clause indicates generally the object of 
their plotting, vzs., that it concerned 
the life of the obnoxious one. They 
consulted not how to compass the 
end, but simply agreed together that it 
was an end to be steadily kept in 
view. The murderous will has come to 
birth, the way will follow in due course. 
Such is the evil fruit of Sabbath contro- 
versies. 


12—21. EYATTEAION 185 
c aD a . > ’ Ee) Ps \ o Ch. xvi. 20 
dwodéowow. 15. ‘O Se Ingois yysls dvexapynoev exetOey Kai 
HkoovOnoay ait dxdor}! wodAol, Kat Oepdmeucey aitods wavTas - an 
16. kal *émetipyoey adtots, iva ph ? havepdy adrév ° trowjowow - sae 
e 2 a” Nee 4 ane + A , , ronegine 

17. O1w AnpwbA Td Pnbev Bia “Hoatov tod moodytou, Aéyor (with wa 
7 s Tw nP 67 Pp) Pp $7 z Y PES. poy as here). 


18. “'I80v, 6 mais pov, ov ypétiga> 6 dyamytds pou, eis Sy *p here and 


Mk. iii. 12 


1 edSdknoev H Puy pou: Ejow 76 mveGpd pou em adrdy, Kal Kplow q with 


tois €Aveow dmayyehet’ 19. ovK 


, > a , ‘ ‘ > a 
a&xovce. Tig €v Tals WAaTelats THY Havny avToU. 


accus. as 


, 4 s 
"pice, od€ “kpauydoer- ode here (W. 


H.). Heb 
XO 


20. kdAapov 
r here only. 


ere 
‘ cuvterpippévov od Katedger, Kal Nivov tupdpevoy ob oBéoet~ Ews s John xi. 


dv “éxBdady eis vixos Thy xptow. 
20vn edtrodar. 


1 $8B omit oyAo, which is inconsistent with wavras. 
¢ Most uncials omit ev, which is found in D it. vg. 


3 BSB have simply ov. 


Vv. 15-21. Yesus retires; prophetic 
portraiture of His character. Verses 15 
and 16 are abridged from Mk. iii. 7-12, 
which contains an account of an ex- 
tensive healing ministry. The sequel of 
the Sabbatic encounter is very vague. 
The one fact outstanding and note- 
worthy is the withdrawal of Jesus, con- 
scious of having given deep offence, but 
anxious to avoid tragic consequences 
for the present. It is to that fact mainly 
that the evangelist attaches his fair 
picture of Jesus, in prophetic language. 
It is happily brought in here, where it 
gains by the contrast between the real 
Jesus and Jesus as conceived by the 
Pharisees, a miscreant deserving to die. 
It is not necessary to suppose that the 
historical basis of the picture is to be 
found exclusively in vv. 15, 16, al] the 
more that the statement they contain is 
but a meagre reproduction of Mk. iii. 
7-12, omitting some valuable material, 
e.g., the demoniac cry: ‘‘ Thou art the 
Son of God”. The historic features 
answering to the prophetic outline in 
the evangelist’s mind may be taken from 
the whole story of Christ’s public life as 
hitherto told, from the baptism onwards. 
Luke gives his picture of Jesus at the 
beginning (iv. 16-30) as a frontispiece, 
Matthew places his at the end ofa con- 
siderable section of the story, at a 
critical turning point in the history, and 
he means the reader to look back over 
the whole for verification. Thus for the 
evangelist ver. 18 may point back to 
the baptism (iii. 13-17), when the voice 
from heaven called Jesus God’s beloved 
Son ; ver. 19 to the teaching on the hill 


‘ lot ~ 
2I. nat €v* tO dvduare abtoi 


43. Acts 
Xxli. 23. 

t Mk. v. 4; 
xiv. 3. Lk 


LA 1x. 39. 
u ver. 35. Ch. xiii. 52. John x. 4 


3 S9BCD have wa. 


(v.-vii.), when the voice of Jesus was 
heard not in the street but on the 
mountain top, remote from the crowd 
below ; ver. 20 to the healing ministry 
among the sick, physically bruised reeds, 
poor suffering creatures in whom the 
flame of life burnt low; ver. 21 to such 
significant incidents as that of the cen- 
turion of Capernaum (viii. 5-13). Broad 
interpretation here seems best. Some 
features, ¢.g., the reference to judgment, 
ver. 20, second clause, are not to be 
pressed. 

The quotation is a very free repro- 
duction from the Hebrew, with occasional 
side glances at the Sept. It has been sug- 
gested that the evangelist drew neither 
from the Hebrew nor from the Sept., but 
from a Chaldee Targum in use in his 
time (Lutteroth). It is certainly curious 
that he should have omitted Is. xlii. 4, 
‘He shall not fail nor be discouraged,”’ 
etc., a most important additional feature 
in the picture = Messiah shall not only 
not break the bruised reed, but He 
shall not be Himself a bruised reed, but 
shall bravely stand for truth and right 
till they at length triumph. Admirable 
historic materials to illustrate that pro- 
phetic trait are ready to our hand in 
Christ’s encounters with the Pharisees 
(ix. I-17, xii. 1-13). Either Matthew has 
followed a Targum, or been misled by 
the similarity of Is. xlii. 3 and 4, or he 
means ver. 20 to bear a double reference, 
and read: He shall neither break nor be 
a bruised reed, nor allow to be quenched 
either in others or in Himself the feeble 
flame: a strong, brave, buoyant, ever- 
victorious hero, helper of the weak, Him 


186 


KATA MATOAION 


XII. 


22. Téte mpooynvexOn! ait Barpovlspevog tupAds Kal Kwds : 


Kal eepdrevoev adtdv, Gore Tov TupAdv Kai? Kwhdv Kal Aadetv Kal 


v Mk. ii. ra, BAérrewv. 


Lk. viii. > 
6 Acts OUTOS €oTi 6 ulds Aafid ;” 


11. 7, 12 al. 


, 
23. Kat ‘efioravto mdvtes of Gxdot Kal Eheyor, “ Mitt 


24. Ol S€ Haproalor dxodoarres elroy, 


“ Oros odk exBddder TA Sarda, et pr ev TH BeehLeBodd dpyovte 


w 1 Cor. i. rs, ” tol ~ 
13; Vii.34. TOV Satpovlwv. 25. Eidus S€ 6 “Incods® tas evOupyjoes adtav 
x Lk, xi. 17. in a , - Pa ad 
Rev.. xvii. €trev adTots, “ Maoa Baoideia ” pepiobetoa Kad’ éauris * epnpodrat: 
16; XVili. ce , A ~ 
16. kal aoa médis FH oikia pepicbeioa Kal’ éautas, o8 orabjcerar. 


1B Cur. Syr. Cop. have mpoonveyxay with SatpoviLopevov tuddov Kat xwdov. 
Most MSS. as in T. R. W.H. adopt the reading of B, putting T. R. in the margin. 


2 SYBD and some versions omit tuddoyv Kat, also the cat before Nadety. 


3 SBD omit o Incovs. 


self a stranger to weakness. -— ypétice, 
(ver. 18), an Ionic form in use in Hellen- 
istic Greek, here only in N. T., often 
in Sept. = atpéopat. Hesychius under 
YpeTicapny gives asequivalents yyawyea, 
er Ovpnoa, 19¢Anoa, HpacIny.—kpavyd- 
get (ver. 19), late form for kpafw. Phry- 
nichus, p. 337, condemns, as illiterate, 
use of Kpavyagpds instead of kexpaypds, 
On the words ov8é xp. Pricaeus remarks : 
““Sentio clamorem intelligi qui nota est 
animi commoti et effervescentis”, He 
cites examples from Seneca, Plutarch, 
Xenophon, etc.—akovoe is late for 
akovoerat. Verbs expressing organic 
acts or states have middle forms in the 
future (vide Rutherford, New Phrynichus, 
pp. 138, 376-412).—€ws, ver. 20, followed 
by subjunctive, with ay, asin classics, in 
a clause introduced by éws referring toa 
future contingency. —7@ dévépatt, ver. 
21, dative after éAmiodowy; in Sept., Is. 
xlii. 4, with émt. This construction here 
only in N. T. 

Vv. 22-37. Demoniac healed and 
Pharisaic calumny repelled (Mk. iii. 
22-30; Lk. xi. 14-23—cf. Mt. ix. 
32-34). The healing of a blind and 
dumb demoniac has its place here not 
for its own sake, as a miracle, but 
simply as the introduction to another 
conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees. 
It is a story of wicked calumny repelled. 
The transition from the fair picture of 
the true Jesus to this hideous Pharisaic 
caricature is highly dramatic in its effect. 

Vv. 22, 23. tTuddds kal xwods, blind 
as wellasdumb. The demoniac in ix. 32 
dumb only. But dumbness here also is 
the main feature; hence in last clause 
xwgoyv only, and Aadeiv before Bdérrerv.— 
aote with infinitive, expressing here not 
merely tendency but result.—Ver. 23. 
ttiotavto: not implying anything ex- 


ceptionally remarkable in the cure; a 
standing phrase (in Mark at least) for 
the impression made on the people. 
They never got to be familiar with 
Christ’s wonderful works, so as to take 
them as matters of course.—pyts im- 
plies a negative answer: they can 


. hardly believe what the fact seems to 


suggest = can this possibly be, etc.? 
Not much capacity for faith in the 
average Israelite, yet honest-hearted 
compared with the Pharisee. —6 vids 
Aaf.5: the popular title for the Messiah. 

Ver. 24. Ot 8€ Gapicaior. They of 
course have a very diflerent opinion. 
In Mark these were men come down 
from Jerusalem, to watch, not to lay hold 
of Jesus, Galilee not being under the 
direct jurisdiction of the Sanhedrim 
then (vide on Mark).— Otros otk éxBaddet, 
etc. : theory enunciated for second time, 
unless ix. 34 be an anticipation by the 
evangelist, or a spurious reading. What 
diversity of opinion! Christ’s friends, 
according to Mark, thought Him “ beside 
himself ”’—mad, Messiah, in league with 
Beelzebub! Herod had yet another 
theory: the marvellous healer was John 
redivivus, and endowed with the powers 
of the other world. All this implies that 
the healing ministry was a great fact.— 
ovK... eb pm: the negative way of 
putting “it stronger than the positive. 
The Pharisees had to add ei py. They 
would gladly haveesaid: ‘‘ He does not 
cast out devils at all”. But the fact was 
undeniable; therefore they had to in- 
vent a theory to neutralise its signifi- 
cance.—@pyxovrt, without article, might 
mean, as prince, therefore able to com- 
municate such power. So Meyer, Weiss, 
et al, But the article may be omitted 
after BeedfeBovA as after Bactdets, or 
on account of the following genitive. 


—_- 


22—28 


EYATTEAION 


187 


26. kal €t 6 Zatavas Tov Satavav exBaddet, ep EauTdv enepioy > Was 


otv otabnoetar 7 Bactdcia aidtod ; 


exBaddo Ta Sarpdvia, of viol bpdv ev tive éxBddAoucr; 8a TodTo 
adtot Gpav goovrar Kpitai.t 28. ei S€ eyo ev Mvedpatr Ceod 


ekBddrw Ta Saipdvia, apa 7 epbacey Ep’ Spas Hh Bacidela Tod Ceod. 


1SBD have «pitar evovTar vpwy. 


27. Kal ei eye ev BeehfcBodAy Rom. ix 


31. 2 Cor. 
x. 14. Phil. 
g ii. 16. 

1 Thess. ii. 
16 (inall = 
to reach). 


2 Most uncials have eyw after ev Mvevpati Mov, on which the emphasis ought to lie 


So Schanz. Whether the Pharisees 
believed this theory may be doubted. It 
was enough that it was plausible. To 
reason with such menis vain. Yet Jesus 
did reason for the benefit of disciples. 
Vv. 25-30. The theory shown to 
be absurd.—Ver. 25. eidas tas évOu- 
pygers. Jesus not only heard their 
words, but knew thew thoughts, the 
malicious feelings which prompted their 
words, and strove so to present the case 
as to convict them of bad faith and dis- 
honesty.—_waoa Baovreia, etc.: state- 
ment of an axiom widely exemplified in 
human affairs: division fatal to stability 
in kingdoms and cities. — ota€yjoerar: 
Ist future passive with an intransitive 
sense, vide Winer, § 38, 1.—Ver. 26 
applies the axiom to Satan. ¢t, intro- 
duces a simple particular supposition 
without reference to its truth.—épepic Oy: 
the aorist has the force of a perfect. 
Satan casting out Satan means self- 
stultification ; ipso facto, self-division re- 
sults. Against the argument it might be 
objected: Kingdoms and cities do 
become divided against themselves, re- 
gardless of fatal consequences, why 
not also Satan? Why should not that 
happen to Satan’s kingdom which has 
happened even to the Christian Church? 
Jesus seems to have credited Satan with 
more astuteness than is possessed by 
states, cities, and churches. Satan may 
be wicked, He says in effect, but he is 
not a fool. Then it has to be considered 
that communities commit follies which 
individuals avoid. Men war against 
each other to their common undoing, 
who would be wiser in their own affairs. 
One Satan might cast out another, but 
no Satan will cast out himself. And 
that is the case put by Jesus. Some, 
e.g., De Wette and Fritzsche, take 6 
Zatravas tT. 2. ékBadAet as = one Satan 
Casting out another. But that is not 
Christ’s meaning. Heso puts the case 
as to make the absurdity evident. Ex 
hypothesi He had a right to put it so; 
for the theory was that Satan directly 
empowered and enabled Him to deliver 


men from his (Satan’s) power.—Ver 27. 
To the previous convincing argument 
Jesus adds an argumentum ad hominem, 
based on the exorcism then practised 
among the Jews, with which it would 
appear the Pharisees found no fault.—ot 
viol tpav, not of course Christ’s disciples 
(so most of the Fathers), for the Pharisaic 
prejudice against Him would extend to 
them, but men belonging to the same 
school or religious type, like-minded. 
By referring to their performances Jesus 
put the Pharisees ina dilemma. Either 
they must condemn both forms of dis- 
possession or explain why they made a 
difference. What they would have said 
we do not know, but it is not difficult tc 
suggest reasons. . The Jewish exorcists 
operated in conventional fashion by use 
of herbs and magical formulz, and the 
results were probably insignificant. The 
practice was sanctioned by custom, and 
harmless. But in casting out devils, as 
in all other things, Jesus was original, 
and His method was too effectual. His 
power, manifest to all, was His offence.— 
Kpitat. Jesus now makes the fellow- 
religionists of the Pharisees their judges. 
On a future occasion He will make John 
the Baptist their judge (xxi. 23-27). Such 
home-thrusts were very inconvenient. 
Ver. 28. The alternative: if not by 
Satan then by the Spirit of God, 
with an inevitable inference as to the 
worker and His work.—év mvevpart Oeod. 
Luke has év SaxtvAp 6. The former 
seems more in keeping with the connec- 
tion of thought as defending the ethical 
character of Christ’s work assailed by 
the Pharisees. If, indeed, the spirit of 
God were regarded from the charismatic 
point of view, as the source of miraculous 
gifts, the two expressions would be 
synonymous. But there is reason to 
believe that by the time our Gospel was 
written the Pauline conception of the 
Holy Spirit’s influence as chiefly ethical 
and immanent, as distinct from that of 
the primitive apostolic church, in which 
it was charismatic and transcendent, 
had gained currency (videmy St. Paul’s 


188 


KATA MATOAION 


> SOF 


29. was Sdvatai tis eicehOetv eis Thy oiKiay Tod ioxupod Kal Ta 
oxetn attod Siaprdoa,! €dy ph mpdtov Shon tov ioxupdv; Kal 


, ‘ yy > a 
Tote Thy oixiay aitod S:apmdcet. 


! BCX have the simple apracat. 
Mk. or to the next clause. 


2 © , A jy A ee - 
30. oO BP) QV pet €p.ou, KaT €}.0b 


Stapmacat (NDLA al.) conforms either tc 


2 NDz (Tisch.) have Stapracyn. BCL al. pl. have Staprace, as in T.R.(W.H.). 


Conception of Christianity, chap. xiii.). 
A trace of the new Pauline view may be 
found in Mt. x. 20: “It is not ye that 
speak, but the Spirit of your Father 
speaking in you’. The influence is 
within, and the product is not unintelli- 
gible utterance, like that of the speaker 
with tongues (1 Cor. xii., xiv.), but wise, 
sincere apology for the faith. But why 
then did Luke not adopt this Pauline 
phrase? Because one of his main aims 
was to bring out the miraculousness of 
Christ’s healing works; that they were 
done by the very finger of God (Exod. 
viii. 19).—€p8acey. Fritzsche takes this 
word strictly as signifying not merely: 
the kingdom of God has come nigh you 
(jyytxev, Lk. x. g), but: has come 
nigh sooner than you expected. The 
more general sense, however, seems 
most suitable, as it is the usual sense in 
the N. T. The point at issue was: do 
the events in question mean Satan’s 
kingdom come or God’s kingdom come? 
It must be one or other; make up your 
minds which.—Ver. 29. To help them 
to decide Jesus throws out yet another 
parabolic line of thought.—%! if all that 
I have said does not convince you con- 
sider this. The parable seems based on 
Is. xlix. 24, 25, and like all Christ’s 
parabolic utterances appeals to common 
sense. The theme is, spoiling the 


spoiler, and the argument that the enter--" 


prise implies hostile purpose and success 
in it superior power. The application 
is: the demoniac is a captive of Satan; 
in seeking to cure him I show myself 
Satan’s enemy ; in actually curing him 
I show myself Satan’s master.—rov 
icyvpov: the article is either generic, 
or individualising after the manner of 
parabolic speech. Proverbs and parables 
assume acquaintance with their charac- 
ters.—oxevn, household furniture (Gen. 
xxxi. 37); Gpidoat, seize (Judges xxi. 
21) —Stapmace:, make a clean sweep of 
all that is in the house, the owner, 
bound hand and foot, being utterly help- 
less. The use of this compound verb 
points to the thoroughness of the cures 
wrought on demoniacs, as in the case of 
the demoniac of Gadara: quiet, clothed, 


sane (Mk. v. 15).—Ver. 30. One begins 
at this point to have the feeling that 
here, as elsewhere, our evangelist groups 
sayings of kindred character instead of 
exactly reproducing Christ’s words as 
spoken to the Pharisees. The connec- 
tion is obscure, and the interpretations 
therefore conflicting. On first view 
one would say that the adage seems 
more appropriate in reference to luke- 
warm disciples or undecided hearers than 
to the Pharisees, who made no pretence 
of being on Christ’s side. Some accord- 
ingly (¢.g., Bleek, after Elwert and 
Ullmann) have so understood it. Others, 
including Grotius, Wetstein, De Wette, 
take the éyé of the adage to be Satan, 
and render ; he who, like myself, is not 
with Satan is against him, Kypke, Ob- 
serv. Sac., says: ‘‘ Prima persona posita 
est a servatore pro quacunque alia, pro- 
verbialiter, hoc sensu: qui socius cujus- 
dam bella cum alio gerentis non est, is 
pro adversario censeri solet. Cum igitur 
ego me re tpsa adversarium Satanae esse 
ostenderim, nulla specie socius ejus potero 
vocari.”’ ‘This certainly brings the say- 
ing into line with the previous train of 
thought, but if Jesus had meant to say 
that He surely would have expressed 
Himself differently. The Fathers (Hilary, 
Jerome, Chrys.) took the éy@ to be Jesus 
and the 6 py &y to be Satan. So under- 
stood,the adage contains a fourth con- 
cluding argument against the notion of 
a league between Jesus and Satan. Most 
modern interpreters refer the 6 p. w. to the 
Pharisees. Schanz, however, under- 
stands the saying as referring to the 
undecided among the people. The only 
serious objection to this view is that it 
makes the saying irrelevant to the situa- 
tion.—oKopmifer: late for the earlier 
oxeSdvvupt, vide Lob., Phryn., p. 218. 
As to the metaphor of gathering and 
scattering, its natural basis is not 
apparent. But in all cases, when one 
man scatters what another gathers their 
aims and interests are utterly diverse, 
Satan is the arch-waster, Christ the 
collector, Saviour. 

Vv. 31, 32. Fesus changes His tone 
from argument to solemn warning. Veer. 


ng 


29—32. 


€ort. Kat 6 pa) guvdywv per e200, 


héyw tpiv, Naoa dpaptia kat * Praopypla addeOyjcerar trois dvbp- 


EYATTEAION 


* oxoptiter. 


189 


31. Ata ToUToz Lk. xi. 23. 
John x. 12; 
XVi. 32. 2 
Cor. ix. 9. 


Trois: 7 Sé tod Myedpartos Pracdypia odk dheOjoerar tots GvOpu- a Ch. xv. 19. 


tots.t 


A A A c a 
EheOjoetar aita: ds 8 &y ety Kata Tov Mvedparos Tou “Ayiou, 
a A ~ ” ~ 
ouK dhebjceta? abta, obre é€v TOUTW TH aidvi oUTE €v TH peAdovTt. 


Mk. iii. 28; 


32. Kal Ss av? etwy Adyov Kata TOU vio Tob avOpwrou, vii. 22. 


Eph. iv 
31 (evil 
speaking 
generally), 
E Ch. xxvi. 
65. Mk. ii. 7; xiv. 64. John x. 33 (against God). 


1$9B omit tots av@pwimois, which seem to be simply an echo of r. av. in the 


previous clause. 
2 os eav in most uncials. 


D has os ay, as in T. R. 


3 For ovx adcOnoerat found in most uncials B has ov py adeOn, which W.H. 


place in the margin. 


31. 8a rovrTo connects not merely with 
preceding verse, but with the whole 
foregoing argument, Mark more im- 
pressively introduces the blasphemy- 
legion with a solemn dphv Aéyw dpiv.— 
waoa Gpaptia, etc. A broad preliminary 
declaration of the pardonableness of 
human sin of all sorts, and especially of 
sins of the tongue, worthy and charac- 
teristic of Jesus, and making what 
follows more impressive.—y 5é rt. !1. 
Brac. ovx adeOjcerat: pointed, emphatic 
exception. Evidently the Spirit here is 
taken ethically. He represents the 
moral ideal, the absolutely good and 
holy. Blasphemy against the Spirit so 
conceived, unpardonable—that is our 
Lord’s deliberate judgment.—-BAcogypia, 
injurious speech (from BAdwrw and o7-y), 
in such a case will mean speaking of the 
holy One as if He were unholy, or, in 
the abstract, calling good evil, not by 
misunderstanding but through antipathy 
to the good.—Ver. 32. So serious a 
statement needs to be carefully guarded 
against misapprehension ; therefore Jesus 
adds an explanatory declaration.—\déyoy 
KaTa tT. v. T. GvOparov. Jesus dis- 
tinguishes between a word against the 
Son of Man and a word against the Holy 
Ghost. The reference in the former is 
to Himself, presumably, though Mark at 
the corresponding place has ‘‘the sons 
of men,” and no special mention of a 
particular son of man. Christ gives the 
Pharisees to understand that the grava- 
men of their offence is not that they have 
spoken evil of Him, Jesus had no ex- 
ceptional sensitiveness as to personal 
offences. Nor did He mean to suggest 
that offences of the kind against Him 
were more serious or less easily pardon- 
able than such offences against other 
men, say, the prophets or the Baptist. 
Many interpreters, indeed, think other- 


wise, and represent blasphemy against 
the Son of Man as the higher limit of 
the forgiveable. A grave mistake, I 
humbly think. Jesus was as liable to 
honest misunderstanding as other good 
men, in some respects more liable than 
any, because of the exceptional originality 
of His character and conduct. All new 
things are liable to be misunderstood 
and decried, and the best for a while to 
be treated as the worst. Jesus knew this, 
and allowed for it. Men might there- 
fore honestly misunderstand Him, and 
be in no danger of the sin against the 
Holy Ghost (e.g., Saul of Tarsus). On 
the other hand, men might dishonestly 
calumniate any ordinary good man, and 
be very near the unpardonable sin. It 
is not the man that makes the difference, 
but the source of the blasphemy. If the 
source be ignorance, misconception, ill- 
informed prejudice, blasphemy against 
the Son of Man will be equally pardon- 
able with other sins. If the source be 
malice, rooted dislike of the good, selfish 
preference of wrong, because of the ad- 
vantage it brings, to the right which the 
good seek to establish, then the sin is 
not against the man but against the 
cause, and the Divine Spirit who inspires 
him, and though the agent be but a 
humble, imperfect man, the sinner is 
perilously near the unpardonable point. 
Jesus wished the Pharisees to understand 
that, in His judgment, that was their 
position.—ovre, ovre analyse the nega- 
tion of pardon, conceived as affecting 
both worlds, into its parts for sake of 
emphasis (vide on V. 34-36). Dogmatic 
inferences, based on the double negation, 
to possible pardon after death, are pre- 
carious. Lightfoot (Hor. Heb.) explains 
the double negation by reference to the 
Jewish legal doctrine that, in contrast 
to other sins, profaning the name of God 


190 


KATA MATOAION 


XII. 


33. °H woujoare Td S€vSpov Kahdv, kal rdv Kapwiv abrod Kady, # 
Toujoare TO S€év8pov campdy, Kal Tov KapTov atTod oampoy: €k yap 


Tod Kaptwod TO Sévdpev ywwoKerar. 
b Lk. vi. 45. SUvace dyabd Aadetv, wovnpol ovres; ex yap Tob 


Mk. viii. nN 3 
8. 2 Cor. TiS Kapdias TS oTda adel. 
Vill. 14. 


34. Cevvyjpata eyi8vdv, was 
® repiscedparos 
35+ 6 dyads dvOpwiros Ex Tod dyabod 


cCh.xili, Onoaupod Tis KapSias? *éxPddder TA? dyad~ Kal 6 wovnpds av8pw- 


52. Lk. x 


35(insame TOS €K TOD Tovnpod Onoaupod ExBddder Trovnpd. 


sense). @ 


36. héyw Sé Spiv, 


“~ ~ a > 
d Lk. xvi, 2, OTt Wav Pha dpyov, 6 Edy adijowor ® ot avbowror, * drodSdcouct 


Acts xix. 


‘ ie SE NY ahs , 
qo. x Pet, Wept autod “oyov ev Hudpa Kpioews. 
SikarwOyon, Kal €x Tv Adywr cou KaTadikagOhon.” 


iv. 5. 


1 Most uncials omit tys Kapd.as. 


37+ €« yap Tov hoywr cou 


It comes from Lk. (vi. 45). 


2 BD al. omit ta, which, however, is found in §}CLAZ and retained by W.H. on 


the margin. , 


3 For o eav Aaknowoww SBC have o AaAngovew, D Aadovow. 


could be expiated only by death, un- 
pardonable in this life. Blasphemy 
against the Holy Ghost, says Jesus, in 
conscious antithesis, pardonable neither 
here nor there: ‘‘neque ante mortem, 
neque per mortem”’. 

Vv. 33-37. Kindred Logia. With the 
word concerning blasphemy the self- 
defence of Jesus against Pharisaic 
calumny reached its culmination and 
probably (as in Mark’s report) its close. 
The sentences following seem to be 
accretions rather than an organic part of 
the discourse. They substantially re- 
produce sayings found in Sermon on 
Mount (vii. 16-20), there directed against 
false prophets, here against false re- 
ligionists. Ver. 35 is found in Luke’s 
version of the Sermon (vi. 45). They 
might have been remarks made to the 
disciples about the Pharisees, as in 
xvi. 6, though in their present form 
direct address is implied (vide ver. 34). 
Their essential import is that the nature 
or heart of a man determines his speech 
and action. Given the tree, the fruit 
follows.—Ver. 33. wWoijoate = eiware 
(Euthy. Zig.), judge, pronounce; call 
both tree and fruit good, or evil; they 
must both be of one kind, in fact and 
in thought (vide Kypke, ad loc.). The 
reference of the adage has been 
much discussed: to the Pharisees or to 
Christ? Kypke replies: to Christ if 
you connect with what goes before, to 
the Pharisees if with what follows. As 
an adage the saying admits of either 
application. The Fathers favoured the 
reference to Ciirist, whom Meyer follows. 
—Ver. 34. Tevvyjpara éx8vav, vide iii. 
7. John and Jesus agree in thinking 


the Pharisees a viper-brood. Both con- 
ceive them as morally hopeless. The 
Baptist wonders that they should com¢ 
to a baptism of repentance, Jesus thinks 
them far on the way to final impeni- 
tence. But the point He makes here is 
that, being what they are, they cannot 
but speak evil. The poison of their 
nature must come out in their words. 
—Ver. 35. 6 ayafds &.: good in the 
sense of benignant, gracious, kindly, the 
extreme moral opposite of the malignant 
viper-nature.-—Oycavpod : in ver. 34 the 
heart is conceived as a fountain, of 
which speech is the overflow, here as a 
treasure whose stores of thought and 
feeling the mouth freely distributes, — 
éxBadder suggests speech characterised 
by energy, passion. There was no lack 
of emphasis in Pharisaic comments on 
Jesus.. They hissed out their malevolent 
words at Him, being not heartless but 
bad-hearted. But cf. texts referred to on 
margin.—Ver 36, Wav p. dpyov: speech 
being the outcome of the heart, no word 
is insignificant, not even that which is 
apydv, ineffectual (a, €pyov), insipid, 
“idle”. It is an index of thoughtless- 
ness if not of malice. This verse con- 
tains an important warning, whether 
spoken at this time or not.—Ver. 37. éx 
yap tT. Adywv gov. Judgment by words 
here taught; in Mt. xxv. 31-46 
judgment by the presence or absence of 
kind deeds. Nocontradiction, for words 
are viewed as the index of a good or bad 
heart: bad positively, like that of the 
Pharisees, who spoke wickedly ; bad 
negatively, like that of the thoughtless, 
who speak senselessly. On the teaching 
of this passage cf. James iii. 


33--41. 


EYATTEAION 


191 


38. Tére daexplOnodv! twes TOv ypoppatéw Kal apicaiuy, 


héyovtes, “ AvSdoxahe, OAopev dd god onpetoy idetv.” 


39. 0 Se 


cn) . ‘ ~ . 
daoxpiOeis etwev adtots, “Teved tovnpa kat *porxadts onpetor ¢ Ch. xvi. 4 


f> a ‘ 7 3 3 67, ae > ~ > ‘ Ls o3 i A 
eme{ynter * KGL Oy EelLov Ou OUy}TETAL AUTH, €u PY) TO on PELov Va 


A , 
TOU MpodyTou. 


ave er de aey J \ a , Cc » € en nA 3 t) , > 
TPEls YBEPas Ka@L TPES VUKTGS, OUTWS COTaL O ULOS TOU AY pwTrou €v 


TH Kapdia THs YS TpEls tpepas Kal tpeis vUKTaS. 


Mk. viii. 
38. Jas. 
iv. 


a a ~ se ie 
40. Gorep yap Av “lwvas év TH Kowdia Tod KrTOUS f videat Ch 


vi. 32. 


41. “Avdpes 


A A , a A ‘ 
Niveuitat dvacticovtat ev TH KploeL peta THS yeveds TadTyS, Kal 


A > a 
KaTakpwvocow autyy: Ste petevOnoay eis TO KypUypa “lwva- Kat 


1 S$BCDLE insert avrw before tives. 


Vv. 38-45. A sign asked and refused, 
with relative discourse (Lk. xi. 16, 
29-36). Both Matt.’s and Luke’s re- 
ports convey the impression that the 
demand for a sign, and the enunciation 
of the Satanic theory as to Christ’s 
cures of demoniacs, were synchronous. 
If they were, the demand was impudent, 
hypocritical, insulting. Think of the 
men who could so speak of Christ’s heal- 
ing ministry wanting a sign that would 
satisfy them as to His Messianic claims! 
—Ver. 38. onpetov: what kind of a 
sign? They thought the cure of de- 
moniacs a sign from fell. Elsewhere 
we read of their asking a sign from 
heaven (xvi. x). From what quarter was 
the sign now asked to come from ? 
Perhaps those who made the demand 
had no idea; neither knew nor cared. 
Their question really meant; these signs 
won’t do; if you want us to believe in 
you you must do something else than 
cast out devils. The apparent respect 
and earnestness of the request are 
feigned: ‘teacher, we desire from you 
(emphatic position) to see a sign”. It 
reminds one of the mock homage of the 
soldiers at the Passion (xxvii. 27-31).— 
Ver. 39. yevea, as in xi. 16, a moral class, 
‘quae in omni malitia et improbitate 
vivit,” Suicer, s. v. yeved.—potxadis, un- 
faithful to God as a wife to a husband, 
apt description of men professing godli- 
ness but ungodly in heart.—éalyret, 
hankers after, as in vi. 32 ; characteristic ; 
men that have no light within crave ex- 
ternal evidence, which given would be of 
no service to them. Therefore: ov 
Sobyjcerat: it will not be given either by 
Jesus or by any one else. He declines, 
knowing it to be vain. No sign will 
convince them; why give one ?—ei p14, 
etc.: except the sign of Jonah the 
prophet, which was no sign in their 
sense. What is referred to? But for 


what follows we should have said: the 
preaching of repentance by Jonah to the 
Ninevites. So Lk. xi. 30 seems to 
take it. Jonah preached repentance to 
the men of Nineveh as the only way of 
escape from judgment. Jesus points to 
that historic instance and says: Beware! 
Jonah was not the only prophetic 
preacher of repentance ; but, as Nineveh 
is held up as a reproach to the persons 
addressed, to single him out was fitting. 
—Ver. 40 gives an entirely different 
turn to the reference. The verse cannot 
be challenged on critical grounds. If it 
is an interpolation, it must have become 
an accepted part of the text before the 
date of our earliest copies. If it be 
genuine, then Jesus points to His re- 
surrection as the appropriate sign for an 
unbelieving generation, saying in effect: 
you will continue to disbelieve in spite 
of all I can say or do, and at last you 
will put me to death. But I will rise 
again, a sign for your confusion if not 
for your conversion. For opposite views 
on this interpretation of the sign of 
Jonah, vide Meyer ad loc.and Holtzmann 
in H.C.—Ver. 41. Application of the 
reference in ver. 39. The men of 
Nineveh are cited in condemnation of 
the Jewish contemporaries of Jesus. Cf. 
similar use of historic parallels in xi. 
20-24.—7rActov *lwva, more than Jonah, 
cf. ver. 6; refers either to Jesus per- 
sonally as compared with Jonah, or to 
His ministry as compared with Jonah’s. 
In the latter case the meaning is: there 
is far more in what is now going on 
around you to shut you up to repentance 
than in anything Jonah said to the men 
of Nineveh (so Grotius).—Ver. 42. 
BacfAtcoa vérov is next pressed into 
the service of putting unbelievers to 
shame. The form Baof\tooa was con- 
demned by Phryn., but Elsner cites in- 
stances from Demosthenes and otlex 


192 


x Lk. xi. 31. 


”- , a 
iSou, wAetov "lwva odSe. 
Acts Vill. 


- WAetov LohopGrros dde. 


, 
Kal odx ebpioxe. 


KATA MATOAION 


42. 
kKpioet pera THS yeveds TaUTHS, Kal KaTaKpier adTiHy* Gr. Oey ex 
-tav “wepdtwy Tis ys dkodoat Thy godpiay Lodopavtos kal i8od, 
43: 


dard Tod avOpdrou, Siépyxetar Be | dvd8pwv témwy, Lytodv dvdtravowy, 


XIL 


*Bacithiooa vérou éyepOijverar ev ti 


“Otay 8€ 1d dxdBaptor mvedpa eb€hOy 


44. tote Aéyer, “Emotpépw eis tov otxdy pou,! 


12. 5 , , 
&1 Cor, vii. Sev e&WAOov = Kai edOdv eipioxe / cxoAdLovra, “cecapwpévoy Kai 


5 (to have 


jeisure). k Lk. xi. 25; xv. 8. 


1 BDZ read ets Tov otxov pov exrorpew. The reading in T. R. is assimilated 


to Lk. (xi. 24). 


good writers. J. Alberti also (Observ. 
Philol.) cites an instance from Athenzus, 
lib. xiil. 595: Bacihioo’ goer BaBuddvos. 
The reference is to the story in 1 Kings 
x. and 2 Chron. ix. concerning the 
Queen of Sheba visiting Solomon.—é« 
TOV wWepatwv THS yas. Elsner quotes in 
illustration the exhortation of Isocrates 
not to grudge to go a long way to hear 
those who profess to teach anything 
useful_rActiov %., again a claim of 
superiority for the present over the great 
persons and things of the past. On the 
apparent egotism of these comparisons, 
vide my Apologetics, p. 367; and re- 
member that Jesus claimed superiority 
not merely for Himself and His work, 
but even for the least in the Kingdom of 
Heaven (xi. 11). 

Vv. 43-45. A comparison. Cf. Lk. 
xi. 24-26. Formerly Jesus had likened 
the evil race of Pharisaic religionists to 
children playing in the market-place (xi. 
16-19). Now He uses expelled demons 
to depict their spiritual condition. The 
similitude moves in the region of popular 
opinion, and gives a glimpse into the 
superstitions of the time. We gather 
from it, first, that the effects of the arts 
of exorcists were temporary; and, second, 
the popular theory to explain the facts: 
the demon returned because he could 
not find a comfortable home anywhere 
else. On this vide Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. 
The parable was naturally suggested by 
the cure of the demoniac (ver. 22).— 
Ver. 43. 8’ dviSpav té7wv: the haunts 
of demons, as popularly conceived, were 
places uninhabited by men, deserts and 
graveyards. Thedemon in Tobit viii. 3 
flies to the uppermost parts of Egypt; 
and in Baruch iv. 35 a land desolated by 
fire is to become tenanted by demons.— 
Stépxerar CyTodv: the spirit keeps moving 
on in quest of a resting place; like a 
human being he feels ill at ease in the mo- 
notonous waste of sand.—ov« etploxe: 


in Luke etploxov. The change from 
participle to finite verb is expressive. 
The failure to find a resting place was an 
important fact, as on it depended the re- 
solve to return to the former abode.— 
Ver. 44. oyodalovra co. kai x. = un- 
tenanted and ready for a tenant, invit- 
ing by its clean, ornamented condition. 
The epithets simply describe in lively 
pictorial manner the risk of repossession. 
But naturally commentators seek spiritual 
equivalents for them. Ornamented how? 
With grace, say some (Hilary, Chrys., 
Godet), with sim, others (Orig., Jer., 
Euthy., Weiss, etc.). The ornamenta- 
tion must be to the taste of the tenant. 
And what is that? Neither for sin nor 
for grace, but for sin counterfeiting 
grace; a form of godliness without the 
power; sanctity which is but a mask for 
iniquity. The house is decorated re: 
putedly for God’s occupancy, really foi 
the devil’s—cerapupévov; capoty is 
condemned by Phryn.; ‘‘when you hear 
one say gdpwoov bid him say mapa- 
Képnoov”.—Ver. 45. ém7a erepa mvev- 
pata, etc. This feature is introduced 
to make the picture answer to the moral 
condition of the Pharisees as conceived 
by Jesus. The parable here passes out 
of the region of popular imagination and 
natural probability into a region of 
deeper psychological insight. Why 
should the demon want associates in 
occupancy of the house? Why not 
rather have it all to himself as before ?— 
ottws éxtat, etc. Ethical application. 
The general truth implied is: moral and 
religious reform may be, has been, 
succeeded by deeper degeneracy. The 
question naturally suggests itself: what 
is the historical range of the application ? 
It has been answered variously. From 
the lawgiving till the present time (Hil., 
Jer.); from the exile till now (Chrys., 
Grotius, etc.); from the Baptist till now 
(Weiss. etc.). Christ gives no hint of 





44--50. 


" kekoopnpevoy. 


éxra Erepa mvedpata *wovnpdtepa Eautod, kal eivedOovta KatotKkel 


> fon ‘ s ” los > , 2 , , ~ 
éxet* Kal ylverat Ta Ecxata Tod dvOpdmou exeivou yxelpova Tov m 


TPWTWY. 


EYATTEAION 


oUTws EotTat kat TH yeved TaUTH TH Trovnpa. 


193 


45. TéTe Topevetat kal ™ mapadapBdver peO” Eautod 1 Lk. xi. 25. 


Ch. xxiil. 
29 (of 
tombs). 
Ch. xvii. 


I. 
46. “Ett 8é! n compar. 
here and 


autod Aahodvtos Tots SxAots, iBod, H pyTHP Kal of GdeAdot adrod in Lk. xi. 


eiatyKetoay Ew, °Lytodvtes abtG hahyoat. 


‘180d, } pTHP gou kal ot GSedpot gou fw éotHKaar, Lytodrtés 


vou Aadijoa.” . 


? ¢ , M ‘ , oN < a5 d , ae 
fore 7) ptjTNp pou; Kal Tlyes Elaly ot GdeAdot pou ; 


ietetvas THY XElpa adTod * 


uaTp pou Kal of ddeApot pou. 


c ‘ ~ ~ 
48. “O 8é daroxpibeis ele TO eimdyte § attd, “Tis 


\\ A 
émlt rods pabntas adtod elev, “ISU, 7 


A 26. 

47- etme 8€ tts abTH, o Ch. xxi. 
46. Mk. 
xii. 12. 
Lk. v. 18. 
John v. 18 
(with inf. 
= to en- 
deavour), 


49. Kat 


50. Sotis yap Gy trotjon TO OAnpa 


rod Tatpds pou Tod év oupuvois, adtés pou adeApds Kal GdeAp7 Kal 


untnp éotiv.” 
188B omit 8¢ (Tisch., W.H.). 


2 The whole of ver. 47 is wanting in NBT. and is omitted by W.H. Tisch. puts 


it within brackets. 
3 Neyovtt in BBDZ. 
“8D omit avtov (Tisch.). 


what period was in His thoughts, unless 
ve find one in the epithet potyadls 
(ver. 39), which recalls prophetic charges 
of unfaithfulness to her Divine Husband 
against Israel, and points to the exile as 
the crisis at which she seriously re- 
pented of that sin. It is not at all likely 
that Christ’s view was limited to the 
period dating from John’s ministry. 
Moral laws need large spaces of time for 
adequate exemplification. The most in- 
structive exemplification of the degene- 
racy described is supplied by the period 
from Ezra till Christ’s time. With Ezra 
ended material idolatry. But from that 
period dates the reign of legalism, which 
issued in Rabbinism, a more subtle and 
pernicious idolatry of the letter, the 
more deadly that it wore the fair aspect 
of zeal for God and righteousness. 

Vv. 46-50. The relatives of Fesus 
(Mk. iii. 31-35; Lk. vili. 19-21). 
Matthew and Mark place this incident 
in connection with the discourse occa- 
sioned by Pharisaic calumny. Luke 
gives it in a quite different connection. 
The position assigned it by Matthew 
and Mark is at least fitting, and through 
it one can understand the motive. Not 
vanity: a desire to make a parade of 
their influence over their famous relative 
on the part of mother and brethren 
(Chrys., Theophy., etc.), but solicitude 
on His account and a desire to extricate 
Him from trouble. This incident should 


It is an explanatory vloss. 


BC retain it (W.H. within brackets), 


be viewed in connection with the state- 
ment in Mk. iii. 21 that friends thought 
Jesus beside Himself. They wished to 
rescue Him from Himself and from men 
whose ill-will He had, imprudently, 
they probably thought, provoked.—Ver. 
46. a8eAdol, brothers in the natural 
sense, sons of Mary by Joseph? Pre- 
sumably, but an unwelcome hypothesis 
to many on theological grounds.— 
elorjxetoay, pluperfect, but with sense 
of imperfect (Fritzsche). They had 
been standing by while Jesus was speak- 
ing.—é&w, on the outskirts of the crowd, 
or outside the house into which Jesus 
entered (Mk. iii. 19).—Ver. 47 (wanting 


in ${BL) states what is implied in ver. 


48 (7@ A€yovtt), that some one reported 
to Jesus the presence of His relatives. — 
Ver. 48. tls éoriv % pyTHp pov. One 
might have expected Jesus, out of deli- 
cacy, to have spoken only of His 
brethren, leaving the bearing of the 
question on His mother to be inferred. 
But the mention of her gave increased 
emphasis to the truth proclaimed. The 
question repels a well-meant but ignorant 
interference of natural affection with the 
sovereign claims of duty. It reveals a 
highly strung spirit easily to be mistaken 
for a morbid enthusiasm.—Ver. 49. 
éxtetvas 7. x-: an eloquent gesture, 
making the words following, for those 
present, superfluous.—i8ov, etc. There 


13 


194 


a Ch. xxvii. 
62. 


KATA MATOAION 


XIII. 


XIII. 1. "EN S€! rH pépa exewy efehOdv 6 "Inoods dad? tis 


iv. 1; vi. olxlas éxdOyTo mapa Thy Odhaccay: 2. kal *our}xOnoav mpds adrov 


30; Vii. 


I 
(with mpds OxAOL ToAol, Hote adtdv eis 7° moioy epBavra Kabijoba: Kai 


Tivah. 


' NB omit Se, which the ancient revisers seem to have inserted regularly as a 


transitional particle. 


2 N9Z have ex (Tisch.). 
margin). 
3 NBCLZZ omit ro. 


are idealists, promoters of pet schemes, 
and religious devotees whom it would 
cost no effort to speak thus; not an ad- 
mirable class of people. It did cost 
Jesus an effort, for He possessed a 
warm heart and unblighted natural 
affections. But He sacrificed natural 
affection on the altar of duty, as He 
finally sacrificed His life.—Ver. 50. 
Definition of spiritual kinsmanship. The 
highest brotherhood based on spiritual 
affinity.—_3orTts yap av woijoy: a general 
present supposition expressed by the sub- 
junctive with av followed by present in- 
dicative.—r6 @éAnpa tr. watpds p. T. ev 
ovpavois: this probably comes nearest to 
Christ’s actual words. Insuch a solemn 
utterance He was likely to mention His 
Father, whose supreme claims His filial 
heart ever owned. Mark has ‘ the will 
of God”’’; Luke ‘‘ those who hear and 
do the word of God ’’—obviously second- 
ary. 
ane XIII. Jesus TEACHING IN 
PARABLES. The transition from the 
sultry, sombre atmosphere of chap. xii. 
into the calm, clear air of Christ’s 
parabolic wisdom would be as welcome 
to the evangelist as it is to us. Yet even 
here we do not altogether escape the 
shadow of unbelief or spiritual insus- 
ceptibility. We read of much good seed 
wasted, bad seed sown among good, fish 
of all sorts caught in the net. The 
adoption of the parabolic method of 
teaching, indeed, had its origin in part 
in disappointing experiences; truths 
misapprehended, actions misunderstood, 
compelling the Teacher to fall back on 
natural analogies for explanation and 
self-defence. Al! the synoptists recog- 
nise the importance of this type of teach- 
ing by their formal manner of introducing 
the first of the group of seven parables 
contained in Matthew’s collection. Cf. 
Miseexiti-es)s Mk: - vino Slekoavii. wae 
Matthew’s way of massing matter of the 
same kind most effectually impresses us 
with the significance of this feature in 
Christ’s teaching ministry. That Jesus 


B has neither ex nor avo (W.H. omit amo and have ex in 


spoke all the seven parables grouped 
together in this chapter at one time is 
not certain or even likely. In the cor- 
responding section Mark gives only two 
of the seven (Sower and Mustard Seed). 
Luke has the Sower only. The Sower, 
the Tares, and the Drag net may have 
formed a single discourse, as very closely 
connected in_ structure and import. 
Perhaps we should rather say had a 
place in the discourse from the boat, 
which seems to have been a review of 
the past ministry of Jesus, expressing 
chiefly disappointment with the result. 
Much besides parables would be spoken, 
the parables being employed to point the 
moral: much seed, little fruit, and yet 
a beginning made destined to grow; the 
situation to be viewed with patience and 
hope. Just how many of the parables 
reported by the evangelists were spoken 
then it is impossible to determine. 

Vv. 1-9. The Parable of the Sower 
(Mk. iv. 1-9; Lk. viii. 4-8). Ver. 1. 
év TH NEp@ Exeivp. The parable stands 
in the same connection in Mark (not in 
Luke), but not as following in immediate 
temporal sequence. No stress should 
be laid on Matthew’s phrase ‘‘on that 
day ’’.—éfeA0av ris olkias: the house 
in which Jesus is supposed to have been 
when His friends sought for Him, 
though Matthew makes no mention of 
it (vide Mk. iii. 19).—éxa@yto: as at 
the teaching on the hill (v. 1), suggestive 
of lengthened discourse. The Teacher 
sat, the hearers stood.—Ver. 2. 6yxAou 
modXot, great numbers of people in all 
the accounts, compelling the Teacher to 
withdraw from the shore into the sea, 
and, sitting in a boat, to address the 
people standing on the margin. Much 
interest, popularity of the Teacher still 
great, and even growing; yet He has 
formed a very sober estimate ofits value, 
as the parable following shows.—Ver. 34 
év wapaBodais: this method of teaching 
was not peculiar to Jesus—it was 
common among Easterns—but His use 
of it was unique in felicity and in the 





1— 10, 


was 6 dxXos emt Tov Patytaddv elotHKeL. 


EYAITEAION 195 


or *. b ver. 48. 
3. kat é\dAnoev adtots yopniaet 


MONAG év “apaPodats, Aéywr, “180d, ef AOev 6 omrelpwy Tod omretperv. 4, Acts 


xxi. 5; 


4. kal év 70 ometpe adtov, & pev Emece Tapa tiv Sddv- Kal Oe! rate 39: 


d 


1a wWerewd, Kal “xatéhayey add. 


5: GANa Be Ewecey emi Ta cfrequentin 
Gospp. 


*aetpwdn, Smou ovk elxe yy wohAjy: Kat eb0dws eavérerde, rd Td and in 


A 


Sid TS py Exew Pillay, * eEnpdvOy. 


eb. ix. 


g Qos? yas° HAtou Sé dvateth té io i, 9} xi. 19. 
. oO € VATELAGVTO EKQAULATLO ; 9 
py) EXELV Bados ys 6 Art U Ss be N> RG k 


. XV. 30. 


7. GAAa Sé Eewecey emt tag Johnii.17. 


e ver. 20. 


dxdvOas, kat dvéByoay at dxavOa, Kat darémufav® adtd. 8. adda Mk. iv. 5, 


16. 
Sé érecev emi Thy yqv Thy Kadyy, Kal €di50u kapmdv, o pev éxatdy, f Mk. iv. 6. 


& S€ é&jKovta, 6 S€ TpidkovTa. 


Rev. xvi. 


g. 6 €xwv Gta dkovew * dkoudTw.” 8, 9. 


10. Kal mpooeAOdrtes of pabytal etwov adtw, “ Avati év wapaBoXais ~ 19, 20 


as. i. II. 


1B has eMovra ta werewa xatepayev, which W.H. put in the text, placing nAQov 


7. w. kat in the margin. 
2 B has tys before yys. 


8 49D have emvitay (Tisch.). BCZ£ al. and many min. have awervigay (W.H. 


with emvigay in margin). 


4S8BL omit axoverv, which comes from parall. 


importance of the lessons conveyed. 
Abstract a priori definitions of the word 
serve little purpose; we learn best what 
a parable is, in the mouth of Jesus, by 
studying the parables He spoke. Thence 
we gather that to speak in parables 
means to use the familiar in nature or in 
human life (in the form of a narrative or 
otherwise) to embody unfamiliar truths 
of the spiritual world. 

Vv. 3-9. The Parable.—Ver. 3. 6 
ome(pwv: either 6 generic, or the Sower 
of my story.—rov orefpewv: the infinitive 
of purpose with the genitive of article, 
very frequent in N. T. and in late Greek. 
—Ver. 4. wapa thy 686v: not the 
highway, of which there were few, but 
the footpath, of which there were many 
through or between the fields.—Ver. 5. 
él Ta wetpwdy, upon shallow ground, 
where the rock was near the surface (ovx 
elyev syqv wodAyy).—Ver. 6. éxavpa- 
ria @n, it was scorched (by the sun) (cf. 
Rev. xvi. 8), which had made it spring 
earliest: promptly quickened, soon 
killed.—Ver. 7. @mwi Tas akdvas. 
Fritzsche prefers the reading éis because 
the seed fell not on thorns already 
sprung up, but on ground full of thorn 
seeds ox roots. But the latter idea, 
which is the true one, can be expressed 
also by émi.—avéBnoav: the thorns 
sprang up as well as the corn, and grow- 
ing more vigorously gained the upper 
hand.—érvigay. Euthy. Zig. finds this 


idea in avefneayv, for which he gives as 


synonym teplayvoav.—Ver. 8. Kadi, 
genuinely good land free from all the 
faults of the other three: soft, deep, 
clean.—é8{Sov, yielded. In other texts 
(iii. 8, 10; vii. 17) qwovetw is used.— 
éxatév, éfyjkovta, tpidxovta: all satis- 
factory; 30 good, 60 better, roo best 
(Gen. xxvi. 12).—Ver. 9. 6 €ywv Ota ax. 
ax. An invitation to think of the hidden 
meaning, or rather a hint that there was 
such a meaning. The description of the 
land in which the sower carried on his 
operations would present no difficulties 
to the hearers: the beaten paths, the 
rocky spots, the thorny patches were all 
familiar features of the fields in Palestine, 
and the fate of the seed in each case was 
in accordance with common experience. . 
But why paint the picture? What is 
the moral of the story? That Jesus left 
them to find out. 

Vv. 10-17. The disciples ask an ex- 
planation, There is some difficulty in 
forming a clear idea of this interlude. 
Who asked? The Twelve only, or they 
and others with them, as Mark states 
(iv. 10)? And when? Immediately 
after the parable was spoken, or, as was 
more likely, after the teaching of the day 
was over? The onecertain point is that 
an explanation was asked and given.— 
Ver. 10. Stari év mapaPodats: Matthew 
makes the question refer to the method 
of teaching, Mark and Luke to the 
meaning of the parables spoken. The 
two questions were closely connected, 


196 


Aadets adrots ;” 


KATA MATOAION 


IBD 


11. “O 8é daroxpiBels elev adtois, ““Or. dpiv 


SéSorar yvovar ta puotypia THS Bacelas Tay odpavady, éxeivors Se 


od Sédorat. 


12. dots yap exe, SoOjoerar adtd Kal meprocevdy}- 


getat’ otis BE odx Exel, Kal 6 Exel, GpOyjoeTar dm adtod. 13. 
h Gal. vi. 2. 81d Todro €v mapaBodats adtois Aah, Ste Bdémovtes od PArouc, 


Phil. ii. 30. 


. >. ‘ , > > , > 4 ~ 
iActsxxviil. kal GkoUovtes obK dKovouaw, obdé cuvLtodat. 


27 


14. Kal ® dvamdnpodra 


jActs xxviii. é’ } adrots 4) mpopyteta “Hoatou, i Aéyouca, ‘’AKo# dkovvere, Kal 


27. 
k Acts 
XXVili. 27. 


od ph curate: Kal Bdéwovres Bdépere, kal od pi) tine. 15. 


IMk. iv. 12.‘ €raxdvOn yap  Kapdia tod Aaod Todrou, kal tots dot 4 Bapéws 


Lk. xxii. 


32. Acts 7/Kougay, Kal Tods dpOahpods adTay 


ili. 19; 


Ki n3s.: 7 , » ~ 
EKGU BUT GY = fA1) TOTE ‘Swot TOLS 


a“ . a ‘ , ‘ ~ ~ 
xxviii. 27 6Badpots, Kal Tois @olv dkodcwo., Kai TH Kapdia cuvda1, Kat 


(absol. = 
reform). 


‘émotpépwot, kal idowpar ? 


> (ae) 
aQuTous. 


16. “Ypav Sé pakdptor ot 


1 $3BC omit emt, which may have been added by the grammarians to make the 


const. clearer. 
2 .agopat in most uncials. 


and both doubtless in the minds of the 
disciples. A more serious difficulty 
arises in connection with Christ’s answer 
to their question, which seems to say 
that He adopted the parabolic method in 
order to hide the truths of the kingdom 
from unspiritual minds. Nothing is 
more certain than that Jesus neither did 
nor could adopt any such policy, and if 
the evangelists ascribed it to Him, then 
we should have no alternative but to 
agree with those who, like Holtzmann 
(H. C.) and Jiilicher (Die Gleichinissveden 
Fesu, pp. 131, 149, vide also his 
Einleitung in das N. T., p. 228), main- 
tain that the evangelists have mistaken 
His meaning, reading intention in the 
light of vesult. It is much better to 
impute a mistake to them than an in- 
human purpose to Christ. 

Ver. II. 7a pvotypia: the word, as 
here used, might suggest the idea of a 
mysterious esoteric doctrine concerning 
the Kingdom of God to be taught only to 
a privileged inner circle. But the term 
in the N. T. means truths once hidden 
now revealed, made generally known, 
and in their own nature perfectly in- 
telligible. So, e.g., in Eph. iii. 9, Col. i. 
26. Jesus desired to make the truths of 
the kingdom of God known to all; by 
parables if they could not be understood 
otherwise. His aim was to enlighten, 
not to mystify.—Ver. 12. This moral 
apothegm is here given only in Matt. 
It contains a great truth, whether spoken 
or not on this occasion. For the con- 
struction, vide at x. 14.—tepiooevOy- 
oetat: again in Mt. xxv. 29, where 


Reading of T.R. in XA, 


the saying is repeated. This use of the 
passive in a neuter sense belongs to late 
Greek.—Ver. 13. 81a totro 671. Mark 
and Luke have fva, the former assigning 
a reason, the latter ascribing a purpose. 
In Matt. Jesus says: I speak in parables 
because seeing they do not see, etc. ; 
which ought naturally to mean: they are 
dull of apprehension, therefore I do my 
best to enlighten them.—Vy. 14, 15. 
The prophetic citation, given as such by 
Matthew only, may be due to him, though 
put into the mouth of Jesus. It is con- 
ceivable, however, that Jesus might use 
Isaiah’s words in Isaiah’s spirit, t.e., 
ironically, expressing the bitter feeling 
of one conscious that his best efforts to 
teach his countrymen would often end 
in failure, and in his bitterness repre- 
senting himself as sent to stop ears and 
blind eyes. Such utterances are not to 
be taken as deliberate dogmatic teach- 
ing. If, as some allege, the evangelists 
so took them, they failed to understand 
the mind of the Master. The quotation 
exactly follows the Sept. The verb 
Koppvw (ver. 15, ékdppvoav) is con- 
demned by Phryn. as barbarous, the 
right word being xatapvew.—Vv., 16, 17. 
In Mk. (iv. 13) Jesus reproaches the 
disciples for their ignorance; here He 
congratulates them on their faculty of 
seeing and hearing (spiritually).—ipov: 
in emphatic position, suggesting contrast 
between disciples and the muititude.— 
akdp.ot, vide on chap. v. 3.—6tt BA., 
ecause, not for what, they see.—dpny 
yap Aé€yw: introducing an important 
statement.—mpodpjrat kat Sikaror, same 


II—20. 


SbOarpot, Ste BA€rrovet: Kal Ta Gra Spar, Stu dxover.? 


EYATTEAION 


197 


17. &prv 


yap héyw piv, Ste wodot mpopfjrar Kal Sikaror éweOdpyoav idetv & 


/ ‘ > s ‘\ > lel 
Bdérrete, kal obx eidov- Kal dkovcar 


18. ‘Ypets obv dxovoare Thy mapaBodyy Tod omelpovtos.° 


a > , ‘ > ” 
Q@ QKOUETE, KL OUK 1)KOUOGY, 


1g. Navrés 


> t? a 4 ~ , ‘ x , ” c 
d&kovovtos Tov Adyov THS Pactdelas Kat ph ouMevTOS, EpyeTar 6 


Tovnpés, kal ™dpmdte. To eomappévov év TH kapdia abtod: obTds m Acts viii. 


éotw 6 Tapa Thy Od6v oTapels. 
obTés éotiv 6 Tov Adyov dKodwy, Kal 


1 B omits vpev (bracketed in W.H.). 
2 axovover in NBCDXE. 
* ometpavtos in NBX.33- 


OWE LpOVTOS 
combination as in x. 41. The felicity 
now consists in the things seen and 
heard. The perceiving senses and the 
things to be perceived imply each other, 
neither by themselves yield enjoyment. 
This passage is given by Lk. (x. 23, 24) 
in a more suitable connection (report on 
their mission by the Seventy). Here it 
creates an exaggerated impression as 
to the extent of the new departure. 
The parabolic teaching of Jesus, as 
exemplified in the Sower and other 
parables here collected, was not an 
absolutely new feature. He had always 
been speaking more or less in parables 
(‘‘ Fishers of Men,” iv. 19; ‘‘ Salt of the 
Barth. iCitysOnwalrl av. Tssutals 
‘““Two Builders,’’ vii. 24-27; ‘‘ Whole 
need not a Physician,” ix. 12; “New 
Garment and New Wine,” ix. 16, 17, 
etc.). Some of the parables in this 
connection, the Treasure and the Pearl, 
e.g., may be gems preserved from some 
otherwise forgotten synagogue dis- 
courses, say those delivered in the 
preaching tour through Galilee. 

Vv. 18-23. Interpretation of the Sower 
(Mk. iv. 14-20; Lk. viii. 11-15). Ver. 18. 
tpets, emphatic, ye privileged ones.— 
ovv referring to the happiness on which 
they have been congratulated.—Ver. 15. 
a&kovoate T. m.: not, hear it over again, 
but, what it means.—o7etpavrTos, aorist, 
of the man who sowed in the story just 
told.—Ver. 19. wavrds akovovtos, in 
the case of any one who hears, ‘for the 
classical é4v tis dxovoy ” (Camb. G. T.). 
It may be a case of interrupted construc- 
tion, the sentence beginning with the 
intention to make the genitive de- 
pendent on an ék tis Kapdias before 
apmdter (so Weiss).—tov Adyov THs Ba- 
goireias: the Sower, unlike the other 
parables in this chapter, contains no 
hint that it concerns the kingdom. But 


20. ‘O 8 émi Ta TeTPUdH oTTApeEis, 


eJO0s peta xapas AapPdvwv 


GKkovet a grammatical correction (neut. pl. nom. wra). 


conforms to ver. 3. 


in Christ’s discourses that almost went 
without saying.—py ovvievtos: “not 
taking it in,” a phrase which happily 
combines the physical fact of the parable 
with the figurative sense.—6 wovypés, 
the evil one, Satan, represented by the 
innocent birds of the parable. What a 
different use of the emblem from that in 
vi. 26 |—év tq kapdia: we should hardly 
say of truth not understood that it had 
been sown in the heart. But heart is 
used in Scripture in a wide sense, as the 
seat of intellect as well as of feeling. 
The word in the case supposed is in the 
mind, as the seed is in the ground: on 
it, if not in it; in it as words, if not as 
truth.—otrés éoriv, etc., this is he 
sown, etc., said of the man, not of the 
seed. Sign and thing signified iden- 
tified, cf. ‘this is my body”. Properly, 
the seed sown, etc., represents the case 
of such a man, So throughout the in- 
terpretation.—Ver. 20. pera xapas h.: 
this is the new feature in the second type 
added to the hearing of the first ; hearing 
and receiving with joy characteristic of 
quick emotional shallow natures, but not 
of them only. Deep earnest natures 
also have joy in truth found, but with a 
difference.—Ver. 21. ovx €yer: instead 
of the participle €ywv under the influence 
of Mk.’s text (Weiss).—mpéoKatpos, tem- 
porary, cf. 2 Cor. iv.18.—Ver. 22. a&kovwv, 
hearing alone predicated of the third 
type, but receiving both intellectually 
and emotionally implied; everything 
necessary present except purity of heart, 
singleness of mind. Hearing is to be 
taken here in a pregnant sense as distinct 
from the hearing that is no hearing (ver. 
13).—eptpvaT, a.,arary 7. 7.: together 
= worldliness. Lust for money and 
care go together and between them 
spoil many an earnest religious nature. 
——Gkapmog may refer either to the man 


198 


KATA MATOAION 


XIII. 


a Mk.iv.17. adrév: 21. ok Exer Be pilav év éautd, &\Ka “apdckatpds eore- 


2 Cor. iv 


18. Heb. yevondvys Se OAlpews 7 Stwypod Sd rdv Adyor, e605 cxavdadiLerar. 


xi. 25. 
o Lk. viii. 
14; xxi. 


‘ ° a 2A , 
34. 2 Cor. Kal  °pépipva tod ai@vos TovTou 


xi. 28. 


p Mk. iv.19. cupmvlyer Tov Aéyoy, Kal dkapros yiverac. 


Eph. iv. 22 


22. ‘O Bé els Tas dxdvOas owapets, obtds eotw 6 Tov Adyor dxodwy, 


L kal 4 ’dardry tod whovTou 


23. ‘O Sé emt thy yi 


ol. ii. 8 THY KaN}Y? oTapets, ObTds €oTy 6 Tdv Adyoy dkodwy Kat curidy §- 


2 Thess. 


ii.ro. Heb. 05 *8H Kapwopopet, kal moet 64 pev éxardv, 6 Se EfjKovra, 6 Se 


iii. 13. 


2 » 
Pet. ii.  TpldKovta. 


(?). f 
q Son acl in Lk. ii. 15. Acts xiii. a; xv. 36. 1 Cor. vi.20. 2 Cor. xii. 1 (?). Heb. ii. 16 (with wou} 


18§BD omit tovtov, which is an explanatory addition of the scribes. 
2 S$BCLAX have em tqv xaXnv yyy instead of the reading in T.R., which echoes 


ver, 8. 
3 cuviers in KBD. 


(Meyer) or to the word (Aéyov just 
before; Bengel, Weiss) ; sense the same. 
There is fruit in this case; the crop does 
not wither in the blade: it reaches the 
green ear, but it never ripens.—Ver. 23. 
a&kovwv kal ovviels. The specific feature 
of the fourth and alone satisfactory type 
is not brought out either in Mt. or in 
Mk. but only in Lk. by his happy 
phrase: év KapS(q Kady Kal dya6p. 
The third type understands (Mt.) and 
receives into the heart (Mk.), but the 
fourth in addition receives into a clean, 
i.e., a ‘good and honest,” heart.—8s 87: 
8% occurs here for the first time in Mt., 
and only a few times altogether in the 
N. T., but always with marked expres- 
siveness. According to Passow and 
Baimlein (Grammatik, § 669, and Unter- 
suchungen tuber G. Partikeln, p. 98), 
connected with 87Aos in origin and 
meaning, and signifying that the thing 
stated is clear, specially important, 
natural in the given circumstances.—és 
8} here = who, observe, or of course. 
Given such conditions, fruitfulness cer- 
tainly results. — kaprodopet, bringeth 
forth fruit such as is desired: ripe, use- 
ful.—é in last clause may be pointed 
either 6 pév, 6 8 (T. R.) or & pev, 6 &e 
(W.H.). Inthe former case the meaning 
is: this man brings forth roo fold, that 
man, etc.; in the latter, 6 is accusative 
neuter after qovet, and refers to the fruit. 
Opinion very much divided, sense the 
same. 

This interpretation of the Sower raises 
two questions: Was it needed? Does it 
really explain the parable? which is in 
effect to ask: Does it proceed from 
Jesus? As to the former: could not 
even the general hearer, not to speak of 


‘ Vide below. 


the Twelve, understand the parable well 
enough? ‘True, no hint that it related 
to the kingdom was given, but, as already 
remarked, that might go without saying. 
Jesus had all along been using similitudes 
explaining His meaning rather than need- 
ing explanation. Then parabolic speech 
was common even in Rabbinical circles, 
a source at once of entertainment and of 
light to hearers. In Mt.’s report the 
disciples do not even ask an explanation, 
so that that given comes on us as a 
surprise (Holtz. in H. C.).  Christ’s 
audience might at least carry away the 
general impression that He was dis- 
satisfied with the result of His ministry, 
in many cases in which His teaching 
seemed to Him like seed cast on unpro- 
ductive places. It might require further 
reflection, more than the majority were 
capable of, to comprehend the reasons 
of failure. Self-knowledge and observa- 
tion of character were needed for this. 
As to the interpretation given, it has 
been objected (Weiss, Jilicher, etc.) 
that it is allegorical in method, and 
that, while going into details as to the 
various persons and things mentioned in 
the parable and their import, it fails to 
give the one main lesson which it, like 
every parable, is designed to teach; in 
short, that we cannot see the wood for 
the trees. As to this it may be remarked: 
(x) There is a tangible difference between 
allegory and parable. Allegory and inter- 
pretation answer to each other part by 
part ; parable and interpretation answer 
to each other as wholes. (2) Christ’s 
parables are for the most part not 
allegories. (3) It does not follow that 
none of them can be. Why should the 
use of allegory be interdicted to Him? 


21—25. 


EYATTEAION 


199 


2.4. "AAny wapaBod}y *wapéOnkey adtois, héywr, “‘Qpowly Hr again ver 
31. 


Bacthela tov odpavay dvOpumw omeipovte! Kahdv oméppa ev TO 


dyp@ adtod- 25. év 8¢ 7G KabedSew Tods dvOpdrous, AAOev adToU Os Mk. vii. 


éxOpds Kal Eowerpe? Lildvia “dvd péoov tod citov, Kat dwOev. 


1 SSBMXANE have otetpavre. 


31. Rev. 
vii. 17. 


2 BND it. vg. several cursives have the compound eweomerpey (Tisch., W.H.). 


May the Sower not be an exception? 
That it is has been ably argued by Feine 
in Fahrbicher fir Prot. Theologie, 1888, 
q- v¥. (4) The exclusion of so-called 
allegorising interpretation may be carried 
to a pedantic extreme in connection with 
all the parables, as it is, indeed, in my 
opinion, especially by Weiss. Thus we 
are told that in the saying ‘“‘the whole 
need not a physician,’ Jesus did not 
mean to suggest that He was a physician 
but only to hint the special claims of a 
class on His attention. But the question 
may be asked in every case: What was 
the genesis of the parable? How did it 
grow in Christ’s mind? The Sower, 
e.g.? Was it not built up of likenesses 
spontaneously suggesting themselves 
now and then; of Himself to a sower, 
and of various classes of hearers to 
different kinds of soil? In that case 
the “allegorical” interpretation is simply 
an analysis of the parable into its genetic 
elements, which, on that view, have more 
than the merely descriptive value assigned 
to them by Weiss. (5) As to missing 
the main lesson amid details: is it not 
rather given, Eastern fashion, through 
the details: the preaching of the kingdom 
not always successful, failure due to the 
spiritual condition of hearers? That 
is how we Westerns, in our abstract 
generalising way, put it. The Orientals 
conveyed the general through concrete 
particulars. Jesus did not give an 
abstract definition of the Fatherhood of 
God. He defined it by the connections 
in which He used the title Father. That 
Jesus talked to His disciples about the 
various sorts of hearers, their spiritual 
state, and what they resembled, I think 
intrinsically likely. It is another ques- 
tion whether His interpretation has 
been exactly reproduced by any of the 
Synoptists. 

Vv. 24-30. The Tares. This parable 
has some elements in common with that 
in Mk. iv. 26-29, whence the notion of 
many critics that one of the two has been 
formed from the other. As to which is 
the original, opinion is much divided. 
(Vide Holtz., H.C.) Both, I should say. 


The resemblance is superficial, the lesson 
entirely different—The Sower describes 
past experiences ; the Tares is prophetic 
of a future state of things. But may 
it not be a creation —f apostolic times 
put into the mouth of Jesus? No, 
because (1) it is too original and wise, 
and (2) there were beginnings of the 
evil described even in Christ’s lifetime. 
Think of a Judas among the Twelve, 
whom Jesus treated on the principle laid 
down in the parable, letting him remain 
among the disciples till the last crisis. 
It may have been his presence among 
the Twelve that suggested the parable. 
Ver. 24. wapéOyxev, again in ver. 31, 
usually of food, here of parable as 2 
mental entertainment; used with refer- 
ence to Jaws in Ex. xxi. 1, Deut. iv. 44. 
—dpo.d0n, aorist used proleptically for 
the future ; cf. 1 Cor. vii. 28.—avOparg, 
likened to a man, inexactly, for: “to 
the experience of a man who,” etc., 
natural in a popular style.—omefpavtt, 
aorist because the seed had been sown 
when the event of the parable took place. 
—kahoy, good, genuine, without mixture 
of other seeds.— Ver. 25. év T@ kabevderv 
= during the night—a. 6 éy@pos, his 
enemy. Weiss (Matt.-Evang., 347) thinks 
this feature no part of the original parable, 
but introduced to correspond with the 
interpretation (ver. 39), no enemy being 
needed to account for the appearance of 
the ‘‘tares,”’ which might grow then as 
now from seed lying dormant in the 
ground. Christ’s parables usually com- 
ply with the requirements of natural 
probability, but sometimes they have to 
depart from them to make the parable 
answer to the spiritual fact; e.g., when 
all the invited are represented as refusing 
to come to the feast (Lk. xiv. 16-24). 
The appearance of the ‘‘tares’”’ might 
be made a preternatural phenomenon 
out of regard to the perfect purity of the 
seed, and the great abundance of bad 
men in a holy society. A few scattered 
stalks might spring up in a natural 
way, but whence so many ?—étréo7retpev, 
deliberately sowed over the wheat seed 
as thickly as if no other seed were there. 


200 


t Mk. iv. 27. 
Heb. ix. 4. 


Jas. v. 8. Kat Ta Cildvia. 


KATA MATOAION 


26. dre 8é ‘€BAdotyoEv 6 ydpros, Kal 
27. mpocehOdvres BE 


XITI. 


kaptov éroinae, rote epdvy 


ot So0X0t Tod olKodeardToOU 


elroy atT@, Kupte, otxt Kaddv oméppa eomerpas ev TH o@ Aypo; 


md0ev obv Exec Ta? Lildvia ; 


Tos TOUTO erroinger. 


28. “O S8€ Epn adrots, "ExOpds avOpw- 


ot Sé Boddot etov adtG,? Odderg obv darehOdvTes 


ou\hébwpev aditd; 29. “O 8€ Epy,® OU- pHmote cudhhéyovtes TA 


u Ch. xv. 13. 
Lk. xvii. 6. 
dade 12. 

v here and 
in ver. 39. 

w here and 
in Exod. 
xii. 22. 


tots “@epictats, Ludddgare 


eis Thy diroOAKyy Lov.” 


Guddtepa pexpet tod Oepiopod~ Kat év TH 


{ifdvea, “expiLdonte dpa abtois Tov aitov. 30, adere cuvausdvecOar 


5 a a 0 aA 3A 
KaLtpwW TOU VEPLOPOU EPW 


mpatovy Ta tifdvia, Kat Syoate adTa 


eis © * Séopras wpds TO KaTakadoat ai’td: Tov dé GiToy cuvaydyere ' 


1 The art. ra in T.R. (S¥LUX) is wanting in S{bBCD al. 
2B omits SovAor (W.H.) and BC have avrw Aeyovow for evrov avrw (T.R.). 


WD have Aey. avtw (Tisch.). 
5 dynow in NBC. 


4 BD have-ews, which W.H. adopt, putting ayo: and pexpe in margin. 
5 rw (in SCL) is omitted in most uncials. 

8 evs omitted in LXA and bracketed in W.H. 

7 B has ovvayete (W.H. with cvvayayere in margin). 


—{.ldvia = bastard wheat, darnel, lolium 


temulentum, common in Palestine (Furrer, 


Wanderungen, p. 293), perhaps a Semitic 
word. Another name for the plant in 
Greek is atpa (Suidas, Lex.).—Ver. 26. 


rére éhavy: not distinguishable in the 


blade, not till it reached the ear, then 


position, the full phrase is Gpa avy; 
‘cat the same time with,’’ as in 1 Thess. 
iv. 17, v. 10. On this word vide Bos, 
Ellip. Graec., p. 463, and Klotz, Devar., 
ii.97. The roots being intertwined, and 
having a firm hold of the soil, both wheat 
and tares might be pulled up together. 


easily so by the form, the ear branching —Ver.30. ZuAhéfare wpGrov: before or 


out with grains on each twig (Koetsveld, 
De Gelijk., p. 25).—Ver. 27. ovdxix. o. 


Yometpas, etc.: the surprise of the work- 
people arises from the extent of the 


wild growth, which could not be ex- 
plained by bad seed (with so careful a 
master) or natural growth out of an 
unclean soil. The tares were all over 
the field.—Ver. 28. éx@pos Gv.: an 
inference from the state of the field— 
fact not otherwise or previously known,— 
Bérers . . . ovdAAEEwpev, deliberative sub- 
junctive in rst person with 6édcus, 2nd 
person; no tvaused in such case (Burton, 
M.andT.,§171). The servants propose 
to do what was ordinarily done, and is 
done still (vide Stanley, Sinai and Pales- 
tine, p. 426, and Furrer, Wanderungen, 
293: ‘‘men, women and children were 
in many fields engaged in pulling up 
the weeds,” in which he includes ‘‘ den 
Lolch”). — Ver. 29. ov, emphatic; 
laconic ‘‘no,” for good reason.—py- 
mote: the risk is that wheat and 
“‘tares’’ may be uprooted together.— 
apa, with dative (avtotcs) but not a pre- 


after cutting down the crop? Not said 
which; order of procedure immaterial, 
for now the wheat is ripe.—8yoarte els 
Séopas; the eis, omitted in some MSS., 
is not necessary before a noun of same 
meaning with the verb. Fritzsche thinks 
the expression without preposition more 
elegant. Meyer also omits, with appeal 
to Kihper on verbs with double accusa- 


tives. his parable embodies the great 
principle of Ea men being elec for, 
the sake of the good. Jt relegates to the 
end the judgment which the con = 
~Sraries OF Jesus including the Baptist, 


P 
eginning oi the Messianic 


kingdom (Weiss-Meyer). 

Vv. 31-35. The Mustard Seed and the 
Leaven (Lk. xiii. 18-21 (both); Mk. iv. 
30-32 (Mustard Seed)). A couplet of 
brief parables of brighter tone than the 
two already considered, predicting great 
extensive and intensive development of 
the Kingdom of God; from Luke’s narra- 
tive (xiii. 10), apparently part of a 
synagogue discourse. __It is intrinsically 
probable that Jesus in all His addresses 


26—-35. 


- c la A 
31. “ANAny tapaBohhyy wapeOnKey atrois, héyar, “ Opora éoT 
4) Baotlela T&v odpavay *KdKK@ owvdzeEws, ov AaBav Gv8pwrros 
» > AL lol 2 ra é , , > , ~ 
ometpev év TH Gyp@ aiToG: 32. 6 pixpoTepoy pev eoTL TaYTWY THY 
~ aA ~ , A , 
omreppdtwv: Gtay Se avénOq, petlov Tov ” haxdvwy éoTt, kat ylveTat 


a A A A nw 
SévBpov, ote edOciy TA weTewad TOO odpavol, kal "KaTagKnvouY 


Tos KAASoLs AUTON.” 


33- “AAnv wapaPodhy edddyoev adrois,?“““Opota éotiy 7 Bactdela 2. 


Tav otpavav *Lupn, qv "AaBovoa yuri) evéxpupey eis d\evpou odta 


” 
tpla, €ws ob °eLundOn odov. 


34. Taira wdvta éhddyoev 6 “Inoods év mapaBohats Tots dx)ots, 
kal xwpls mapaBodjs odk® ehdder adrois: 35. Smus mAnpwb TO 15. 
An Oev Sid tod mpodyjrou, Aéyorros, ‘*Avolgw ev mapaBodais 76 ordpa 
pou: épedgopar kexpuppdva dad KataBodijs Kdopou.* 


b same use of word in ver. 31. 


1 kataoKyvow in BD. 


EYALTEAION 


201 


x Ch. xvii. 
20. Lk. 
xvii. 6 
(same 
phrase). 
John xii. 
24. 1 Cor. 
Xv. 37 (the 

1 2) word). 

y Mk. iv. 32. 
Lk. xi. 42. 
Rom. xiv, 


z parall. 
Acts ii. 26 
(Ps. ciii. 
(iv.) 12). 

a Ch. xvi. 6, 
IT, 12. 

k. vill. 
Lk. 

xii. I (fig.). 

x Cor. v-6. 

Gal. v. 9 

(proverb- 

ially). 


cr Cor. v.6. Gal. v. 9. 


2D, Syr. Sin. and Cur. omit eA. avtous. W.H. bracket. 


3 ovdev in p8BCA; ove in Mk. iv. 34, hence here in T.R. 


4B (and $$) omits koopov. 
omission in B is an oversight. 


in the synagogue and to the people used 
more or less the parabolic method. To 
this extent it may be literally true that 
“without a parable spake He not unto 
them ”’ (ver. 34). 

Ver. 31. owamews: from clvam, 
late for vamrv in Attic, which Phryn. re- 
commends to be used instead (Lobeck, 
288).—Ver, 32. 6, neuter, by attraction 
of omepparwv, instead of év in agree- 
ment with kéxkw, masculine. — pixpé- 
zepov, not less perhaps than all the seeds 
in the world. An American correspondent 
sent me a sample of the seeds of the 
cotton tree, which he thinks Christ would 
have made the basis of His parable had 
He spoken it in America.—peifov tov 
Aaydvwv, greater than (all) the herbs. 
The comparison implies that it too is 
an herb. There would be no point in 
the statement that a plant of the nature 
of a tree grew to be greater than all 
garden herbs. This excludes the mus- 
tard tree, called Salvadora Persica, to 
which some have thought the parable 
reiers,—SévSpoy, not in nature but in 
size; an excusable exaggeration in a 
popular discourse. Koetsveld remarks 
on the greatly increased growth attained 
by a plant springing from a single seed 
with plenty of room all round it (De 
Gelijk., p. 50).—®ote here indicates at 
once tendency and result, large enough 
to make that possible, and it actually 
happened. The birds haunted the plant 


Somhisches vv als 


Weiss suggests that the 


like a tree or shrub. Mark refers only 
to the possibility (iv. 32).—Karacknvovy 
(cf. karaoKnvaecets, viii. 20), not nidulari, 
to make nests (Erasmus), but to “ lodge,”’ 
asin A. V. The mustard plant is after 
all of humble size, and gives a very 
modest idea of the growth of the king- 
dom. But it serves admirably to ex. 
press the thought of a growth beyond ex- 
pectation, Who would expect so tiny a 
seed to produce such a large herb, a 
monster in the garden ?—Ver. 33. Gpota 
... Copy, like in respect of pervasive 
influence. In Rabbinical theology leaven 
was used as an emblem of evil desire 
(Weber, p. 221). Jesus had the courage 
to use it as an emblem of the best thing 
in the world, the Kingdom of God coming 
into the heart of the individual and the 
community.—évéxpuwev, hid by the pro- 
cess of kneading.—éws ob éLupaby: ews 
with the indicative, referring to an 
actual past occurrence. 

Both these parables show how 
thoroughly Jesus was aware that great 
things grow from minute beginnings. 
How different His idea of the coming of 
the kingdom, from the current one of a 
glorious, mighty empire coming suddenly, 
full grown! Instead of that a mustard 
seed, a little leaven ! 

Vv. 34, 35 contain a reflection more 
suitable for the close of the collection of 
parables in this chapter, brought in here 
apparently because the evangelist has 


202 KATA MATOAION XIII. 
36. Tére &deis Tods dxAous, HAOEv els Thy oikiavy 6 "Ingods!+ Kai 
wpooqABov adt@ ot pabytai adtod, héyovres, “pdoov? piv yy 
wapaBohty tov {iLaviwy tod dypod.” 37. ‘O Sé droxpibels etrrev 
adtots,® “‘O omeipwy 7d Kahdv omréppa éotiv 6 vids Tod dvOparrou « 
d same 38. 6 8€ dypds eorw 6 Kdopos: Td S€ Kaddv oméppa, obo! {eiow ot 
phrase in = ~ a « 
Ch. viii. lol THS Bacitelas> Ta S€ LiLdvid ciow ot ulol Tod movnpod: 39. 6 

12. , c 
ever.49. 8€ €xOpds 6 omeipas adtd éotiv 6 SidBodos: 6 S€ Bepropds *® ouvtéhera 
Ch, xxiv. nial Bian OF © gy Nae wee ¢ + 
3; xxviii, TOO * aldvds éotiw~ ot S€ Bepiotai Gyyehot eiow. 40. domep ody 
20. Heb. ‘ ‘ , @ » > in 
ix.26, @UAA€yeTat TA Lildvia, Kal Tupi KaTakalerat oUTws EoTaL ev TH 
cuvteXela TOU aid@vos TovTou.2 41. dmoorehet 6 ulds Tod dvOpa7rou 

f Ch. xvi. . 


23; xviii, TOS AyyéAous adtod, kal cudhéfouow ex Tis Bacthetas adtod wavta 


7. Rom. 
xiv. 13. 

g Rev. i. 15; 
ix. 2. 


INSBD omit o |. 
3 SBD omit avrots. 


under his eye Mark’s narrative, in which 
a similar reflection is attached to the 
parable of the mustard seed (iv. 33-34).— 
Ver. 34. xwpls wapaBodjs, etc. : if this 
remark apply to Christ’s popular preach- 
ing generally, then the parables reported, 
like the healing narratives, are only a 
small selection from a large number, a 
fragrant posy culled from the flower 
garden of Christ’s parabolic wisdom.— 
éAddev: imperfect, pointing to a regular 
practice, not merely to a single occasion, 
—Ver. 35. Prophetic citation from Ps. 
Ixxvili. 2, suggested by wapaBodais in 
Sept., second clause, free translation 
from Hebrew.—épevfopar in Sept. for 


DAT in Ps. xix. 2, etc. (not in bexviii. 


2), a poetic word in Ionic form, bearing 
strong, coarse meaning; used in softened 
sense in Hellenistic Greek. Chief value 
of this citation: a sign that the parabolic 
teaching of Jesus, like His healing 
ministry, was sufficiently outstanding to 
call for recognition in this way. 

Vv. 36-43. Interpretation of the Tares. 
Not in Apostolic Document; style that 
of evangelist; misses the point of the 
parable—so Weiss (Matt.-Evang., p. 
351). But if there was any private 
talk between Jesus and the Twelve as to 
the meaning of His parables, this one 
was sure to be the subject of conversa- 
tion. Itis more abstruse than the Sower, 
its lesson deeper, the fact it points to 
more mysterious. The interpretation 
given may of course be very freely re- 
produced.—Ver. 36. dpacov (d.ac- 


27 SB have S:acapygorv. 
“SBD omit Tov. 


Ta ‘okdvSaha Kal tods movodvtas Thy dvoutav, 42. Kat Bahodow 
aitods eis Thy = xdpiwor Tod mupds: éxet Eotat 6 KAavOuds Kat 6 


pacov probably comes from xv. 15. 
5 SSBD omit Tovtov. 


adyoov $B) again in xv. 15: observe 
the unceremonious style of the request, 
indicative of intimate familiar relations. 
Hesychius gives as equivalents for 
dpaler, Serxvver, onpatver, Aéyer, etc.— 
Siacdd. in Deut. i. 5 = make clear, a 
stronger expression.—Ver. 37. 6 onrel- 
pwv: identified here with the Son of man 
(not so in interpretation of Sower),— 
Ver. 38. 6 «dapos, the wide world; uni- 
versalism.—o7réppa, not the word this 
time, but the children of the kingdom. — 
{.Lavia, the sons of the wicked one (rot 
arovnpov, the devil).—Ver..39. ovyrédeva 
aldvos, the end of the world; phrase 
peculiar to this Gospel.—@epioral 
Gyyedot. Weiss thinks this borrowed 
from Mt. xxiv. 31, and certainly not 
original. Perhaps not as a dogmatic 
interpretation, but quite possibly as a 
poetic suggestion.—Ver. 40. This and 
the following verses enlarge on the final 
separation.—Ver. 41. dmoorehet: cf. 
chap. xxiv. 31.—ovAdé£ovow, collect, 
and so separate.—ra oxayvSaka : abstract 
for concrete ; those who create stumbling 
blocks for others.—xat, epexegetical, 
not introducing a distinct class, but ex- 
plaining how the class already referred 
to cause others to stumble.—o.otvras 
7. avopiav: cf. vii. 23, where for tot. 
stands épyaLdépevor. Has dvoptav here the 
technical sense of religious libertinism, 
or the general sense of moral trans- 
gression? Assuming the former alterna- 
tive, some critics find here the sign-mark 
of a later apostolic time.—Ver. 42. éxet 
éotat. etc.; held to be inappropriate 





35—46. 


a ~ 2g 7 
Bpuypos tay d8dyTuv. 
> n~ , ~ A > ~ 
év TH Baorteig Tou watpos abtav. 


> A ~ 
Gypov éxetvov. 


adtoév. 


EYATTEAION 203 
43. TéTe ot Bikaror exAdppoucw ds 6 HAtos 
O éxwv Gra dxovew? dxou€rw. 
44. “Mddw? pola eorly 4 Baciteia tav odpavay Oycaupa 
kekpuppéevw év TO dypd, dv edpdv GvOpwmros Expupe, Kal dd Tis 
~ > ae ‘ 9 » ~8 ‘ , x 
Xapas adrod bmdye, Kal mdvra Soa Exer mwhei,® Kai dyopdle tov 
4; reeaae Sdin F, me ; ar - 4b Rev. xvil 
45- “Mddw dSpota éotly f Baordeia tay odpavay avOpdmw* (4 times). 
h > t A x , a eral Bier i , i John xii. 3. 
épmdpe, Lntodvtt Kadods papyapitas: 46. bs eipwy? eva ‘mohd- ‘x Pet.i.7 
Q N 2 » \ > (compar.). 
Tipov papyapimmy, dweMOdv wémpake mdvta Goa etxe, Kat Hydpacey Cy. Ch. 
XXVi. 7 
(Bapvur.). 


1 $B omit axovetr. 


2 BD omit wadw. 


8 wwher before ravrain 4D. B gives mwdet the same position but omits wavta. 


So W.H. with wavra in margin. 
4 NSB omit. ‘W.H. relegate to margin. 


® evpwr Se in S$BDL verss. (Tisch., W.H.). 


here, because the gnashing of teeth is 
caused by cold, not by fire (Holtz., H. C.); 
appropriate in viii. 12, where the doom 
is rejection into the outer darkness.— 
Ver. 43. ékAdpiovor: vide Dan. xii. 2, 
which seems to be in view; an ex- 
pressive word suggestive of the sun 
emerging from behind a cloud. The 
mixture of good and evil men in this 
world hides the characters of both. 

Vv. 44-53. Three other parables: 
the Treasure, the Pearl, the Net. Ver. 
36 would seem to imply that the 
evangelist took these as spoken only 
to disciples in the house. But as the 
Net is closely connected in meaning 
with the Tarves, it is more probable that 
these parables also are extracts from 
popular discourses of Jesus, which, like 
all the others, would gain greatly if seen 
in their original setting. The Treasure 
and the Pearl would have their fitting 
plate in a discourse on the kingdom of 
God as the highest good (Mt. vi. 33). 
—Ver. 44. év TG Gyp@: the article may 
be generic, indicating the field as the 
locality, as distinct from other places 
where treasures were deposited.—€xpuwpe, 
he hid once more what some one had 
previously hidden; the occurrence 
common, the occasions various.—xapas 
avtov, in his joy rather than through 
joy over it, as many take the genitive, 
though both are admissible. The joy 
natural in a poor peasant; not less so 
the cunning procedure it inspired; 
ethically questionable, but parables are 
not responsible for the morality of their 
characters.—tadyet, wwdet, etc., four 


historic presents one after the other, in 
sympathy with the finder, and with lively 
effect.—wavra éoa:all required for the 
purpose, yet the all might not amount 
to much: the field minus the treasure 
of no great value. Worth while, the 
treasure being a pure gain. The point 
of the parable is that the kingdom of 
heaven outweighs in value all else, 
and that the man who understands 
this will with pleasure part with all. 
It helps to show the reasonableness 
of the sacrifice for the kingdom Jesus 
demanded. 

Ver. 45. épmdpw f. «. wp. A pearl 
merchant who went to the pearl fisheries 
to purchase from the divers, of course 
selecting the best; a connoisseur in 
valuables. —Ver. 46. wohvtusov: precious 
because exceptionally large, well-shaped, 
and pure; such rare, but met with now 
and then.—ameA@oy: he is taken by sur- 
prise, has not as much with him as will 
purchase it on the spot, sees it is worth 
his whole stock, agrees to buy and 
promises to return with the price.— 
mémpaxe, Wyépacev, a perfect with an 
aorist. Not to be disposed of by saying 
that the former is an “ aoristic” perfect 
(Burton, § 88).—qwémpaxe points to 
a momentous step, taken once for all 
and having lasting effects. A great 
venture, a risky speculation. The 
treasure in the field was a sure gain 
for the finder, but it remained to be 
seen what the pearl merchant would get 
for his one pearl. After the sale of his 
stock the purchase of the one pearl was 
a matter of course. In the former of 


204 


j here oniy 
in N.T. 


4 KATA MATOAION 


47- “Tiddw dpola eoriy 4 Baciteia rav odpavav 


XIII. 


coyyvy 


Bry Oeion eis thy Oddacoav, Kai éx mavtds yévous cuvayoyouoy - 
k here only. 48. iv, Gre emAnpdby, “dvaBiBdoartes eri tov aiyaddv, Kal 


‘ kabloartes, ouvédetay ta Kadd eis 'dyyeia,! ra Se campa éfw 


Ad€yet attots 6 
2 


ar. 


/ Siw. CE , , >> 
A€youow aut, “Nat, Kkupte. 


x. 34 
(emcBcB.).  » = i s 

Ihere only €Badov + 49. obtws Eorat év TH ourtedela TOO aidvos: efehedoovTat 
(ayyetor. Hh x ‘ a > ms , 
Ch. xxv, OF Gyyehor, Kal ddhoptotcr Tods Tovnpods ex pécou Tov Sikaiuy, 
4), vide . a a A 
critical 50+ Kat Badodow adtods eis Thy Kdpivoy Tod mupds: éxet €orar 6 
note I. an 

KAavOpds Kai & Bpuypds tov d8dvTwr.” 
> a 9 «< , a , >» 
Ingous,” “ZuvyjkatTe TauTa TavTa ; 

m vide 2. ‘O 8€ eimev attois, “Ata tobTo mas ypappateds ™ paby- 
below and . > \ 72 Ng ie > et > , 
atCh, Teudets eis Thy Bacrhelav® tv obpavdv Spoids éotiv dvOpdtrm 
xxvii. 57. a a a 

7 oixoSeondtn, Sotig exBdANer ek Tod Onoaupod atrod Kewd Kal 
mada.” 
l ayyy in NBC. 2 NBD omit Aeyet a. o. |., also wvpte after vat. 


8 $9BCX have rn Baotdera. The reading in T.R. is a grammatical correction. 


these two parables the Kingdom of 
Heaven appears as the object of a glad 
though accidental finding of a sure 
possession ; in the latter as the object of 
systematic quest and venturesome faith. 
The difference between seekers and 
finders must not be exaggerated. The 
pearl merchant was also a finder. No 
one would set out on a journey to seek 
one unique pearl (Koetsveld). The 
spiritual class he represents are seekers 
after God and wisdom, finders of the 
Kingdom of God, of a good beyond their 
hope. Such seekers, however, are on 
the sure way to find. 

Vv. 47-50. The Net. cayyvy, vide 
on iv. 21.—€k wayvtTés yévous guv.: a 
matter of course, not intended but in- 
evitable ; large movements influence all 
sorts of people.—Ver. 48. Kalicavtes 
ovvehefav: equally a matter of course; 
a thing to be done deliberately, of which 
the sitting attitude is an emblem. There 
is a time for everything; the time for 
sorting is at the end of the fishing.— 
gampa, vide on vii. 17. Vv. 49, 50 con- 
tain the interpretation in much the same 
terms as in 4I, 42. 

Vv. 51, 52. Conclusion of the parabolic 
collection.—Ver. 52 contains an im- 
portant logion of Jesus preserved by 
Matthew only, and connected by him 
with the parabolic teaching of Jesus. 
In this connection Kkatva kai madara of 
course points to the use of the old familiar 
facts of nature to illustrate newly revealed 
truths of the kingdom. But we should 
not bind ourselves too strictly to this 


connection, keeping in mind Matthew’s 
habit of grouping; all the more that, as 
Wendt has pointed out (Die Lehre Fesu, 
ii. 349), the idea expressed by ypappatevs 
does not get justice, It naturally points 
to acquaintance with the O. T., and 
combined with pa€nrevecis e. 7. B. teaches 
that that knowledge may be usefully 
united with discipleship in the lore of 
the kingdom. In Wendt’s words: ‘One 
remains in possession of the old, recog- 
nised as of permanent value, yet is not 
restricted to it, but along with it possesses 
a precious new element ”.—pa€nrevew is 
here used transitively as in xxviii. 19, 
Acts xiv. 21.—é«BadXer points to free 
distribution of treasures by the house- 
holder. He gives out new or old 
according to the nature of the article. 
The mere scribe, Rabbinical in spirit, 
produces only the old and stale. The 
disciple of the kingdom, like the Master, 
is always fresh-minded, yet knows how 
to value all old spiritual treasures of 
Holy Writ or Christian tradition. 

Vv. 53-58. Visit to Nazareth (Mk. vi. 
1-6, cf. Lk. iv. 16-30). In Mk. this is 
the next section after the parables, 
deducting what had previously been 
reported in Mt. (chaps. viii. and ix.), a 
pretty sure sign that our evangelist has 
Mk. under his eye. We can here see 
how he handles his source—substantial 
reproduction of the contents, no slavish 
copying of style, editorial discretion in 
reporting certain details. No attempt 
should be made to connect with the 
foregoing passage, except perhaps by 





47 —58. 


53- Kai éyévero Ste évéhecev 6 


>? “ 


perijper exetOev* 54. Kat eAOdv eis TH 


~ ‘ 

autos év TH guvaywyf attay, doe €xmdytresOar? adtods Kat 
‘ < et , 

héyewv, “ Md0ev tovTw 7 copia aitn Kat at Suvduers; 55. 00x obTOs 


EYATTEAION 


205 


"Ingots Tas mapaBohas tavtas, 
v ™qatpida adtod, éd{8ackev n here and 


ip Mk.vi. 
I. 4- 

Lk. iv. 23, 
24. John 
iv. 44. 


n ‘ ° 
€or 6 Tod TéxTOvos Uids; odXl H pyTHP adTod AéyeTar Mapidp, Kat Heb. xi. 45. 


ot &8eApol adtod “IdkwBos Kal “lwofs” 


Kat at ddedpal adtod obxt m&car mpds 


tadta wavTa; 57. Kat éoxardadilovto év atta. 
et pi ev TH watpid: adrod 40 Mk. vi. 4. 


a ” , » % 

autots, ‘OudKx €or. mpopyTnsS ° aTLLA0OS, 

Xa ~ a. 2 ~ 90 
Kal €v TH OlKLG aUTOU. 


, ~ 
Sua THY Gmotiay adtav. 


1 exarAnoo. in most uncials. 
2 lwond in BCZ. 


3 BD omit cutov. 
in margin. L omits kat ev T. ovK. avTov. 


the general category of prevalent un- 
receptivity to which also the following 
narrative (xiv. I-12) may be relegated.— 
Ver. 53. peT7pev: in classics to transfer 
something from one place to another. 
Hellenistic, intransitive = to remove one- 
self; one of Matthew’s words (xix. 1).— 
Ver. 54. watpida, in classics father- 
land. Here and in parallels evidently = 
native town, home. Vide ver. 56 and 
Lk. iv. 16.—ovvaywyq, singular, not 
plural, as in Vulgate. One syn. index 
of size of town (Grotius).—aore, with 
infinitive: tendency and actual result. 
They were astonished and said: mwdéev 
... Suvdpers, wisdom and marvellous 
works; of the latter they had heard, of 
the former they had had a sample. 
Whence? that is the question; not 
from schools, parentage, family, 
social environment, or mere surround- 
ings and circumstances of any kind.— 
Ver. 55. 6 7. tTéxtovos vids: Mk. has 
6 tTéxtTwy, which our evangelist avoids; 
the son of the carpenter, one only in the 
town, well known to all.—Maprap ... 
ldxwBos, etc., names given of mother 
and brothers, to show how well they 
know the whole family. And this other 
man just come back is simply another of 
the family whose name happens to be 
Jesus. Why should He be so different ? 
It is an absurdity, an offence, not to be 
commonplace. ‘The irritation of the 
Nazareans is satisfactory evidence of the 
extraordinary in Jesus.—Ver. 57. Proverb, 
not Jewish merely, but common property 
of mankind; examples from Greek and 
Roman authors in Pricaeus and VV etstein, 


Kal Xinwy Kal loddas; 56. 
c aA > , > , 
Hpas elon ; woQev ody TOUTH 


“O 82 “Ingods cine 


1 Cor. iv. 


58. Kal odx émoiyoey éxet Suvdpers moAAds, 10; xii. 23. 


lwons is probably from Mk, 
N9Z have 1810 before marpidt, which Tisch. and W.H. place 


including one from Pindar about fame 
fading at the family hearth (Olymp. Ode, 
xii. 3).—Ver. 58. Here also editorial 
discretion is at work. Mark states that 
Jesus was not able to work miracles in 
Nazareth, and that He marvelled at their 
unbelief. Matthew changes this into a 
statement that He did few miracles there 
because of their unbelief, and passes 
over the marvelling in silence. 

CHAPTER XIV. DEATH OF THE 
Baptist: COMMENCEMENT oF A NEw 
DIVISION OF THE EVANGELIC HisTory. 

Vv. 1-12. Death of the Baptist (Mk. 
vi. 14-29, Lk. ix. 7-9). This section 
might with advantage have been given 
as a short chapter by itself, and a new 
start made with the feeding of the 
thousands which forms the first of a 
series of narratives together giving the 
story of the later Galilean ministry (xiv. 
13—xx. 16). In this section (1-12) 
Matthew still has his eye on Mark, the 
story of the fate of the Baptist being 
there the next after the section in 
reference to mother and _ brethren, 
excepting the mission of the Twelve 
(Mk. vi. 7-13) already related in Mt. (x. 
5-15). Indeed from this point onwards 
Matthew follows Mark’s order. In the 
foregoing part of this Gospel the 
parallelism between it and Mark has 
been disturbed by the desire of the 
evangelist to draw largely on his other 
source, the Logia, and introduce teach- 
ing materials bearing on all the topics 
suggested in his introductory sketch of 
Christ’s early Galilean ministry: Didache, 
chaps. v.-vil.; apostolic mission (iv. 13- 


206 


a vide phn 

b Ch. xxvil. 
64; xxviii. ® . 1] 
ake dxory ‘Inco’, 2. 
ard). 


c Mk. vi. 14. 


& Bantiotis* aitds ” 


KATA MATOAION 


XIV. 


XIV. 1. "EN éxelvw 1 Kaipd HKougev ‘Hpddys 6 tetpdpxys ! thy 
kal ele Tots Tatow adtod. “ Obrds oti lwdvyys 


Hyép8y awd tay vexpOy, Kal 81d todTo ai 


Gal. v. © Suvdpers °évepyodow ev ato.” 3. ‘O ydp “HpwSys Kxparioas tov 


‘ts. Vv 


: ni: > om” > Zz \ oo” a a, ¢ ‘ x 
Rich xsi, “lodveny ESyncev adtdv? Kal Beto ev gudany,? Sd “Hpwdidda thy 


Cor. v. 1; 


vii. 2, 29. "lwdvens,* “Odx efeari cor * 


e Ch. xxi. 26. 


32. 


il, 29. 


I yuvaika $iAGrmou tod dSeApod adtod. 4. 


eXeye yap adtd 6 


” 
éxew Tadthy. 5. Kal 0é\wv adrév 


alge GaroKteivat, epoByOn Tov Sxdov, Ste ds “mpopiytHy adrdv etxov. 
M, 


1 rerpaapxys in SCZA. So Tisch. and W.H., though BD spell as in T.R. 
278B omit avrov, which is an undisputed reading in Mk., whence it may have 


been imported. 


3 NB read ev duAaxy awebero, which Tisch. and W.H. adopt. 
* NOD omit art. before |. and BZ place avrw after |. 


22), chap. x.; Baptist (chap. iii.), chap. 
xi.; Pharisees (chap. iii. 7-9), chap. xii. ; 
popular preaching (iv. 23), chap. xiii. 
Chaps. viii., ix. disturb the order by 
grouping incidents illustrating the heal- 
ing ministry. 

Ver. 1. év éxelvp to Katp@. Mk. 
connects with return of Twelve from 
their mission (vi. 14), Mt. apparently 
with immediately preceding section. But 
the phrase recalls xi. 25, xii. 1, and it 
may be the evangelist is thinking 
generally of a time of prevailing in- 
susceptibility (Weiss-Meyer).—‘HpwSns: 
Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee and 
Peraea for many years (4-39 A.D.), married 
to the daughter of Aretas, king of Arabia; 
like his father Herod the Great in 
cunning, ambition, and love of splendour 
in building and otherwise, whereof the 
new city of Tiberias was a monument 
(Schiirer, Gesch., i. 359).—akony, vide iv. 
24. The fame of Jesus penetrated at 
last even into the royal palace, where 
very different matters occupied the atten- 
tion, ordinarily.—Ver. 2. matolv avrov: 
not his sons, but his servants, i.e., the 
courtiers, great men in their way, not 
the menials in the palace. The king 
would propound his odd theory in 
familiar talk, not in solemn conclave.— 
ouTds éotiv, etc. It is this theory we 
have to thank for the narrative following, 
which in itself has no special connection 
with the evangelic history, though doubt- 
less Christians would naturally read with 
interest the fate of the forerunner of 
Jesus. The king has the Baptist on the 
brain; and remarkable occurrences in 
the religious world recall him at once to 
mind. It is John! he (atrds) is risen; 


theory begotten of remozse; odd enough, 
but better than Pharisaic one begotten 
of malevolence ; both witnessing to the 
extraordinary in Christ’s career.—d.a 
rovto: the living John did no miracles, 
but no saying what a dead one redivivus 
can do?—évepyoto., not: he does the 
mighty works, but: the powers (Suvapecs) 
work in him, the powers of the invisible 
world, vast and vague in the king’s 
imagination. 

Ver. 3. yap implies that the following 
story is introduced to make the king’s 
theory intelligible. ‘‘ Risen”’ implies 
previous death, and how that came about 
must be told to show the psychological 
genesis of the theory. It is the super- 
stitious idea of a man who has murder 
on his conscience.—xpatrjeas, etc. : fact 
referred to already in iv. 12, xi. 2; here 
the reason given. Of course Herod 
seized, bound, and imprisoned John 
through his agents.—&ia ‘Hpwdidda: a 
woman here, as so often, the cause of 
the tragedy.— yuvatka $.: vide on Mk. 


—Ver. 4. €heye yap 6 |. The pro- 
gressive imperfect, with force of a 
pluperfect. John had been saying just 


before he was apprehended (Burton, 
Moods and Tenses, § 29).—oix tberrw: 
doubly unlawful; as adultery, and as 
marriage within prohibited degrees (Lev. 
XVili. 16, xx. 21).—Ver. 5. OéAwv: cf. 
i. 19. Mark gives a fuller statement as 
to Herod’s feelings towards John. No 
injustice is done Herod here by ascribing 
to him a wish to get rid of John. There 
are always mixed feelings in such cases. 
Compare the relations of Alcibiades to 
Socrates as described by Plato (Zup- 
méctoy). éoBy6y +. 6: that for one 





I—Iz. 


EYALTEAION 


207 


6. tyevetiwv S€ dyopevev! tod “Hpddou, wpxyjcato 7 Ouydrnp THis f Cf. Gen. 
x1. 20, 


‘Hpwdiddos év TO preow, Kal Hpece TO “Hpwdy> 7. Sev pel” Spkou iuepa. 


Gpoddynoev adtH Sodvar 6 av? 


Bacbeica Sad Tis pytpds adtis, “Ads pou,” yotv, “dSe em *o). 
orivake Thy Kepadyy lwdvvou tod Bamrtiotod.” 


aityonrar. 


yevéoriws, 
8. “H 8é © mpoB- ¢ Acts xix. 


ovv-iD 


g. Kat é\umnOn ® 6b Lk. xi. 39. 


Baowdeds, 81a 8€° tobs Spxous Kal Tods cuvavaKxepevous éxéeuce 


SoPjvar> 10. Kal méppas 'darexepddice tov* "lwdvyny ev TH puakg. i Mk. vi. 16, 


es , 3 A > A 2h , A , ~ , 
II. kat HvexOy 7 Kehaht adtod émi mivakt, Kal €560n TO Kopaciw- 9. 


Kal HveyKe TH pntpl adris. 


27. Lk. ix, 


12. Kat mpocedOdvtes of pabytat 


adtod pay 76 capo,® Kat EBapav aitd®- Kai eXOdvtes danyyerhav 


1 SSBDLZ have the dat. yeveotors and yevopevois for ayopevwy; the reading in 


T.R. is a grammatical correction. 
2 ay in BD. 
3 BD have AvianOers and omit Se. 


The reading of the T.R. is an attempt by 


resolution of the construction to make the meaning clear. 


4S8BZ omit Toy. 


5 S8BCDLE several cursives have wrwpa, for which cwne has been substituted as 


more delicate. 
6 §8B have avtoy. 


thing; also feared God and his con- 
science a little, not enough. It is well 
when lawless men in power fear any- 
thing.—étt . . . elyov: they took John 
to be, regarded him as, a prophet.— 
elxov does not by itself mean to hold in 
high esteem (in pretio habere, Kypke). 
The point is that John for the people 
passed for a prophet, belonged to a 
class commanding religious respect (so 
Fritzsche, Meyer, etc.). Vide xxi. 46. 
Ver. 6. yevertos yevopevois : one ex- 
pects the genitive absolute as in T.R., 
which just on that account is to be sus- 
pected. The dative of time. But cf. 
Mk. vi. 21, where we have yevopéwns 
and yeveotois occurring together, and 
vide Weiss, Mk.-Evang., p. 221, on the 
literary connection between the two 
texts. Most commentators take yeveotous 
as referring to Herod’s birthday. Some, 
e.g., Grotius, think of the anniversary of 
the accession to the throne = birthday 
of his reign. In classic Greek it means 
a feast in honour of the dead on their 
birthday, yevé9A.a being the word for a 
birthday feast, vide Lobeck, Phryn., 103. 
Loesner, Observ. ad N. T. e. Phil. Alex., 
cites instances from Philo of the use of 
both words in the sense of a birthday 
feast.—7 Ovyarnp T. “Hpwd.: Salome by 
name.—év T® peow, implies a festive 
assembly, as fully described in Mk.— Ver. 
7. wpoddynaev, confessed by oath; 
obligation to keep a promise previously 


avto in Mk. (vi. 29). 


given. Cf. Mk. vi. 22, where the fact is 
more fully stated. The account in Matt. 
seems throughout secondary.—Ver. 8. 
mpoBtBacGeioa ; not ‘ before instructed,” 
as in A. V., but “ brought to this point ”’ ; 
urgedon. It should require a good deal of 
“ educating’”’ to bring a young girl to make 
such a grimrequest. But she had learnt 
her lesson well, and asked the Baptist’s 
head, as if she had been asking a favour- 
ite dish (5 wept Tivos éSéopatos Stade- 
yorevn, Chrys., Hom. xlviii.). Kypke cites 
two instances of the rare use of the word 
in the sense of instruction. —8e here and 
now, on the spot, éfavrqs in Mk. That 
was an essential part of the request. No 
time must be left for repentance. If not 
done at once under the influence of wine 
and the momentary gratification given 
by the voluptuous dance, it might never 
be done at all. This implies that the 
Baptist was at hand, therefore that the 
feast was at Machaerus, where there was 
a palace as well as a fortress.—Ver. 9. 
Auanets : participle used concessively, 
though grieved he granted the request ; 
the grief quite compatible with the 
truculent wish in ver. 5.—Baotdevs: 
only by courtesy.—8pkovs, plural, sin- 
gular in ver. 7; spoken in passion, more 
like profane swearing than deliberate 
utterance once for all of a solemn oath, 
—Ver. 10. amekepdduce: expressive 
word, all too clear in meaning, though 
not found in Attic usage, or apparently 


205 


1 "Inaod. 
eis Epnjov Témoyv Kat’ idiavy. 


j Mk. vi. 33. ad7G / wel A * dad Tay Wédewr. 
14. Kal é€eh@dy 6 “Ingods ® 
$: éx adtous,* xal @Bepdmevce tods “dppwotous adtay. 


k Mk. or 
13; Xvi. 1 


KATA MATOAION 


XIV. 


13. Kal dxodcas! 6 "Ingois dvexdpyoev exeidev &v Tolw 


‘ 
Kal dkovoavtes of 6xAot HKohovsnoay 


elSe moddv Syxdov, Kal éoayxvicby 
15. Owtas 


« Cor. xi. 8€ yevouevys, lh at7G of padyral adrod > héyortes, “"Epnpds 


t Acts xxvii. éotw 6 tém0s, Kat } dpa Sy 'wapydOev- 


9 (sam 
ket 


iva dmeNOortes eis Tas Kdpas dyopdowow éautois Bpwdpara.” 


8 rods dxdous, 


16. 


aré\uoov 


O Bé “Ingods elwev adtois, “OG xpelay Exousw directv: Sére 


' axovoas Se \3BDLZ. 


2 weLor NILZ. 


° S9BD omit o |. 


* avrois in most uncials; ew avtovs only in minusc.; from Mk. 


> S9BZ omit avrov. 


much used at all; a plebeian word, 
according to Salmasius cited by Kypke, 
who gives instances from jate authors.— 
Ver. 11. ‘véx8y, not expressly said 
‘there and then,” but all points to im- 
mediate production of the head on a 
platter in the banqueting hall before the 
guests; gruesome sight !—é866n, tveyxe: 
what a nerve the girl must have had! 
her mother’s nature in her; the dancing 
and the cool acceptance of the horrible 
gift well matched.—xopagi@: not to be 
taken strictly ; a young unmarried 
woman, say, of twenty (Holtz., H. C.). 
The dancing ofa mere girl would have 
been no entertainment to the sensual 
revellers. The treat lay in the indecency. 
—Ver. 12. wr@pa: carcase, used abso- 
lutely in this sense only in late writers. 
Earlier writers would say wr@pa vexpov. 
Lobeck, Phryn., 375. 

Vv. 13-21. $esus retires; feeding o 
thousands (Mk. vi. 30-44; Lk. ix. 10-17). 
—Ver.13. &kovcas, having heard of the 
fate of John from John’s disciples (ver. 
12). —avexwpnoev éxetOev: withdrew from 
where He was when the report reached 
Him ; locality not indicated. Mark con- 
nects the retirement with the return of 
the Twelve from their mission, and the 
report they gave, and assigns as motive 
rest for the missionaries. The two 
events might synchronise, and escape 
from Herod’s dangerous neighbourhood 
might be a joint motive for retirement. 
But against this is the speedy return 
(ver. 34). —ty whoiw: naturally suggests 
a place near the sea as starting-point. 
But it may be rather intended to indi- 
cate in what direction they were going— 
to the eastern side of the lake.—ets é. rt. 
Kat tdiav. These phrases have cer- 
tainly more point in Mk. as referring to 


® SCZ add ovv, which W.H. place in margin. 


a multitude from which they wished to 
escape,—ot 6yAoL: no previous mention 
of the crowds, and no hint that Jesus 
wished to get away from them; looks 
like a digest of a fuller narrative, such as 
that in Mk.—reLQ (or aefol), on foot, but 
not implying that all literally walked; 

there were sick among them who could 
not. The contrast is between going by 
sea and going by land. Cf. Acts xx. 13. 

Classical instances in philological com- 
mentaries (Wetstein, Kypke, Elsner, 
etc.).—Ver. 14. éfeA@av, in this place, 
naturally means going forth from His re- 
treat, in Mk. (vi. 34) going out of the 
ship, the crowd having arrived on the 
spot before Him. To escape from the 
people always difficult, now apparently 
more than ever. Evidently a time of 
special excitement, popularity at its 
height, though according to Fourth Gos- 
pel about to undergo a speedy decline. 
—tomdayxvic8m, deponent passive, 
pitied; Hellenistic, and based on the 
Hebrew idea of the bowels as the seat of 
compassion; used by Symmachus in 
translation of Deut. xiii. 9.—é0epameuge : 
Mark gives prominence to the element of 


instruction ; healing alone mentioned 
here. 
Vv. 15-21. The feeding.—Ver. 15. 


dWlas yevoudvns: might mean sunset as 
in viii. 16, but from the nature of the 
case must mean afternoon trom 3 to 6, 
the first of the ‘two evenings ”.—épnpos, 
comparatively uninhabited, no towns 
near.—7 Spa 797 mapyAGev :1 the meaning 
not clear. Mk. has: 78y Spas moAAjs 
= already the hour is advanced. Various 
suggestions have been made: eating 
time (Grot.), healing and teaching time 
(Fritzsche), daytime (Meyer) is past. 
Weiss, with most probability, takes dpa 





r3—23. 


’ fom) « ~ - 2 
AUTOLS UyLeLs paye. 
? ‘ ” ‘ , > ’ > 
el pi) wévte dptous Kal So ixOuas. 
autovs Ode.” 1 


EYATTEAION 


209 


17. Of 8é Adyouow atta, “OdK Exopev Wde 


18. ‘O 8é etme, “ dépeTé por 


19. Kal xedevoas Tods SxAous dvaKxhOivar émt Tous 


xéptous,? xai® aBdy tols wévte Gptous Kai Tods Svo0 ixQuas, 


dvaBhépas eis tov odpavdy, ™edhéyqoe Kal 
pabytais Tous aprous, ot Sé pabytat Tots dx dots. 


"kA\doas EXWKE TOS m Ch. xxv. 
ees 26. 1 Cor. 

20. Kal Epayov x. 16. 
n Ch. xxvi. 


AS A = a A A , 
ndvres, Kal éxoptdoOnoay: Kal Tpay TO Teptocetov Tay KAacHdTwY, 26. Acts 


SuSexa Kohivous mArpets. 


TevTaKtoxiAol, XYwpis yuvatKav Kal TwoLdtov. 
* qvdyracev 6 “Incods * Tos palyntas adtod ® eyBivat eis 73° TAoioy, 
Kat Pmpodyew adtov eis Td mépav, Ews oF daohtay Tods Ox)ous. 
23. Kal Gmodtcas Tos SxAous, dvéBn cis TS Spos kat’ idiav 


1 oSe avrovs in NBZ. 
5 BLA omit kav 


21. ot S€ eaPlovtes Hoav Gvydpes aoel 


ii. 46 al, 


22. Kat €00€wso Acts xxvi. 
11. Gal. ii. 
Cheek 

p Ch. xxi. 
31; Xxvi. 
32. Mk. 
X. 32. 


2 S8BC have emt tov xoptov; D the sing. also, but accus, 
40 |. wanting in $BCDAZ. 


5 Most uncials omit, but BX retain avrov. 


* B and several cursives (1, 33, 124) omit To. 


= time for sending them away to get 
food.—amdAvoov: though late for the 
purpose, not too late ; dismiss them forth- 
with.—Ver. 16. ov ypelav éxovoLv 
awedOety, etc.: even if, as some think, 
what happened was that under the 
moral influence of Jesus the people 
present generously made the provisions 
they had brought with them available for 
the company at large, the character of 
Jesus appears here in a commanding 
light. No situation appears to Him 
desperate, no crisis unmanageable. No 
need to go. Give ye them to eat, 
resources will be forthcoming (cf. Exod. 
xiv. 15). And they were, how we cannot 
tell, The story is a fact supported by 
the testimony of all four evangelists, not 
a baseless legend, or a religious allegory. 
—Ver. 17. wévre Gprovs x. 5. iy. A 
very modest supply even for the disciple 
circle. They seem, under the influence 
of Jesus, to have been a care-free com- 
pany, letting to-morrow look after itself. 
‘““Learn the philosophy of the Twelve, 
and how they despised food. Being 
twelve they had only so much, and they 
readily gave up these” (Chrysos., H. 
xlix.). Five loaves and two fishes, all 
that was known to be in that vast 
gathering.—Ver. 18. épere, etc.: 
Christ’s imperial way in critical situa- 
tions often arrests attention. ‘Stretch 
forth thine hand” (xii, 13). ‘‘ Bring 
them hither to me.”—Ver. 19. xehevoas, 
AaBdv, avaBdAéWas, participles without 
copula all leading up to evAdynoev, the 
central chief action: rapid, condensed 


W.H. place in margin. 


narrative, briefly, simply, recounting an 
amazing event.—evAdyyoev with accusa- 
tive (aprovs) understood. He blessed 
the loaves and fishes.—Kal kAdoas 
éSwxev, then dividing them gave them to 
the disciples, who in turn gave to the 
multitude.—t@ Ady@ Kal rH evddoyig 
avtwy Kal winOivwy avrovs, Origen.— 
Ver. 20. SwSexa xod. wi. is in appos. 
with 7d meprooetov tT. x. They took 
the surplus of the broken pieces to the 
extent of twelve baskets.—kodivovs, 


answering to the Rabbinical NH}, a 


basket of considerable size (‘‘ ein grosses 
Behaltniss,” Winsche). Each of the 
Twelve had one. The word recalls the 
well-known line of Juvenal (Sat. tii. 14): 
‘ Judaeis, quorum cophinus foenumque 
suppellex,” on which and its bearing on 
this place vide Schottgen (Hor. Tal.) and 
Elsner.—Ver. 21. mevraktoyf\to1, 5000 
men, not counting women and children. 
This helps us to attach some definite 
meaning to the elastic words, dxAos, 
dxAor, so frequently occurring in the 
Gospels. Doubtless this was an excep- 
tionally great gathering, yet the inference 
seems legitimate that 6 xAos meant 
hundreds, and arodts byAos thousands. 
Vv. 22-36. The return voyage (Mk. 
vi. 45-56).—Ver. 22. ‘vdykacev: a 
strong word needing an explanation not 
here given, supplied in John vi. 15. Of 
course there was no physical compulsion, 
but there must have been urgency on 
Christ’s part, and unwillingness on the part 
of disciples. Fritzsche objects to special 


14 


210 


mpovevgarbar. 


KATA MATOAION 


"Owias S€ yevouevns, pdvos Fv exer. 


XIV. 


24. Td Be 


q Mk. vi. 48 whoioy 75yn pécor tis Paddoons Fv! *Bacavlopevoy bwd tay 


(there o} 
the men, KUGTwY * 
here of 


hv yap évavtios 6 dvepos. 


25. Terdpty d€ gudaKy 


the ship). THs vuKTds dwHAGe? mpds adtods 6 ‘Inoods,® wepunardv emi ris 


Bardoons.* 


r Mk. vi. 49 
(Wisdom 
xvi. 14 


(15)). 


*Ingois,® héywr, “ Capoeite éyd eipt, ph poBetobe.” 


26. Kat iSdvres adrév of padnral® émi thy @ddaccay ® 
Tepitatodvta érapdxOyoar, éyovtes, ““Ome "dvtacpd gots.’ 
kai dwd tod éBou Expagtav. 


27. ed0dws™ Sé éhddnoev adtois 6 
28. *Amroxpt- 


Beis 8€ adr 5 Mérpos elwe® “Kupre, ei od et, KéKevody pe ™pds oe 


eXGetv 1° epi ra TSara.”” 


29. “O Se elmer, “ENO.” 


Kal xataBag 


amd Tod mAolou 6 Métpos wepremdryoev emi Ta Gdata, édhGeiv 12 Tpads 


1 For pecoy . 


. . nv B, some verss. and minuss. have here oraStovs todXovs aro 


THS yNS atretxev, Which W.H. adopt, putting in margin the reading of T.R., which 


is the undisputed reading in Mk. 
2 4Oev in NB verss. 


4 $QBA several cursives have the accus. here. 


8S rms Bahacons in NBCD. 


7 evOus in SBD here as always in Mk., whence it may have come. 
yy, , ay 
It need not be again referred to. 


is a standing variation. 


3 Omit o I. $8BCD. 
® ov Se pad. wovtes a. in BD. 


In Mk. this 


8 o |. before avrots in B, omitted in $QD, bracketed in W.H. 


® The order of words varies here. 


W.H., after B, have arox. Se o I. evwev a. 


10 \8BCDAZ many cursives have eAGev wpos oe. 


N Art. omitted in NBD. 


emphasis, and renders: ‘auctor fuit 
discipulis, ut navem conscenderent ”.— 
ws o¥ GroAvoy, subjunctive, here used 
where optative would be used in classic 
Greek. Cf. xviii. 30, and vide Burton, 
§ 324.—Ver. 23. avéBy els 1d Gpos. 
After dismissing the crowd Jesus retired 
into the mountainous country back from 
the shore, glad to be alone—xar’ l8lav, 
even to be rid of the Twelve for a season. 
—mpooeviacGar: ‘‘ Good for prayer the 
mountain, and the night, and the soli- 
tude (poévwors), affording quiet, freedom 
from distraction (ré aweptowacrov), and 
calm” (Euthy. Zig.).—dWlas yev. refers, 
of course, to a later hour than in ver. 15. 
—Ver. 24. pégov, an adjective agreeing 
with wdotov (Winer, § 54, 6), signi- 
fies not merely in the middle strictly, 
but any appreciable distance from shore. 
Pricaeus gives examples of such use. 
But the reading of B, probably to be pre- 
ferred, implies that the boat was many 
stadii (25 or 30, John vi. 19 = 3 to 4 
miles) from the eastern shore.—wqé tav 
kupatwv: not in Mk., and goes without 
saying; when there are winds there will 
be waves.—évavtios 6 Gvepos: what 
wind? From what quarter blowing? 


12 kat nAOev in BD. 


What was the starting-point, and the 
destination? Holtz. (H. C.) suggests 
that the voyage was either from Beth- 
saida Julias at the mouth of the upper 
Jordan to the north-western shore, or 
from the south end of the plain EI- 
Batiha towards Bethsaida julias, at the 
north end, citing Furrer in support of 
the second alternative, vide in Mk.—Ver. 
25. TeTaptTy pvA.=3 to 6, in the early 
morning, wpwt.—éqi r+. 6.: the readings 
in this and the next verse vary between 
genitive and accusative. The sense is 
much the same. The evangelist means 
to represent Jesus as really walking on 
the sea, not on the land above the sea level 
(Paulus, Schenkel). Holtz. (H. C.), re- 
garding it as a legend, refers to O. T. 
texts in which God walks on the sea.— 
Ver. 26. davracpa: a little touch of 
sailor superstition natural in the circum- 
stances ; presupposes the impression that 
they saw something walking on the sea. 
—Ver. 27. édddnoev: Jesus spoke; the 
words given (Oapceite, etc.), but the 
mere sound of His voice would be 


enough. 
Vv. 28-33. Peter-episode, peculiar to 
Mt. The story is true to the character 





24—36. 


x 2 a 
Tov Inoouv. 


EYATTEAION 


211 


30. Brew Sé tov Gvepnov icxupdv! époByOn- Kal 


dpédpevos SkatamovtilerOa. expate, Aéywv, “Kupte, cdcdy pe.” 8 Ch. xviii 


31. EuOéws S€ 6 “Inoods extetvas Thy xelpa eweAdBeto adtod, Kal 


6 only. 


héyer adT@, “’OAtydmorte, eis Ti eBiotacas;” 32. Kal éuBdvtwy *t Ch. xxviii. 


17 only. 


attav eis TS mhotov, “exémacey 6 Gvepos* 33. ot Sé ev TH mAoiw uMk. iv. 39; 


€hOdvtes® mpocexivncay ait Aéyovtes, “’AnOads Ccod ulds ef.” 
34. Kat Stamepdoavtes HAOov eis Thy yay * Cevvnoaper. 


vi. 51. 


35. Kat 


emyvovtes attov ot avdpes Tod Tdou éxetvou dméatethay eis Any v Lk. vii. 3 


uy , 3 , A U4 } year. A a 
THY TWEPLX@POV EKELYHY, KGL TPOOTVEyKav QuTw wavTas TOUS KAKWS 


€XxovTas ° 


Kpacmédou Tod ipatiou aitod* Kat Sco. HWavto, ” Siecdbynoar. 


1 Omitted in SB 33. 


36. Kal mapekddouv adtdv, iva pdvoy apwvta: Tod 


2 avaBayrev in SBD 33. 


Acts xxiii 
24; XXvil. 
43, 44; 
XXViil. I, 
Ebert 
20. 


* Wanting in WBE. 


“SBD al. have em instead of erg and omit thy yny. 


of Peter.—Ver. 30. Bdéwv Tov Gvepoy, 
seeing the wind, that is, the effects of it. 
It is one thing to see a storm from the 
deck of a stout ship, another to see it in 
midst of the waves.—xatarovtilec@at: 
he walked at first, now he begins to sink; 
so at the final crisis, so at Antioch (Gal. 
ii. 11), so probably all through. A strange 
mixture of strength and weakness, bravery 
and cowardice ; a man of generous im- 
pulses rather than of constant firm will. 
“Peter walked on the water but feared 
the wind: such is human nature, often 
achieving great things, and at fault in 
little things.” — (woAAdnis 7a peydda 
KatopQotca, év Tots éhatroo. éA¢yxerat, 
Chrys., 1.)—Ver. 31. éd8torTacas: 
again in xxviii. 17, nowhere else in N. T., 
from Sts, double, hence to be of two 
minds, to doubt (cf. 8ipuxos, Jamesi. 8). 
—Ver. 32. dvaBavtwy attav: Jesus and 
Peter.—éxémagev: used in narrative of 
first sea-anecdote by Mk., iv. 39 = ex- 
hausted itself (from xéaos).—Ver. 33. ot 
év T@ TAoiw: cf. of GvOpwrror in Vill. 27; 
presumably the disciples alone referred 
to.—ahnfds 8. v. et, a great advance on 
motamds (viii. 27). The question it im- 
plies now settled: Son of God. 

Vv. 34-36. Safe arrival.—d.amepa- 
oavtes, having covered the distance 
between the place where Jesus joined 
them and the shore.—émt thy yqv: they 
got to Jand; the general fact important 
after the storm.—els Tevvnoapér, more 
definite indication of locality, yet not 
very definite ; a district, not a town, the 
tich plain of Gennesaret, four miles long 
and two broad.—Ver. 35. Kat émyvov- 
ves, etc.: again popular excitement with 
its usual concomitants. The men of the 


place, when they recognised who had 
landed from the boat, sent round the 
word: Jesus has come! They bring 
their sick to Him to be healed.—Ver. 36. 
Tapexahouy, etc.: they have now un- 
bounded confidence in Christ’s curative 
powers; think it enough to touch (pd6vov 
awvrat) the hem of His mantle.—decd- 
@noav: they are not disappointed; the 
touch brings a complete cure (814 in com- 
position). The expression, éc01 HWavro, 
implies that all who were cured touched: 
that was the uniform means. Mk.’s 
expression, Sco. Gy 7., leaves that open. 

CHAPTER XV. WASHING OF HANps; 
SYROPHG@NICIAN WoMAN; SECOND FEED- 
ING. The scene changes with dramatic 
effect from phenomenal popularity on the 
eastern shore, and in Gennesaret, to 
embittered, ominous conflict with the 
jealous guardians of Jewish orthodoxy 
and orthopraxy. The relations between 
Jesus and the religious virtuosi are be- 
coming more and more strained and the 
crisis cannot be far off. That becomes 
clear to Jesus now, if it was not before 


(xvi. 21). 

Vv. 1-20. Washing of hands (Mk. vii. 
I-23).—Ver. 1. téTe connects naturally 
with immediately preceding narrative 
concerning the people of Gennesaret 
with unbounded faith in Jesus seeking 
healing by mere touch of His garment. 
Probably the one scene led to the other: 
growing popular enthusiasm deepening 
Pharisaic hostility.—mpowépyowrat (ot) 
a.‘l. If of be omitted, the sense is that 
certain persons came to Jesus from Jeru- 
salem. If it be retained, the sense is: 
certain persons belonging to Jerusalem 
came from it, the preposition éy being 


212 


a Acts i. 25 
(with awd). 


VE TS: 


KATA MATOAION 


TOTE mpoodpyortar TO 


XV. 


*Incod ot! dwd ‘lepovodtpwr 


bMk. vii-3; ypapparets Kal apicator,? Aéyovres, 2. “Atari ot pabytat vou 


5:9, 13. | 
1 Cor. xi. * 
2. Gal.i. 


14, Col. tas Xeipas adrav,® Srav dptov écBiwowy.”” 


tmapaBatvouot Thy ’rapddoow tov mperButépwv ; od yap vimrovrat 
peoBurép Y 


3. ‘O S€ daoxpilels elmer 


Thess li. adtots, “ Atati kai duets wapaBaivere Thy évrodhy Tod Gcod Sd Thy 


153 
c Mk. vii. 
10; 


d Ch. xv 
26; 26; avi parse Bavdtw redeuTdtw:’ 


26; ae mwatpt % TH pytpt, Adpov, & édv e& eyoo * 


xii, 


INQBD omit on 


" qrapdédoouw aar> 4. ‘O ydp Ocds evetethato, héywv,4 
Astaxix9 matépa oob,° Kat thy patépa 


2 bap. xat ypap. in SBD. 
4 For everetkato Aeywv BD have simply eumev. 


‘Tipa tov 
‘O °kaxodoyav watépa H 
"Os &v etary TO 
ob iy 


* NBA Orig. omit avtev. 
® BCD omit gov. 


Kai, ‘ 
5. Gpets Se meyer 
der Pfs, Kat ® 


® KSBCD omit Kat, which affects the construction ; vide below. 


changed into ama by attraction of the 
verb.—ap. kal yp., usually named in 
inverse order,as in T.R. Our evangelist 
makes the whole party come from Jeru- 
salem; Mk., with more probability, the 
scribes only. The guardians of tradition 
in the Capital have their evil eye on Jesus 
and co-operate with the provincial rigor- 
ists.—Ver, 2. Start of pad. cov mapa. : 

no instance of offence specified in this 
case, as in ix. 10 and xii. 1. The zealots 
must have been making inquiries or 
playing the spy into the private habits 
of the disciple circle, seeking for grounds 
of fault-finding (cf. Mk. vii. 2). —apa- 
Batvover: strong word (Mk.’s milder), 
putting breach of Rabbinical rules on a 
level with breaking the greatest moral 
laws, as if the former were of equal 
importance with the latter. That they 
were, was deliberately maintained by the 
scribes (vide Lightfoot).—rhv wapadooww 
7. ™.: not merely the opinion, dogma, 
placitum, of the elders (Grotius), but 
opinion expressed ex cathedra, custom 
originated with authority by the ancients. 
The “elders” here are not the living 
tulers of the people, but the past bearers 
of religious authority, the more remote 
the more venerable. The ‘ tradition” 
was unwritten (Gypados SSacxeXla, 
Hesych.), the “law upon the lip” 
reaching back, like the written law (so it 
was pretended), to Moses. Baseless asser- 
tion, but believed ; therefore to attack the 
mapadoots a Herculean, dangerous task. 
The assailants regard the act imputed as 
an unheard-of monstrous impiety. That 
is why they make a general charge before 
specifying the particular form under which 
the offence is committed, so giving the 
latter as serious an aspect as possible.— 
ov yap virrovrat, etc. : granting the fact 


it did not necessarily mean deliberate 
disregard of the tradition. It might be 
an occasional carelessness on the part of 
some of the disciples (ras, Mk. vii. 2) 
which even the offenders would not care 
to defend. A time-server might easily 
have evaded discussion by putting the 
matter on this ground. The Pharisees 
eagerly put the worst construction on the 
act, and Jesus was incapable of time- 
serving insincerity; thus conflict was 
inevitable.—viwreoBat, the proper word 
before meat, amovimrerOat, after, 
Elsner, citing Athenaeus, lib. ix., cap. 
18.—aprov éoGiwow, Hebrew idiom for 
taking food. The neglect charged was 
not that of ordinary cleanliness, but of the 
technical rules for securing ceremonial 
cleanness. These were innumerable and 
ridiculously minute. Lightfoot, referring 
to certain Rabbinical tracts, says: “lege, 
si vacat, et si per taedium et nauseam 
potes’’. 

Vv. 3-6. Christ's reply ; consists of a 
counter charge and a prophetic citation 
(vv. 7-9) in the inverse order to that of 
Mk.—Ver. 3. kat tpeis: the retort, if 
justifiable, the best defence possible of 
neglect charged = ‘“‘ we transgress the 
tradition because we want to keep the 
commands of God: choice lies between 
these; you make the wrong choice ”’ 
Grave issue raised; no compromise 
possible here.—8va +. w. tpay : not rules 
made by the parties addressed (Weiss- 
Meyer), but the tradition which ye 
idolise, your precious paradosis.—Ver. 4. 
6 yap 8ed¢: counter charge substantiated. 
The question being the validity of the 
tradition and its value, its evil tendency 
might be illustrated at will in connection 
with any moral interest. It might have 
been illustrated directly in connection 





I—9. 


ruysnon | tov warépa adtod % Thy pntépa adtod- 6. Kat 
Thy évtohiv? tod Ceod Sa Thy wapddoow Spay. 


EYATTEAION 


213 


* hKUpwoate ¢ Mk. vii. 13, 

f , _ Gal. iii. 17, 
7. Ywoxptrat, f Mk. vii. 6; 
xii. 28. 


*xahds mpoedyteuce® wept bpav “Hoatas, héywr, 8. §’Eyyife: por 6 Lk. xx.39 


2 lol a ‘ Las Li , a 
Aads obtos TH ordpat. adtay, Kat Tots xeElNeot pe Tind* w Se 


Kapdia attav woppw dméxe. dm éyod. 


1 SBCDAZ have tipynoer. 
on os av by «at is part of the protasis. 


John iv. 17, 
Tronica 
in Mk. vii. 
9. 2 Cor. 


4 £ Xis4s 
g here and in Mk. vil. 7 (from Is. xxix. 13). 


9g. * pdrnv Sé céBovrai pe, 


TWw.yon answers to etm, and being made dependent 


2 rov Aoyov in BD (W.H.); tov vopov in KC (Tisch., W.H. marg.). 


3 Augment at beg., empod, in SBCDL. 


4The T.R. gives the quotation in full. 
pe tina: Tisch., W.H. (outos o aos and 


with moral purity versus ceremonial, 
The actual selection characteristic of 
Jesus as humane, and felicitous as ex- 
ceptionally clear.— rips . TEAEUTATY ; 
fifth commandment (Ex. xx. 12), with its 
penal sanction (Ex. xxi. 17).—Ver. 5 
shows how that great law is compro- 
mised.—tpets 8@ Aéy.: the emphatic 
antithesis of tpeis to Gedg a pointed re- 
buke of their presumption. The scribes 
rivals to the Almighty in legislation. 
“Ye say’’: the words following give 
not the zpsissima verba of scribe-teaching 
or what they would acknowledge to be 
the drift of their teaching, but that drift 
as Jesus Himself understood it = ‘‘ This 
is what it comes to.”—‘‘ Adpov”’ = let it 
be a gift or offering devoted to God, to 
the temple, to religious purposes, i.¢., a 
Corban (Mk. vii. 11); magic word re- 
leasing from obligation to show honour 
to parents in the practical way of contri- 
buting to their support. Of evil omen 
even when the “ gift’? was bond fide, as 
involving an artificial divorce between 
religion and morality ; easily sliding into 
disingenuous pretexts of vows to evade 
filial responsibilities ; reaching the lowest 
depth of immorality when lawmakers 
and unfilial sons were in league for 
common pecuniary profit from the 
nefarious transaction. Were the fault- 
finders in this case chargeable with re- 
ceiving a commission for trafficking in 
iniquitous legislation, letting sons off for 
a percentage on what they would have to 
give their parents? Origen, Jerome, 
Theophy., Lutteroth favour this view, 
but there is nothing in the text to justify 
it. Christ’s charge is based on the 
practice specified even at its best: honest 
pleading of previous obligation to God 
as a ground for neglecting duty to 
parents. Lightfoot (Hor. Heb.) under- 
stands the law as meaning that the word 


NBDL have o Aaogs ovtos Tog xetdeor 
ayatn for Tyna in margin). 


Corban, even though profanely and 
heartlessly spoken, bound not to help 
parents, but did not bind really to give 
the property to sacred uses. ‘“ Ad 
dicanda sua in sacros usus per haec 
verba nullatenus tenebatur, ad non 
juvandum patrem tenebatur inviola- 
biliter.”—od py Tysjoe, he shall not 
honour = he is exempt from obligation 
to: such the rule in effect, if not in words, 
of the scribes in the case. The future 
here has the force of the imperative as 
often in the Sept. (vide Burton, M. and 
T., § 67). If the imperative mean- 
ing be denied, then ov py +. must be 
taken as a comment of Christ’s. Ye say, 
‘‘ whosoever,’”’ etc.; in these circum- 
stances of course he will not, etc. As 
the passage stands in T.R. the clause 
kal ov py TiWop, etc., belongs to the 
protasis, and the apodosis remains un- 
expressed = he shall be free, or guiltless, 
as in A. V.—Ver, 6. ‘kvpweoare, ye in- 
validated, by making such a rule, the 
aorist pointing to the time when the rule 
was made. Or it may be a gnomic 
aorist: so ye are wont to, etc. The 
verb axvpdw belongs to later Greek, 
though Elsner calls the phrase ‘“ bene 
Graeca”’.— 8a. . . tp@v: an account 
of your tradition, again to mark it as 
their idol, and as theirs alone, God 
having no part in it, though the Rabbis 
taught that it was given orally by God to 
Moses.—Ver. 7. troxptital: no thought 
of conciliation ; open war at all hazards. 
‘“« Actors,”’ in their zeal for God, as illus- 
trated in the case previously cited. God 
first, parents second, yet God not in all 
their thoughts.—xad@s, appositely, to the 
purpose. Isaiah might not be thinking 
of the Pharisees, but certainly the quo- 
tation is very felicitous in reference to 
them, exactly describing their religious 
character. Mt. follows Mk. in quoting ; 


214 


hhereand §:$doxovtes ™Si8acxadlas, 


in parall. 


KATA MATOAION 


‘évrddpara = dvOpdrww.” 


XV. 


y erras eat 


in Gospp. rpooxaheodpevos Tov Sxdov, elev adtois, “’AKovere Kal ouviete. 


frequent 
in Paul. 
i Mk. vii. 7. 


II. ob Td €icepydpevoy eis Td oTdpa KoLvot Tov GvOpwimrov: aha 


Col. ii. aa 78 exmopeudpevov éx Tod otdpartos, ToUTo Kowor Tov avOpwmoy.” 


(not in 
profane 
authors). 


j here only ol Papicato: dkovcartes Tov Adyov éoxaydSadicOnoay ;” 
in 


12. Tére mpocedOdrvtes ot pabytai aitod! etmov? abrd, “ OlSas on 


13. ‘O Se 


k Ch. xxiii. GmroxpiBels ele, “Maca ! putela, jy odk epiteucey 5 marhp pov 6 


16, 24. 

Acts i. 16. oUpdvtos, éxptLwOncerar. 

Rom. ii. 19. 
| here only 

(in Ch. 

xiii. 36, 

T.R). 


A ”» 
WEeoourTat. 


1 S§BD and several cursives omit avtov. 
tuddwv BDLZ have rvpdort acot oSnyor (W.H.). SS has 


3 Instead of oSynyor... 
the same inverted, 08. etot tug. 


neither follows closely the Sept. (Is. xxix. 
13).—Ver. 8. 7 8¢ xap&{a, etc.: at this 
point the citation is particularly apposite. 
They were far from the true God in 
their thoughts who imagined that He 
could be pleased with gifts made at the 
expense of filial piety. Christ’s God 
abhorred such homage, still more the 
hypocritical pretence of it. 

Vv. 10, 11. Appeal to the people: a 
mortal offence to the Pharisees and 
scribes, but made inevitable by publicity 
of attack, the multitude being in the back- 
ground and overhearing all.—axdvere 
cal ouviere: abrupt, laconic address; a 
fearless, resolute tone audible.—Ver. 
11. Simple direct appeal to the moral 
sense of mankind; one of those emanci- 
pating words which sweep away the cob- 
webs of artificial systems; better than 
elaborate argument. It is called a 
parable in ver. 15, but it is not a parable 
in the strict sense here whatever it may 
be in Mk. (vide notes there). Parables 
are used to illustrate the ethical by the 
natural. This saying is itself ethical: +6 
éxvropevopevoy ék TOU oTdomaros refers 
to words as expressing thoughts and de- 
sires (ver. 19).— ov 76 eigep. eis TO OTGpa: 
refers to food of all sorts ;clean --od taken 
with unclean hands, and food in itself 
unclean. The drift of the saying there- 
fore is: ceremonial uncleanness, how- 
ever caused, a small matter, moral un- 
cleanness the one thing to be dreaded. 
This goes beyond the tradition of the 
elders, and virtually abrogates the 
Levitical distinctions between clean and 
unclean. A sentiment worthy of Jesus 
and suitable to an occasion when He 
was compelled to emphasise the supreme 
importance of the ethical in the law— 


14. dete adtots *S8nyoi eict tuddot 
tuprav®- tuddds S€ tupddv dv SSynyq, auddtepor eis BdOuvoy 
15. “Amoxpibeis S€ 6 Métpos elev aita, “' dpdcor 


2 Xeyovoty in BD. 


the ethical emphatically the law of God 
(Thy évroAhy rod Beod, ver. 3). 

Vv. 12-14. Disciples report impression 
made on Pharisees by the word spoken to 
the people. Not in Mark.—Ver. 12. 
éoxavdadicOncav: double offence—(rz) 
appealing to the people at all; (2) uttering 
sucha word, revolutionary in character.— 
Ver. 13. 6 8 amoxpilels, etc.: the 
disciples were afraid, but Jesus was in- 
dignant, and took up high ground.— 
gurela for dvrevpa, a plant, “not a 
wild flower but a cultivated plant” 
(Camb. G. T.), refers to the Rabbinical 
tradition; natural figure for doctrine, 
and so used both by Jesus and Greeks 
(vide Sch6ttgen and Kypke). Kypke re- 
marks: ‘‘pertinet huc parabola wept row 
omelpovtos”’.—6 matip pov: the state- 
ment in the relative clause is really the 
main point, that the tradition in question 
was a thing with which God as Jesus 
conceived Him had nothing todo. This 
is an important text for Christ’s doctrine 
of the Fatherhood as taught by dis- 
criminating use ofthetermaaryjp. The 
idea of God implied in the Corban tradi- 
tion was that His interest was antago- 
nistic to that of humanity. In Christ’s 
idea of God the two interests are coinci- 
dent. This text should be set beside 
xii. 50, which might easily be misunder- 
stood as teaching an opposite view.— 
éxpilwiycerat. This is what will be, 
and what Jesus wishes and works for: 
uprooting, destruction, root and branch, 
no compromise, the thing wholly evil. 
The response of the traditionalists was 
crucifixion.— Ver. 14. Gere: the case 
hopeless, no reform possible; on the 
road to ruin.—tv@dAol elowy Sdnyot: the 
reading in B is very laconic = blind men 





10—2I. 


EYATTEAION 


216 


piv Thy mapaBoddy tak. 1 16. ‘O 8é "Inaods ! cimev, “™ Axphy mhere only. 


n Rom.i. 21, 


= » ~ a 5 
kat Gpels “dovverol éore; 17. oUww? voeite, St. Tav Td eiorropeud- meee 


pevov eis TO OTSA cis Thy KowNlay XwpeEl, Kal Eis dedpava exBdd- 
Aerat; 18. Ta Se exwopeudpeva éx Tod otdparos ex Tis Kapdias 
eé€pxetar, KdKelva Kowwor Tov GvOpwror. 


Vii. 
a1. Lk. ii. 


1g. €k ydp THs Kapdias 20. 


‘ , , A a + 4. 
efépxovrar °Siahoyiopot wornpot, ’dovor, ”porxetat, topvetat, kAoTraL, p These are 


Wevdopaptupiar, Bacpnptar. 


GvOpwiov- 7o Sé avinrows XEpot dayety ov Kotvot Tov dyOpwror.” 
21. Kal égehOav éxeiOev 6 “Incods dvexdpycer cis ta pépy Tupou 


I NQBZ omit ravtyy and Ingovs (D also omits I.). 


are the leaders, the suggestion being: 
we know what happens in that case. 
The point is the inevitableness of ruin. 
What follows expresses what has been 
already hinted.—tvodds Se +. é. 68.: if 
blind blind lead; é8nyqg, subjunctive, 
with éav as usual in a present general 
supposition.—ap.pdrepoi, both: Rabbis 
or scribes and their disciples. Christ 
despaired of the teachers, but He tried to 
rescue the people; hence vv. 10, II. 

Vv. 15-20. Interpretation of saying in 
ver. 11.—Ver. 15. Mérpos, spokesman 
as usual (6 @eppds nal wavraxod 
apodbavey, Chrys., Hom. li.).—mapa- 
BoAnv, here at least, whatever may be 
the case in Mk., can mean only a dark 
saying, oKorewvos Adyos (Theophy. in 
Mk.), ‘‘oratio obscura’? (Suicer). The 
saying, ver. 11, was above the understand- 
ing of the disciples, or rather in advance 
of their religious attainments; for men 
often deem thoughts difficult when, 
though easy to understand, they are 
hard to receive. The Twelve had been 
a little scandalised by the saying as well 
as the Pharisees, though they did not 
like to say so (kat avrot pena SopuBov- 
pevot, Chrys.).—Ver. 16. axpry, accusa- 
tive of a@xpy, the point (of a weapon, 
etc.)=Kat’ axpnv xpdévov, at this point 
of time, still; late Greek, and con- 
demned by Phryn., p. 123 (avti tov €r). 
—aovverot exte. Christ chides the 
Twelve for making a mystery of a plain 
matter (‘‘ quare parabolice dictum putet 
quod perspicue locutus est,’’? Jerome). 
Very simple and axiomatic to the Master, 
but was it ever quite clear to the 
disciples? In such matters all depends 
on possessing the requisite spiritual 
sense. Easy to see when you have eyes. 
—Ver. 17. adedp@va: here only, pro- 
Sably a Macedonian word = privy; a 
vulgar word and a vulgar subject which 


20. TauTd €oTt TA KOLVOUVTA Tov 


the only 
words 
common 
to this list 
with that 
in Gal. v. 
19; both 
doubtfal there. 


2 ov in BDZ 33. 


Jesus would gladly have avoided, but He 
forces Himself to speak of it for the sake 
of His disciples. Theidea is: from food 
no moral defilement comes to the soul; 
such defilement as there is, purely 
physical, passing through the bowels 
into the place of discharge. Doubtless 
Jesus said this, otherwise no one would 
have put it into His mouth. Were the 
Twelve any the wiser? Probably the 
very rudeness of the speech led them to 
think.—Ver, |18. éxmopevépeva: words 
representing thoughts and _ desires, 
morally defiling, or rather revealing 
defilement already existing in the heart, 
seat of thought and passion.—Ver. 19. 
¢dvor, etc.: breaches of Sixth, Seventh, 
Eighth, and Ninth Commandments in 
succession.—Ver. 20. Emphatic final 
reassertion of the doctrine. 

Vv. 21-28. Woman of Canaan (Mk. 
vii. 24-30). This excursion to the north 
is the result of a passionate longing to 
escape at once from the fever of popu- 
larity and from the odium theologicum of 
Pharisees, and to be alone for a while 
with the Twelve, with nature, and with 
God. One could wish that fuller details 
had been given as to its duration, extent, 
etc. From Mk. we infer that it had a 
wide sweep, lasted for a considerable 
time, and was not confined to Jewish 
territory. Vide notes there. 

Ver. 21. dvexdpyoev, cf. xii. 15.— 
els Ta pépy T. kat Z.: towards or into? 
Opinion is much divided. De Wette cites 
in favour of the latter, Mt. ii. 22, xvi. 13, 
and disposes of the argument against it 
based on amo Tay épiwv éxeivey (ver. 22) 
by the remark that it has force only if 
Spta, contrary to the usage of the evan- 
gelist, be taken as = boundaries instead 
of territories. On the whole, the con- 
clusion must be that the narrative leaves 
the point uncertain. On psychological 


216 


KATA MATOAION 


XV . 


kai Li8avo5. 22. Kal i8od, yur) Xavaveia dd tov Sptov exeivwr 
€fehOotdca expatyacey! adtd,? A€youoa, “’ENénodv je, KUpre, vie ® 


AaBid:  Ouydrnp pou Kaxds Satpovifera.”” 


drrexpiOy adti Ndyov. 
at ee 


23. ‘O S€ odx 


kal mpoehOdvres of padntat adtod jpdrww * 


26 (with adtdév, Néyorres, “’Amdducovy attiy, ott KpdLer *Smobey pov.” 


gen. as 
here). 

r Mk. ix. 22, 
24. Acts 
XVi. Q; XXi. 


a8. 2 Cor, \€youga, “ Kupre, * Bonet pov.” 


vi.2. Heb. 

ii, 18. 

1 expafev in BDZ (W.H.). 
The imperfect is truer to life. 


2 SS$BCZX omit avTe. 


Ta dtok@dédta oikou “lopanh.’ 


3 vos in BD. 


24. ‘O B€ doxpiBeis etwev, “OdK dmeorddyy ei pH eis TA mpdBata 


25. “H 8€ €Moica mpocextver abta, 


26. “O 8€ doxpilels etrrev, “ OdK 


€att Kaddv © \aBely Tov Gptov Tay Téxvwv, kal Badety Tors Kuvaplots.” 


The aor. expagey in $QZ (Tisch. and W.H. marg.), 


4 npwrouy in $BCDX, 


5 ovx eott Kadoy is so weightily supported (all the great uncials with exception 
of D) that one can hardly refuse to accept it as the true reading. Yet the reading 
of D, ovx efeort, has strong claims, just on account of the severity it implies and 


because the other reading is that of Mk. 


grounds the presumption is in favour of 
the wiew that Jesus crossed the border 
into heathen territory. After that inter- 
view with sanctimonious Pharisees who 
thought the whole world outside Judea 
unclean, it would be a refreshment to 
Christ’s spirit to cross over the line and 
feel that He was still in God’s world, 
with blue sky overhead and the sea on 
this hand and mountains on that, all 
showing the glory of their Maker. He 
would breathe a freer, less stifling atmo- 
sphere there.—Ver. 22. Xavavaia: the 
Phoenicians were descended from a 
colony of Canaanites, the original in- 
habitants of Palestine, Gen. x. 15 (vide 
Benzinger, Heb. Arch., p. 63). Vide 
notes on Mk.—éhd. pe, pity me, the 
mother’s heart speaks.—vié A. The title 
and the request imply some knowledge 
of Jesus. Whence got? Was she a 
proselyte? (De Wette.) Or had the 
fame of Jesus spread thus far, the report 
of a wonderful healer who passed among 
the Jews for a descendant of David? 
The latter every way likely, cf. Mt. iv. 
24. There would be some intercourse 
between the borderers, though doubtless 
also prejudices and enmities.—Ver. 23. 
6 8 ov am.: a new style of behaviour 
on the part of Jesus. The rdle of in- 
difference would cost Him an effort.— 
jpotwy (ovy W. and H. as if contracted 
from épwréw), besought; in classics the 
verb means to inquire. In N. T. the 
two senses are combined after analogy of 


bys. The disciples were probably 
surprised at their Master's unusual 


behaviour; a reason for it would not 
occur to them. They change places 
with the Master here, the larger-hearted 
appearing by comparison the narrow- 
hearted.—dmédvooy, get rid of her by 
granting her request.—ért xpdfer: they 
were moved not so much by pity as by 
dread of a sensation. There was far 
more sympathy (though hidden) in 
Christ’s heart than in theirs. Deep 
natures are often misjudged, and shallow 
men praised at their expense.—Ver. 24. 
ovK amwertadny: Jesus is compelled to 
explain Himself, and His explanation is 
bond fide, and to be taken in earnest as 
meaning that He considered it His duty 
to restrict His ministry to Israel, to bea 
shepherd exclusively to the lost sheep of 
Israel (ra wpdBara +. &., cf. ix. 36), as 
He was wont to call them with affec- 
tionate pity. There was probably a 
mixture of feelings in Christ’s mind at 
this time; an aversion to recommence 
just then a healing ministry at all— 
a craving for rest and retirement; a 
disinclination to be drawn into a ministry 
among a heathen people, which would 
mar the unity of His career as a prophet 
of God to Israel (the drama of His life to 
serve its purpose must respect the limits 
of time and place); a secret inclination 
to do this woman a kindness if it could 
in any way be made exceptional; and last 
but not least, a feeling that her request 
was really not isolated but representative 
=the Gentile world in her inviting Him, a 
fugitive from His own land, to come over 
and help them, an omen of the transterence 
of the kingdom irom Jewish to Pagan soil. 





22—3I. 


EYATTEAION 


217 


27. ‘H 8€ etme, “Nal, xUpie- kal yao! Ta Kuvdpia eoier did Tay 


SWixiav tév taumtévtay amd tis * 


A ~ co) 
28. Téte dmoxpiOeis 6 “Ingots ciwey atta, “’Q ydva, 


q tlotis’ yernOntw cor ds Oéders.” 
dwd Tis Gpas ekelvys. 


A , a 
TpateLys Tay Kupiwy atta.” s Mk. vii. 


8: Lk. 
peyddn cou vi 21 
‘ > 3 , > Le] ( . ). 
Kat td0y 4 Ouydtyp adtist same phr- 
in Lk. xvi 
2i. 


29. Kat petaBas 2xeiOev 6 “Ingots HAVe mapa Thy Oddacoay Tis 


Fadthaias: Kal dvaBas eis Td Gpos, exdOnTo éxel. 


‘ 
KQL 


30. 


BWpooHAOoy adtG Sxdor woddol, Exovtes pe EauTBv xwovs, tTud- 


hous, kwhots, “kudos,” Kal érépous moddous, kal Eppupay adtous u Ch. xviii 


Tapa todls médas Tod “Inood® Kat eBepdweucev adtots: 31. dote 43. 


8. Mk. ix 


rods SxAous* Oaupdoat, Brérovtas Kwhods Aadodvtas,® KuUAOdS 
Xx [i 


byteis,® 


1B omits yap, which therefore W H. bracket. 


fallen out per incuriam, 


wdods TepimatouvTas, Kat tuddods BAétovtas- 
X Pp 


It seems needed, vide below. 
2 The order in which these four words (ywAovs, etc.) are given varies. 


\ 
KQL 


As Weiss suggests it may have 
Yet vide Mk. 


B has 


xvddovs before tupdovs, which W.H. adopt. The order of T.R. is supported only 


by late MSS. 
3 auto for Tov I. in NBDL, 


5 B has axovovtas. 


Vv. 25-28. Entreaty renewed at close 
quarters with success.—Ver. 25.  8e 
¢\Povaa, etc. Probably the mother read 
conflict and irresolution in Christ’s face, 
and thence drew encouragement.—Ver. 
26. ovKx éotiw Kahdv, etc.: seemingly a 
hard word, but not so hard as it seems. 
First, it is not a simple monosyllabic 
negative, leaving no room for parley, 
but an argument inviting further dis- 
cussion. Next, it is playful, humorous, 
bantering in tone, a parable to be taken 
cum grano. Third, its harshest word, 
xuvapiots, contains a loophole. xvvapia 
does not compare Gentiles to the dogs 
without, in the street, but to the house- 
hold dogs belonging to the family, which 
got their portion though not the chil- 
dren’s.—-Ver. 27. vat, kipte> kat yap, 
etc.: eager assent, not dissent, with a 
gleam in the eye on perceiving the 
advantage given by the comparison= Yes, 
indeed, Lord, for even,etc. Kypke cites an 
instance from Xenophon of the combina- 
tion vat «al yap in the same sense.-— 
Wixtwy, dimin. trom Wt, a bit, crumb, 
found only in N. T. (here and Mk. vii. 28, 
Lk. xvi. 21 T. R.), another diminutive 
answering to kvvdpia = the little pet 
dogs, eat of the minute morsels. Curi- 
ously felicitous combination of ready 
wit, humility and faith: wit in seizing 
on the playful KUVEpLa and improving on 
it by adding wWexia, humility in being 
content with the smallest crumbs, faith 


* tov oyXey in S3CDA. 
§ $8 omits this clause. 


in conceiving of the healing asked as 
only such a crumb for Jesus to give.— 
Ver. 28. Immediate compliance with 
her request with intense delight in her 
faith, which may have recalled to mind 
that of another Gentile (Mt. viii. to). 
® yvvat: exclamation in a tone enriched 
by the harmonies of manifold emotions. 
What a refreshment to Christ’s heart to 
pass from that dreary pestilential tradi- 
tionalism to this utterance of a simple 
unsophisticated moral nature on Pagan 
soil! The transition from the one scene 
to the other unconsciously serves the 
purposes of consummate dramatic art, 
Vv. 29-31. Return to the Sea of 
Galilee (Mk. vil. 31-37).—Ver. 29. wapa 
7. 0. +. [ad., to the neighbourhood of 
the Sea of Galilee; on which side? 
According to Mk., the eastern, ap- 
proached by a circuitous journey through 
Sidon and Decapolis. Weiss contends 
that Mt. means the western shore. The 
truth.seems to be that he leaves it vague. 
His account is a meagre colourless re- 
production of Mk.’s. ile takes no interest 
in the route, but only in the incidents at 
the two termini. He takes Jesus north 
to the borders of Tyre to meet the woman 
of Canaan, and back to Galilee to feed 
the multitude a second time.—eis 1d 
dpos, as in y. 1, and apparently for the 
same purpose: éka@yTo é., sat down 
there to teach. This ascent of the hill 
bordering the lake is not in Mk,—Ver. 


218 


y Mk. vili.2 eSéfacav rév Ocdv “lopard. 
(nMepat, 


KATA MATOAION 


XV. 


32. O 8€ "Incods mpooxaderdpevos 


true read- ros pabytas adtod etre, “XmdayxviLopar emi tdv Sxov, Ste HSy 


ing as 


here). C/.* Hiépas ! tpeis * mpoopévouci pot, Kat odk Exouat Ti pdywor. 


Lk. ix. 28, 
Acts Vv. 7 @mrodoat adTtods 
for const. 
w Mk. viii. 
2. Acts 
xi. 23; 
xiii. 43. I 


Tim. v. 5. adtots 6 “Incods, “Mécous dptous ExeTe;”” 


x Mk. viii. 3. x3 

y Mk. viii.7. kat dAtya 7 ixOddea. 

z Mk. vi. 40 
(absol.) ; 
viii. 6 


” A AA ” ~~ ” 
GpTo. TosoUTo, Bote xoptdgat Sxdov TogoUToy ; 


\ 
KaL 


*yijotets oF O2Xw, pyrote exdubdow ev TH 686.” 
33- Kat Aéyouow adtd ot pabytat adrod,? “Md0ev tpiv ev épnpia 


34. Kat dyer 
Ot Sé elrov, “ “Enrd, 


. Kat éké\euce tois Sydois® * dvatrecetv 
X 
émt Thy y7iv: 36. Kal AaBdy* rods Ewrd dprtous Kal rods ixBvas,® 


(erirns y) eDXaptoTHoas Exdace, Kat ESwxe® toils palytais adtou,’ oi Se 


Lk xis 87 ; 
(=dvaxAlvouat). John xxi. 20 al. 


1 ypepat in most uncials. 
obviously a grammatical correction. 


2 SSB omit avrov. 
4 For xat AaBov NBD have edaBe. 
6 eSiS0v in NBD. 


30. ywdovs, etc.: the people wanted 
healing, not teaching, and so brought 
their sick and suffering to Jesus.—ép- 
piyav: they threw them at His feet 
either in care-free confidence, or in haste, 
because of the greatness of the number. 
Among those brought were certain classed 
as kvAXovs, which is usually interpreted 
“bent,” as with rheumatism. But in 
xviii. 8 it seems to mean “mutilated”. 
Euthy. takes «vAAol = of Gyetpes, and 
Grotius argues for this sense, and infers 
that among Christ’s works of healing 
were restorations of lost limbs, though 
we do not read of such anywhere else. 
On this view tytets, ver. 31, will mean 
aptious, integros.—Ver.31. Aahovvras: 
this and the following participles are used 
substantively as objects of the verb Bhé- 
mrovtas, the action denoted by the parti- 
ciples being that which was seen.— 
28éfacav +. @. "lopayndk. The expression 
suggests a non-Israelite crowd and seems 
to hint that after all for our evangelist 
Jesus is on the east side and in heathen 
territory. But it may point back to ver. 
24 and mean the God who conferred 
such favours on Israel as distinct from 
the heathen (Weiss-Meyer). 

Vv. 32-38. Second feeding (Mk. viii. 
1-9).—Ver. 32. omdayxvilopar, with ert 
as in xiv. 14, Mk. viii. 2, with aept in ix. 
36. In the first feeding Christ’s com- 
passion is moved by the sickness among 
the multitude, here by their hunger.— 
Fpepat Tpets: that this is the true reading 
is guaranteed by the unusual construction, 
the accusative being what one expects. 


$$ and Origen have the accus. (npepas T.R.), 


3 For exed. Tots ox. NBD have wapayyethas tw oxo. 
* NBD insert nat before cvxxaprotycas. 
TSNBD omit avrov. 


The reading of D adopted by Fritzsche, 
which inserts elor kot after rpeis, though 
not to be accepted as the true reading, 
may be viewed as a solution of the 
problem presented by the true reading 
vide Winer, § 62, 2.—vyjorets, fasting 
(vn, éo@iw similar to vymios from vy, 
éwos), here and in parallel text in Mk. 
only. The motive of the miracle is not 
the distance from supplies but the ex- 
hausted condition of the people after 
staying three days with Jesus with quite 
inadequate provision of food. Mk. states 
that some were far from home (viii. 3), 
implying that most were not. But even 
those whose homes were near might faint 
(éxAv@aon, Gal. vi. 9) by the way through 
long fasting.—Ver. 33. rocotro., dare 
Xoptdgat. Gore with infinitive may be 
used to express a consequence involved 
in the essence or quality of an object or 
action, therefore after trocotros and 
similar words ; vide Ktihner, § 584, 2, aa. 
—Ver.34. mdécous Gprovs: the disciples 
have larger supplies this time than the 
first, after three days, and when the 
supplies of the multitude are exhausted : 
seven loaves and several small fishes.— 
Ver. 36. evxapitotycas, a late Greek 
word (‘‘does not occur before Polybius 
in the sense of gratias agere’””—Camb. 
N. T.), condemned by Phryn., who 
enjoins yapw etSévat instead (Lobeck, 
p- 18). Elsner dissents from the judg- 
ment of the ancient grammarians, citing 
instances from Demosthenes, etc.—Ver. 
37. €wra omvpidas: baskets different 
in number and in name. Hesychius 





32—39. XVI.1. 


pabnrat Td dxdw.! 


EYATTEAION 


219 


37. Kat &payov wdvtes, Kat éxoptdcbnaay - 


Kal fipav? 13 wepiocedov Tov Kacpdtwv, éwra *omupibas whijpets. * Ch. xvi. ro 


k. viii. 8, 


38. ot S€ écBiovres Foay Tetpaxtoxidtor Gvdpes, xwpis yuvarkay Kai 20. Acts 


TWaLdiov. 


ix. 25. 


39. Kat dodcas tods Sxdous évéBn eis TS TAotOv, Kat HOev Eis 


Ta Spia Maydaha.5 


XVI. 1. Kat mpocehOdvtes of Sapicaior Kai EadSouxator meipd- 
Lovtes Emnpdtncay* adrdv onpetoy éx Tod ovpavod émdeiar adtois. 


1 fous oxAots in NBL al. 


2 npav after kAagpateyv in BD. 
3 Mayadav in NBD, adopted in Tisch., W.H., etc., and doubtless 


the true 


reading. MaySada is a known substituted for an unknown. 
4 exnpwrtev in $$ (Tisch. and W.H. marg.). 


defines omvpls: Td Tov Wupev Gyyos = 
wheat-basket; perhaps connected with 
one(pw, suggesting a basket made of 
rope-net; probably larger than xédvvos, 
for longer journeys (Grotius). Or does 
the different kind of basket point to 
different nationality; Gentiles? Hilary 
contends for Gentile recipients of the 
second blessing, with whom Westcott 
(Characteristics of Gospel Miracles, p. 
13) agrees.—Ver. 39. Mayaddy: the 
true reading, place wholly unknown, 
whence probably the variants. 

CHAPTER XVI. SIGN SEEKERS: 
CAESAREA PuitipPi. Again a dramati- 
cally impressive juxtaposition of events. 
First an ominous encounter with ill- 
affected men professedly in quest of a 
sign, then in a place of retreat a first 
announcement in startlingly plain terms 
of an approaching tragic crisis. 

Vv. 1-12. Demand for a sign (Mk. 
viii, 11-21).—Ver. I. mpooedOdvres: 
one of Mt.’s oft-recurring descriptive 
words.—¢?ap. kat 2a88.: a new com- 
bination, with sinister purpose, of classes 
of the community not accustomed to act 
together; wide apart, indeed, in social 
position and religious tendency, but 
made allies pro tem. by common dislike 
to the movement identified with Jesus. 
Already scribes by themselves had asked 
a sign (xii. 38). Now they are joined by 
a party representing the priestly and 
governing classes among whom the 
“ Sadducees”” were to be found (Well- 
hausen, Die Pharisder und die Sadducaer). 
Mk. mentions only the Pharisees (ver. 
11), but he makes Jesus refer to the 
leaven of Herod in the subsequent con- 
versation with the disciples, whence 
might legitimately be inferred the 
presence of representatives of that 
leaven. These Mt. calls ‘‘ Sadducees,”’ 


probably the better-known name, and 
practically identical with the Herod 
leaven. The ‘ Herodians” were, I 
imagine, people for whom Herod the 
Great was a hero, a kind of Messiah, 
all the Messiah they cared for or believed 
in, one who could help worldly-minded 
Israelites to be proud of their country 
(vide Grotius on Mt. xvi. 6). It was 
among Sadducees that such _hero- 
worshippers were likely to be found.— 
éwnpotnoav: here like the simple verb 
(xv. 23) =requested, with infinitive, 
émiSettar, completing the object of 
desire.—onpeiov éx Tov ovpavod : before 
ae 38) only a sign. Now a sign from 
eaven. What might that be? Chrys. 
(Hom. liii.) suggests: to stop the course 
of the sun, to bridle the moon, to pro- 
duce thunder, or to change the air, or 
something of that sort. These sugges- 
tions will do as well as any. Probably 
the interrogators had no definite idea 
what they wanted, beyond desiring to 
embarrass or nonplus Christ. 

Vv. 2-4. Reply of Fesus.—Vv. 2 and 
3, though not in B and bracketed by W. 
H., may be regarded as part of the text. 
Somewhat similar is Lk. xii. 54-56. On 
some occasion Jesus must have con- 
trasted the shrewd observation of His 
contemporaries in the natural sphere 
with their spiritual obtuseness.—Ver 2. 
evS(a, fine weather ! (ev, Ards genitive of 
Zevs).—vppdfea yap 6 4.: that the sign 
= a ruddy sky in the evening (wvppitew 
in Lev. xiii. 19, 24).—Ver. 3. yetpov, a 
storm to-day; sign the same, a ruddy 
sky in the morning. —otvyvatay, late but 
expressive = triste coelum. No special 
meteorological skillindicatedthereby,only 
the average power of observation based 
on experience, which is common to man. 
kind. Lightfoot credits the Jews with 


220 


KATA MATOAION XV. 


a Sir. tii rs. 2. 6 8€ daroxpibels elev adtois, “’Opias! yevouevns Aéyete, “EDSia- 


b Acts xxvii. muppdler yap 6 odpavds. 
20 (same 
sense). 
Ch. xxiv. 


yap ‘°otuyvdfev 6 odpards. 


3+ Kal mpwi, Lijpepor 


»xeupuv: muppdter 


2 ‘ ‘ , a 
TO EV TPOOwWTOY TOU 


dtroxpitai, 


zo (winter) odpavod yidoKere eexpivaw, Ta Sé onpeta Tay Katpav ob Sivacbe; ! 
R Mic. x. a2.4. yeved mwovnpda Kal porxadts onpaioy émLyret* Kat omplaiay, ob 


Sobjcerar aith, et ph Td onpelov “lwva tod mpopytov.” > Kai 
d athe Katahuray adtous, dw7be. 
inf). Heb. 5. Kal éX@dvtes of pabytail adtod* eis rd mépay * érehdPovto 
it 2.16 Gptous AaBetv. 6. 6 S€ “Ingods elirev adrots, “ “Opate kai mpocéxete 


Phil. iii.13 dd THS Lopns TOY Papicatwy Kat Laddouxaiwr.” 


(accus.). 


7. Ol Se Srehoyi- 


1 From oyias to Suvacée, end of ver. 3, is bracketed as doubtful by modern editors 
The passage is wanting in BVXTI, Syr. Cur., and Syr. Sin., Orig., etc. 


7 DLA omit. 


special interest in such observations, and 
Christ was willing to give them full 
credit for skill in that sphere. His com- 
plaint was that they showed no such 
skill in the ethical sphere; they could 
not discern the signs of the times (tov 
xatp@v; the reference being, of course, 
chiefly to their own time). Neither 
Pharisees nor Sadducees had any idea 
that the end of the Jewish state was so 
near. ‘They said ev8ia when they should 
have said yetpov. They mistook the 
time of day ; thought it was the eve of 
a good time coming when it was the 
morning of the judgment day. For a 
historical parallel, vide Carlyle’s French 
Revolution, book ii., chap. i., Astraea 
Reduzx.—Ver. 4. Vide chap. xii. 39. 
Vv. 5-12. The one important thing 
in this section is the reflection of Jesus 
on what had just taken place. The 
historical setting is not clear. Jesus left 
the sign seekers after giving them their 
answer. The disciples cross the lake; 
in which direction? With or without 
their Master? They forget to take 
bread. When? On setting out or after 
arrival at the other side? éd@dvres els 
7. W., ver. 5, naturally suggests the 
latter, but, as Grotius remarks, the verb 
épxecOoar in the Gospels sometimes 
means ive not venire (vide, ¢.g., Lk. xv. 
20). Suffice it to say that either in the 
boat or after arrival at the opposite side 
Jesus uttered a memorable word.—Ver. 
6. Opate xal wpooéyete: an abrupt, 
urgent admonition to look out for, in 
order to take heed of, a phenomenon of 
very sinister import; in Scottish idiom 
‘““see and beware of”. More impressive 
still in Mk.: épa@re, Bdéwere, a duality 


3 S3LDL omit tov wpodyrov. 


* ECD omit avrov. 


giving emphasis to the command 
(avadimlwots, eudatvovsa  émiraci 
tHS wapayyeNias, Euthy.). — lips, 


leaven, here conceived as an evil in- 
Auence, working, however, after the same 
manner as the leaven in the parable (xiii. 
33). It Is a spirit, a zeitgeist, insinuat- 
ing itself everywhere, and spreading 
more and more in society, which Jesus 
instinctively shrank from in horror, and 
from which He wished to guard His 
disciples.—rav ap. wai 2ad.: one 
leaven, of two parties viewed as one, 
hence no article before 2a8. Two 
leavens separately named in Mk., but 
even there juxtaposition in the warning 
implies affinity. The leaven of Pharisaism 
is made thoroughly known to us in the 
Gospels by detailed characterisation. 
Sadducaism very seldom appears on the 
stage, and few words of Jesus concerning 
it are recorded ; yet enough to indicate 
its character as secular or ‘‘ worldly”’. 
The two classes, antagonistic at many 
points of belief and practice, would be 
at one in dislike of single-hearted 
devotion to truth and righteousness, 
whether in the Baptist (iii. 7) or in 
Jesus. This common action in reference 
to either might not be a matter of 
arrangement, and each might come 
with its own characteristic mood: the 
Pharisee with bitter animosity, the 
Sadducee with good-natured scepticism 
and in quest of amusement, as when 
they propounded the riddle about the 
woman married to seven brothers. Both 
moods revealed utter lack of appreciation, 
no friendship to be looked for in either 
quarter, both to be dreaded.— Ver. 7. év 
éavtois: either each man in his own 





2—I12. 


Lovro év éautots, A€yovtes, “Ort Gptous odK éAdBopev.” 


EYATTEAION 


221 


8. Tvods 


4 an c n 
dé 6 “Ingots eimev adtois,! “ Ti SvadoyiLeoGe ev Eoutots, SArydmicTOUW 


Stu Gptous ok ehdBete?; g. oUmw voeite, oUdE * pynpovedeTe TOUS ex Thess. ii. 


wévte Gptous Tay tevtakioxtAtwv, Kal mécous Kodivous éddPete ; 
10. 008€ ToUs Ewrd ApTous Tay TeTpaKLCXLAlwy, Kal TdcAs omupidas® 


éhdBerte ; 


xew® dard tis Lupns Tov apicatwy Kal LadSouxaluy ; 
cuvijkav, Ste ovK eime Tpoodxey Amd THS Cupns Tou Gptou,® &dX’ 
and Tis didaxqs Tov Papicaiwy Kai Ladsoucaiur. 


1 SSBDLAZ al. omit avtois. 
3 cpupidas in BD. 


® For mpocexetv BCL have mpocexere Se. 


mind (Weiss), or among themselves, 
apart from the Master (Meyer).—ért 
may be recitative or = “because”. He 
gives this warning because, etc. ; sense 
the same. They take the Master to 
mean: do not buy bread from persons 
belonging to the obnoxious sects! or 
rather perhaps: do not take your direc- 
tions as to the leaven to be used in 
baking from that quarter. Vide Light- 
foot ad loc. Stupid mistake, yet pardon- 
able when we remember the abruptness 
of the warning and the wide gulf between 
Master and disciples : He a prophet with 
prescient eye, seeing the forces of evil 
at work and what they were leading to; 
they very commonplace persons lacking 
insight and foresight. Note the solitari- 
ness of Christ.—Ver. 8. éAtyémucror: 
always thinking about bread, bread, 
instead of the kingdom and its fortunes, 
with which alone the Master was 
occupied.—Vv. 9,10. And with so little 
excuse in view of quite recent experiences, 
of which the vivid details are given as if 
to heighten the reproach.—Ver. 11. 
mpooeyxete, etc.: warning repeated with- 
out further explanation, as the meaning 
would now be self-evident.—Ver. 12. 
guvikav, they now understood, at least 
to the extent of seeing that it was a 
question not of loaves but of something 
spiritual. One could wish that they had 
understood that from the first, and that 
they had asked their Master to explain 
more precisely the nature of the evil 
influences for their and our benefit. 
Thereby we might have had in a sentence 
a photograph of Sadducaism, ¢.g.— 
duday7s, “doctrine”; that was in a 
general way the import of the Cvpy. 
But if Jesus had explained Himself He 
would have had more to say. The 


II. 1@s ov voeiTe, STL OF TEpL GpTou * eioy bpiv mpocE- 


9. 2 Tim. 
11. 8. Rev. 
XViil. 5 
(with 
accus.). 
Gal. ii. 10. 
Col. iv. 18. 
Heb. xi. 
15; xiii. 7 
(with 
gen.). 


12. Tote 


2 NBD have exere (W.H.). 
4 aptwv in BCL. 
8 twy aptwy in BL. 


dogmas and opinions of the two parties 
in question were not the worst of them, 
but the spirit of their life: their dislike 
of real godliness. 

Vv. 13-28. At Caesarea Philippi (Mk. 
vili, 27—ix. 1; Lk. ix. 18-27). The 
crossing of the lake (ver. 5) proved to be 
the prelude to a second long excursion 
northwards, similar to that mentioned in 
xv. 21; like it following close on an en- 
counter with ill-affected persons, and 
originating in a kindred mood and 
motive. For those who regard the two 
feedings as duplicate accounts of the 
same event these two excursions are of 
course one. ‘‘ The idea of two journeys 
on which Jesus oversteps the boundaries 
of Galilee is only the result of the 
assumption of a twofold feeding. The 
two journeys are, in truth, only parts of 
one great journey, on which Jesus, 
coming out of heathen territory, first 
touches again the soil of the holy land, 
in the neighbourhood of Caesarea 
Philippi.” Weiss, Leben Fesu, ii. 256. 
Be this as it may, this visit to that 
region was an eventful one, marking a 
crisis or turning-point in the career of 
Jesus. We are at the beginning of the 
fifth act in the tragic drama: the shadow 
of the cross now falls across the path. 
Practically the ministry in Galilee is 
ended, and Jesus is here to collect His 
thoughts and to devote Himself to the 
disciplining of His disciples. Place and 
time invite to reflection and forecast, 
and afford leisure for a calm survey of 
the whole situation. Note that at this 
point Lk. again joins his fellow-evan- 
gelists in his narrative. We have missed 
him from xiv. 23 onwards (vide notes on 
Lk.). 


Ver. *EA@av: here again this verb 


13. 


222 


KATA MATOAION 


XVI. 


13. "EXOdv 8€ 6 “Ingods eis Ta pépy Katoapetas Tis deAlariou 


Hpwra tods pabytds adtod, Néywr, “Tiva pe? A€youow ot dvOpwirot 


> ‘ La “ LA » 
€lvat, TOY ULOY TOU dvOpwrrou ; 


14. Ot 8€ eloy, “Ot per “lwdvyny 


tov BamtioTyy* Gddor S€ “HAlay- Erepor Sé ‘lepepiav, H eva tar 


* NB and most versions omit pe, which has probably come in from the parallels. 
The omission of je requires the , after ecvat to be deleted. 


may mean not arriving at, but setting 
out for, or on the way: unterwegs, Schanz. 
So Grotius: cum proficisceretur, non cum 
venisset. Fritzsche dissents and renders: 
postquam venerat. Mk. has év rq 686 to 
indicate where the conversation began. 
On the whole both expressions are 
elastic, and leave us free to locate the 
ensuing scene at any point on the road 
to Caesarea Philippi, say at the spot 
where the city and its surroundings came 
into view.—Ka.capelas tr. @. : a notable 
city, romantically situated at the foot of 
the Lebanon range, near the main 
sources of the Jordan, in a limestone 
cave, in the province of Gaulonitis, ruled 
over by the Tetrarch Philip, enlarged 
and beautified by him with the Herodian 
passion for building, and furnished with 
a mew name (Paneas before, changed 
into Caesarea of Philip to distinguish 
from Caesarea on the sea). ‘A place of 
exceedingly beautiful, picturesque sur- 
roundings, with which few spots in the 
holy land can be compared. What a 
rush of many waters; what a wealth 
and variety of vegetation!’ Furrer, 
Wanderungen, 414. Vide also the de- 
scription in Stanley’s Sinai and Palestine, 
and in Professor G. A. Smith’s Historical 
Geography of the Holy Land.—triva 
Aéyouory, etc.: with this grand natural 
scene possibly or even probably (why 
else name it ?) in view, Jesus asked His 
disciples a significant question meant to 
lead on to important disclosures. The 
question is variously reported by the 
synoptists, and it is not easy to decide 
between the forms. It would seem 
simpler and more natural to ask, ‘“‘ whom 
do, etc., that Jam?” (pe etvat, Mk. and 
Lk.). But, on the other hand, at a 
solemn moment Jesus might prefer to 
speak impersonally, and ask: ‘whom 
... thatthe Son of Manis?” (Mt.). That 
title, as hitherto employed by Him, 
would not prejudge the question. It 
had served rather to keep the question 
who He was, how His vocation was to 
be defined, in suspense till men had 
learned to attach new senses to old 
words. It is intrinsically unlikely that 
He would combine the two forms of the 


question, and ask: ‘‘ whom, etc., that J, 
the Son of Man, am?’’ as in the T. R. 
That consideration does not settle what 
Mt. wrote, but it is satisfactory that the 
best MSS. leave out the pe. The ques- 
tion shows that Jesus had been thinking 
of His past ministry and its results, and 
it may be taken for granted that He had 
formed His own estimate, and did not 
need to learn from the Twelve how He 
stood. He had come to the conclusion 
that He was practically without reliable 
following outside the disciple circle, and 
that conviction is the key to all that 
follows in this memorable scene. How 
the influential classes, the Pharisees, and 
the priests and political men = Sadducees, 
were affected was apparent. Nothing 
but hostility was to be looked for there. 
With the common people on the other 
hand He had to the last been popular. 
They liked His preaching, and they took 
eager advantage of His healing ministry. 
But had they got a definite faith about 
Him, as well as a kindly feeling towards 
Him; an idea well-rooted, likely to be 
lasting, epoch-making, the starting-point 
of anew religious movement? He did 
not believe they had, and He expected 
to have that impression confirmed by the 
answer of the Twelve, as indeed it was. 
Ver. 14. Reply of disciples: the 
general effect being: opinions of the 
people, favourable but crude, without re- 
ligious definiteness and depth, with no 
promise of future outcome.—'lwdyv., 
*HXtay., ‘lepex. Historic characters, 
recent or more ancient, vedivivi—that 
the utmosé possible: unable to rise to 
the idea of a wholly new departure, or a 
greater than any character in past his- 
tory ; conservatism natural tothe common 
mind. All three personages whose re- 
turn might be expected; the Baptist to 
continue his work cut short by Herod, 
Elijah to prepare the way and day of the 
Lord (Mal. iv. 5), Jeremiah to bring back 
the ark, etc., which (2 Maccab. ii. 1-12) 
he had hid in a cave. Jeremiah is 
classed with the other well-known 
prophets (4 éva +. a.), and the supporters 
of that hypothesis are called €repo., as 
if to distinguish them not merely numeri- 





13—17. 


mpopytav.”” 


16. "AmoxpiOels Sé Zipwy Métpos etwe, “Xd ef 6 Xprotds, 6 vids Tob 


A ~~ cal ”? 
Bed tod * Lavtos. 


“Maxdptos et, Zipwv Bap lwva, ore Sodpg kat Satya odx >drexddupe 


50. Gal. i. 16. Eph. vii 12. 


1 amoxpibers Se in NBD, cursives. 


cally (4\Aot) but generically: a lower 
type who did not connect Jesus with 
Messiah in any way, even as forerunner, 
but simply thought of Him as one in 
whom the old prophetic charism had 
been revived. 

Vv. 15, 16. New question and answer. 
—Ver. 15. tpets Se, and you? might 
have stood alone, perhaps did originally. 
Jesus invites the Twelve to give Him 
their own view. The first question was 
really only introductory to this. Jesus 
desires to make sure that He, otherwise 
without reliable following, has in His 
disciples at least the nucleus of a com- 
munity with a definite religious con- 
viction as to the meaning of His ministry 
and mission.—Ver. 16. Zipwv Mérpos: 
now as always spokesman for the Twelve. 
There may be deeper natures among 
them (John ?), but he is the most ener- 
getic and outspoken, though withal 
emotional rather than intellectual; strong, 
as passionate character is, rather than 
with the strength of thought, or of a will 
steadily controlled by a firm grasp of 
great principles: not a rock in the sense 
in which St. Paul was one.—ov &... 
tov {@vros: “Thou art the Christ, the 
Son of the living God,” in Mk. simply 
“ Thou art the Christ,” in Lk. ‘the 
Christ of God”’, One’s first thought is 
that Mk. gives the original form of the 
reply; and yet in view of Peter’s 
vehement temperament one cannot be 
perfectly sure of that. The form in Mt. 
certainly answers best to the reply of 
Jesus, vide on ver. 17. In any case the 
emphasis lies on that which is common to 
the three reports: the affirmation of the 
Christhood of Jesus. That was what 
differentiated the disciples from the 
favourably disposed multitude. The 
latter said in effect: at most a forerunner 
of Messiah, probably not even that, only 
a prophet worthy to be named alongside 
of the well-known prophets of Israel. 
The Twelve through Peter said: not 
merely a prophet or a forerunner of the 
Messiah, but the Messiah Himself. The 
temainder of the reply in Mt., whether 
spoken by Peter, or added by the evan- 


EYATLTEAION 
15. Ayer aidtois, ““Ypeis 8€ tiva pe héyere etvor;” a xxvi. 
172° Kot drroKptBels 1 6 *Incods etmev atte, 


Heb. ii. 14 (the same phrase in all). 


223 


Heb. 
il. 12; 1x. 
TAS xen e 
(an attri- 
bute of 
God). 
gi Cor. xv. 
b Ch. xi. 25. Gal. i. 16. 


gelist (to correspond, as it were, to Son 
of Man in ver. 13), is simply expansion 
or epexegesis. If spoken by Peter it 
serves to show that he spoke with 
emotion, and with a sense of the gravity 
of the declaration. The precise theo- 
logical value of the added clause cannot 
be determined. 

Vv. 17-19. Solemn address of Fesus to 
Peter, peculiar to Mt., and of doubtful 
authenticity in the view of many modern 
critics, including Wendt (Die Lehre 
Fesu,i., p. 181), either an addendum by 
the evangelist or introduced at a later 
date by areviser. This question cannot 
be fully discussed here. It must suffice 
to say that psychological reasons are in 
favour of something of the kind having 
been said by Jesus. It was a great 
critical moment in His career, at which 
His spirit was doubtless in a state of 
high tension. The firm tone of con- 
viction in Peter’s reply would give Him 
a thrill of satisfaction demanding ex- 
pression. One feels that there is a 
hiatus in the narratives of Mk. and Lk.: 
no comment,on the part of Jesus, as if 
Peter had delivered himself of a mere 
trite commonplace. We may be sure 
the fact was notso. The terms in which 
Jesus speaks of Peter are characteristic 
—warm, generous, unstinted. The style 
is not that of an ecclesiastical editor lay- 
ing the foundation for Church power 
and prelatic pretensions, but of a 
noble-minded Master eulogising in im- 
passioned terms a loyal disciple. Even 
the reference to the ‘‘ Church” is not 
unseasonable. What more natural than 
that Jesus, conscious that His labours, 
outside the disciple circle, have been 
fruitless, so far as permanent result is 
concerned, should fix His hopes on that 
circle, and look on it as the nucleus of a 
new regenerate Israel, having for its 
raison d’étre that it accepts Him as the 
Christ? And the name for the new 
Israel, €xkAnota, in His mouth is not an 
anachronism. It is an old familiar name 
for the congregation of Israel, found in 
Deut. (xviii. 16; xxiii. 2) and Psalms 
(xxii. 26), both books well known to 


224 


ihereandin wou, dA’ 6 warhp pou 6 év tots! odpavots. 


xviii. 17in | 


KATA MATOAION 


XVI. 


18. Kaya 8é oor Aéyw, 


Gospels. Gre od ef Mérpos, Kat emt tavty TH Wérpa oiKodopyjow pou Thy 


j Lk. xxi. 36 


3 , a 
(W.H); ‘éxxAnolav, kat mudae adou ob I kateoxUooucw adtTis, 19. kal? Sécw 


xxiii. 2 
k Lk. xi. 
Rey, i, 38° i 
iii. 7; ix. THS YS» 
13 XX. % 
1 Ch. xviii. 18. 
1 B omits rots, which W.H. bracket. 
3 xXeSas in NBL (W.H.). 


Jesus.—Ver. 17. paxdpios: weighty 
word chosen to express a rare and high 
condition, virtue, or experience (‘‘ hoc 
vocabulo non solum beata, sed etiam 
rara simul conditio significatur,”’ Beng.). 
It implies satisfaction with the quality of 
Peter’s faith. Jesus was not easily satis- 
fied asto that. He wanted no man to 
call Him Christ under a misappre- 
hension; hence the prohibition in ver. 
20. Hecongratulated Peter not merely 
on believing Him to be the Messiah, 
but on having an essentially right con- 
ception of what the title meant.—z. 
Bepwwva: full designation, name, and 
patronymic, suiting the emotional state 
of the speaker and the solemn character 
of the utterance, echo of an Aramaic 
source, or of the Aramaic dialect used 
then, if not always, by Jesus.—oap§ kat 
atpa: synonym in current Jewish speech 
for ‘‘man”. ‘“Infinita frequentia hance 
formulam loquendi adhibent Scriptores 
Judaici, eaque homines Deo opponunt.”’ 
Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. Vide ver. 23. 
There is a tacit contrast between Peter’s 
faith and the opinions of the people just 
recited, as to source. Flesh and blood 
was the source of these opinions, and 
the fact is a clue to the meaning of the 
phrase. The contrast between the two 
sources of inspiration is not the very 
general abstract one between creaturely 
weakness and Divine power (Wendt, 
Die Begriffe Fleisch und Geist, p. 60). 
“Flesh and blood” covers all that can 
contribute to the formation of religious 
opinion of little intrinsic value—tradition, 
custom, fashion, education, authority, 
regard to outward appearance. Hilary, 
and after him Lutteroth, takes the re- 
ference to be to Christ’s flesh and blood, 
and finds in the words the idea: if you 
had looked to my flesh you would have 
called me Christ, the Son of David, but 
higher guidance has taught you to call 
me Son of God.—é mwaryp pov: this is 
to be taken not in a merely ontological 
sense, but ethically, so as to account for 


‘ov avin BD. 


Sa, Gol Tas ™ KAeis® tis Bacedelas Tov otpavav: Kal & éav 4! Byons emi 
Eorat Sedepevor ev Tois odpavois: Kat & ddv® ! dons emi 


= NBD omit «ar. (W.H.). 
So avin D. 


the quality of Peter’s faith. The true 
conception of Christhood was inseparable 
from the true conception of God. Jesus 
had been steadily working for the trans- 
formation of both ideas, and He counted 
on the two finding entrance into the 
mind together. Noone could truly con- 
ceive the Christ who had not learned to 
think of God as the Father and as His 
Father. There were thus two revelations 
in one: of God as Father, and of Christ 
by the Father. Peter had become a 
Christian. 

Ver. 18. «ayo: emphatic, something 
very important about to be said to Peter 
and about him.—2érpos, wérpq, a happy 
play of words. Both are appellatives to 
be translated ‘‘thou art a rock and on 
this rock,” the two being represented by 


the same word in Aramaean (NDS). 
~ = 


Elsewhere in the Gospels Mérpos is a 
proper name, and wétpa only is used in 
the sense of rock (vii. 24). What 
follows is in form a promise to Peter as 
reward of his faith. It is as personal 
as the most zealous advocates of Papal 
supremacy could desire. Yet it is as 
remote as the poles from what they 
mean. It is a case of extremes meeting. 
Christ did not fight to death against one 
form of spiritual despotism to put 
another, if possible worse, in its room. 
Personal in form, the sense of this 
famous. logion can be expressed in 
abstract terms without reference to 
Peter’s personality. And that sense, if 
Christ really spoke the word, must be 
simple, elementary, suitable to the 
initial stage ; withal religious and ethical 
rather than ecclesiastical. The more 
ecclesiastical we make it, the more we 
play into the hands of those who main- 
tain that the passage is an interpolation. 
I find in it three ideas: (1) The éxxAnola 
is to consist of men confessing Jesus to 
be the Christ. This is the import of éat 
T. Te T. OiKodopyow pov T. éx. Peter, 
believing that truth, is the foundation, 





, 


18—21. 


ris ys, Eorat Aedupevoy ev tots odpavois.” 


EYATTEAION 


225 


20. Tére SteotetXaro! 


Tots padntats adtod? iva undevt etmwow, Str adtés Eotiy Incous? 6 
> 


Xptords. 


21. ™’Amd Tote Hpkato 6 “Incots* Sexvderw Tots pabyTals adTou, mCh. iv.17; 


XXVi. 16. 


Ott Set adtdv dwedOety eis “lepooddupa,® Kai wodha wabety awd TOV Lk. xvi. 16. 


‘ lol 
apesButépwy kat dpxepéwy Kal ypappatéwy, kal droKxtavOyjvar, Kat 


1 eretipqoev in BD. W.H. place it in text with SteoretAaro in margin. 


Mk. 


has ereripynoeyv in the corresponding place. 
2 \8BCD omit avrov, which so often stands in T. R. where the best texts want it. 


3$9BLXIA omit Iqngovs. 


4 For o Ingovs SB, Cop. have Incovs Xpiorog; D Ingovs without the art. 


Vide below. 


5 gus |. before aweA@ew in SBD cursives. 


and the building is to be of a piece with 
the foundation. Observe the emphatic 
position of pov. The éx«xAyata is Christ's; 
confessing Him as Christ in Peter’s 
sense and spirit = being Christian. (2) 


.. The new society is to be = the kingdom 


realised on earth. This is the import of 
ver. 19, clause 1. The keys are the 
symbol of this identity. They are the 
keys of the gate without, not of the doors 
within. Peter is the gate-keeper, not 
the otxovépos with a bunch of keys that 
open all doors in his hands (against 
Weiss) —xAevSovxou épyov Td elodyevv, 
Euthy. Observe it is not the keys of the 
church but of the kingdom. The mean- 
ing is: Peter-like faith in Jesus as the 
Christ admits into the Kingdom of 
Heaven. A society of men so believing 
= the kingdom realised. (3) In the new 
society the righteousness of the kingdom 
will find approximate embodiment. This 
is the import of ver. 19, second clause. 
Binding and loosing, in Rabbinical 


_ dialect, meant forbidding and permitting 


to be done. The judgment of the 
Rabbis was mostly wrong: the reverse 
of the righteousness of the kingdom. 
The judgment of the new society as to 
conduct would bein accordance with the 
truth of things, therefore valid in heaven. 
That is what Jesus meant to say. Note 
the perfect participles Sedepévov, 
AeAvpévov = shall be a thing bound or 
loosed once for all. The truth of all 
three statements is conditional on the 
Christ spirit continuing to rule in the 
new society. Only on that condition is 
the statement about the mvAar ddov, 
ver. 18, clause 2, valid. What precisely 
the verbal meaning of the statement is— 
whether that the gates of Hades shall 
not prevail in conflict against it, as 


ordinarily understood; or merely that 
the gates, etc., shall not be stronger 
than it, without thought of a conflict 
(Weiss), is of minor moment; the point 
is that it is not an absolute promise. 
The éxxAynota will be strong, enduring, 
only so long as the faith in the Father 
and in Christ the Son, and the spirit of 
the Father and the Son, reign in it. 
When the Christ spirit is weak the 
Church will be weak, and neither creeds 
nor governments, nor keys, nor ecclesi- 
astical dignities will be of much help to 
her. 

Ver. 20. SteoretAaro (T.R.), “‘charged” 
(A. V.) not necessarily with any special 
emphasis = graviter interdicere, but = 
monuit (Loesner and Fritzsche). Cf. 
Heb, xii. 20, where a stronger sense 
seems required. For éwetiunoe in BD 
here and in Mk. Euthy. gives xary- 
adadioaro = to make sure by injunc- 
tion.—tots pa@yntais: all the disciples 
are supposed to say amen to Peter’s 
confession, thinking of God and of Jesus 
as he thought, though possibly not with 
equal emphasis of conviction.—tva ... 
6 Xptords: no desire to multiply hastily 
recruits for the new community, supreme 
regard to quality. Jesus wanted no man 
to call Him Christ till he knew what he 
was saying: no hearsay or echoed con- 
fession of any value in His eyes.—airés, 
the same concerning whom current 
opinions have just been reported (ver. 
14). It was hardly necessary to take 
pains to prevent the faith in His Messiah- 
ship from spreading prematurely in a 
crude form. Few would cail such an 
one as ¥esus Christ, save by the Holy 
Ghost. The one temptation thereto lay 
in the generous heneficence of Jesus. 

Vv. 21-28. Announcement of the 


15 


226 


KATA MATOAION 


XVI. 


a Mk. rn TH Tpity hepa eyepOjvar. 22. kal ™ mpoohaBdpevos adrdv 5 Nérpos 
32. Cf. 


” a a ” 
Acts xvii. Hpgato émitypdy adt@ Aéywv,! “*"INeds cor, Kdpte* ob pr) EoTar cor 


5; xviii. a > 
26. TOUTO. 


33. Rom. viii. 5. Phil. ii. 5; iii, 19. 


23. ‘O 8é otpadels ele TH Nétpw, ““Yraye dmicw jou, 
Latava, oxdvdaddv pou ef?+ Ste ob P ppoveis Ta Tod Oeod, AAAA TA 


! For np. emetipay a. Aeywy, which conforms to Mk., B has Aeyet a. emttipey 


(W.H. marg.). 
* « enov in NB (Tisch., W.H.). 


Passion with relative conversation (Mk. 
viii. 31—ix. 1 ; Lk. ix. 22-27).—Ver. 21. 
amd réte Aptaro (vide iv. 17) marks 
pointedly a new departure in the form of 
explicit intimation of an approaching 
final and fatal crisis. Time suitable. 
Disciples could now bear it, it could not 
be much longer delayed. Jesus could 
now face the crisis with composure, 
having been satisfied by Peter’s con- 
fession that His labour was not going to 
be in vain. He then began to show, 
etc., for this was only the first of several 
communications of the same kind.— 


Xpiords after Inoots in NB is an in- 


trinsically probable reading, as suiting 
the solemnity of the occasion and greatly 
enhancing the impressiveness of the 
announcement. Jesus, the Christ, to be 
crucified! But one would have expected 
the article before Xp.—roAa. rabetv, the 
general fact.—amd .. . ypappatéwv, the 
three constituent parts of the Sanhedrim— 
elders, priests, scribes.—daoKtav@7jvat: 
one hard special fact, be killed.— 
éyepOqvar: this added to make the 
other fact not altogether intolerable. 
Ver. 22. Peter here appears in a new 
character; a minute ago speaking under 
inspiration from heaven, now under in- 
spiration from the opposite quarter.— 
jpgato, began to chide or admonish. He 
did not get far. As soon as his meaning 
became apparent he encountered prompt, 
abrupt, peremptory contradiction,—ta- 
ێs oot: Elsner renders sis bono fplaci- 
doque animo, but most (Erasmus, Grotius, 
Kypke, Fritzsche, etc.) take it = absit/ 
God avert it! Vehement utterance of a 
man confounded and horrified. Perfectly 
honest and in one sense thoroughly 
creditable, but suggesting the question: 
Did Peter after all call Jesus CArist in 
the true sense? The answer must be: 
Yes, ethically. He understood what 
kind of man was fit to be a Christ. But 
he did not yet understand what kind of 
treatment such a man might expect from 
the world. A noble, benignant, really 


righteous man Messiah must be, said 
Peter; but why a man of sorrow he 
had yet to learn.—ot py &orat, future 
of perfect assurance: it will not, cannot 
be.—Ver. 23. taaye 4. p. Z.: tremendous 
crushing reply of the Master, showing 
how much He felt the temptation; calm 
on the surface, deep down in the soul a 
very real struggle. Some of the Fathers 
(Origen, Jerome) strive to soften the 
severity of the utterance by taking 
Satanas as an appellative = aytiKxelpevos, 
adversarius, contrarius, and pointing out 
that in the Temptation in the wilderness 
Jesus says to Satan simply taaye = 
depart, but to Peter ta. émicw pov = 
take thy place behind me and be fol- 
lower, not leader. But these refinements 
only weaken the effect of a word which 
shows that Jesus recognises here His 
old enemy in a new and even more 
dangerous form. For none are more 
formidable instruments of temptation 
than well-meaning friends, who care 
more for our comfort than for our 
character.—oxdvdadov: -not “ offensive 
to me,” but ‘‘a temptation to me to 
offend,” to do wrong; a virtual apology 
for using the strong word Zarava.—ov 
dpovets Ta, etc., indicates the point of 
temptation = non stas a Dei partibus 
(Wolf), or @poveiv, etc. = studere rebus, 
etc. (Kypke), to be on God’s side, or to 
study the Divine interest instead of the 
human., The important question is: 
What precisely are the two interests ? 
They must be so conceived as not 
entirely to cancel the eulogium on Peter’s 
faith, which was declared to be not of 
man but of God. Meyer’s comment on 
7a 7. &—concerned about having for 
Messiah a mere earthly hero and prince 
(so Weiss also)—is too wide. We must 
restrict the phrase to the instinct of self- 
preservation = save your life at all 
hazards. From Christ’s point of view 
that was the import of Peter’s suggestion; 
preference of natural life to duty = God’s 
interest. Peter himself did not see that 
these were the alternatives; he thought 





22—28, 


tav avOpdtwr.” 


Tov Totaupdy attod, Kal dxodouleiTw por. 
Thy Wuxhy adtod cdoat, dwodéce: adtyr> bs 8 Gy *drohéon thy 


EYATTEAION 


24. Téte 6 “Inoods ele tois pabytais adtou, 
“EL tis O€her drrs@w pou edOciv, TdmapyycdcOw éautdv, Kal dpdtw 


227 
q Mk. viii. 
34. Ch. 
XXVi. 34 
(of Peter's 
denial). 
©, Ch. 3x738. 
Mk. viil. 
34 (x. 21, 


25. 85 yap Gv! Ody 


Wuxiy adtod évexev eyo, ebpyoer adthy- 26. ti yap eedettar? T.R,). 


Lk. ix. 23; 


dvOpwiros, édv tov ‘xdopov ‘Sov KepdSyon, Thy Se uxty adtod pe ee 
8 


"{nprwOh ; A ti Sdcer dvOpwros dvtdAdaypa THs Puxys adtod ; 
27. péANer yap 6 utds Tou avOpamou EpyecOar ev TH SdEq Tod TaTpds 


h. x. 39. 
Mk. viii. 

i Wu's 
XVii. 33. 

t Ch. xxvi. 


adToud peta tov d&yyéAwy adtod: Kat tétTe dmoddcet Exdotw KaTd 13. Rom. 


my "mpagiv adrou. 


28. “Aphy héyw Guty, eiot twes Tay Hen 


i. 8. 
Mk. viii. 
36. Lk.ix. 


c / 3 9 > AY Ww , ) f a ™ A 
EGTHKOTWY,” OLTLYES OU PN ~ yevTwvTaL YavaTou, EWS Ay wor Tov 95 (aurdn), 


rN a , x2 , > a , ieee LD 
uidv Tod dvOpwrou * épydpevoy év TH Baordeta adtou. 


Rom. viii. 13. 


1 eav in NBC. 


the two opposite interests compatible, 
and both attainable. 

Vv. 24-28. General instruction on the 
subject of the two interests.—Ver. 24. 
ele tois pad.: in calm, self-collected, 
didactic tone Jesus proceeds to give the 
disciples, in a body, a lesson arising out 
of the situation.—et tis 0éXer: wishes, 
no compulsion; ov Brdfopar, Chrys., 
who remarks on the wisdom of Jesus in 
leaving every man free, and trusting to 
the attraction of the life: airy Tod mpdy- 
patos H pvots ixavy épekxiocacbar.— 
arapynodo—w éavrov: here only, in- 
timates that discipleship will call for 
’ self-denial, or self-subordination. Chrys. 
illustrates the meaning by considering 
what it is to deny another = not to 
assist him, bewail him or suffer on his 
account when he is in distress.—rév 
aravpov looks like a trait introduced 
after Christ’s passion. It need not be, 
however. Punishment by crucifixion 
was known to the Jews through the 
Romans, and it might be used by Jesus 
as the symbol of extreme torment and 
disgrace, even though He did not then 
know certainly that He Himself should 
meet death in that particular form. It 
became a common expression, but the 
phrase apdatw +. a. would sound harsh 
and startling when first used. Vide on 
Nits x=) 35-—Ver. 25. Vide x. 39.) Lhe 
Caesarea crisis was the most appropriate 
occasion for the first promulgation of 
this great ethical principle. It was 
Christ’s first contribution towards un- 
folding the significance of His suffering, 
setting it forth as the result of a fidelity 
to righteousness incumbent on all. 


2 wheAnOnoerar in NBL cursives. 


v Lk. 


Xxiil. 
51. Acts 
xix. 18. 


w Jobn viii. 52. Heb. ii. g. x Lk. xxiii. 42, 


3 eotwtwv in NBCDLE. 


Ver. 26. This and the following verses 
suggest aids to practice of the philo- 
sophy of ‘‘dying to live’. The state- 
ment in this verse is self-evident in the 
sphere of the lower life. It profits not 
to gain the whole world if you lose your 
life, for you cannot enjoy your possession; 
a life lost cannot be recovered at any 
price. Jesus wishes His disciples to under- 
stand that the same law obtains in the 
higher life: that the soul, the spiritual 
life, is incommensurable with any out- 
ward possession however great, and if 
forfeited the loss is irrevocable. This is 
one of the chief texts containing Christ’s 
doctrine of the absolute worth of man as 
amoral subject. For the man who grasps 
it, it is easy to be a hero and face any 
experience. To Jesus Christ it was a 
self-evident truth.—{npiw0q, not suffer 
injury to, but forfeit. Grotius says that 
the verb in classics has only the dative 
after it = mulctare morte, but Kypke and 
Elsner cite instances from Herod., Dion., 
Hal., Themis., etc., of its use with accus- 
ative.—avTdAAaypa: something given in 
exchange. Cf. 1 Kings xxi. 2, Job xxviii. 
15 (Sept.), a price to buy back the life 
lower or higher; both impossible.—Ver. 
27. peAdet points to something near and 
certain; note the emphatic position.— 
épxeoOar év t. 8., the counterpart ex- 
perience to the passion; stated objec- 
tively in reference to the Son of Man, 
the passion spoken of in the second person 
(ver. 21). In Mk. both are objectively 
put; but the disciples took the reference 
as personal (Mk. viii. 32).—Ver. 27. 
This belongs to a third group of texts 
to be taken into account in an attempt 


228 


a Mk, ix. 2. 
. xxiv. 


KATA MATOAION 


XVII. 


XVII. 1. KAI ped” Hpépas &§ wapahapBdve 6 "Inoods tov Nérpov 


Lk ‘ x a“ . 
st (T.R)). Kal “IdxkwBov kat ‘lwdvyny tov ddeApdy adtod, kat *dvahéper adtous 
b Mk. i 


. xX, 2. , 
Rom. xii. €lg O6pos bnAdv Kat’ ilar. 


2. kal ” perenophuln Eumpoo0ev adtar, 


y @Cor. a ~ 
iii. 18, Kal Edape 13 mpdowmov adtod ds & Hdtos, Ta SC ipdria adrod 


to fix the import of the title—those which 
refer to apocalyptic glory in terms drawn 
from Daniel vii. 13.—1éTe arrodacet: 
the Son of Man comes to make final 
awards. The reference to judgment 
comes in to brace up disciples to a 
heroic part. It is an aid to spirits not 
equal to this part in virtue of its intrinsic 
nobleness; yet not much of an aid to 
those to whom the heroic life is not in 
itself an attraction. The absolute worth 
ofthe true life is Christ’s first and chief line 
of argument; this is merely subsidiary.— 
Ver. 28. A crux interpretum, supposed 
by some to refer to the Transfiguration 
(Hilary, Chrys., Euthy., Theophy., etc.) ; 
by others to the destruction of Jerusalem 
(Wetstein, etc.) ; by others again to the 
origins of the Church (Calvin, Grotius, 
etc.). The general meaning can be 
inferred with certainty from the purpose 
to furnish an additional incentive to 
fidelity. It is: Be of good courage, 
there will be ample compensation for 
trial soon ; for some of you even before 
you die. This sense excludes the Trans- 
figuration, which came too soon to be 
compensatory. The uncertainty comes 
in in connection with the form in which 
the general truth is stated. As to that, 
Christ’s speech was controlled not merely 
by His own thoughts but by the hopes 
of the future entertained by His disciples. 
He had to promise the advent of the 
Son of Man in His Kingdom or of the 
Kingdom of God in power (Mk.) within 
a generation, whatever His own forecast 
as to the future might be. That might 
postulate a wider range of time than 
some of His words indicate, just as some 
of His utterances and His general spirit 
postulate a wide range in space for the 
Gospel (universalism) though He con- 
ceived of His own mission as limited to 
Israel. If the logion concerning the 
Church (ver. 18) be genuine, Jesus must 
have conceived a Christian eva to be at 
least a possibility, for why trouble about 
founding a Church if the wind-up was 
to come in a few years? The words of 
Jesus about the future provide for two 
possible alternatives: for a near advent 
and for an indefinitely postponed advent. 
His promises naturally contemplate the 
former; much of His teaching about the 
kingdom easily fits into the latter.-~ 


yevouvrat 6.; a Hebrew idiom, but not 
exclusively so, For examples of the figure 
of tasting applied to experiences, vide 
Elsner in Mk. For Rabbinical use, vide 
Schéttgen and Wetstein.—éws adv {8wot, 
subjunctive after é. av as usual in classics 
and N. T. in a clause referring to a 
future contingency depending on a verb 
referring to future time. 

CHAPTER XVII. THE TRANSFIGURA- 
TION; THE EPILEPTIC Boy; THE 
TEMPLE TRIBUTE. Three impressive 
tableaux connected by proximity in 
time, a common preternatural aspect, 
and deep moral pathos. 

Vv. 1-13. The Transfiguration (Mk. 
ix. 2-13, Lk. ix. 28-36).—Ver. 1. pred’ 
ypépas @&. This precise note of time 
looks like exact recollection of a strictly 
historical incident. Yet MHoltzmann 
(H. C.) finds even in this a mythical 
element, based on Exodus xxiv. 16: the 
six days of Mt. and Mk. and the eight 
days of Lk., various expressions of the 
thought that between the confession of 
the one disciple and the experience of the 
three a sacred week intervened. Of these 
days we have no particulars, but on the 
principle that in preternatural experiences 
the subjective and the objective corre- 
spond, we may learn the psychological 
antecedents of the Transfiguration from 
the Transfiguration itself. The thoughts 
and talk of the company of Jesus were 
the prelude of the vision. A thing in 
itself intrinsically likely, for after such 
solemn communications as those at 
Caesarea Philippi it was not to be ex- 
pected that matters would go on in the 
Jesus-circle as if nothing had happened. 
In those days Jesus sought to explain 
from the O.T. the Set of xvi. 21, showing 
from Moses, Prophets, and Psalms (Lk. 
xxiv. 44) the large place occupied by 
suffering in the experience of the 
righteous, This would be quite as help- 
ful to disciples summoned to bear the 
cross as any of the thoughts in xvi. 25- 
28.—Nér., lan., lwav.: Jesus takes with 
Him the three disciples found most 
capable to understand and sympathise. 
So in Gethsemane. Such differences 
exist in all disciple-circles, and they 
cannot be ignored by the teacher.— 
avadeper, leadeth up; in this sense not 
usual; of sacrifice in Jas. ii, 21 and in 





1—6, 


eyévero heuxd Os Td pds. 


kal ‘HXias, pet adtod © cuhdahobrtes.* 
etme TO “Inood, ‘ Kupte, 4xahdv got Hpas Ode eivar: et Oéhets, 


’ 3 2 a , \ , \ a , Nee 
’ 
TON Twp.Ev @Se tpets okyvds, gol play, Kal Moo pilav, kal play 


Ha.” 


aitous* Kal idod, dwvh ex ths vepédns, héyouca, 
vids pou 6 dyamytés, év @ edSdxnoa- adtod dkovere.”* 6. Kal 


EYATTEAION 


3. Kal i8ou, wdbyoayv 


5. "Ete aitod hadowvtos, iSou, vepehn wreivi) éweoktacer 


229 


1 aitots Mwojs © Ste 
TLVOS). 
Mk. 1x. 4. 
Lk. ix. 30; 
xxii. 4 
(dat.). Lk. 
iv. 36 
(wpos a\- 
AyAovs). 
 OStdés éotiv 6d Ch. xviii. 
8 parall.; 
XXVI. 24. 
Rom. xiv. 
1 Cor. vii. 8; ix. 15. 


4. GmoxpOets Se 6 Métpos 


aI. 


1 wh8n NBD, which, the verb coming before the two nom., is legitimate. The 
T. R. is a grammatical correction of ancient revisers. 


2 SB place per’ avtov after cvAahovvtes. 


3 roinow in SBC. Vide below. 


Heb. vii. 27, xiii. 15.—8pos tWnrdv: 
Tabor the traditional mountain, a tradi- 
tion originating in fourth century 
with Cyril of Jerusalem and Jerome. 
Recent opinion favours Hermon, All 
depends on whether the six days were 
spent near Caesarea Philippi or in con- 
tinuous journeying. Six days would 
take them far. ‘‘The Mount of Trans- 
figuration does not concern geography ”’ 
—Holtz. (H. C.).—Ver. 2. perepopdan, 
transfiguratus est, Vulgate; became 
altered in appearance. Such trans- 
formation in exalted states of mind is 
predicated of others, e.g., of Iamblichus 
(Eunapius in I. Vita 22, cited by Elsner), 
and of Adam when naming the beasts 
(Fabricius, Cod. Pseud. V. T., p. 10).— 
éurpooley attav, so as to be visible 
to them, vide vi. 1. Luke’s narrative 
seems to imply that the three disciples 
were asleep at the beginning of the 
scene, but wakened up before its close. 
—xal €lappe .. . SOs: these words 
describe the aspect of the transformed 
person; face sun-bright, raiment pure 
white.—Ver. 3. «at Sov introduces a 
leading and remarkable feature in the 
scene: &0n airots, there appeared to 
the three disciples, not necessarily an 
absolutely real, objective presence of 
Moses and Elias. All purposes would 
be served by an appearance in vision. 
Sufficient objectivity is guaranteed by 
the vision being enjoyed by all the three, 
which would have been improbable if 
purely subjective. Recognition of Moses 
and Elias was of course involved in the 
vision. For a realistic view of the 
occurrence the question arises, how was 
recognition possible? Euthy. Zig. says 
the disciples had read descriptions of 
famous men, including Moses and Elias, 
in old Hebrew books Another sugges- 


4 axovete avtov in NBD 33. 


tion is that Moses appeared with the law 
in his hand, and Elias in his fiery 
chariot.—ovAdahotytes pt. G., Convers- 
ing with Jesus, and, it goes without 
saying (Lk. does say it), on the theme 
uppermost in all minds, the main topic 
of recent conversations, the cross; the 
vision, in its dramatis persone and their 
talk, reflecting the state of mind of the 
seers.—Ver. 4. amoxpifeis Ol. Peter 
to the front again, but not greatly to his 
credit.—Kaldév éoriv, etc., either it is 
good for us to be here = the place is 
pleasant—so usually; or it is well that 
we are here—we the disciples to serve 
you and your visitants—Weiss and 
Holtzmann (H. C.). Pricaeus, in illus- 
tration of the former, cites Anacreon: 

Napa thy oxinvy Babvdde 

Ka@icov: xaddy 76 S€vdpoy. 

Tls Gv otv épav wapédGor 

Kataywytov To.ovTov. 

—Ode 22. 
This sense—amoenus est, in quo com. 
moremur, locus, Fritzsche—is certainly 
the more poetical, but not necessarily on 
that account the truer to the thought of 
the speaker, in view of the remark of 
Lk. omitted in Mt., that Peter did not 
know what he was saying.—ro.jow, 
deliberative substantive with @éAeus pre- 
ceding and without tva; the singular— 
shall I make ?—suits the forwardness of 
the man; it is his idea, and he will 
carry it out /imself—rpeis oxnvas: 
material at hand, branches of trees, 
shrubs, etc. Why three? One better 
for persons in converse. The whole 
scheme a stupidity. Peter imagined 
that Moses and Elias had come to stay. 
Chrys. suggests that Peter here in- 
directly renews the policy of resistance 
to going up to Jerusalem (Hom. lvi.). 
Vv. 5-8. vedéAn dwteivy, a luminous 


230 KATA MATOAION XVII. 
e Ch. xxv. dxoJoavtes of pabytal emecov eri mpdowmoy abtav, xal * époBy- 
39. LK. Y. A an 
12; xvii. Onoav oddSpa. 7. Kat mpooedOdy? 6 “Inoods Hato abra&v, Kat 
16 (Same a 
Genet) elrev, “"EyépOnte kat "ph doPetobe.” 8. “Emdpavtes S€ rads 
Ch. xxvii. aes * 
sy. _ SpBadpods atrav, odSéva elSov, ei pi Tov “Ingodv pdvor. 
g Ch. xxviii. +b re” 42 na” > 2A 
5) 10. 9. Kat *kataBawdvtwy aitav dnd? tod Spous, évetetAato adTots 
h Ch. villi. 5 salvng Agee i¢ a e © ey a 
(with aro, Ingots, Aéywv, “Mndevt eltrnte Td ‘Spapa, ews oF 6 ulds TOO 
morecom- , os a 
monly  Gv@pdmou éx vexpdv dvacty.” 8 10, Kal érnpétyoay abrév ot 
with ex,as a c a 
here in. PaOntal adtod,4 héyortes, ‘Ti ody of ypappatets Aéyouo., Sti 
W.H)). 


i here only in Gospels and in Acts (vii. 31, etc.) 


l rpoon bey o |. kat in NBD; aapevos avtwy evrrev in NB. 


2 ex in NBCD al.; amo in &. 


3 eyep§y in BD; avagrn in NC. W.H. place the former in the text and the 


latter in margin. 


4 avrov in BCD but wanting in ALZ 33. 


cloud, still a cloud capable of casting a 
shadow, though a faint one (‘non 
admodum atram,” Fritzsche). Some, 
thinking a shadow incompatible with 
the light, render éreoxlacev tegebat, cir- 
cumdabat. Loesner cites passages from 
Philo in support of this meaning.— 
avrovs. Whom? the disciples? Jesus, 
Moses, and Elias? all the six? or the 
two celestial visitants alone? All these 
views have been held. The second the 
more probable, but impossible to be 
certain.—xal t8ov, again introducing a 
main feature: first the visitants, now 
the voice from heaven. Relation of the 
ear to the voice the same as that of the 
eye to the visitants.—otros: the voice 
spoken this time about Jesus; at the 
baptism to Him (Mk. i. 11), meant for 
the ear of the three disciples. The voice 
to be taken in connection with the 
announcement of the coming passion, 
Jesus God’s well-beloved as self-sacrific- 
ing.—a&kovete avtov: to be taken in the 
same connection = hear Him when He 
speaks to you of the cross. Hunce audite, 
nempe solum, plena fide, perfectissimo 
obsequio, universi apostoli et pastores 
praesertim, Elsner.—Ver. 6, Kat axov- 
gavres, etc.: divine voices terrify poor 
mortals, especially when they echo and 
reinforce deep moving thoughts within. 
—Ver. 7. avdpevos .. . elev: atouch 
and a word, human and kindly, from 
Jesus, restore strength and composure.— 
Ver. 8. And so ends the vision.— 
éwdpavtes tT. 6., etc., raising their eyes 
they see no one but Jesus. Moses and 
Elias gone, and Jesus in His familiar 
aspect; the dazzling brightness about 
face and garments vanished. 


Vv. 9-13. Conversation while de- 
scending the hill.—Ver. 9. ndevi etryte : 
injunction of secrecy. The reason of the 
injunction lies in the nature of the ex- 
perience. Visions are for those who are 
prepared for them. It boots not to re- 
late them to those who are not fit to 
receive them. Even the three were 
only partially fit; witness their terror 
(ver. 6).—1d Spapa, the vision, justifying 
the view above given of the experience, 
held, among others, by Elsner, Herder, 
Bleek and Weiss. Herder has some 
fine remarks on the analogy between the 
experiences of Jesus at His baptism and 
on the Mount, six days after the 
announcement at Caesarea Philippi, and 
those of other men at the time of moral 
decisions in youth and in the near pre- 
sence of death (vide his Vom Erloser der 
Menschen, §§ 18, 19).—€ws ot, followed 
by subjunctive without av; in this case 
(cf. xvi. 28) one of future contingency at 
a past time. The optative is used in 
classics (vide Burton, § 324). Not #ill 
the resurrection. It is not implied that 
Jesus was very desirous that they should 
then begin to speak, but only that they 
could then speak of the vision intelli- 
gently and intelligibly. | Christ’s tone 
seems to have been that of one making 
light os the recent experience (as in Lk. 
x. 20).—Ver. 10. tf otv, etc.: does the 
ovv refer to the prohibition in ver. 9 
(Meyer), or to the appearance of Moses 
and Elias, still in the minds of the three 
disciples, and the lateness of their coming 
(Euthy., Weiss), or to the shortness oj 
their stay? (Grotius, Fritzsche, Olsh., 
Bleek, etc.). Difficult to decide, owing 
to fragmentariness of report; but it is 


7—14. 


‘HAlay Set éXOety mparov ;” 


uitois,” ““HXias per Epxerat mpdtov,? 


12. héyw Se Gptv, Gtr “HAlag HSy FAOe, kal odk ewéyvwoay adtdy, 


EYATTEAION 


231 


II. “O 8€ “Incots! diroxpibets etrrev 


kat ) dmoxatactyoet mayta ° j videat Ch 
xii. 13. 


GAN érotnoay év advG dca HOAAnoav: obtw Kal 6 vids Tod dvOpdrrou 


nA ” 
perder mdéoxew ow addy. 


13. Tére ouvixay ot pabytat, ote 


Tept Iwdvvou Tod Bawtiotod ettev avrots. 


14. Kat é\@dvtav adtay* mpos Tov dxdov, mpoonOey abta dvOpw- 


LSSBDLZ emit Inoous. 


2 BD omit avrots. 


3 SBD omit wpwtov, which probably has come in from ver. ro, 


*$$BZ sah. omit avtey. 


most natural to take oty in connection 
with preceding verse, only not as re- 
ferring to the prohibition of speech pro 
tem., but to the apparently slighting tone 
in which Jesus spoke. If the recent 
occurrence is not of vital importance, 
why then do the scribes say etc.? To 
lay the emphasis (with Weiss) on rp@royv, 
as if the disciples were surprised that 
Moses and Elias had not come sooner, 
before the Christ, is a mistake. The 
advent would appear to them soon enough 
to satisfy the requirements of the scribes— 
just at the right time, after they had re- 
cognised in Jesus the Christ = Thou art 
the Christ we know, and lo! Elias is 
here to prepare the way for Thy public 
recognition and actual entry into 
Messianic power and glory. The sudden 
disappearance of the celestials would tend 
to deepen the disappointment created by 
the Master’s chilling tone, so that there 
is some ground for finding in otw a 
reference to that also.— Ver 11. épyerat: 
present, as in ii. 4, praesens pro futuro, 
Raphel (Annotationes in S.S.), who cites 
instances of this enallage temporis from 
Xenophon. Wolf (Curae Phil.), referring 
to Raphel, prefers to find in the present 
here no note of time, but only of the 
order of coming as between Elias and 
Christ. It is a didactic, timeless present. 
So Weiss.—amoxatactioe mavta. This 
word occurs in Sept., Mal. iv. 5, for which 
stands in Lk. i. 17: émorpéar; the 
reference is to restitution of right moral 
relations between fathers and children, 
etc. Raphel cites instances of similar 
use from Polyb. The function of Elias, 
as conceived by the scribes, was to lead 
Israel to the Great Repentance. Vide 
on this, Weber, Die Lehren des T., pp. 
337-8.—Ver. 12. é€yw Se: Jesus finds 
the prophecy as to the advent of Elias 
fulfilled in John the Baptist, so still 
further reducing the significance of the 


late vision. The contrast between the 
mechanical literalism of the scribes and 
the free spiritual interpretation of Jesus 
comes out here. Our Lord expected no 
literal coming of Elijah, such as the 
Patristic interpreters (Hilary, Chrys., 
Theophy., Euthy., etc.) supposed Him 
to refer to in ver. 11. The Baptist was 
all the Elijah He looked for.—otx émé- 
yvecay: they did not recognise him as 
Elijah, especially those who _profes- 
sionally taught that Elijah must come, 
the scribes.—a@AN’ éxroinoav év aira, 
etc. Far from recognising in him Elijah, 
and complying with his summons to 
repentance, they murdered him in re- 
sentment of the earnestness of his 
efforts towards a moral amoxatdoracts 
(Herod, as representing the Zeitgeist.).— 
év avr: literally, in him, not classical, 
but similar construction found in Gen. 
xl. 14, and elsewhere (Sept.).—otras: 
Jesus reads His own fate in the Baptist’s. 
How thoroughly He understood His 
time, and how free He was from 
illusions !—Ver. 13. téte cuvqKav: the 
parallel drawn let the three disciples see 
who the Elijah was, alluded to by their 
Master. What a disenchantment: not 
the glorified visitant of the night vision, 
but the beheaded preacher of the wilder- 
ness, the true Elijah! 

Vy. 14-21. The epileptic boy (Mk. 
ix. 14-29; Lk. ix. 37-43).—-Very brief 
report compared with Mk.—Ver. 14. 
éXOdvrev: the avtav of T. R. might 
easily be omitted as understood from 
the connection.—yovureréy, literally, 
falling upon the knees, in which sense it 
would naturally take the dative (T. R., 
ait@) ; here used actively with accusa- 
tive = to beknee him (Schanz, Weiss).— 
Ver. 15. oednvidlerart, he is moon- 
struck ; the symptoms as described are 
those of epilepsy, which were supposed 
to become aggravated with the phases of 


232 


k with rive grog * yovutrerov abta,} 
here (W. Ee =e 


KATA MATOAION 


XVII. 


kal Kéywr, 15. “Kipre, €Xéqady pou tov vidv, 


Hand in Ore oeXnvedhetar Kai Kakds wdoxer?* wodddkis yap wlawres eis Td 


Mk. x. 17; 
with 
éumporber 


ros, Ch. pabytats cou, Kal odk AdurHOycav adriv Bepamedoa.” 


XXVii. 29. 


1 Phil. ii. 15. kptBets S€ 6 “Ingots elev, “72 yeved Gimioros Kat 


(Deut. 


xxxii. 5). €WS TéTe Egouat pel Guay § 


m Mk. ix. 19. Senet ov) 
Lk. ix. 41. Lot adTov Ode. 
a ‘Cor, xi, 


mop, Kat TodAdkis eis Td Udwp. 


16. Kal mpoojveyka adtoy Tots 
17. Atro- 


'Steotpappévn, 
3 €ws méte “ dvéfopar budv; éperé 


18. Kai émetipnoev attd 6 “Inoods, kai éfqdOev 


19. Eph. dw adtod Td Satpdviov, kal Cepamed@y 6 mats awd Tis Spas exelvys. 


iv. 2. Col. 

iii. 13 (all TQ. 

with gen., ¢¢ 
accus, more 

common 


a , 
in classics), €tmev® adtots, “Ad thy dmortiav® spay. 


1 avroy in nearly all uncials. 
previous auto. 


Tére mpocehOdvtes ot padytal TH “Inood Kar’ iStay elroy, 
Aart hpets obx HSurHOynpev exBadety adtd;’’ 20. ‘O Bé "Inoods 4 


duhy yap Adyw Spiv, 


avtw is a ‘mechanical repetition’ (Weiss) of the 


2 eye, in NBLZ; as the more usual word it is to be suspected. W.H. introduce 


it with hesitation. 
§ pe8 vpwv ecopat in RBCDZ 33. 
> SBD 33, etc., have Aeyeu. 


“NBD 33, omit Inoous. 


8 o\vyomtottav in ${B cursives, and adopted by most editors, though amorriay 
in CD and other uncials, as involving a severer reflection, has much to recommend 


it. 


the moon (cf. iv. 24).—Kakas maoyxet 
(exec W. H. text), good Greek. Raphel 
(Annot.) gives examples from Polyb.= 
suffers badly.—Ver. 16. Tots palyrtais : 
the nine left behind when Jesus and the 
three ascended the Mount. The fame of 
Jesus and His disciples as healers had 
reached the neighbourhood, wherever it 
was. —ovk 7S5uvyOyoav: the case baffled 
the men of the Galilean mission.—Ver. 
I7. © yevea: exclamation of impatience 
and disappointment, as if of one weary 
in well-doing, or averse to such work 
just then. Who are referred to we can 
only conjecture, and the guesses are 
various. Probably more or less all pre- 
sent: parent, disciples, scribes (Mk. ix. 
14). Jesus was far away in spirit from 
all, lonely, worn out, and longing for the 
end, as the question following (€ws 
mwéte, etc.) shows. It is the utterance of 
a fine-strung nature, weary of the dul- 


ness, stupidity, spiritual insuscepti- 
bility (G@mioros), not to speak of the 
moral perversity (Steorpaupévy) all 


around Him. But we must be careful 
not to read into it peevishness or un- 
graciousness. Jesus had not really 
grown tired of doing good, or lost 
patience with the bruised reed and 
smoking taper. The tone of His voice, 
gently reproachtul, would show that. 
Perhaps the complaint was spoken in an 
undertone, just audible to those near, 


The tendency would be to tone down. 


and then, aloud: géperé pot: bring him 
to me, said to the crowd generally, there- 
fore plural.—Ver. 18. 16 Satpdviov: the 
first intimation in the narrative that it is 
a case of possession, and a hint as to 
the genesis of the theory of possession. 
Epilepsy presents to the eye the aspect 
of the body being in the possession of a 
foreign will, and all diseases with which 
the notion of demoniacal possession was 
associated have this feature in common. 
“Judaeis usitatissimum erat morbos 
quosdam__ graviores, eos _ praesertim, 
quibus vel distortum est corpus vel mens 
turbata et agitata phrenesi, malis 
spiritibus attribuere.”’ Lightfoot, Hor. 
Heb., ad loc. The air@ after érrerti- 
pyoev naturally refers to the demon, 
This reference to an as yet unmentioned 
subject Weiss explains by the influence 
of Mk. 

Ver. 19. «Kar iSiav: the disciples 
have some private talk with the Master 
as to what has just happened.—éari 
ovK ASuviOnpev: the question implies 
that the experience was exceptional ; in 
other words that on their Galilean 
mission, and, perhaps, at other times, 
they had possessed and exercised healing 
power.—Ver. 20. 81a thv dAtyomioriav, 
here only, and just on that account to be 
preferred to a@muoriav (T. R.); a word 
coined to express the fact exactly: too 
little faith for the occasion (cf. xiv. 31) 


I5—23. 


EYATTEAION 


233 


a ” , e lay n~ W , 
dy €xnte wlotw Os KéKkoy oivdwews, épeite TO Sper TOUTW Meta Br At 


" évredBev! *éxel, kat petaByoetar- Kal ovdey ? dduvaricer Spiv. n évdev (W. 


H.) here 


21. TodTo S€ rd yévos odk ExmopeveTar, ci py ev wpocevyf Kal andinLk 


, ? 2 
vnoTeta. 


xvi. 26 
(vide 
critical 


22. "ANAZTPE®OMENON ® 8€ adrav év TH Fadtaia, etrevy adtots note there). 


o vide Ch. il. 


6 ‘Ingois, “MéhXer 6 ulds Tod avOpdiou mapadiSoc8a eis yetpas 22 for 


évOpdtrwv, 23. Kal droKTevougi autor, 


getar. * Kat édumnOyoav opddpa. 


1 neraBa in SB; evOev in SBD. 


Ne , fe - r similar use. 
eG PUMPS EYE P OM =p rLieits 7 
14). 


2 This whole verse is wanting in $§B 33, some Latin verss., Syrr. verss. (Cur. 


Hier. Sin.). 
foisted into the text. 


CDLAX and many other uncials have it. 


It is doubtless a gloss 


3 NB 1 it. vg. have cvotpehopevwy; changed into the more easily understood 


avaotp. (T. R.). 
4B has avaorynoetat (W.H. margin). 


That was a part of the truth at least, 
and the part it became them to lay to 
heart.—a@pyy, introducing, as usual, a 
weighty saying,—éav éynre, if ye have, 
a present general supposition.—xdéxkov 
o.vatrews proverbial for a small quantity 
(xiii. 31), a minimum of faith. The 
purpose is to exalt the power of faith, 
not to insinuate that the disciples have 
not even the minimum. Schanz says 
they had no miracle faith (‘‘ fides miracu- 
lorum”).—r@ Sper rovTw, the Mount of 
Transfiguration visible and pointed to. 
—petaBa (-BnO. T. R.), a poetical form 
of imperative like advaBa in Rev. iv. 1. 
Vide Schmiedel’s Winer, p. 115.—€vOev 
éxet for évrevOev éxetoe.—peraByoerat : 
said, done. Jesus here in effect calls 
faith an ‘“uprooter of mountains,” a 
phrase current in the Jewish schools for 
a Rabbi distinguished by legal lore or 
personal excellence (Lightfoot, Hor. 
Heb., ad Mt. xxi. 21, Winsche),— 
aSvvatyoe. used in the third person 
singular only in N. T. with dative = to 
be impossible; a reminiscence of Mk. 


ix. 23 (Weiss).—Ver. 21. Vide on Mk. 
ix. 29. 
Vv. 22-23. Second announcement of 


the Passion (Mk. ix. 30, 31; Lk. ix. 44, 
45)-—Ver. 22. ovorpedopévev a., while 
they were moving about, a reunited band. 
—éy t. f.: they had got back to Galilee 
when the second announcement was 
made. Mk. states that though returned 
to familiar scenes Jesus did not wish to 
be recognised, that He might carry on 
undisturbed the instruction of the 
Twelve.—péddet, etc. : the great engross- 
ing subject of instruction was the 


doctrine of the cross.—wapad(8oc8ar: a 
new feature not in the first announce- 
ment. Grotius, in view of the words eis 
xXEtpas avOpwrwy, thinks the reference is 
to God the Father delivering up the Son. 
It is rather to recent revelations of dis- 
affection within the disciple-circle. For 
if there were three disciples who showed 
some receptivity to the doctrine of the 
cross, there was one to whom it would 
be very unwelcome, and who doubtless 
had felt very uncomfortable since the 
Caesarea announcement.—rapa6. con- 
tains a covert allusion to the part He is 
to play.—Ver. 23. éAur7y0nocav opdbpa, 
they were all greatly distressed ; but no 
one this time ventured to remonstrate or 
even to ask a question (Mk. ix. 32). The 
prediction of resurrection seems to have 
counted for nothing. 

Vv. 24-27. The temple tax.—In Mt. 
only, but unmistakably a genuine historic 
reminiscence in the main. Even Holtz- 
mann (H. C.) regards it as history, only 
half developed into legend.—Ver. 24. eis 
Kaz.: home again after lengthened wan- 
dering with the satisfaction home gives 
even after the most exhilarating holiday 
excursions.— Ver. 24. mpoo7AQoyv oi, etc. : 
home-coming often means return to 
care. Here are the receivers of custom, 
as soon as they hear of the arrival, de- 
manding tribute. From the Mount of 
Transfiguration to money demands 
which one is too poor to meet, what a 
descent! The experience has been often 
repeated in the lives of saints, sons of 
God, men of genius.—ra 8i8paypa: a 
8(Spaxpov was a coin equal to two Attic 
drachmae, and to the Jewish half shekel 





234 


q here only 


24. "ENOdvrwv Se adray 
in i 


KATA MATOAILON 


XVIL. 


eis Katrepyaotp, mpoojAVov ot Ta 


Frequent *§iSpaypa apBdvovres tO Métpw, kal elrrov, “‘O SiSdeKados 


in Sept. for 


baw 


c Rom. xiii. 


<a 


dpav od “Tedet ta! SiSpayxpa;” 


yo? 


25. Aéyer, “Nat. Kat dre 


elon Oev ? €ig Thy oikiavy, mpoépOacey attiv 6 “Iqoods, Méywv, “TL 


got Soxet, Zipwv; ot Baodets ths yhs amd tivwv® hapBdvourr 


17. Mk. téXn H “kqvoov; awd Tay uidy adtay, } awd tOv ‘ANdoTpiw ;”’ 


tJohn x. 5. 26. Ayer adt@ 6 Métpos,* “Amd t&v &ddoTploy.” 


6. Heb. xi. 9, 34. 


"Eon atta 6 


1$3D omit ta here (Tisch.) ; BC retain it (W.H.). 
2 eredMovTa in $Y (-Te D); eAPovra in B. Tisch. adopts the former; W.H. the 


latter, with evoeA@ovra in margin. 


8 B has tivos, which W.H. place in the margin. 


‘For Aeya . 
grammatical correction. 
instead of a full stop as in T. R. 


= about fifteen pence; payable annually 
by every Jew above twenty as a tribute 
to the temple. It was a tribute of the 
post-exilic time based on Exodus xxx. 
13-16. After the destruction of the 
Temple the tax continued to be paid to 
the Capitol (Joseph. Bel. I. vii. 6, 7). The 
time of collection was in the month 
Adar (March).—7r@ fl. Peter evidently 
the principal man of the Jesus-circle for 
outsiders as well as_ internally.—ov 
wedet. The receivers are feeling their 
way. Respect for the Master (8:8daKaXos) 
makes them go to the disciples for in- 
formation, and possibly the question was 
simply a roundabout hint that the tax 
was overdue.—Ver. 25. vat: this 
prompt, confident answer may be either 
an inference from Christ’s general bear- 
ing, as Peter understood it, or a state- 
ment of fact implying past payment.— 
éXOdvra 2. r. 6. The meeting of the tax 
collectors with Peter had taken place 
outside; it had been noticed by Jesus, 
and the drift of the interview instinctively 
understood by Him.—rpodp@acey, antici- 
pated him, here only in N. T. Peter 
meant to report, but Jesus spoke first, 
having something special to say, and a 
good reason for saying it. In other 
circumstances He would probably have 
taken no notice, but left Peter to manage 
the matter as he pleased. But the 
Master is aware of something that took 
place among His disciples on the way 
home, not yet mentioned by the evan- 
gelist but about to be (xviii. 1), and to be 
regarded as the key to the meaning of 
this incident. The story of what Jesus 
said to Peter about the temple dues ‘s 


, - Tl. NBCL have evwovros Se (Tisch., W.H.). 


The T. R. is a 


The adoption of euwovros requires a comma before ey 


really the prelude to the discourse follow- 
ing on humility, and that discourse in 
turn reflects light on the prelude.— ri oor 
Soxet ; phrase often found in Mt. (xviii. 
12, xxi. 28, etc.) with lively colloquial 
effect: what think you ?—téhy fj kijvoov, 
customs or tribute; the former taxes on 
wares, the latter a tax on persons = ine 
direct and direct taxation. The question 
refers specially to the latter.—aAAorpiwv, 
foreigners, in reference not to the nation, 
but to the royal family, who have the 
privilege of exemption.—Ver. 26. dpaye 
on the force of this particle vide at vii. 
20. The ye lends emphasis to the 
exemption of the viol. It virtually 
replies to Peter’s vat = then you must 
admit, what your answer to the collectors 
seemed to deny, that the children are 
free. The reply is a jeu d’esprit, Christ’s 
purpose is not seriously to argue for 
exemption, but to prepare the way for 
a moral lesson. 

Ver. 27. tva py oxavdaX., that we may 
not create misunderstanding as to our 
attitude by asking exemption or refusing 
to pay. Nosgen, with a singular lack of 
exegetical insight, thinks the scandal 
dreaded is an appearance of disagree- 
ment between Master and disciple! It 
is rather creating the impression that 
Jesus and His followers despise the 
temple, and disallow its claims. And 
the aim of Jesus was to fix Peter’s 
attention on the fact that He was 
anxious to avoid giving offence thereby, 
and in that view abstained from insist- 
ing on personal claims. Over against 
the spirit of ambition, which has begun 
to show itself among His disciples, He 





ee 


24—27. 


‘Ingots, *"Apaye 
hiowper } autous, 


kal Tov dvaBdavTa 


edpyceis Yotatipa: éxeivoy haBay Sds abtois “ dyti éyod Kal god. 


EYATTEAION 


235 


€hevOepot eioww ot viol. 27. tva S€ ph oKxavda-u here only 
Beis eis thy? Odd he "a Reve e 

wopeudels cis Thy agoay, Bade * dyKtotpor, v here only 
in N.T. 


n 2 ‘ > Noes , x 4 > “ aioe i 
TPWTOY ixOdv apov* Kat dvotgas TO otdpa adTOod, w Cf. avri 


~»» TodAAwr, 


Ch. xx. 28. 


1 gxavSadtLopey in ${LX, adopted by Tisch. and placed in marg. by W.H. 


2 Many uncials (NBLA al.) omit tHy. 


sets His own spirit of self-effacement 
and desire as far as possible to live 
peaceably with all men, even with those 
with whom He has no religious affinity. 
—rropevOels €. 8. Generally the instruc- 
tion given is: go and fish for the money 
needful to pay the tax.—adyxiortpov, a 
hook, not a net, because very little would 
suffice ; one or two fish at most.— 
mpatov ty@iv: the very first fish that 
comes up will be enough, for a reason 
given in the following clause.—avol£as 
. . . @Taripa: the words point to some- 
thing marvellous, a fish with a stater, 
the sum wanted, in its mouth. Paulus 
sought to eliminate the marvellous by 
rendering etpyjoers not “find” but 
“obtain,” i.e., by sale. Beyschlag (Das 
Leben Fesu, p. 304) suggests that the 
use of an ambiguous word created the 
impression that Jesus directed Peter to 
catch a fish with a coin in its mouth. 
Ewald (Geschichte Christus, p. 467) 
thinks Jesus spoke very much as re- 
ported, but from the fact that it is not 
stated that a fish with a coin in its 
mouth was actually found, he infers that 
the words were not meant seriously as a 
practical direction, but were a spirited 
proverbial utterance, based on_ rare 
examples of money found in fishes. 
Weiss is of opinion that a simple direc- 
tion to go and fish for the means of pay- 
ment was in the course of oral tradition 
changed into a form of language imply- 
ing a miraculous element. This view 
assumes that the report in Mt. was 
derived from oral tradition (vide Weiss, 
Das Leben Fesu, ii. 47,and my Miraculous 
Element in the Gospels, pp. 231-5). In 
any case the miracle, not being reported 
as having happened, cannot have been 
the important point for the evangelist. 
What he is chiefly concerned about is to 
report the behaviour of Jesus on the 
occasion, and the words He spoke re- 
vealing its motive.—avrti épod Kal gov: 
various questions occur to one here. 
Did the collectors expect Jesus only to 
pay (for Himself and His whole com- 
pany), or did their question mean, does 
He also, even He, pay? And why pay 


only for Peter along with Himself? 
Were all the disciples not liable: 
Andrew, James and John there, in 
Capernaum, not less than Peter? Was 
the tax strictly collected, or for lack of 
power to enforce it had it become prac- 
tically a voluntary contribution, paid by 
many, neglected by not afew? In that 
case it would be a surprise to many that 
Jesus, while so uncompromising on 
other matters, was so accommodating in 
regard to money questions. He would 
not conform to custom in fasting, 
Sabbath keeping, washing, etc., but He 
would pay the temple tax, though refusal 
would have had no more serious result 
than slightly to increase already existing 
ill-will. This view sets the generosity 
and nobility of Christ’s spirit in a clearer 
light. 

CHAPTER XVIII. Morar TRAINING 
oF THE DiscrpLes. In this and the 
next two chapters the centre of interest 
is the spiritual condition of the Twelve, 
and the necessity thereby imposed on 
their Master to subject them to a stern 
moral discipline. The day of Caesarea 
had inaugurated a spiritual crisis in the 
disciple-circle, which searched them 
through and through, and revealed in 
them all in one form or another, and in 
a greater or less degree, moral weak- 
ness: disloyalty to the Master (xvii. 22), 
vain ambition, jealousy, party spirit. 
The disloyal disciple seems to have 
taken to heart more than the others the 
gloomy side of the Master’s predictions, 
the announcement of the Passion ; his 
more honest-hearted companions let 
their minds rest on the more pleasing 
side of the prophetic picture, the near 
approach of the kingdom in power and 
glory, so that while remaining true to 
the Master their hearts became fired with 
ambitious passions. 

Vv. 1-14. Ambition rebuked (Mk. ix. 
33-50; Lk. ix. 46-50, xv. 3-7, xvii. 1-4).— 
Ver. 1. évéx. tT. pq, in that hour; the 
expression connects what follows very 
closely with the tax incident, and shows 
that the two things were intimately asso- 
ciated in the mind of the evangelist.— 


236 


a Ch. xi. rr; 
xxiii, rr. prea yon 
Mk. ix. 34. K€yovtes, “* Tis apa 
Lk. ix. 46. 


b john xii. 2. Kat mpooxaheodpevos 6 “Inaods! 


40 (ercor. 


2 A 


KATA MATOAION 


XVIII. 


XVIII. 1. "EN éxelvy TA Spa wpooyAOor of padyral 7d "Inooi, 


‘ -~ a A 
“peilov éotty év ri Baothela tay obpavay ; 


Tadsiov Coryoev adro év péow 


R.).  attdv, 3. Kal elev, “’Aphy héyw Spiv, giv ph Porpadire Kal 


Acts vii. 


39- 

c Ch. xxiii. 
1a. Lk. 
xiverr 
XVili. 14. 

d Ch. xxiv. 5 
parall. 


odpavar. 


1NSBL al. omit o |. 


oltés éotw 6 peilLwy év tH Baoiheia Tav odpavay. 


yévnobe ds Ta mardla, od ph eloéAOnte eis Thy PBacidelay Trav 


« > a 
4. dotis oly *TaTeWwdoy 2 €autdy &s Td Tatdloy TodTOo, 


Be Kal Os éay 


SéEntat mardiov torodtov év® “emt TO dvdpati pou, eye Séxerar- 


3 ratret_vworet in all uncials. 


5 ev before watdiov in BDLZ; rorovro in $$BLA for the more usual rotevrov in 
T. R. (ev watdtoy rorovto in Tisch. and W.H.). 


tis GpapeiLwv: who then is greater, etc. ? 
The apa may be taken as pointing back 
to the tax incident as suggesting the 
question, but not to it alone, rather to it 
as the last of a series of circumstances 
tending to force the question to the 
front: address to Peter at Caesarea 
Philippi; three disciples selected to be 
with the Master on the Hill of Trans- 
figuration. From Mk. we learn that 
they had been discussing it on the way 
home.—v tr. Bao.t. ovp.,inthe Kingdom 
of Heaven; this is wanting in Mk., 
where the question is a purely personal 
one; who is the greater (among us, 
now, in your esteem)? In Mk. the 
question, though referring to the present, 
who is, etc., points to the future, and 
presents a more general aspect, but 
though it wears an abstract look it too 
is personal in reality = which of us now 
is the greater for you, and shall there- 
fore have the higher place in the king- 
dom when it comes? It is not necessary 
to conceive every one of the Twelve 
fancying it possible he might be the 
first man. The question for the majority 
may have been one as to the respective 
claims of the more prominent men, 
Peter, James, John, each of whom may 
have had his partisans in the little band. 
—Ver.2. ma.Siov: the task of Jesus is 
not merely to communicate instruction 
but to rebuke and exorcise an evil 
spirit, therefore He does not trust to 
words alone, but for the greater im- 
pressiveness uses a child who happens to 
be present as a vehicle of instruction. 
The legendary spirit which dearly loves 
certainty in detail identified the child 
with Ignatius, as if that would make 
the lesson any the more valuable !— 
Ver. 3. éav pH otpadate: unless ye 
turn round so as to go in an opposite 
direction. ‘‘ Conversion’’ needed and 


demanded, even in the case of these men 
who have left all to follow Jesus! How 
many who pass for converted, regenerate 
persons have need to be converted over 
again, more radically! Chrys. remarks: 
“We are not able to reach even 
the faults of the Twelve; we ask not 
who is the greatest in the Kingdom of 
Heaven, but who is the greater in the 
Kingdom of Earth: the richer the more 
powerful’ (Hom. lviii.). The remark is 
not true to the spirit of Christ. In His 
eyes vanity and ambition in the sphere 
of religion were graver offences than the 
sins of the worldly. His tone at this 
time is markedly severe, as much so as 
when He denounced the vices of the 
Pharisees. It was indeed Pharisaism 
in the bud He had to deal with. Resch 
suggests that orpagyte here simply re- 
presents the idea of becoming again 
children, corresponding to the Hebrew 


idiom which uses 9X2) = wadw (Ausser- 


canonische Paralleltexte su Mt. and Mk., 
p- 213).—@s Ta wardia, like the children, 
in unpretentiousness. A king’s child 
has no more thought of greatness than a 
beggar’s.—ov py eioéAOnte, ye shall 
not enter the kinzdom, not to speak of 
being great there. Just what He said to 
the Pharisees (vic/e on chap. v. 17-20).— 
Ver. 4. Taetvwoe Eavtov: the most 
difficult thing in the world for saint as 
for sinner. Raphel (Amnot. in S.S.) dis- 
tinguishes three forms ef self-humiliation: 
in mind (Phil. ii. 3), by words, and by 
acts, giving classical examples of the latter 
two. It is easy to humble oneself by 
self-disparaging words, or by symbolic 
acts, as when the Egyptian monks wore 
hoods, like children’s caps (Elsner), but to 
be humble in sfirit, and so child-like !— 
6 pet{wv. The really humble man is as 
great in the moral world as he is rare. 


7 


EYATTEAION 


237 


6. 65 8 av cxardadion eva Tav °piKpOv TodUTwY TOY mLoTEUdVTUW ¢ Cf. édaxi- 


eis eye, 


oTwy 1n 


t cuphéper alté, tva Kpepacbf pudos dvixds émt! tov Ch. xxv. 


a a A Pn 40. 
Tpdxndov adtod, kat § katamovTia0y év TO »aweddye: THs Oaddcons. f Ch. v. 29, 


mn = Z 130: 
7. Oat TO kécpw awd Toy cKaydddwv: dvdyKn yap éotw? édOetv g here and 


Ta oKGVOaNG. 


Thi obat TO dvOpditw éxeiva,® Be oF 73 cxdvdadov 


in Ch. xiv, 


30. 
h here and 


Acts xxvii. 5. The phrase éy r. w. +. QaAdcons here only 


* For emt $$BLZ have tept. 


2 Omitted in BL (W.H.); found in QD (Tisch.). 


8 exetvw wanting in $§DLX; found in B but not adopted by W.H. 


It looks 


like an echo of xxvi. 24, yet it answers well to the solemn tone of our Lord’s 


utterance on this occasion. 


Vv. 5-7.—Ver. 5. 8é€&qrar: the dis- 
course passes at this point from being 
child-like to gracious treatment of a 
child and what it represents.—év mwatdiov 
rovovro;: the real child present in the 
room passes into an ideal child, repre- 
senting all that the spirit of ambition in 
its struggle for place and power is apt to 
trample under foot. So in effect the 
majority of commentators; a few, in- 
cluding Bengel, De Wette, Bleek, 
Weiss, hold that the reference is still to 
a real child. In favour of this view is 
Luke’s version: ‘ Whoso receiveth this 
child,” etc. (ix. 48). But the clause émt 
+@ dvépari pov raises the child into the 
ideal sphere. The reception required 
does not mean natural kindness to 
children (though that also Christ valued), 
but esteeming them as fellow-disciples in 
spite of their insignificance. A child 
may be such a disciple, but it may also 
represent such disciples, and it is its 
representative function that is to be em- 
phasised.—Ver. 6. oxavdarioq: the 
opposite of receiving; treating harshly 
and contemptuously, so as to tempt to 
unbelief and apostasy. The pride and 
selfish ambition of those who pass for 
eminent Christians make many infidels. 
—éva 7. p. T.: one of the large class of 
little ones; not merely child believers 
surely, but all of whom a child is the 
emblem, as regards social or ecclesias- 
tical importance. Those who are caused 
to stumble are always little ones: 
“‘ majores enim scandala non recipiunt,” 
Jerome. One of them: “ frequens unius 
in hoc capite mentio,” Bengel. This is 
the one text in which Jesus speaks of 
Himself as the object of faith (vide The 
Kingdom of God, p. 263).—oupéper . . . 
iva: vide on v. 29. Fritzsche finds 
here an instance of attraction similar to 
that in x. 25—xal 6 Sothos, as 6 x. a. 
Instead of saying oupdéper a. xpepa- 


oOjvar...tva xKatawovticOg, the 
writer puts both verbs in the subjunctive 
after tva.—pvAos dvixds. The Greeks 
called the upper millstone 6vos the ass 
(6 &v@repos Ai@os, Hesychius), but they 
did not use the adjective évixds. The 
meaning therefore is a millstone driven 
by an ass, #.¢.,a large one, as distinct 
from smaller-sized ones driven by the 
hand, commonly used in Hebrew houses 
in ancient times. ‘‘ Let such a large 
stone be hung about the neck of the 
offender to make sure that he sink to 
the bottom to rise no more’’—such is 
the thought of Jesus; strong in con- 
ception and expression, revealing intense 
abhorrence.—év 1@ wehadyer +r. 6.: in 
the deep part of the sea. So Kypke, 
who gives examples; another signifi- 
cantly strong phrase. Both these ex- 
pressions have been toned down by 
Luke.—xatrarovric@9 : drowning was 
not a form of capital punishment in use 
among the Jews. The idea may have 
been suggested by the word denoting 
the offence, oxavdadloy. Bengel re- 
marks: ‘‘ apposita locutio in sermone de 
scandalo, nam ad lapfidem offensio est” = 
“let the man who puts a stone in the 
path of a brother have a stone hung 
about his neck,’’ etc. Lightfoot suggests 
as the place of drowning the Dead Sea, 
in whose waters nothing would sink 
without a weight attached to it, and in 
which to be drowned was a mark of 
execration.—Ver. 7. ovat t@ Kéopa, 
woe to the world, an exclamation of 
pity at thought of the miseries that 
come upon mankind through ambitious 
passions. Some (Bleek, Weiss, etc.) 
take xéopos in the sense of the ungodly 
world, as in later apostolic usage, and 
therefore as causing, not suffering from, 
the offences deplored. This interpreta- 
tion is legitimate but not inevitable, and 
it seems better to take the word in the 


238 


EpxeTat. 


KATA MATOAION 


XVIII. 


8. Et 8é Hf xelp cou H 6 mods cou cxavdahiLer oe, Exkowpor 


aita! cat Bdde dwd cod: Kaddv cor eortiv eioedOeiv eis THY Lwiy 
xwhdv A Kuddév,? H BUo Xeipas fH Bo wédas exovra BAnOajvar eis TO 


a >@ 
wip Td atwviov. 


g. kal ei & dOarpds cou ckavdadiler ce, efede 


jhereandin adrév Kat Bdde dd cod* Kaddv gor earl ' povdpOadpov eis Thy Lwhy 


_ Mk. ix. 47. 
Lk v 
XX1 és. 


25. Rom. 
xi, 10 al, 


l aurov in NBDL2. 


eice etry, 4 Bo dPBarpods Exovra BAnOivar eis Thy yéevvay Tod 
10. “Opate pi) xatadpovnonte évds Tov pixpay TodTwy * 
héyw ydp dpiv, Ste ot dyyedor adtav év odpavois ’ Sd ? wavtds 


avta a grammatical correction. 


2 cvAXoy 7 XwAov in NB (Tisch., W.H.). 


more general sense of humanity con- 
ceived of as grievously afflicted with 
‘scandals ” without reference to who is 
to blame. They are a great fact in the 
history of mankind, by whomsoever 
caused.—amré t. o. : by reason of; points 
to the ultimate source of the misery.— 
roy cxavddahey : the scandals ; a general 
category, and a black one.—avayxn yap: 
they are inevitable; a fatality as well as 
a fact, on the wide scale of the world; 
they cannot be prevented, only deplored, 
No shallow optimism in Christ’s view of 
life.—aAhv: adversative here, setting 
the woe that overtakes the cause of 
offences, over against that of those who 
suffer from them. Weiss contends that 
it is not adversative here any more than 
in xi. 24, but simply conducts from the 
general culpability of the world to the 
guilt of every one who is a cause of 
scandal, even when he does not belong 
to the world. 

Vy. 8, 9. These verses are one of 
Mt.’s dualities, being found with some 
variations in the Sermon on the Mount 
(vv. 29-30). Repetition perhaps due to 
use of two sources, but in sympathy 
with the connection of thought in both 
places. Since the offender is the greater 
loser in the end, it is worth his while 
to take precautions against being an 
offender.—Ver. 8. yelp, mwovs: men- 
tioned together as instruments of 
violence.—xaddév ... 4: the positive 
for the comparative, or # used in sense 
of magis quam. Raphel and Kypke cite 
instances of this use from classics. It 
may be an imitation of Hebrew usage, 
in which the comparative is expressed 
by the positive, followed by the preposi- 
tion min. ‘A rare classical usage tends 
to become frequent in Hellenistic Greek if 
it be found to correspond to a common 
Hebrew idiom” (Carr, in Camb. N. T.). 
—xvA\bv: with reference to hand, muti- 


lated; wanting one or both hands.— 
xwAdv: in a similar condition regarding 
the feet (cf. xi. 5; xv. 30).—Ver. 9. 
ép8arpds, the eye, referred to as the 
means of expressing contempt ; in chap. v. 
29 as inciting to lust.—povédOadpoy, 
properly should mean having only one 
eye by nature, but here = wanting an 
eye, for which the more exact term is 
érepdOahpos, vide Lobeck, Phryn., p. 
136. 

Vv. 10-14. Still the subject is the 
child as the ideal representative of the 
insignificant, apt to be despised by the 
ambitious. From this point onwards 
Mt. goes pretty much his own way, 
giving Jogia of Jesus in general sympathy 
with the preceding discourse, serving the 
puspose of moral discipline for disciples 
aspiring to places of distinction.—Ver. 
IO. O6pate py Katod. : wn with the 
subj. in an object clause after a verb 
meaning to take heed; common N. T. 
usage; vide Matt. xxiv. 4; Acts xiii. 
40, etc.—évds, one, again.—A¢yw yap: 
something solemn to be said.—ot 
GyyeAou avtav, etc. In general abstract 
language, the truth Jesus solemnly 
declares is that God, His Father, takes a 
special interest in the little ones in all 
senses cf the word. This truth is ex- 
pressed in terms of the current Jewish 
belief in guardian angels. In the later 
books of O. T. (Daniel), there are guar- 
dian angels of nations ; the extension of 
the privilege to individuals was a further 
development. Christ’s words are not to 
be taken as a dogmatic endorsement of 
this post-exilian belief exemplified in the 
story of Tobit (chap. v.). The same 
remark applies to the passages in which 
the law is spoken of as given through 
angelic mediation (Acts vii. 53; Gal. iii. 
19; Heb. ii.2). The Aéyw yap does not 
mean ‘this belief is true,’ but ‘‘ the 
idea it embodies, God’s special care fo; 


8-—16, 


EYATTEAION 


239 


" Bhérouct 1b *apdcwrov tod matpéds pou Tod év obpavois.! 11. kthisphrase 


yOe yap 6 vids tod dvOpdmou soar Td dtrodwhds.? 


here only 


12. Tt piv 


Boxet; édy yévntat tive dvOpmmw Eexatdvy mpdBata, Kat wAavyOA Ev | Acts xx. 16. 
t 


€& abtGv- obxt ddels® Ta evvevnKovtaevvéa, emt Ta don * tropeubets 
{ntet TS whavdpevoy ; 13. Kat édv | yévnrat edpety adtd, duhy héyw 
Opty, OT loc. € altT@ paddov, % emt Tots é éa Tow 
piv, OTL Xalper éw adTO pa , h emt Tots evvevnxovtaevvéa Tots 


py TweTAavynpEvots. 


watpos buav > tod év odpavots, iva dadkyTat ets ® Tov pixpav ToUTwy. 


15. Eav 8é dpaptyon cis o€? 6 ddeApds Gou, maye xat® ™ eheytov 


b pe \ Lol ‘ > lel 
adtov peta) cod Kal adrod pdvou. 


Tov &deAddv gou- 16. édv dé ph dxovoy, wapddaPe peta ood Er eva 


Gal. vi. 14 
(same 
const. 
with inf. 
as here, 
cf. in ver. 
12). 


14. ottws ob Eott O€Anpa ™ Eumpoobey Tod m Ch. xi. 26. 


Lk. x. 21. 


n Lk. iii. 19. 
I Tim. v. 


20. 
édy cou dkovon, ° €xépdynoas or Cor. ix 


19-22. I 
Pet. iii. 1, 


1B has ev tw ovpavw (W.H. margin, bracketed). 
2 Ver. 11 is wanting in BL, 1, 13, 33, Egyptian verss., Syrr. Jerus. Sin., Orig., 


etc.; doubtless imported from Lk. xix. Io. 

2 adyoet in BL (Tisch., W.H.); D has adinory, 
6 ev in NBDL. 
5 SBD omit Kat. 


5 nov in B al. 
TRB omit es oa 


the little, is true”. This is an important 
text for Christ’s doctrine of the Father- 
hood. It teaches that, contrary to the 
spirit of the world, which values only 
the great, the Father-God cares specially 
for that which is apt to be despised.— 
Bdémover tT. wp. In Eastern courts it is 
the confidential servants who see the 
face of the king. The figure is not to be 
pressed to the extent of making God like 
an Eastern despot.—Ver. II an inter- 
polation from Lk. xix. 10, q. . 

Vv. 12-14. Parable of straying sheep 
(Lk. xv. 4-7); may seem less appropriate 
here than in Lk., but has even here a 
good setting, amounting to a climax = 
God cares not only for the lowly and 
little but even for the low—the morally 
erring. In both places the parable 
teaches the precious characteristically 
Christian doctrine of the worth of the 
individual at the worst to God.—Ver. 12. 
tt. Soxet as in xvii. 25.—éav yévynral tr. 
a. @. woéBara: if a man happen to have 
as large a number, yet, etc.—kal w. év: 
only one wanderer, out of so many.— 
mopevOels {ntet: does he not go and 
seek the one ?—Ver. 13. kal... avrd: 
if it happen that he finds it. In Lk. he 
searches till he finds it. —apjyv Ady: 
specially solemn, with a view to the 
application to the moral sphere of what 
in the natural sphere is self-evident.— 
Ver. 14, application of the parable less 
emphatic than in Lk.—OéAnpa, a will, 
for an object of will.—é€papoobev 7. w. 
p-: before the face of = for, etc. 


‘ «at after opy in BL. 
€us is a grammatical correction. 


Vv. 15-17. How to deal with an 
erring brother.—The transition here is 
easy from warning against giving, to 
counsel how to receive, offences. The 
terms are changed: pixpos becomes 
a8eAdéds, giving offence not suiting the 
idea of the former, and for oxavdaAiLerv 
we have the more general Gpapravevy. 
—Vv. 16 and 17 have something 
answering to them in Lk, xvii. 3, coming 
in there after the group of parables in 
chaps, xv. and xvi., in which that of the 
Shepherd has its place; whence Wendt 
recognises these verses as an authentic 
logion probably closely connected with 
the parable inthe common source. Ver. 
17 he regards as an addition by the 
evangelist or a later hand. Holtzmann 
(H. C.) regards the whole section (15-17) 
as a piece of Church order in the form of 
a /ogion of the Lord. 

Ver. 15. Gpaptyoy: apart from the 
doubtful els oé following, the reference 
appears to be to private personal offences, 
not to sin against the Christian name, 
which every brother in the community 
has a right to challenge, especially 
those closely connected with the offender. 
Yet perhaps we ought not too rigidly to 
draw a line between the two in an ideal 
community of love.—perafd o. x. a. pL. : 
the phrase implies that some one has 
the right and duty of taking the initia- 
tive. So far it is a personal affair to 
begin with. The simpler and more 
classical expression would be pévos 
pévov.—axovoy, hear, in the sense of 


240 


KATA MATOAION 


XVII 


80. ° ‘ , , ~ a a cn 
| S00, iva eri ordparos So paptipwy % tprdv arab wav papa. 
phere only £7, €dv S€ Prrapaxoveyn adtay, eiwé tH exxAnola~ edv S€ Kal THs 


(Esther 
iii. 3, 8). 


éxkAnoias wapaxovoyn, Eorw gor doweo 6 eOviKds Kal 6 Teddums. 


18. “Apiyy Néyw bpty, dca ay SHonre ewl ris yis, Eotar dedepeva 
q Ch. xx. 2, TO) oparG+ Kal Soa dv Adonte emi Tis yas, EoTar NeAupeva 


19. Lk. v. hs id 
3%. Acts €v TO* odpavd. 
Vv. 9; xv 
15. 


19. wadwv? héyw dpiv, Str edv Bio Spay * cuphwry- 
‘owow® eri tis ys wept mwavtds mpdypatos of édy aithowvrat, 


1 B omits tw first time and YB second time. 
? B and many other uncials add apny after wadw (W.H. in brackets), 


5 cupdwvycovow in S$BDLA (Tisch.). 


submitting to admonition.—éxépdyoas : 
gained as ik tea as a fellow-member 
of the Kingdom of God, or as a man = 
saved him from moral ruin? All three 
alternatives find support. Is it necessary 
or possible to decide peremptorily 
between them ?—Ver. 16. éav S& pi a. 
After a first failure try again, with added 
influence.—apddaBe ... va  Svo. 
This bears a juridical aspect (Schanz), 
but it does not really pass out of the 
moral sphere: ethical influence alone 
contemplated ; consensus in moral judg- 
ment carries weight with the conscience. 
—iva éwt ordpatos, etc.: reference to 
the legal provision in Deut. xix. 15 in a 
literary rather than in a legal spirit.— 
Ver. 17. éavSea.a. Try first a mini- 
mum of social pressure and publicity, and 
if that fail have recourse to the maximum. 
—eiwé tT] éxkAnotiqa: speak to the 
“ Church ”—the brotherhood of believers 
in the Christ, This to be the widest 
limit for the ultimate sphere of moral 
influence, as ex hypothesi the judgment 
of this new community will count for 
more to its members than that of all the 
world beyond.—égtw got, etc.: this 
failing, the offender puts himself outside 
the society, and there is nothing for it 
but to treat him as a heathen or a pub- 
lican ; which does not mean with in- 
difference or abhorrence, but carefully 
avoiding fellowship with him in sin, and 
seeking his good only as one without. 
There is no reference in this passage to 
ecclesiastical discipline and Church cen- 
sures. The older interpreters, in a 
theologico-polemical interest, were very 
anxious to find in it support for their 
developed ideas on these topics. The 
chief interest of historic exegesis is to 
divest it of an ecclesiastical aspect as 
much as possible, for only so can it suit 
the initial period, and be with any pro- 
bability regarded as an utterance of 


Jesus. As such it may be accepted, 
when interpreted, as above. If, as we 
have tried to show, it was natural for 
Jesus to speak of a new community of 
faith at Caesarea, it was equally natural 
that He should return upon the idea in 
the Capernaum lesson on humility and 
kindred virtues, and refer to it as an in- 
strument for promoting right feeling and 
conduct among professed disciples. — 
Ver. 18. Renewed promise of power to 
bind and loose, this time not to Peter 
alone, as in xvi. 19, but to all the 
Twelve, not qua apostles, with ecclesias- 
tical authority, but qua disciples, with 
the ethical power of morally disciplined 
men. The Twelve for the moment are 
for Jesus = the ecclesia : they were the 
nucleus of it. The binding and loosing 
generically = exercising judgment on 
conduct ; here specifically = treating sin 
as pardonable or the reverse—a particu- 
lar exercise of the function of judging. 
Vv. 19, 20. Promise of the power and 
presence of God to encourage concord.— 
Ver.19. warty Guny: a second amen, 
introducing a new thought of parallel 
importance to the former, in ver. 18. 
—éav 3vo0: two; not the measure of 
Christ’s expectation of agreement among 
His disciples, but of the moral power 
that lies in the sincere consent of even 
two minds. It outweighs the nominal 
agreement of thousands who have no 
real bond of union.—cvupdevycwov : 
agree, about what ? not necessarily only 
the matters referred to in previous con- 
text, but anything concerning the King- 
dom of God.—wepi wavtés mpayparos : 
concerning every or any matter, offences 
committed by brethren included of 
course.—yevyoerat: it shall be; what 
absolute confidence in the laws of the 
moral world !—apa rt. 7. p.: from my 
Father. The Father-God of Jesus is 
here defined as a lover of peace and 


17—22. 


~ ¢ A 
yevijoeTar adTots mapa tod mazpds pou Tod év odpavots. 


ydp ctor S00 | tpeis cuvnypevor “els TO Epdy dvopa, Exet eipi ev 


péow adtav.” } 


21. Tote mpoceh@av ait® 6 MNérpos etre, 
dpaptyaer eis ee 6 Adehpds pou, Kal dbyow abTa ; ews *émtdxis ;”” 
x Bee: : 8 

22. Ad€ye. attG 6 “Inoods, “ Od A¢yw cor Ews Emtdkis, GAN’ Ews 


EYATTEAION 


241 


20. o0r Ch. xxviii 
19g. Acts 
Vili. 16; 
XIX 5d 
Cor. i. 13 
(all of bap- 
tism into 
—els—a 
name}. 
Ch. xxiii. 
eye ls 
xiii. 34. 

t Lk. xvii. 4. 


2 “Kidpie, * moodkts 


1 This verse in Codex Bezae runs “for there are not (ov« evoww yap), etc., with 


whom (map’ ots) I am ne‘ in the midst of them ”’. 
2 aurw after eure in BD (Tisch., W.H., bracketed). 


fraternal concord. In this verse we 
have a case of attraction, of the main 
subject into the conditional clause. 
Resolved, the sentence would run: trav 
mpaypa, 6 eav aitycwot, eav supdo- 
Vi|TFOUTLY TEpL AVTOV, yevyTETAL AUTOLS.— 
Ver. 20. &vVo 7% tpets. Jesus deals in 
small numbers, not from modesty in His 
anticipations, but because they suit the 
present condition, and in jealousy for the 
moral quality of the new society.— 
ouvnypevor eis, etc., not gathered to con. 
fess or worship my name, but gathered 
as believers in me. It is a synonym for 
the new society. The ecclesia is a body 
of men gathered together by a common 
relation to the name of the Christ: a 
Christian synagogue as yet consisting of 
the Twelve, or as many of them as were 
really one in heart.—éxet eipi év, etc. : 
there am I, now, with as many of you, 
my disciples, as are one in faith and 
brotherly love ; not with any more even 
of you: far away from the man of am- 
bitious, not to say traitorous, mind, 
There am I in reference to the future. 
His presence axiomatically certain, 
therefore expressed as a present fact, 
even with reference to a future time—a 
promise natural from Onelooking forward 
to an early death. Similar in import to 
Mt. xxviii. 20. For similar sayings of 
the Rabbis concerning the presence of 
the Divine Majesty, or the Shechinah, 
among two or three sitting in judgment 
or studying the law, vide Lightfoot and 
Schottgen. 

Vv. 21, 22. Peter’s question about for- 
giving.—The second of two interpella- 
tions in the course of Christ’s discourse 
(vide Mk. ix. 38-41; Lk. ix. 49, 50). 
Such words touch sensitive consciences, 
and the interruptions would be wel- 
comed by Jesus as proof that He had 
not spoken in vain.—Ver. 21. ‘mroodkts, 
ete. : the question naturally arose out of 
the directions for dealing with an offend- 


Syr. Sin. has a similar reading. 
& omits avTw. 


ing brother, which could only be carried 
out by one of placable disposition. Their 
presupposition is that a fault confessed is 
to be forgiven. But how far is this to 
go? In Lk. xvii. 3 the case is put of 
seven offences in a day, each in turn re- 
pented of and confessed. Is there not 
reason for doubting the sincerity of 
repentance in such a case? Or is this 
not at least the extreme limit? Such 
is Peter’s feeling.—apaprycer, adyjow: 
two futures instead of woo. apaprévti 
adijow : Hebrew idiom instead of Greek. 
—é€ws éwrduis: Peter meant to be 
generous, and he went considerably 
beyond the Rabbinical measure, which 
was three times (Amos i. 6) : ‘ quicunque 
remissionem petit a proximo, ne ultra 
quam ter petat,” Schéttgen.—Ver. 22. 
ov: emphatic “no” to be connected 
with ws émraxis. Its force may be 
brought out by translating: no, I tell 
you, not till, etc.—éAXa é. é. é.: Christ’s 
reply lifts the subject out of the legal 
sphere, where even Peter’s suggestion 
left it (seven times and no more—a hard 
rule), into the evangelic, and means: 
times without number, infinite placability. 
This alone decides between the two 
renderings of é€BSopnKovtaks émrd: 
seventy-seven times and seventy times 
seven, in favour of the latter as giving a 
number (490) practically equal to infini- 
tude. Bengel leans to the former, taking 
the termination -xig as covering the 
whole number seventy-seven, and re- 
ferring to Gen. iv. 24 as the probable 
source of the expression. Similarly 
some of the Fathers (Orig., Aug.), De 
Wette and Meyer. The majority adopt 
the opposite view, among whom may be 
named Grotius and Fritzsche, who cite 
the Syriac version in support. On 
either view there is inexactness in the 
expression. Seventy times seven re- 
quires the termination -Kts at both words. 
Seventy-seven times requires the -«tg at 


16 


242 KATA MATGAION XVIII. 
So only" €BSopunxovtdkis érrd, 23. Ard toito dpouddy 4 Baordela tov 
nS odjpavav dvOpdmw Baordet, ds 16éAnoe “ouvapar Adyov peta Tay 


v here and ; ante 
inCh.xxv. 5oUAwy adtod. 
19 (same 
const.). 

w here and _ pe a 
inCh.xxv. &troSodvat, exéNeucey adtov & kuptos abtrod® mpabjvat, Kal thy 


24. dpfapdvou S€ abtod cuvalpew, mpoonvexOy } 


air@ els? Spertérms puptwy “taddvrwv. 25. pi) Exovtos S€ adtod 


15. ~ “ : 

x Lk. xviii, yuvatka adtod * Kal Ta téxva, Kal mdvta doa etye® kal drodo0jvat. 
7. x Cor. 
rill, 4. 


26. wesay obv 5 So0dh0s mpogekdver alta, héywv, KUpre,” * paKxpo- 
es V.7. , 
 feahaabe Odpyoov ew poi,’ kat mavra oo® dwoSdcw. 27. omrayxviobels Se 


1 gpoonxOn in BD (W.H.); as in T. R., SLA al. (Tisch.) 


2 es avrw in NB (Tisch., W.H.). 


3 NEDL omit avtov. 


449B omit this avrov also (Tisch., W.H.). 


5 3 has exet, which, just because of its singularity as a present among preterites, 
is to be preferred to etxe, though found in most uncials. 


6 BD omit. _™ DL have en’ epe. 
the end of the second word rather than 
at end of first: either éwra xcl €B80... 
kis, or €Bdon . . . Ta éwrdxts. 

Vv. 23-35. Parable of unmerciful ser- 
vant.—_Ver. 23. 8a totro suggests 
that the aim of the parable is to justify 
the apparently unreasonable demand in 
ver. 22: unlimited forgiveness of in- 
juries. After all, says Jesus, suppose 
ye comply with the demand, what do 
your remissions amount to compared to 
what has been remitted to you by God? 
—av0odrm Baoiket: a man, a king; 
king an afterthought demanded by the 
nature of the case. Only a great 
monarch can have such debtors, and 
opportunity to forgive such debts.— 
gvvapat Adyov (found again in xxv. 19), 
to hold a reckoning.—8ovAov: all alike 
servants or slaves in relation to the 
king. So human distinctions are 
dwarfed into insignificance by the dis- 
tance between all men and God.—Ver. 
24. €ls: one stood out above all the 
rest for the magnitude of his debt, who, 
therefore, becomes the subject of the 
story.—dgethérns p. T.: a debtor of, or 
to the extent of, a thousand talents—an 
immense sum, say millions sterling; 
payment hopeless; that the point ; exact 
calculations idle or pedantic. It may 
seem to violate natural probability that 
time was allowed to incur such a debt, 
which speaks to malversation for years. 
But the indolence of an Eastern monarch 
must be taken into account, and the 
absence of system in the management 
of finance. As Koetsveld (De Gelijk., 
p- 286) remarks: ‘A regular control is 
not in the spirit of the Eastern. He 
trusts utterly when he does trust, and 


8 co.after atrrodwow in NBL. 


when he loses confidence it is for ever.” 
—Ver. 25. mpaGfvac... Exer: the 
order is given that the debtor be sold, 
with all he has, including his wife and 
children ; hard lines, but according to 
ancient law, in the view of which wife 
and children were simply property. 
Think of their fate in those barbarous 
times! But parables are not scrupulous 
on the score of morality.—kal azodo- 
Ojvar: the proceeds of sale to be applied 
in payment of the debt.—Ver. 26. pak- 
pobvpnoov: a Hellenistic word, some- 
times used in the sense of deferring 
anger (Prov. xix. 11 (Sept.), the corre- 
sponding adjective in Ps, Ixxxvi. 15; ¢f. 
1 Cor. xili. 4; 1 Thess. v. 14). That sense 
is suitable here, but the prominent idea 
is: give me time; wrath comes in at a 
later stage (ver. 34).—wdvra aroddcw: 
easy to promise; his plea: better wait 
and get all than take hasty measures 
and get only a part.—Ver. 27. om)ay- 
xvic8els : touched with pity, not un- 
mixed perhaps with contempt, and asso- 
ciated possibly with rapid reflection as 
to the best course, the king decides on 
a magnanimous policy.—améAvoev, Td 
Sdverov adajev: two benefits conferred ; 
set free from imprisonment, debt abso- 
lutely cancelled, not merely time given 
for payment. A third benefit implied, 
continuance in office. The policy adopted 
in hope that it will ensure good be- 
haviour in time to come (Ps. cxxx. 4); 
perfectly credible even in an Eastern 
monarch. 

Vv. 28-34. The other side of the pic- 
ture.—Ver. 28. va tT. cvvdovAwv a.: a 
fellow-slave though a humble one, which 
he should have remembered, but did not. 


23-3 I. 


EYATTEAION 


24,3 


a , ’ , 
6 kUptos Tod Sovdou exeivou! direducev ardor, kal Td 7 Sdvevov AdijKev y here only 


2A 
QuTw. 


héywv, "Amddos por? 6 tr® ddetdets. 


attod eis Tods wéSasg atTod * mapekdder adtdév, Aéeywv, MaxpoOdpnaoy 


em éuot,® kal mdvtra® dmodécw cot. 


28. "EfehOdv Sé & BodX0S exetvos } 


lal a ‘ 
atdtob, ds apetter aT Exardv Syvdpia, kal Kpatioas adtoy *emviye, z 


- (Deut. xv. 
etpev Eva tOv cuvdouhwv 8; xxiv. 
II). 
here and 
in Mk. v. 
13 (of 
drown- 
ing). 


29. weowy otv 6 otvdoUh0S 


30. & S€ obk 7Oedev, ddA 


drehOov €Barev aitov cis hudakyy, Ews 007 dod Td ddherhopevor. 
31. iSdvtes Sé8 of odvBouhot abtod Ta yevdpeva ehuTPyoay opddpa 


1 B omits exetvov here (W.H. in brackets) and exetvog in ver. 28. 


2 SBDL omit pow 


3 S$BCD and other uncials have e Tu 


modern editors. 


ot. (T. R.) onlyin minus., rejected by 


* eis T. 7. avTov omitted in SBCDL and by modern editors. 


5 So in 9B and many uncials. 


CDL have em’ epe. 


8 wavra is feebly attested and unsuitable to the case. 


Tews in BCL. 


—éxatov Syvapta: some fifty shillings ; 
an utterly insignificant debt, which, 
coming out from the presence of a king, 
who had remitted so much to him, he 
should not even have remembered, far 
less been in the mood to exact.— 
Kpatyoas a. €mviye: seizing, he choked, 
throttled him, after the brutal manner 
allowed by ancient custom, and even by 
Roman law. The act foretokens merci- 
less treatment: no remission of debt to 
be looked for in this quarter.—amd8os ef 
tt. In the et re some ingenious com- 
mentators (Fritzsche, ¢.g.) have dis- 
covered Greek urbanity! (‘‘ Non sine 
urbanitate Graeci a conditionis vinculo 
aptarunt, quod a nulla conditione sus- 
pensum sit.”) Weiss comes nearer the 
truth when he sees in it an expression 
of ‘merciless logic’. He will have 
payment of whatever is due, were it 
only apenny.—Ver. 29. paxpoOupyooy, 
etc.: the identical words he used him- 
self just a few minutes ago, reminding 
him surely of his position as a pardoned 
debtor, and moving him to like conduct. 
—Ver. 30. ovx 7QeXev: no pity awakened 
by the words which echoed his own 
petition. ‘He would not.’’ Is such 
conduct credible? Two remarks may 
be made on this. In parabolic narra- 
tions the improbable has sometimes to be 
resorted to, to illustrate the unnatural 
behaviour of men in the spiritual sphere, 
é.g., in the parable oi the feast (Lk. xiv. 
16-24) all refuse; how unlikely! But 
the action of the pardoned debtor is not 
so improbable as it seems. He acts on 


§ ovy in NBD 33 e. 


the instinct of a base nature, and also 
doubiless in accordance with long habits 
of harsh tyrannical behaviour towards 
men in his power. Every way a bad 
man: greedy, grasping in acquisition of 
wealth, prodigal in spending it, un- 
scrupulous in using what is not his awn, 
—Ver. 31. tddvres of o. édvriOqoav: 
the other fellow-servants were greatly 
vexed or grieved. At what? the fate of 
the poor debtor? Why then not pay 
the debt ? (Koetsveld). Not sympathy 
s0 much as annoyance at the unbecoming 
conduct of the merciless one who had 
obtained mercy was the feeling.—8.eoa- 
gnoav: reported the facts (narraverunt, 
Vulg.), and so threw light on the charac- 
ter of the man (cf. Mt. xiii. 36, W. and 
H.).—7@ x. éavtey, to their own master, 
to whom therefore they might speak on 
a matter affecting his interest.—Ver. 32. 
8. wovnpé: the king could understand 
and overlook dishonesty in money 
matters, but not such inhumanity and 
villainy. vt. derdiy. é.: huge, un- 
countable.—érei wapexdheods pe, when 
you entreated me. In point of fact he 
had not, at least in words, asked re- 
mission but only time to pay. Ungenerous 
himself, he was incapable of conceiving, 
and therefore of appreciating such mag- 
nificent generosity.—Ver. 33. ovx éde1; 
was it not your duty? an appeal to the 
sense of decency and gratitude.—xai oé 
... HAenoa. There was condescension 
in putting the two cases together as 
parallel. Ten thousand acts of forgive- 
ness such as the culprit was asked to 


244 


KATA MATOAION 


XVIII. 32—35. 


‘ 4 a , a 
kal éAOdvres Sieodpyoay 1H Kupiw adrdvy! mdvra Ta yevdpeva. 


32. Tore mpooxadeodpevos attoy 6 kdptos adrod éyer attd, Aodde 


ad , ~ lol 
« Rom. xiii, Tovnpé, waoay Thy “deriv exelyny AdpijKd cor, mel mapexddheads 


y. xz Cor. 
vii. 3. 


BE* 33. obx dar Kal oe EXejoat Tov advSouddv gov, ds Kal eye oe 


Hrénoa; 34. Kat dpyrodeis 6 KUptos abtod wapédwxey adtév Trois 


b here only.” Bagaviatais, Ews 08 G08 wav Td dperhdpevov aito.? 


35. OtTw 


Wr la c é , 8 Ld c a >A x ~ a 
Kal O TaTHp HOU O ETOUPaYLOS * Trotnoer UpLy, Edy pi) ApATE ExaoTos 


TO GdeX$O adrod dnd Tay Kapbidy budv Ta wapamrtdpara atta.’ 4 


Meavtwy in NBC. D has avtwy asin T. R. Vide below. 


2? avrw omitted in BD (W.H.). 
5 ovpavios in NBDL. 


erroupaviog is not found elsewhere in Mt. 


‘7a wap. avtwy are wanting in BDL and most editors omit them. 


perform would not have equalled in 
amount one act such as he had got the 
benefit of. The fact in the spiritual sphere 
corresponds to this.—Ver. 34. dpyroGels : 
roused to just and extreme anger.—Baca- 
viorais: not merely to the gaolers, but 
to the tormentors, with instructions not 
merely to keep him safe in prison till the 
debt was paid, but still more to make 
the life of the wretch as miserable as 
possible, by place of imprisonment, 
position of body, diet, bed, etc., if not by 
instruments of pain. The word, chosen 
to suit the king’s mood, represents a 
subjective feeling rather than an objective 
fact, 

Ver. 35. Application. —ottws: 80, 
mutatis mutandis, for feelings, motives, 
methods rise in the moral scale when 
we pass to the spiritual sphere. So in 
general, not in all details, on the same 
principle; merciless to the merciless.— 
6 watip p. 6 ovp.: Jesus is not afraid to 
bring the Father in in such a connection, 
Rather He is here again defining the 
Father by discriminating use of the 
name, as One who above all things abhors 
mercilessness.—pov: Christ is in full 
sympathy with the Father in this.— 
iptv: to you, my own chosen disciples. 
—€xaotos: every man of you.—dao 
7G@y kapd.av: from your hearts, no sham 
or lip pardon; real, unreserved, thorough- 
going, and in consequence again and 
again, times without number, because 
the heart inclines that way. 

CHAPTER XIX. FAREWELL TO GALI- 
LEE. In Mt.’s narrative the journey of 
Jesus to the south, reported in ver. 1, 
marks the close of the Galilean ministry. 
Not so obviously so in Mk.’s (see notes 
there), though no hint is given of a return 
to Galilee. It is not perfectly clear 


whether the incidents reported are to be 
conceived as occurring at the southern 
end of the journey, or on the way within 
Galilee or without. The latter alterna- 
tive is possible (vide Holtz., H.C., p. 214). 
The incidents bring under our notice 
a variety of interesting characters: 
Pharisees with captious questions, 
mothers with their children, a man in 
quest of the summum bonum, with words 
and acts of Jesus corresponding. But 
the disciplining of the Twelve still holds 
the central place ofinterest. Last chap- 
ter showed them at school in the house, 
this shows them at school on the way. 
Vv. 1,2. Introductory, cf. Mk. x. 1.— 
Ver.1. Kaléyévero... Adyous TovTous: 
similar formulae after important groups 
of logia in vii. 28, xi. 1, xiii. 53.— 
petypev: also in xiii. 53, vide notes 
there; points to a change of scene 
worthy of note, as to Nazareth, which 
Jesus rarely visited, or to Judaea, as here. 
—amd 7t. [TaktXaias. The visit ta 
Nazareth was a movement within Gali- 
lee. This is a journey out of it not 
necessarily final, but so thought of to all 
appearance by the evangelist.—els 7a dpia 
tT. lar. 7. !.: indicates either the desti- 
nation = to the coasts of Judaea beyond 
the Jordan; or the end and the way = 
to the Judaea territory by the way olf 
Peraea, i.¢e., along the eastern shore of 
Jordan. It is not likely that the writer 
would describe Southern Peraea as a 
part of Judaea, therefore the second 
alternative is to be preferred. Mk.’s 
statement is that Jesus went to the 
coasts of Judaea and (xai, approved read. 
ing, instead of 8a rod in T. R.) beyond 
Jordan. Weiss thinks that Mt.’s version 
arose from misunderstanding of Mk. 
But his understanding may have been a 


eS 


RIX, I—5. 


XIX. 1. KAI éyéveto Ste éreNecev & 


EYATTEAION 


24.5 


"Ingots tods Adyous TouUTous, 


*“yetipev dd THs TadtNalas, Kal ANOev eis TA Spia Tis “loudatas aCh. xiii.s3. 


> arépav tod lopddvou. 


> , > A 5 ~ 
eJepdtreugev auTous exel. 


meipdlovtes autov, Kal Adyovtes avTd,? “Et efeotw dvOpamrw 
dmokGoa. Thy yuvatka avTod kata wacov aitiay;” 


Gmoxpielg eimev aurots,* “Oux dvéyvwre ot. 6 tromjoas 


2. Kal HkohoUOnoav adtTS dxAou WodAoL, Kai b Ch. iv. 15. 
3. Kat mpoojOov att ot! dapicator 


8 
4. ‘O 8 


ApXns & kat Oru étoincey auToU L eu ‘“E 
apxis apoey kat Ondu emoinoey autos, 5. Kal eltey, veKey 


, Cc X , ” 6 SY , ‘ ‘ , ‘ 
TOUTOU KOTa evper GQvUpWTOS TOV TWATENA KGL THY PNTEPA”’ KQL 


mpookohAnOjcetar® tH yuvarkt auto’, 


1 9. omitted in BCLA al 
8 SSBL omit av9pete. 


c Mk. x. 7. 
Eph. v.31, 
Ce 2 € , 2 fr. Gen. ii. 
KOtL EGOYTAL OL duo €ls odpKa, 24. 
2 avtw omitted in NBCLi al. D has it. 


4 88BDL omit avtots. 


5 erisas in B, 1, 22, 33, 124, sah. cop. (W.H.). 


8 The simple ckodAnOqoertat in BD al. (modern editors). 


from the Sept. 


true one, for Mk.’s statement may mean 
that Peraea was the first reached station 
(Holtz., H. C.), implying a journey on the 
eastern side. The suggestion that the 
writer of the first Gospel lived on the 
eastern side, and means by wépav the 
western side (Delitsch and others), has 
met with little favour.—Ver. 2. 7KoAov- 
6yoav: the crowds follow as if there 
had been no interruption, in Mt.; in 
Mk., who knows of a time of hiding 
(ix. 30), they reassemble (x. 1).—éepa- 
mevoev a. exet: a healing ministry com- 
mences in the south; in Mk. a teaching 
ministry (x. I). 

Vv. 3-9. The marriage question (Mk. x. 
2-9).—Ver. 3. . metpafovtes: Pharisees 
again, tempting of course; could not ask 
a question at Jesus without sinister 
motives.—el ¢&eorww: direct question in 
indirect form, vide on xii. 10.—amohtoar 
... kata wooav aitiav: the question 
is differently formulated in the two 
accounts, and the answer differently 
arranged. In Mk. the question is abso- 
lute = may a man put away his wife at 
all? in Mt. relative = may,etc. ... for 
every reason? Under the latter form 
the question was an attempt to draw 
Jesus into an internal controversy of the 
Jewish schools as to the meaning of 
Deut. xxiv. 1, and put Him in the 
dilemma of either having to choose the 
unpopular side of the school of Shummai, 


who interpreted VA MJ YY strictly, 


or exposing Himself to a charge of 
laxity by siding with the school of 
Hillel. It was a petty scheme, but 


The compound (T.R.) is 


characteristic. Whether the interrogants 
knew what Jesus had taught on the sub- 
ject of marriage and divorce in the 
Sermon on the Mount is uncertain, but 
in any case all scribes and Pharisees 
knew by this time what to expect from 
Him. For xara in the sense of propter, 
vide instances in Hermann’s Viger, 632, 
and Kypke.—Ver. 4. ovx avéyvwre: the 
words quoted are to be found in Gen, i. 
27, ii. 24.—6 wtioas: the participle with 
article used substantively = the Creator. 
—anr apxjs goes along with what 
follows, Christ’s purpose being to em- 
phasise the primitive state of things. 
From the beginning God made man, male 
and female; suited to each other, need- 
ing each other.—dpoev xal 67A\v: ‘one 
male and one female, so that the one 
should have the one; for if He had 
wished that the male should dismiss one 
and marry another He would have made 
more females at the first,’”? Euthy.— 
Ver. 5. Kat elev: God said, though the 
words as they stand in Gen. may be a 
continuation of Adam’s reflections, or a 
remark of the writer.—évexey tovrov: 
connected in Gen. with the story of the 
woman made from the rib of the man, 
here with the origin of sex. The sex 
principle imperiously demands that all 
other relations and ties, however inti- 
mate and strong, shall yield to it. The 
cohesion this force creates is the greatest 
possible.—ol 8¥o: these words in the 
Sept. have nothing answering to them 
in the Hebrew, but they are true to the 
spirit of the original.—eis odpxa play: 
the reference is primarily to the physical 


246 


, » 
play ; 


KATA MATOALON 


XIX, 


6. hore odxém eiol U0, AANA odpt pla: & ody & Ceds 


esitee and“ guvéLeugev, GvOpwros ph xwptlérw.” 7. Adyouow ata, “Tt odv 
in Mk. x 


9. “Mworys évetetAato Sodvat BiBAlov dmootaciou, kai dwohiou avriy!;”” 


vk. x. 5; 8. Adyer aurots, "OT, Mwoas mpds thy *oxAnpoxapdSiay spay ene. 


XVi. 14. 

(Deut. 

16. Sir. 
xvi. 10.) 

{ John xviii. 


g. Aéyw Se Sytv, ore 


o 
OUuT®. 


x. Tpepev dpiv drokGoa: tas yuvatkas budv: dw dpyiis Sé od yéyover 
2 


e a . ”~ > > 
os &v drohian THY yuratka auTod, € 


14 (accus. fA) €wl wopveia,® kat yapryon GAAny, porxarar Kal 6 darohehupevny 


and inf.). 2 


~ ” > wn c ‘ > ~ 
2 Cor. xii, YaPNTaS porxGrar. * To. A€yousw avT@ ot palytal attod,® “ Ei 


1 (inf. as 
here). 


1 S3DLZ omit aurny. 
‘uy for es pn in most uncials. 


odtws éotiv H airla tod dvOpdrou peta Tis yuvatkds, ou ‘ cupdéper 


2 BDZ old Lat. verss. omit ott. 
The explanatory e (T. R.) is only in minus 


BD have wapexros Aoyou wopvetas, followed by trove: auvrny porxevOnvar in B. 
4 The clause kato amok. yapnoas potyaras is omitted in NDLZ but found in 


BCAZ. 


The true reading is doubtful and the passage has puzzled editors. 


5 &9B omit avrov, found in the greater number of uncials. 


fleshly unity. But flesh in Hebrew 
thought represents the entire man, and 
the ideal unity of marriage covers the 
whole nature. It is a unity of soul as 
well as of body: of sympathy, interest, 
purpose.—Ver. 6. date with indicative, 
expressing actual result as Christ views 
the matter. They are no longer two, 
but one flesh, one spirit, one person,— 
6 ovv: inference from God’s will to 
man’s duty. The creation of sex, and 
the high doctrine as to the cohesion it 
produces between man and woman, laid 
down in Gen., interdict separation. Let 
the Divine Syzygy be held sacred! 
How small the Pharisaic disputants must 
have felt in presence of such holy teach- 
ing, which soars above the partisan 
views of contemporary controversialists 
into the serene region of ideal, universal, 
eternal truth! 

Vv. 7-9.  otv, etc.: such doctrine 
could not be directly gainsaid, but a 
difficulty might be raised by an appeal to 
Moses and his enactment about a bill of 
divorce (Deut. xxiv. 1): The Pharisees 
seem to have regarded Moses as a 
patron of the practice of putting away, 
rather than as one bent on mitigating its 
evil results. Jesus corrects this false 
impression.— Ver. 8. mpds 7., with 
reference to.—oxAnpoxapdiav: a word 
found here and in several places in O. T. 
(Sept.), not in profane writers; points to 
a state of heart which cannot submit to 
the restraints of a high and holy law, 
literally uncitcumcisedness of heart 
(Deut. x. 16; Jer. iv. 4).—émwérpeey, 
permitted, not enjoined. Moses is re- 
spectfully spoken of as one who would 


gladly have welcomed a better state of 
things; no blame imputed except to the 
people who compelled or welcomed such 
imperfect legislation (djpav twice in ver 
8).—am’ dpyijjs, etc. : the state of things 
which made the Mosaic rule necessary 
was a declension from the primitive 
ideal.—Ver. 9, vide notes on Mt. v. 31, 32. 

Vv. 10-12. Subsequent conversation 
with the disciples.—Christ’s doctrine on 
marriage not only separated Him fota 
celo from- Pharisaic opinions of all 
shades, but was too high even for the 
Twelve. It was indeed far in advance of 
all previous or contemporary theory and 
practice in Israel. Probably no one 
before Him had found as much in what 
is said on the subject in Gen. It 
was a new reading of old texts by one 
who brought to them a new view of 
man’s worth, and still more of woman’s. 
The Jews had very low views of woman, 
and therefore of marriage. A wife was 
bought, regarded as property, used as a 
household drudge, and dismissed at 
pleasure—vide Benzinger, Heb. Arch., 
pp- 138-146.—Ver. 10, airfa: a vague 
word, We should say: if such be the 
state of matters as between husband and 
wife, and that is doubtless what is 
meant. So interpreted, altia would = 
res, conditio. (So Grotius.) Fritzsche 
regards the phrase 4 alria r. a. p. T. y. 
as in a negligent way expressing the 
idea: if the reason compelling a man to 
live with a wife be so stringent (no 
separation save for adultery). If we inter- 
pret alr(a in the light of ver. 3 (kara 7. 
aitiay) the word will mean cause of 
separation. The sense is the same, but 


o—I4. 


a ” 
yopqoa. 


toutoy,! aX ots S€dorat. 


, x > , @ 0, oS > A * > 
KotNlas pnTpOS éyevvyOnoarv OUTW* KGL ELOLY EUVOUXOL, OLTLVES EUYOU- 


EYATTEAION 


247 


11. ‘O Sé elev auvrtois, ‘OU mdvres * xwpotar tov Néyov g 2 Cor. vii. 


2 (juas} 


12. €lot yap “evvodxor, oltiwes €k b Acts viil 


27. 


~ , a“ 
xioPnoay m6 tov avOpadrwv* Kal elow evvodxoL, oiTiWEs eUvoUxXLoay 


€autols 8a thy Bactheiay ray ovpavay. 


Xupeltw,” 


13. Téte mpoonvéxOn ? avtG wardia, iva tas xelpas émbq avtois, 
\ , ¢ 4 , ? a ¢ A 
Kat mpocedéntars ot S€ padyrat éweriunoav avrots: 14. 6 8é 
"Ingots elirev,® “"Adere Ta tatdia, Kal pi Ixwdete avta éGety 


1B Orig. omit rovroy (W.H.). 


24§BCDL and most other uncials have the pl. mpoonvex9ncav. 


6 Suvdpevos xwpeiv 


iLk. xxiii. 2 
Acts xvi 
6; XxiVv.23. 
Heb. vii. 
23 (same 
const. acc. 
and inf.). 


The sing. (T. 


R. after late uncials) is a gram. cor. to correspond with neut. pl. nom, (watdia), 
®ASCDL add avroig. (Tisch., W.II. in margin), 


in any view the manner of expression is 
somewhat helpless, as was not unnatural 
in the circumstances. Euthy. gives both 
meanings = aitia ov{vylas and alrla 
Stalevyyvovoa, with a preference for the 
former.—av9parov here = vir, maritus ; 
instances of this use in Kypke, Palairet, 
etc. 

Ver. 11. &Seelwev. Jesus catches up 
the remark of the disciples, and attaches 
to it a deeper sense than they thought 
of. Their idea was that marriage was 
not worth having if a man must put up 
with all the faults and caprices ofa woman, 
without possibility of escape, except by 
gross misconduct. He thinks of the 
celibate state as in certain cases desirable 
or preferable, irrespective of the draw- 
backs of married life, and taking it even 
at the best.—rév Adyov thus will mean: 
what you have said, the suggestion that 
the unmarried condition is preferable.— 
Xwpovor = capere, receive, intellectually 
and morally, for in such acase the two 
are inseparable. No man can understand 
as a matter of theory the preferableness 
ofcelibacy under certain circumstances, 
unless he be capable morally of appre- 
ciating the force of the circumstances.— 
GAN’ ols Sé80Tar: this phrase points 
chiefly to the n.oral capacity. It is not 
a question of intelligence, nor of a 
merely natural power of continence, but 
of attaining to such a spiritual state that 
the reasons for remaining free from 
married ties shall prevail over all forces 
urging on to marriage. Jesus lifts the 
whole subject up out of the low region 
of mere personal taste, pleasure, or con- 
venience, into the high region of the 
Kingdom of God and its claims.—Ver. 
12 is an explanatory commentary on 


8éSorat.—etvotxos: keeper of the bed- 
chamber in an Oriental harem (from 
evyy, bed, and éyw), a jealous office, 
which could be entrusted only to such 
as were incapable of abusing their trust; 
hence one who has been emasculated. 
Jesus distinguishes three sorts, two 
physical and one ethical: (1) those born 
with a defect (éyevvyOyoay ottws) ; (2) 
those made such by art (evvovxic@ncay 
td tay dvOpdtwv); (3) those who 
make themselves eunuchs (evvovxicav 
éavrovs).— dia tiv B. tr. 0., for the King- 
dom of Heaven’s sake. This explains 
the motive and the nature of ethical 
eunuchism. Here, as in xv. 17, Jesus 
touches on a delicate subject to teach 
His disciples a very important lesson, 
viz., that the claims of the Kingdom of 
God are paramount; that when necessary 
even the powerful impulses leading to 
marriage must be resisted out of regard 
to them.—6é Svvdpevos xwpetv ywpeita: 
by this final word Jesus recognises the 
severity of the demand as going beyond 
the capacity of all but a select number. 
We may take it also as an appeal to the 
Spiritual intelligence of His followers = 
see that ye do not misconceive my mean- 
ing. Is not monasticism, based on vows 
of life-long celibacy, a vast baleful mis- 
conception, turning amilitary requirement 
to subordinate personal to imperial in- 
terests, as occasion demands, into an 
elaborate ascetic system ? 

Vv. 13-15. Children brought for a 
blessing (Mk. x. 13-16; Lk. xviii. 15-17). 
—Ver. 13. tdéte: if the order of the 
narrative reflect the order of events, 
this invasion by the children was a 
happy coincidence after those words 
about the sacred and indissoluble tie of 


248 


KATA MATOAION 


XIX. 


jfer const. ™POS pel: Stay ydp rovovTwy éotly 4 Bacthela Tay odpavay.” 


ef. 1 Cor. 
ili, 21; vi. 
19. 

here and 
in ver. 29 
and parall. 
Ch. xxv 


Lom 


dyabdr troijow, iva Exw * why * aidmoy ;” 


15. Kal émBels adrois tas xetpas,” eropedOn exeider. 
16. KAI idSou, eis mpooedOdv elev atta, “ AiSdoxade dyabé,* ri 


17. ‘O 8¢ elev air, 


46. Lk. x. 25» for the swmmum bonum in Synop. Gospels. 


1 pein BCD; epe in LA. 


2NQBDLA place avrots after xetpas (Tisch., W.H.). 


5 SSB have avtw eurev. 


4 NBDL Orig. Hil. omit aya@e, which probably comes in from the parall., to which, 
indeed, Mt.’s version has been assimilated throughout (ver. 17) in T.R. 


5 sxw in BD Orig. (W.H.). 


marriage and the duty of subordinating 
even it to the claims of the kingdom. 
—tpoonvéxO@ncay, passive, by whom 
brought not said, the point of the story 
being how Jesus treated the children.— 
tva +. x. émi0q, that he may lay His 
hands on them: the action being con- 
ceived of as present (Klotz ad Devar, 
p. 618).—kat mpocevénrat: the imposi- 
tion of hands was a symbol of prayer 
and blessing, possibly in the minds of 
those who brought the children it was 
also a protection from evil spirits (Orig.). 
—émetipynoay avtois: the a’tois ought 
in strict grammar to mean the children, 
but it doubtless refers to those who 
brought them. The action of the dis- 
ciples was not necessarily mere officious- 
ness. It may have been a Galilean 
incident, mothers in large numbers 
bringing their little ones to get a parting 
blessing from the good, wise man who 
is leaving their country, unceremoniously 
crowding around Him, affectionately 
mobbing Him in a way that seemed to 
call for interference. This act of the 
mothers of Galilee revealed how much 
they thought of Jesus.—Ver. 14. adere, 
py K@AveTe: visits of the children never 
unseasonable; Jesus ever delighted to 
look on the living emblems of the true 
citizen of the Kingdom of God; pleased 
with them for what they were naturally, 
and for what they signified.—ro.ovrwv, 
of such, i.¢., the child-like; repetition 
of an old lesson (xviii. 3).—Ver. 15. 
émropevOn exeiOev ; He departed thence, 
no indication whence or whither. The 
results of this meeting are conceivable. 
Christians may have come out of that 
company. Mothers would not forget 
Him who blessed their children on the 
way to His cross, or fail to speak of the 
event to them when they were older. 
Vv. 16-22.—A man in quest of the 
““summum bonum’’ (Mk. x. 17-22; Lk. 
xviii. 18-23). A phenomenon as welcome 


to Jesus as the visit of the mothers with 
their children: a man not belonging to 
the class of self-satisfied religionists of 
whom He had had ample experience; 
with moral ingenuousness, an open 
mind, and a good, honest heart; a mal- 
content probably with the teaching and 
practice of the Rabbis and scribes coming 
to the anti-Rabbinical Teacher in hope 
of hearing from Him something more 
satisfying. The main interest of the 
story for us lies in the revelation it 
makes of Christ’s method of dealing 
with inquirers, and in the subsequent 
conversation with the disciples. 

Ver. 16. i80¥, lo! introduces a story 
worth telling.—ets: one, singled out 
from the crowd by his approach towards 
Jesus, and, as the narrative shows, by 
his spiritual state.—Avdacxade: this 
reading, which omits the epithet aya0é, 
doubtless gives us the true text of Mt., 
but in all probability not the exact terms 
in which the man addressed Jesus. Such 
a man was likely to accost Jesus 
courteously as ‘“‘good Master,’’ as Mk. 
and Lk. both report. The omission of 
the epithet eliminates from the story the 
basis for a very important and charac- 
teristic element in Christ’s dealing with 
this inquirer contained in the question: 
‘““Why callest thou me good?” which 
means not ‘the epithet is not applicable 
to me, but to God only,” but “do not 
make ascriptions of goodness a matter of 
mere courtesy or politeness’. The case 
is parallel to the unwillingness of Jesus 
to be called Christ indiscriminately. He 
wished no man to give Him any title of 
honour till he knew what he was doing. 
He wished this man in particular to think 
carefully on what is good, and who, all 
the more that there were competing 
types of goodness to choose from, that 
of the Pharisees, and that exhibited in 
His own teaching.—rl adya8ov roijow. 
the aya@ov is omitted in the parallels, 





15—20. 


EYATTEAION 


249 


“Ti pe Aéyers Gyabdy; ovdets dyads, ei pi) els, 6 Oeds.? ei BE 


D€ders eiceNOciv els thy Lwjv,? 'tHpyoov ? tas evtods.” 


7 A , ” 
auT@, “™ Notas; 


worxedvets* ov xhewpers: ov Weudonapruprcets - 


18. Aéyeul Ch. xxiii. 


3) 33. XXWAli. 


c > ~ . 
O 8€ “Inoots cette, “Td, od dovedcers> ou 20(insense 


- .  Ofobserve), 
IQ. Tipa Toym Ch. Xxil. 


/ 4 ‘ \ , P 2, a , ‘ X o ¢ 
TWaTepa gou KQL THY pytTepa Kal, Yay ces TOV Tr. yoLov GoU WS 


yo» 
GEQUTOYV. 


20. Agyet atT® 6 veavioxos, “Mdvta taita® ébudagd- 


1 For the clause re pe Aeyets . . . Geos in T. R.. NBDL, many verss. (including 
Syr. Cur. and Sin.) Orig. read tt pe epwras wept Tov ayafou; eis eativ o ayalos, 


which the R. V. and most modern editors adopt. 


probably responsible for the T. R. 
2 s8BCDL place ewweNOery after Lwnv. 
3 rypet in BD. 


but it is implied; of course it was some- 
thing good that would have to be done 
in order to obtain eternal life. What 
good shallJ do? Fritzsche takes this as 
not = quid boni faciam? but = quid, 
quod bonum sit, faciam? that is, not = 
what particular good action shall, etc., 
but = what in the name of good, etc. 
This is probably right. The man wants 
to know what the good really is. . 

that by doing it he may attain eternal 
life. It was a natural question for a 
thoughtful man in those days when the 
teaching and practice of the religious 
guides made it the hardest thing possible 
to know what the good really was. Itis 
a mistake to conceive of this man as 
asking what specially good thing he 
might do in the spirit of the type of 
Pharisee who was always asking, What is 
my duty and I will do it? (Schéttgen). 
Would Jesus have loved such a man, or 
would such a man have left His presence 
sorrowful —{wiv aidviov: an alternative 
name for the swmmum bonum in Christ’s 
teaching, and also in current Jewish 
speech (Winsche, Beitrdge). The King- 
dom of God is the more common in the 
Synoptics, the other in the fourth Gospel. 
—Ver.17. Tt pe épwras, etc. : it seems 
as if Jesus thought the question super- 
fluous (so Weiss and Meyer), but this 
was only a teacher’s way of leading on 
a pupil = ‘‘of course there is only one 
answer to that: God is the one good 
being, and His revealed will shows us 
the good He would have us do”. A 
familiar old truth, yet new as Christ 
meant it. How opposed to current 
teaching we know from Mt. xv. 4-9.— 
et Sé OeAers, etc., but, to answer your 
question directly, if, etc.—tTp-er (-yvov) 
7. év.: a vaguer direction then than it 
seems to us now. We now think only 


4S8BCD omit cow 


Harmonistic assimilation is 


5 rauta wayra in BD. 


of the Ten Words. Then there were 
many commands of God besides these; 
and many more still of the scribes, 
hence most naturally the following ques- 
tion.—Ver. 18. motas; not =Tivas 
(Grotius), but what sort of commands: 
out of the multitude of commands divine 
and human, which do you mean? He 
had a shrewd guess doubtless, but 
wanted to be sure. Christ’s reply 
follows in this and subsequent verse, 
quoting in direct form prefaced with ré 
the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and 
fifth commands of the Decalogue with 
that to love a neighbour as ourselves 
from Lev. xix, 18. This last Origen re- 
garded as an interpolation, and Weiss 
thinks that the evangelist has introduced 
it from xxii. 39 as one that could not be 
left out. Ifit be omitted the list ends with 
the fifth, a significantly emphatic position, 
reminding us of Mt. xv. 4, and giving to 
the whole list an antithetic reference to 
the teaching of the scribes. In sending 
the inquirer to the second table of the 
Decalogue as the sum of duty, Jesus 
gave an instruction anything but common- 
place, though it seem so to us. He was 
proclaiming the supremacy of the 
ethical, a most important second lesson 
for the inquirer, the first being the 
necessity of using moral epithets care- 
fully and sincerely. From the answer 
given to this second lesson it will appear 
whereabouts the inquirer is, a point 
Jesus desired to ascertain. 

Vv. 20-22. 6 veavioxos, the youth ; 
whence known ? from a special tradition 
(Meyer) ; an inference from the expression 
éx vedrnTd6s pov in Mk. x. 20 (Weiss).— 
épvArata (-dpnv). Kypke and Elsner take 
pains to show that the use of this verb 
(and of rypetv, ver. 17) in the sense of 
obeying commands is good Greek. More 


250 


pny ex vedty tds poul+ ti Er daotepa ;’ 


avideCh.v. “Ei OéNers "TéActos elvan, 


KATA MATOAION 


XIX. 


21. "Eby aura & "Inaois, 
Uraye, °mudyodvy cou ta bmdpxovta, 


48. a « > a 
oCh.xiligs. kal 835 mwrwxots: Kal éfers Onoaupsv év ovpavd 3+ Kal ” Sedpo, 


P 


form 
Sevre). 


4 ah GxohovGer por.” 22. "Axovoas 8€ 6 veavioxos Tov Adyor,® drHdOe 
AuTroUpevos* Hy yap éxwv krpara* woddd. 


23. ‘O 8€ "Ingods etme Tois palytais airod, *"Audy héyw Opty, 


q here and 
in parall. 


a lal 
Ott *BSuoxddws mAovaros® eiceNedoetar eis Thy PBacidciavy Tay 


1 For epvAatayny ex veornros pov (from the parall.) BL have simply epvAaga. 


2 ev ovpavots in BCD. 


§ rov Noyov (as in T. R.) in CD; roy Aoyov rovroy in B (W.H. in brackets). 
* B has xpynpara, which even W.H. have disregarded. 


5 riovcios SucKoAws in NBCDLZ 33. 


important is it to note the declaration 
the verb contains: all these I have kept 
from youth. To be taken as a simple 
fact, not stated in a self-righteous spirit 
(Weiss-Meyer), rather sadly as by one 
conscious that he has not thereby reached 
the desired goal, real rest in the highest 
good found. The exemplary life plus 
the dissatisfaction meant much: that he 
was not a morally commonplace man, 
but one with affinities for the noble and 
the heroic. No wonder Jesus felt in- 
terested in him, ‘* loved him ” (Mk. x. 21), 
and tried to win him completely. It may 
be assumed that the man appreciated 
the supreme importance of the ethical, 
and was not in sympathy with the 
tendency of the scribes to subordinate 
the moral to the ritual, the commands of 
God to the traditions of the elders.— 
rl ére torepG: the question interesting 
first of all as revealing a felt want: a 
good symptom ; next as betraying per- 
lexity = I am on the right road, accord- 
ing to your teaching ; why then do I not 
attain the rest of the true godly life? 
The question, not in Mk., is implied in 
the tone of the previous statement, 
whether uttered or not.—Ver. 21. at 
Bédes téAetos elvat (on téAeLog vide v. 
48): if you wish to reach your end, the 
true life and the rest it brings.—taaye, 
etc. : go, sell off, distribute to the poor, 
and then come, follow me—such is the 
advice Christ gives: His final lesson for 
this inquirer. It is a subjective counsel 
relative to the individual. Jesus sees he 
is well-to-do, and divines where the evil 
lies. Itis doubtful if he cares passionately, 
supremely for the true life; doubtful if 
he be téAetos in the sense of single- 
mindedness. It is not a question of one 
more thing to do, but of the state of the 
heart, which the suggestion to sell off 


will test. The invitation to become a 
disciple is seriously meant. Jesus, who 
repelled some offering themselves, thinks 
so well of this man as to desire him fora 
disciple. He makes the proposal hofe- 
fully. Why should so noble a man not 
be equal to the sacrifice? He makes it 
with the firm belief that in no other way 
can this man become happy. Noblesse 
oblige. The nobler the man, the more 
imperative that the heroic element in 
him have full scope. A potential apostle, 
a possible Paul even, cannot be happy as 
a mere wealthy merchant or landowner. 
It is ‘a counsel of perfection,’’ but not 
in the ascetic sense, as if poverty were 
the sure way to the higher Christian 
life ; rather in the sense of the adage: of 
him to whom much is given shall much 
be required.—Ver. 22. . awndGev: he 
would have to go away in any case, even 
if he meant to comply with the advice in 
order to carry it into effect. But he 
went away Aviovpevos, in genuine dis- 
tress, because placed in a dilemma 
between parting with wealth and social 
position, and forfeiting the joy of dis- 
ciplehood under an admired Master. 
What was the final issue? Did ‘the 
thorns of avarice defile the rich soil of 
his soul” (Euthy.), and render him per- 
manently unfruitful, or did he at last 
decide for the disciple life? At the 
worst see here the miscarriage ofa really 
noble nature, and take care not to fall 
into the vulgar mistake of seeing in this 
man a Pharisee who came to tempt 
Jesus, and who in professing to have 
kept the commandments was simply a 
boastful liar. (So Jerome: ‘‘ Non voto 
discentis sed tentantis interrogat . 
mentitur adolescens”’.) 

Vv. 23-27. Conversation ensuing (Mk. 
x. 23-27; Lk. xviii. 24-27).—Ver. 23. 





21—27. 


odpavav. 


TpuTypatos! padidos BrehGety,? 7 wAovorov eis Thy Baguhetay Tou 
25. ‘Axodcartes Sé ot palytat adrod® éferhijo- 


Ge00 eiceNGetr.” 


govto apdSpa, éyortes, “Tis dpa Suvatar cwOjvar ;”” 


EYATTEAION 


291 


© 


24. wad S€ héyw Spiv, edxomratepdy éote *Kdpydov Bra r Ch. iii. 5 


xxili. 24 


A 


26. 'EwB)é- 


pas 8€ 6 “Ingods etwev attois, “*Mapd dvOpdmors tolTo dduvatov 


éott, “mapa Sé Oca mdvra Suvard éott.” 
, iw , s 2 oe > , ~ Ld 
27. Tote dmoxoideis 6 Métpos ettrev adta, ““ISou, Hpets apryKapev 


1 rpnparos in NB. 


; 8 Rom. ii. 13 


(Gen. xviii 
14). 


2 The majority of uncials have evoeA Oe (1 isch.), but Bx have SteMGerv as in T, R. 
This reading requires evoeAPevv in the next clause (so in BD). 


3 avrov wanting in NBCDLZA. 
‘ ext is omitted in BCA al. 


Though found in parall. (Lk.), from which it has 


probably been imported, the sentence is more impressive without it. 


&piv, introduces as usual a solemn utter- 
ance.—tAovatos: the rich man is brought 
on the stage, not as an object of envy or 
admiration, which he is to the worldly- 
minded, butas an object of commiseration. 
—8vonddws ciceAcvoerat, etc.: because 
with difficulty shall he enter the Kingdom 
of Heaven. This is stated as a matter of 
observation, not without sympathy, and 
not with any intention to pronounce 
dogmatically on the case of the inquirer 
who had just departed, as if he were an 
absolutely lost soul. His case suggested 
the topic of wealth as a hindrance in the 
divine life—8voxédws: the adjective 
SvcKxodos means difficult to please as to 
food (Sus, «éAov), hence morose; here 
used of things, occurs only in this saying 
in N. T.—Ver. 24. wddty 8é A€yw: re- 
iteration with greater emphasis. The 
strong language of Jesus here reveals a 
keen sense of disappointment at the loss 
of so promising a man to the ranks of 
disciplehood. He sees so clearly what 
he might be, were it not forthat miserable 
money.—evKoTra7epoy, etc. : a comparison 
to express the idea of the impossible. 
The figure of a camel going through a 
needle-eye savours of Eastern exaggera- 
tion. It has been remarked that the 
variation in the parallel accounts in 
respect to the words for a needle and its 
eye shows that no corresponding proverb 
existed in the Greek tongue (Camb. 
G. T.). The figure is to be taken as it 
stands, and not to be ‘civilised’ (vide 
H.C.) by taking xdpmdos (or kdptdos, 
Suidas) = a cable, or the wicket of an 
Oriental house. It may be more legiti- 
mate to try to explain how so grotesque 
a figure could become current even in 
Palestine. Furrer suggests a camel 
driver leaning against his camel and 


trying to put a coarse thread through 
the eye of a needle with which he sews 
his sacks, and, failing, saying with 
comical exaggeration: I might put the 
camel through the eye easier than this 
thread (Tscht., fiir M. und R.).—rprjpatos 
from titpdw, to pierce.—padidos, a 
word disapproved by Phryn., who gives 
BeAdvy as the correct term. But vids 
Lobeck’s note, p. go. It is noticeable 
that Christ’s tone is much more severe 
in reference to wealth than to wedlock. 
Eunuchism for the kingdom is optional ; 
possession of wealth on the other hand 
seems to be viewed as all but incom- 
patible with citizenship in the kingdom. 

Ver. 25. éferAnooovto odddpa: the 
severity of the Master’s doctrine on 
wealth as on divorce (ver. 12) was more 
than the disciples could bear. It took 
their breath away, so to speak.—ris 
dpa, etc. : it seemed to them to raise the 
question as to the possibility of salva- 
tion generally. The question may re- 
present the cumulative effect of the 
austere teaching of the Master since the 
day of Caesarea. The imperfect tense of 
éferdrjocovro may point to a continuous 
mood, culminating at that moment.—Ver. 
26. ésBAéwas denotes a look of observa- 
tionand sympathy. Jesussees that He has 
made too deep an impression, depressing 
in effect, and hastens to qualify what He 
had said: ‘‘ with mild, meek eye sooth- 
ing their scared mind, and relieving their 
distress ’’ (Chrys., Hom. lxiii.).—7apa 
avOpwmors, etc.: practically this re- 
flection amounted to saying that the 
previous remark was to be taken cum 
grano, as referring to tendency rather 
than to fact. He did not mean that it 
was as impossible for a rich man to be 
saved as fora camel to pass through a 


252 


KATA MATOAION 


XIX. 28—3o. 


mdvra, ral hrorouBjoanéry corr Th dpa eorar Aptv;” 28. ‘O Se 
"Incods elirev abrois, “Apa Aéyw dpiv, Ste dpets of dkodoulicavrds 


t Titusifi.s. rot, ev tH ‘wadtyyevecia, Stay nabion 6 vids tod dvOpdmou émi 


Opdvouv Sdfys adrod, xadicecOe Kal Syeis! emi Sddexa Opdvous, 


o Lk. xxii. 
jo. 1 Cor, 
vi. 2, 3. 


“xpivortes tds SdSexa gudds tod “lopari. 
Gbixev oixias, } aSedbods, h adeAdhds, 4 matépa, H pytépa, 4 


\ a * 9 
KQ@t Wag os 


29. 


v Lk. xxi.1a. yuvatxa,® 4 téxva, ¥ Gypous, * évenev tod dvépards pou,* éxaTtovTa- 


Tragiova® Aijerat, kal Cuty aidvioy x\ypovopyoer. 


30. toddoi 


S€ Ecovrar WeaTor Eoyaror, Kal Eoxaror tp@ror. 


INQDLZ have Kat avros (Tisch.), cat umes in BCX, which Weiss thinks 


a mechanical conformation to vpets in first clause. 


brackets. 
2 ootts in most uncials, 
* rov euov ovopatos in SB. 


needle-eye, but that the tendency of 
wealth was to act powerfully as an ob- 
structive to the spiritual life. 

Vv. 27-30. A reaction (Mk. x. 28-31; 
Lk. xviii. 28-30).—Ver. 27. clarew 82 11: 
from depression the disciples, repre- 
sented by Peter, pass to self-complacent 
buoyancy—their natural mood,—idov 
points to a fact deserving special notice 
in view of the recent incident.—rpets, 
we, have done what that man failed to 
do: left all and followed Thee.—rt dpa, 
etc.: a question not given in Mk, and 
Lk., but implied in Peter’s remark and 
the tone in which it was uttered: what 
shall be to us by way of recompense? 
Surely we shall attain what seems so 
hard for some to reach.—Ver. 28. auyv: 
introducing a solemn statement.—ipets 
of ax.: not a nominative absolute 
(Palairet, Observ.), but being far from 
the verb, tpets is repeated (with rat) 
after xabicecbe.—év 7. wadtvyeverta to 
be connected with kaicecOe following. 
This is a new word in the Gospel vocabu- 
lary, and points to the general renewal 
—‘re-genesis (nova erit genesis cui 
praeerit Adamus ii., Beng.)’’—in the end 
of the days, which occupied a prominent 
place in Jewish apocalyptic hopes. The 
colouring in this verse is so strongly 
apocalyptic as to have suggested the 
hypothesis of interpolation (Weizsacker), 
or of a Jewish-Christian source (Hilgen- 
feld). It is not in the parallels, but 
something similar occurs in Lk. xxii. 30. 
Commentators translate this promise, so 
strongly Jewish in form, into Christian 
ideas, according to their taste, reading 
into it what was not there for the 
disciples when it was spoken.—Ver. 20. 
General promise for all faithful ones.— 


W.H. retain vpers, but in 


* BD omit n yvvatra—a most probable omission, 
5 wok\ardactova in BL. 


GSeAdovs, etc.: detailed specification of 
the things renounced for Christ.—oAa- 
wractova Axerat: shall receive mani- 
foldly the things renounced, i.e., in the 
final order of things, in the new-born 
world, as nothing is said to the con- 
trary. Mk. and Lk. make the com-’ 
pensation present.—kal {why atwvior: 
this higher boon, the summum bonum, 
over and above the compensation in 
kind. Here the latter comes first; in 
chap. vi. 33 the order is reversed.—Ver. 
30. woddol 8 Evovrat, etc., but many 
first ones shall be last, and last ones 
first. Fritzsche reverses the meaning = 
many being last shall be first, so making 
it accord with xx. 16. The words are so 
arranged as to suggest taking wpar. €cy. 
and éox. mpet. as composite ideas, and 
rendering: many shall be first-lasts, and 
last-firsts = there shall be many reversals 
of position both ways. This aphorism 
admits of many applications. There are 
not only many instances under the same 
category but many categories: e.g., first 
in this world, \ast in the Kingdom of 
God (e.g., the wealthy inquirer and the 
Twelve) ; first in ¢ime, last in power and 
fame (the Twelve and Paul); first in 
privilege, last in Christian faith (Jews 
and Gentiles); first in zeal and self- 
sacrifice, last in quality of service through 
vitiating influence of low motive (legal 
and evangelic piety). The aphorism is 
adapted to frequent use in various con- 
nections, and may have been uttered on 
different occasions by Jesus (cf. Lk. xiii. 
30: Jew and Gentile), and the sphere of 
its application can only be determined 
by the context. Here itis the last of 
those above indicated, not the first, as 
Weiss holds, also Holtzmann (H. C.)}, 





XX. 1—6. 


EYAITEAION 


253 


XX. 1. ‘Opota ydp eorty Wy Baowe’a trav odpavdvy dvOpdre 


oikodeonéty, Gots eff Gev Gpa mpwt picIdoacbar epydras els 


‘ > cal > A 
Tov dpmehGva adrod. 


dpmreh@va, Kal 3d édv y Sixaroy Sdow Syiv. 


2. cuppwvioas Se peta TOv epyatay * x a C/. Ch. 
Ps xxvii: 
“Syvapiou Thy huepav, awéoterhey adtols Eis Toy GumehOva adToU. Lk. xvi. o 
a Acts i, 18 
3. Kat e&ehOav aepit tiv! zpitny dpay, eidev addous Eotaras yb Ch. xxvii. 
a = A 46. Acts 
TH dyopa *dpyods: 4. Kdxelvors” elwev, “Yadyete kai bpets eis Tov x. 9. 
c \ a c Ch. xii. 36. 
ot Se dawyhOov. {x Tim. v. 
13. Titus 
5. Mdduw? efeOav wept extyy Kal evvdryy dpav ewolycev doattws. eer 
6. Pept 3€ thy évdexdtnv dpav*t efehOdv, ebpey ahdous éotdrtas 
5 \ he > oA , 35 é , d.3y. Penne ay) > , d Rom. viii. 
Gpyous,” Kal éyer adtots, Tl Ode €or kate “ OAny THY Huepay Gpyol ; 36; x. 21, 


1 env (T. R.), found in A, is omitted in BCD. 
2So in CDLE; kat exetvors in SB and many others. 


3 Se after madw in $&CDL 33. 
4S88BDL omit wpayv (Tisch., W-.H.). 


though admitting that there may be 
reference also to the self-complacent 
mood of Peter. The 8é after troAAot 
implies that this is the reference. It 
does not introduce a new subject, but a 
contrasted view of the same subject. 
The connection of thought is: self- 
sacrifice such as yours, Peter, has a 
great reward, but beware of self-com- 
placency, which may so vitiate the 
quality of service as to make one first in 
sacrifice last in the esteem of God. 

CHAPTER XX. PARABLE OF THE 
Hours; Two Sons oF ZEBEDEE ; 
BLIND MAN AT JERICHO. 

Vv. 1-16. Parable of the hours, peculiar 
to Mt., and, whatever its real connection 
as spoken by Jesus, to be interpreted 
in relation to its setting as here 
given, which is not impossible. The 
parable is brought in as illustrating the 
aphorism in xix. 30.—Ver. I. 6pota 
yap etc.: yap points back to previous 
sentence about first-lasts and last-firsts. 
—av, olkod. : vide xiii. 52.— Gpa put: at 
early dawn (similar use of pa in classics), 
at the beginning of the day, which was 
reckoned from six to six.—pc0dcacat : 
hiring has a prominent place in this 
parable, at the first, third, sixth, ninth, 
eleventh hour. Why so many servants 
wanted that day? ‘This feature obtains 
natural probability by conceiving that it 
is the season of grape-gathering, which 
must be done at the proper time and 
promptly; the more hands the better 
(Koetsveld, De Gelijk.).—Ver. 2. ék 
Syvaplov: on the basis of a penny; the 
agreement sprang out of the offer, and 
acceptance, of a denarius as a day’s wage 


BX omit Se (W.H. in brackets), 


5 SBDL omit apyous (Tisch., W.H.). 


(so Meyer, Weiss, etc.).— THv hpepav = per 
diem, only a single day is contemplated 
in the parable.—Ver.3. tplrnv &.: the 
article rv before tpirny in T. R., omitted 
in W. H., is not necessary before an 
ordinal.—éorGras é. +. Gy.: the market- 
place there as here, the place where 
masters and men met.—apyovs (a and 
€pyov), not = idle in habit, but unem- 
ployed and looking for work.—Ver. 4. 
kai tpets: he had got a fair number of 
workers in the morning, but he is pleased 
to have more for an urgent piece of 
work. The expression has reference to 
the Master’s mood rather than to the 
men’s knowledge of what had taken 
place at the first hour.—6 édv S{xatov: 
no bargain this time, only a promise of 
fair equitable dealing, will be just at 
least, give in proportion to length of 
service; privately intends to do more, or 
at least is that way inclined.—Ver. 5. 
émoinoey BoavtTws: repetition of the 
action at sixth and ninth hours; more 
men still on similar footing.—Ver. 6. 
wept S€ tiv évdex.: the Sé marks this 
final procedure as noteworthy. We 
begin to wonder at all this hiring, when 
we see it going on even at the last hour. 
Is the master a humorist hiring out of 
benevolence rather than from regard to 
the exigencies of the work? Some have 
thought so (Olshausen, Goebel, Koets- 
veld), and there seems good ground for 
the suggestion, though even this un- 
usual procedure may be made to appear 
probable by conceiving the master as 
anxious to finish the work on hand that 
day, in which case even an hour’s work 
from a sufficient number of willing hands 


254 


e Lk. viii. 3. 
Gal. iv. 2. 


KATA MATOAION 


7. Aéyouow adt@, “Orr ob8els Apis euicddcato. 


XX, 


Aéyet adrois, 


{Lk.xxiii.5; Yirdyete Kat Spets eis Tov dpredGva, kal 8 ddv q Sixacoy Arjeode.! 


xxiv. 27, 
47. 


i,ag,etc, , 


Acts 8. “Owias 3€ yevouéyns A€yer 6 KUptos Tod dpwedGvos TO ° émiTpdtrw 


g Lk. ix. 3; aUT00, Kddeoor tods epydras, Kat dwd8os adtois* tov picbdy, ‘ dpéd- 


x.1. John 


as f x A , o n , 
il, 6. Rev. Pevos ard Twv éoxatwv €WS TWY TPWTWY. 


iv. 8; xxi. 
21. 
bh Lk. v. 


Thy évdexdtyy Gpay ehaBov * dvd © Syvdproy. 


g. kal €\Odvres ® ot wept 
10. €Odvres Be 4 of 


oO ~ 
(npéeriva), MPOTOL evdptoay Ste wAelova® Ar povrar’ Kat €AaBov Kal adrol ava 


ohn vi. 

Agr tweot Syvdprov.® 

Tivos); Vi. 

43 (uer’ 

addrjAwv). ¥ 

1 Cor x. 

10 (absol.). 
iActs xv. 33. 2 Cor xi.25. James iv. 13. 


II. AaBdvres 8€ *ydyyuLov Kara tod oikodeamédrou, 

, @ 7 * cm ‘ ° i , ‘ 
12. héyovtes, “Ote’ obtor ot Eoxaror piavy dpav ‘émoinoay, Kal 
gous tpty avtous 8 énoinaas, tois Baotdoac 7d Bapos tis tpépas 


1 The words kat o eav . . . AnwerGe come in from ver. 4, and are wanting in 


NBDLZ. 


2 avrois wanting in 4CLZ, but found in BD and many other uncials (W.H. in 


margin). 


3 So in CL and many other uncials ; eMovres Se in BD (W.H.). 


# xat eMfovres in BCD (W.H.). 
6 ava Syy. kal avrot in WBZ. 


gin. 


may be of value.—rl &8¢ éoryare, etc., 
why stand ye here (éoryr., perfect 
active, neuter in sense, and used as a 
present) all the day idle? The question 
answers itself: no man would stand all 
the day in the market-place idle unless 
because he wanted work and could not 
get it.—Ver. 7. tmdyere cal tpeis: 
these words said this time with marked 
emphasis = you too go, though it be so late. 
This employer would probably be talked 
of among the workers as a man who had 
a hobby—a character; they might even 
laugh at his peculiar ways. The clause 
about payment in T. R. is obviously out 
of place in this case. The pay the last 
gang were entitled to was not worth 
speaking about. 

Vv. 8-12, The evening settlement.— 
Ver. 8. apfdpevos: a pregnant word, 
including not only the commencement of 
the process of paying but its progress. 
There is an ellipsis, kat é\@ov being 
understood before €ws (Kypke). Grotius 
thinks this does not really mean 
beginning with the last comers, but 
without regard to order of coming in, 
so that no one should be overlooked. 
He fails to see that the idiosyncrasy of 
the master is a leading point, indeed the 
key to the meaning of the parable. This 
beginning with the last is an eccentricity 
from an ordinary everyday-life point of 


© werov in BCNZS. 
TSSBD omit o7t. 
8S avrovs npty in N{DLZ. BCN as in text. 


W.H., former in text, latter in mar- 


view. The master chooses to do so: 
to begin with those who have no 
claims.—Ver. 9. ava Snvdptov, a denarius 
each ; ava is distributive = ‘‘ accipiebant 
singulidenar.”. For this use of ava vide 
Herrmann’s Viger, p. 576.—Ver. 10. ol 
mp@tor.: the intermediates passed over, 
as non-essential to the didactic purpose, 
we arrive at the first, the men hired on 
a regular bargain in the morning.— 
évépicav: they had noticed the paying 
of the last first, and had curiously 
watched to see or hear what they got, 
and they come with great expectations: 
twelve hours’ work, therefore twelve times 
the sum given to the one-hour men.—xat 
avrot: surprising! only a penny! What 
a strange, eccentric master! He had 
seen expectation in their faces, and 
anticipated with amusement their chagrin. 
The money was paid by the over- 
seer, but he was standing by enjoying 
the scene.—Ver. 11. éydyyuvfov: im- 
perfect; the grumbling went on from 
man to man as they were being paid; to 
the overseer, but at (xara) the master, 
and so that he could overhear.—Ver. 12, 
Their grievous complaint.—otrot, these, 
with a workman’s contempt for a sham- 
worker.—éwoinoay. Some (Wetstein, 
Meyer, Goebel, etc.) render, spent = 
they put in their one hour: without 
doing any work to speak of. The verb 





7—16, 


EYATTEAION 


235 


kat tov! Kkadcwva. 13. & 8 dioxpileis elev evi abrav, sEratpes Te xii. 55 
a 


obk 48ukG ce odxt Syvaplou cuvepdynods por; 


4 o 
Kal UmTayeE. 


B Si yi%s 
14. Gpov 7d ody 


Odhkw 8€1 ToUTw TO éoydtw Soivar ds Kal coi: 


15. 2 odk efeoti por wooo & Oehw* ev tots epois; ei 4 6 


dGahpds cou movnpés éotiv, Str éyo dyabds ci; 


16. 


@ 
OUTUS 


» < ” lol \ c a » ‘ , 
€oovtat of EgxaTo. MpOTor, Kal ol mMp@ro €oxatro: moddoi ydp 


? 
clot KAnToL, dAtyor Sé éxdexrtol.”’ § 


1 @eXw eyo in B (W.H. in margin). 


2 BDLZ omit ». 


3 9 Oehw roinoat in $BDLZ, so giving to o @edkw due emphasis (Tisch., W.H.). 


4» in $BCDNI (Tisch., W.H.). 


5 wohhow yap... exexrot wanting in $BLZ; brought in from chap. xxii. 14. 


is used in this sense (e.g., Acts xv. 33), 
and one is strongly tempted to adopt 
this rendering as true to the con- 
temptuous feeling of the twelve-hour men 
for the one-hour men. Kypke remarks 
against it that if éwolnoav had been 
meant in this sense = ‘‘ commorati sunt,” 
the word &Se = év td Gpmehove would 
have been added. Perhaps the strongest 
reason against it is that the one-hour 
men had worked with such good will 
(that goes without saying) that even pre- 
judiced fellow-workers could not ignore 
the fact. So we must take érofncay = 
worked.—70 Bapos, Tov xavowva: these 
the points of their case: not that they 
had worked hard while the others had 
not, but that they had borne the burden 
of a whole day’s work, and worked 
through the heat of the day, and now 
came to be paid, weary and sweat- 
stained. (Some take xavowva as re- 
ferring to the sirocco or south-east 
wind ; hot, dry and dust-laden. On the 
winds of Palestine, vide Benzinger, Heb. 
Arch., p. 30.) What was one hour in 
the late afternoon, however hard the last 
comers worked, to that! And yet they 
are made equal (tcovs)! Surely good 
ground for complaint! 

Vv. 13-15. The master’s reply.—Ver. 
13. évi, toone of them. It would have 
been undignified to make a speech in 
self-defence to the whole gang. That 
would have been to take the matter too 
seriously. The master selects a man, 
and quietly speaks his mind to him.— 
éraipe, friend, comrade; familiar and 
kindly. Cf. Lk. xv. 31.—Ver. 14. Gpov 
7s ov, take thine, thy stipulated 
denarius. It looks as if this particular 
worker had refused the penny, or was 
saucily handing it back.—@éhw, I choose, 
it is my pleasure; emphatically spoken. 
Summa hujus verbi potestas, Beng.— 


ToUTw T. éoy.: one of the eleventh-hour 
men singled out and pointed to.—Ver. 
15. ov« éfeort: right asserted to act 
as he chooses in the matter.—év rois 
épots, in matters within my own dis- 
cretion—a truism ; the question is: what 
belongs to that category? Fritzsche and 
De Wette render: in my own affairs; 
Meyer: in the matter of my own property. 
—4 (W.H.) introduces an alternative 
mode of putting the case, which explains 
how the complainants and the master see 
the matter so differently, they seeing in 
it an injustice, he a legitimate exercise of 
his discretion.—ovnpés, vide on vi. 22-24. 
—4ya0ss, generous; doing more than 
justice demands. So Bengel. Cf. Rom. 
v. 7 for the distinction between 8ixatos 
and ayaQés. 

Ver. 16. Christ here points the moral 
of the parable = xix. 30, the terms 
€oxarot mparo. changing places, the 
better to suit the story. The meaning is 
not: the last as the first, and the first as 
the last, all treated alike. True, all get 
the same sum; at least the last and 
first do, nothing being said of those 
between; but the point of the parable is 
not that the reward is thesame. The 
denarius given to all is not the central 
feature of the story, but the will of the 
master, whose character from a com- 
mercial point of view is distinctly 
eccentric, and is so represented to make 
it serve the didactic purpose. The 
method of this master is commercially 
unworkable ; combination of the two 
systems of legal contract and benevolence 
must lead to perpetual trouble. All 
must be dealt with on one footing. And 
that is what it will come to with a 
master of the type indicated. He will 
abolish contract, and engage all on the 
footing of generously rewarding generous 
service. The parable does not bring 


KATA MA'TOAION 


XX. 


17. KA! dvaBalvwr & "Incods? eis ‘lepood\upa wapddaBe tods 


Sddexa pabytas kat’ iSlay ev ri 686, kat? elwev adrois, 18. ‘‘*ISou, 


dvaBaivoper eis ‘lepooddupa, kal 6 ulds tod dvOpdmrou mapadoljoerat 


“ fol ‘ A ”~ 
Tots dpxtepedot Kal ypappatedor: Kal KaTaxpivodow adtoy Oavdtw,® 


19. Kal wapadwcouow adtov tots eOveow eis 7d eptratga: Kal pac- 


Tty@gat kal craupOoar* Kal TH TpiTy Hpépa dvaoTygerar.” 


20. Tote mpoonOev atta % php Tov uldv ZeBPedaiou peta Tov 


1 B begins this section thus: peddwv Se avaBawvev |. which W.H. adopt and Tr. 
places on margin, Weiss approving, viewing the reading in T. R. as a reminiscence 


of Mk. 


* kat ev TH 08m in NBLZ (Tisch., W.H.). 


5 evs Oavaroy in $Y (Tisch.). 


this out fully, as it gives the story only 
ofa single day. It suggests rather than 
adequately illustrates its own moral, 
which is that God does not love a legal 
spirit. In the parable the men who 
worked on contract, and, as it came out 
at the end, in a legal temper, got their 
penny, but what awaits them in future is 
not to be employed at all. Work done 
in a legal spirit does not count in the 
Kingdom of God. Inreward it is last, or 
even nowhere. This is the trend of the 
parable, and so viewed it has a manifest 
connection with Peter’s self-complacent 
question. On this parable vide my 
Parabolic Teaching of Christ. 

Vv. 17-19. Third prediction of the 
passion (Mk. x. 32-34; Lk. xviii. 31-34).— 
The first in xvi. 21 ; the second in xvii. 
22. Inthe first it was stated generally 
that Jesus was about oka traetv. 
Here the wodXa are detailed. In the 
second mention was made of betrayal 
(wapadisorat, xvii. 31) into the hands of 
men. Here the “men” resolve into 
priests, scribes, and Gentiles.—Ver. 17. 
avaBaivwy: going up from Peraea to the 
ridge on which the Holy City stood. 
The reading péAXwv ava. may indicate 
that they are already on the west side of 
the Jordan, and about to commence the 
ascent (Weiss-Meyer).—els ‘lepooéAupa : 
face being now turned directly towards 
Jerusalem, thought naturally turns to what 
is going to happen there.—xar’ (Slav: 
there is a crowd of pilgrims going the 
same way, so Jesus must take aside His 
disciples to speak on the solemn theme 
what is specially meant for their ear.— 
év tq 686, in the way, vide Mk.’s 
description, which is very graphic.—Ver. 
18. t8ev, dveBatvopey! a memorable 
fateful anubasis/ It excites lively ex- 
pectation in the whole company, but 


B omits (W.H. @avare within brackets). 


how different the thoughts of the Master 
from those of His followers !—xara- 
Kptvovor, they shall sentence Him to 
death; a new feature.—Ver. 19. éuaaitar, 
PaoTLy@oal, oTavpwoai, mock, scourge, 
crucify ; all new features, the details of 
the wodkha waGety. Note the parts 
assigned to the various actors: the Jews 
condemn, the Gentiles scourge and 
crucify. 

Vv. 20-28. The two sons of Zebedee 
(Mk. x. 35-45).—Ver. 20. rére (in Mk. 
the vaguer kat), then; let us hope not 
quite immediately after, but it need not 
have been long after. How soon children 
forget doleful news and return to their 
play; a beneficent provision of nature 
in their case, that grief should be but a 
summer shower. Or did James and 
John with their mother not hear the sad 
announcement, plotting perhaps when 
the Master was predicting ?—# jrjrup: 
in Mk. the two brothers speak for them- 
selves, but this representation is true to 
life. Mothers can be very bold in their 
children’s interest.—alrotoa, begging; 
the petitioner a woman and a near rela- 
tive, not easy to resist.—rt: vague; no 
verbal indication as yet what is wanted ; 
her attitude showed she had a request to 
make, the manner revealing that it is 
something important, and also perhaps 
that it is something that should not be 
asked.—Ver. 21. eltwé tva: vide on 
iv. 3.—ka@lcwoty, etc. = let them have 
the first places in the kingdom, sit- 
ting on Thy right and left hand re- 
spectively. After éx Scfiav, €§ evwvipor, 
}ep@v is understood = on the right and 
left parts. Vide Bos, Ellipses Graecae, 
p- 184, who cites an instance of the latter 
phrase from Diod. Sic. Sothis was all that 
came out of the discourse on child-like- 
ness! (xviii. 3 ff.). But Jesus had also 





a EYATTEAION 257 


21. & Be 


“Etre tva xabliowow 


vidy adits, mpocxuvotca Kal aitoiod te wap! adtoi. 
elwev atth, “Ti Oédets ;”” 2 
ouTot ot Svo viol pou, eis “ex Seftav cou, 
Tf, Bactdeia cov.” 
oldare Ti aitetobe. 

kat 13 Bdricpa, 6 ey BawriLopar, BamrioOyvar ;’ 
23. Kat® dA€yer adrots, “TS pev momppidy pou 


Aéyet atta, 

‘ 

8 kat ets €& edwvdpwy,* évk Ch. xx1 

445 XxvI 

64. Heb 
i. 13. 


22. “AmoxpiOeis S€ 6 “Ingods etrev, “ Odx 
Suvacbe metv TO ToTHpLoy, ey péAdw Trivers, 
"5 Adyouow 
adt@,  Auvdueba.”” 
mies0e, kat TO Pdrriopa, 6 eyo BarriLopo, Bawticdjcecbe- 1d 
Sé xaBlcar éx Sefiav pou Kat? ef ebwvipwv pou,® odk Eotey epdy ® ich. xxv. 


BSodvar, AN ots ‘Hroipacrar bro rod matpds pov. 24. Kat rae 


34 
1 Cor 


‘aap’ in NCNXZ al. (Tisch.). 

2 4 Se evrev in B. 

4 gov added in NBCNZ al. Wanting n D. 

5 The clause xat to Bawticpa .. . BawticOnvas in this and the next verse is 
omitted in NBDLZ. It has doubtless been mported from Mk. 

® RBDZ omit kat. 

7 xatin NCDZ (Tisch.), y in BL, Lat. verss. 1, 33 (W.H. margin), 

8 pov omitted in BCDL al. 


an’ in BD (W.H. text, wap margin). 
3 gov wanting in NB. 


CDA insert tovro before Sovvat. 


épdv Sotvar = is not a matter of mere 


personal favour : 
on fitness. __That 


‘is the meaning of the last clause, ols 
in this plot! Conventional ideas of ~“qrol aorTat v. T. ™. p. = it is not an, 
apostolic character need revision. affair_of arbitrary favour on the part_of 

e Father an 





possible. 
they spoke without thinking, like Peter 
on the hill.—_Wer. 23. 16 pev 1. p. wieoOe, 


as for my cup, ye sha!l drink of it: pre- 
dictive of the fatare fact, and also con- 
SENSS [on 


to grant you ccmpanionship in my 


“sufferings; that favour may be granted. 
“without risk of abuse.—ro 8¢ ee 
etc,, but as for sitting on right and left 
hand, that is another affair.—otK tori 


—- 


17 


of the two greatly provoked the ten.— 
jyavaxrnoay Passow derives from ayay 
and dy, and gives as original sense t> 
be in a state of violent excitement like 
new wine fermenting. The te : 
‘‘ mad ”’ at the LwO pitiful exhibition in 
‘the circumstances, fitted to make Jesus 
“doubt His choice of such men. But 
_better were not to be found.—Ver. 25. 

mwpookadeoapevos: Jesus had to call 

them to Him, therefore they had had 





258 KATA 


m Ch, xxi. dkodoavtes ot Ska ™hyavdxtyoay wept Tay Svo ddeAdar. 


15; XXV 


MATOALON 


XX, 


25. 6 Se 


vl. y ~ « ~ 
8. Mk.x. Ingods mpooxaheodpevos attods eliev, “ OiSare Sti of dpxovtes TaY 


14, 41; 


xiv.4. Lk, €0v@y “Kataxupiedoucw adtay, Kat of peyddo. °xatefouordtouow 


xiii, 14. a 
Mk. x. 42, GUT@Y, 
1 Pet. v. 


s 


26, obx otws Bé! Eorar? év Spiv- add’ bs edv Dy ev 


(Acts xix Opty péyas yeréoOar, Eorw ® bpdv Sidnovos: 27. Kat &s éav Ody ev 


oe wie dpiv elvat mpdtos, éorw® Syadv Bo0d0s+ 28. domwep & vids Tod 
overpowss), QvOpdirou odK FAVE SraxovnOAvar, GAA Siaxovyoar Kai Sodvat 
: — “is THY Wuxhy adtod ”Adtpoy dvi * woAhay.” 

van Levit. xix. 20. Num, xxxv, 31). q Rom. viii. a9. Heb. ii. ro. ix. a8. 


1 NBDZE omit Be. 


2 «ot in BDZ (W.H.). 


3 Some MSS. have eorat, which is adopted by W.H. in both places. 


the decency not to quarrel in His 
presence. Magistro non praesente, Beng. 
—Kataxvptevovoiy; in the Sept. used 
in the sense of rule, Gen. i. 28, Ps. Ixxii. 
8; here the connection requires the idea 
of “‘lording it over,” the xara having 
intensive force; so also in the am. Aey. 
xatefovotafovowy, following = play the 
tyrant.—rév é@vav: from these occasional 
references to the outside peoples we get 
Christ's idea of the Pagan world; they 
‘seek material good (vi. 32), use repetition 
in prayer (vi. 7), are subject to despotic 
rule.—ot peyadou, the grandees.—avTav 
after the two verbs in both cases refers to 
the @0vay. Grotius takes the second as 
referring to the Gpxovres, and finds in 
the passage this sense: the rulers, 
monarchs, lord it over the people, and 
their grandees lord it over them, the 
rulers, in turn; a picture certainly often 
true to life. Perhaps the intention is to 
suggest that the rule of the magnates is 
more oppressive than that of their royal 
masters: they strain their authority. 
“Ipsis saepe dominis imperantiores,” 
Beng.—Ver. 26. ovx ottws éotiv é. v. 
It is not so among you. The €orat of 
T.R. is probably conformed to the two 
following éorat, but it is true to the 
meaning. Jesus speaks of a state of 
matters He desires, but which does not 
yet exist. The present spirit of the 
Twelve is essentially secular and pagan. 
—péyas, Sidxovos: greatness by service, 
_the law of the Kingdom of God, whereby 
greatness becomes another_thing, not 
“self-asserted or arrogated, but._freely 
“conceded by others.—Ver. 27. mpa@ros 
“may be a synonym for péyas = péytoros 
(De W.) and SotAos for Stdaxovos ; or in 
both cases increased emphasis may be 
intended, mp@ros pointing to a higher 
place of dignity, 5000s to a lower depth 


of servitude. Burton (M. and T. in 
N.T., § 68) finds in the two éorat in wv. 
26 and 27 probable instances of the third 
person future used imperatively. 

Ver. 28. domwep, kat yap in Mk.; 
both phrases introducing reference to the 
summum exemplum (Bengel) in an 
emphatic way.—ep lends force to as= 
even as, observe.—6 0. T. dvOpemov: an 
important instance of the use of the title. 
On the principle of defining by dis- 
criminating use it means: the man who 
makes no pretensions, asserts no claims. 
—ovx Ge points to the chief end of His 
mission, the general character of His 
public life: not that of a Pretender but 
that of a Servant.—B8o0tvar riv Wuxiy, to 
give His life, to that extent does the 
service go. Cf. Phil. ii. 8: péype 
@avarov, there also in illustration of the 
humility of Christ. It is implied that in 
some way the death of the Son of Man 
will be serviceable to others. It enters 
into the life plan of the Great Servant.— 
AUtpov, a ransom, characterises the 
service, another new term in the evan- 
gelic vocabulary, suggesting rather than 
solving a theological problem as to the 
significance of Christ’s death, and ad- 
mitting of great variety of interpretation, 
from the view of Origen and other Fathers, 
who regarded Christ’s death as a price 
paid to the devil to ransom men from 
bondage to him, to that of Wendt, who 
finds in the word simply the idea that 
the example of Jesus in carrying the 
principle of service as far as to die tends 
by way of moral influence to deliver 
men’s minds from every form of spiritual 
bondage (Die Lehre Fesu, ii. 510-517). 
It is an interesting question, What clue 
can be found in Christ’s own words, as 
hitherto reported, to the use by Him on 
this occasion of the term Avtpov, and to 





25 —34. 


EYATTEAION 


259 


29. KAI éxmopevopévwy abtay did ‘lepixd, hxohod@ncey adter Ch. xxvi. 


5x05 Todds. 


Heads, upte,! vids? AaBid.” 
" cLwIyowo. 
KUpte, vids AaBis.” 
etme, “Ti O&kete Trorjow Spiv;” 


; ¢ 63. Mk. 
30. kai iSoU, S00 TupAol Kabipevor mapa Thy S8dv, ii. 4; ix. 
dxodoavtes Ott “Ingods mapdyer, Expatay, éyovres, “’ENnoov ii. ta 
31. 0 S€ dxXos eretipnoer adtois tva Re 
c bY lal 4 < a D 
ot Sé peilov expalov, héyovtes, “"ENenoov tpds,s Ch. xxvi 
Q A car a > 
32. Kat ords 6 Ingots * ébdvycer adtous, Kat a 

SMA Chie? (intrans. 
; sal Le 33- A€youow adra, “Kupte, a pean’. 
dvorxQGouv > Hav ot dpOarpol.” * 34. Ewhayxnoels Sé 6 "Inaois hore eid 

Haro trav dp0arpav® adrav- Kat edOdws dvéBhepay adray of in Ch. ie 
Mk. ix. 35, 

X. 49, etc. 


dpOadpoi,® kai jxodovOnoay adta. 


(to call to 


oneself, with acc.). Lk. xiv. 12 (to invite), John xiii. 13 (to call by a name). 


1 kupte eAeqoroy yeas in BLZ. 
NBDLZ. 


4 ve in NCDLE (Tisch., W.H. margin). 
* ot of. nhwv in NBDLZ 33. 
L Sune Ttr in BDLZ. T. R. follows $§CN in using the more common word 


3 avotywouy in RBDLZ 33. 


08a 


ov. 


WD omit xvpte (Tisch.), 


Same order in ver. 31 in 


8 avtwy ot opPadpor wanting in $$BDLZ and omitted by modern editors, 


the sense in which He uses it? Wendt 
contends that this is the best method of 
getting at the meaning, and suggests as 
the most congenial text Mt. xi. 28-30. I 
agree with him as to method, but think 
a better clue may be found in Mt. xvii. 
27, the word spoken by Jesus in reference 
to the Temple Tax. That word began 
the striking course of instruction on 
humility, as this word (xx. 28) ends it, 
and the end and the beginning touch in 
thought and language. The didrachmon 
was a Avtpov (Exodus xxx. 12), as the 
life of the Son of Man is represented to 
be. The tax was paid avti épov kal cov. 
The life is to be given avtt woddayv. Is 
it too much to suppose that the 
Capernaum incident was present to 
Christ’s mind when He uttered this 
striking saying, and that in the earlier 
utterance we have the key to the 
psychological history of the term Avrpov? 
On this subject vide my book The 
Kingdom of God, pp. 238-241. 

Vv. 29-34. Blind men (man) at Fericho 
(Mk. x. 46-52, Lk. xviii. 35-43). The 
harmonistic problems as to the locality 
of this incident (leaving Jericho, Mt. and 
Mk.; entering, Lk.) and the number of 
persons healed (one Mk. and Lk., two 
Mt.) may be left on one side, as also the 
modern critical attempts to account for 
the origin of the discrepancies. Those 
interested may consult for the former 
Keil and Nésgen, for the latter Holtz., 


H.C., and Weiss-Meyer.—Ver. 29. awd 
*leptx@, from Jericho, an important town 
every way; “‘the key—the ‘ Chiavenna' 
—of Palestine to any invader from this 
quarter” (Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, 
p. 305; the whole account there given 
should be read), situated in an oasis in 
the Judaean desert, caused by streams 
from the mountains above and springs 
in the valley ; with a flourishing trade 
and fine buildings, Herod’s palace in- 
cluded; two hours distant from the Jor- 
dan ; from thence to the summit a steep 
climb through a rocky ravine, haunt of 
robbers.—6xAos wodvs, a great crowd 
going to the feast in Jerusalem.—Ver. 30. 
Gxovoavtes, etc. Luke explains that the 
blind man learnt that Jesus was passing 
in answer to inquiry suggested by the 
noise of a crowd. He knew who Jesus 
was: the fame of Jesus the Nazarene 
(Mk. and Lk.), the great Healer, had- 
reached his ear.—vios A.: popular Mes- 
sianic title (ix. 27, xv, 22).—Ver. 31. 
dretipnoev: same word as in xix. 13, 
and denoting similar action to that of 
the disciples in reference to the children, 
due to similar motives. Officious reve- 
rence has played a large part in the his- 
tory of the Church and of theology.— 
petlLov éxpafoy, they cried out the more; 
ot course, repression ever defeats itself; 
petlov, adverb, hereonlyin N.T.—Ver. 32. 
éddynoev might mean ‘‘addressed them” 
(Fritzsche), but “called them’”’ seems to 


260 


KATA MATOAION 


XXI. 


XXI. 1. KA! Gre Hyyway eis ‘lepooddupa, Kai FAOov eis ByOpay}, 
mpds! Td Spos tHv CAatay, Téte 5% “Ingods dréotehe B¥0 palyrds, 
2. Aéywv abtois, “ MopedOnte ® eis thy Kdpny thy darévavte* dpov 
kai ed0dws edpyoete Svov Sedepevyy, Kal TANov pet adris: AdoavTes 


dydyeté 5 pot. 


3. kal édv tus piv etary tt, épetre, “Ort b Kupros 


1 B has ess for wpos, which Weiss thinks has come from the parall. 


46 is wanting in BD (Tisch., W-H.). 


> wopeveoOe in NBDLZ Orig. (Tisch., W.H.). 
‘ katevavns in NBCDLZ (Tisch., Trg., W.H.). 


> ayere in BD (W.H. in margin). 


suit the situation better ; cf. the parallels. 
—rt Oédere, etc., what do you wish me 
to do for you? Nota superfluous ques- 
tion; they were beggars as well as blind; 
they might want alms (vide Mk. x. 46). 
Mt. says nothing about their being beg- 
gars, but the question of Jesus implies 
it.—Ver. 33. tvadvotyaaw oi dd. They 
desire the greater benefit, opening of 
their eyes, which shows that the eyes of 
their mind were open as to Christ’s 
power and will.—avoryaow, 2nd aorist 
subjunctive, for which the T. R. has the 
more common rst aorist. — Ver. 34. 
omhayxviobels. Note the frequent refer- 
ence to Christ’s pity in this gospel (ix. 
36, xiv. 14, xv. 32, and here).—tév 
dppdatwy, a synonym for éCaApev, as 
if with some regard to style which the 
scribes might have been expected to 
appreciate, but have not (6$8@., thrice, 
T.R.).  6ppa is poetic in class. Greek.— 
FxodovOnoay, they followed Him, like the 
rest, without guide (sine hodego, Beng.), 
so showing at once that their eyes were 
opened and their hearts grateful. 
CHAPTER XXI. ENTRY INTO JERU- 
SALEM, ETC.—VWvV. I-11. The entry (Mk. 
xi. 1-11, Lk. xix. 29-44).—Ver. I, Ste 
Hyyicayv &. ‘l., when, etc. The evangelist 
does not, like a modern tourist, make 
formal announcement of the arrival at a 
point near Jerusalem when the Holy 
City came first into view, but refers to 
the fact in a subordinate clause. The 
manner of entry is the more important 
matter for him.—els BynPpayi, to Beth- 
phage = the house of figs, mentioned 
here and in the synoptical parallels, no- 
where else in O. or N. T., but from Tal- 
mudic sources appears to have been a 
better known and more important place 
than Bethany (Buxtorf, Talm. Lex., p. 
1691). No trace of it now.—els 7.0. 1. 
*EXatav, to the Mount of Olives; the els, 
in all the three phrases used to define 


the position, means near to, towards, not 
into.—rére, then, introducing what for the 
evangelist is the main event. Bengel’s 
comment is: vectura mysterii plena in- 
nuitur, It is possible to import toc much 
mystery into the incident tollowing.— 
Ver. 2. els Thy opr: that is, naturally, 
the one named, though if we take els 
before BnOpayy as = into, it might be 
Bethany, on the other side of the valley. 
Some think the two villages were prac- 
tically one (Porter, Handbook for Syria 
and Palestine, p. 180).—dévov 8 Kat 
a@\ov, a she-ass with her foal, the latter 
alone mentioned in parall.; both named 
here for a reason which will appear.— 
Avoavres Gydyerte, loose and bring; with- 
out asking leave, as if they were their 
own.—Ver. 3. édy Tis, etc. Of course it 
was to be expected that the act would be 
challenged.—é€petre, ye shall say, future 
with imperative force.—6rt, recitative, in- 
troducing in direct form the words of the 
Master.—é Kuptos, the Lord or Master; 
not surely = Jehovah (Alford, G. T.), but 
rather to be taken in same sense as in 
Mt. viii. 25, or in ver. 30 of this chap.— 
avToev xpeiav éxet, hath need of them; in 
what sense? Looking to the synop. 
narratives alone, one might naturally 
infer that the need was physical, due to 
the fatigue of a toilsome, tedious ascent. 
But according to the narrative in 4th 
Gospel the starting point of the day’s 
journey was Bethany (xii. 1, 12). The 
prophetic reference in ver. 4 suggests a 
wholly different view, vis., that the 
animals were needed to enable Jesus to 
enter Jerusalem in a manner conformable 
to prophetic requirements, and worthy ot 
the Messianic King. One is conscious 
of a certain reluctance to accept this as 
the exclusive sense of the ypeta. Lutte- 
roth suggests that Jesus did not wish to 
mix among the crowd of pilgrims on foot 
lest His arrival should be concealed and 





1—8, 


adtav xpeiav exer: edOdws S€ dmootehet attous.” 
ddov! yéyover, tva whynpwOh Td fyOEv S1a Tod mpodytou, héyorTos, 
5. ‘Eimate tH Ouyartpi Zudv, “ISov, 6 Backes cou Epxetat cor, 
mpavs kat “émPeBynkas emi dvov Kal? mOdov utdv 
6. Mopeubévres 8€ of pabytal, Kat momjcartes Kalas mpocerager § 
adtots 6 Ingots, 7. Hyayov Thy Svoy Kal Tov Odo, Kal éméOnKay 
éndyw*t attav Ta ipdtia attav,® Kal érexdOicey érdvw abtav. 
S€  mhelaTos SyAos 4 €oTpwoay EauTy TA indtia ev TH GSG* Gddor dé 
éxomttov KAddous amd Tay Sévipwr, Kal éotpdvvuoy év TH 680. 


great). 


143CDLZ omit odov, which is found in BN. 


22 (Weiss) (W.H. omit). 
2 kat emt in NBLN. 


EYALTEAION 


1 Cor. xiv. 27 (=at most, adv.). 


261 


4. Todto 8éa here only 
in sense of 
mounting 
(cf. im- 
B.iBaGw in 
Lk, x. 34; 
xix. 35. 
Acts xxiii 
24). 

b here and 
in 2 Pet. 

8 e ii, 16. 

- Oc here only 
(=greatest 
part of). 
Mk. iv. 1 


» bmroLuyiou.” 


Y ‘ (=very 
d Mk. xiv. 15. Lk. xxii.12. Acts ix. 34. 


It is probably an echo of Ch. i. 


CD with many others omit the em. as in T. R. (émi 


vroliytov Kat m@dov véov in Zech. ix. g, Sept.). 


3 guveratey in BCD. 


the interest awakened by His presence 
lessened.—Ver. 4. tva mhypw6j: tva is 
to be taken here as always in this Gospel, 
in its strictly final sense. Such is the 
view of the evangelist and the view he 
wishes his readers to take. But it does 
not follow from this that Christ’s whole 
action proceeded from a conscious inten- 
tion to fulfil a prophecy. On the con- 
trary, the less intention on His part the 
greater the apologetic value of the corre- 
spondence between prophecy and fact. 
Action with intention might show that 
He claimed to be, not that He was, the 
Messiah. On the other hand, His right 
to be regarded as the Messiah would 
have stood where it was though He had 
entered Jerusalem on foot. That right 
cannot stand or fall with any such purely 
external circumstance, which can at best 
possess only the value of a symbol of 
those spiritual qualities which constitute 
intrinsic fitness for Messiahship. But 
Jesus, while fully aware of its entirely 
subordinate importance, might quite con- 
ceivably be in the mood to give it the 
place of a symbol, all the more that the act 
was in harmony with His whole policy of 
avoiding display and discouraging vulgar 
Messianic ideas andhopes. There was no 
pretentiousness in riding into Jerusalem 
on the foal of an ass. It was rather the 
meek and lowly One entering in character, 
and in a character not welcome to the 
proud worldly - minded Jerusalemites. 
The symbolic act was of a piece with 
the use of the title ‘‘Son of Man,” 
shunning Messianic pretensions, yet 
making them in a deeper way.—Ver. 5. 


4 ew avTwy in NBDLZ. 


5 S8BD omit avrwy. 


The prophetic quotation, from Zech. ix. 
g, prefaced by a phrase from Isaiah Ixii. 
II, with some words omitted, and with 
some alteration in expression as com- 
pared with Sept. 

Vv. 7-11. Thy Svov Kal Tov wadov : 
that both were brought is carefully 
specified in view of the prophetic oracle 
as understood by the evangelist to refer 
to two animals, not to one under two 
parallel names. —éwé@yxav: the two 
disciples spread their upper garments 
on the two beasts, to make a seat for 
their Master.—xat érexdOicev em. adTav : 
if the second airéyv be taken to have the 
same reference as the first the meaning 
will be that Jesus sat upon both beasts 
(alternately). But this would require 
the imperfect of the verb instead of the 
aorist. It seems best, with many ancient 
and modern interpreters, to refer the 
second aitayv tothe garments, though on 
this view there is a certain looseness in 
the expression, as, strictly speaking, 
Jesus would sit on only one of the 
mantles, if He rode only on one animal. 
Fritzsche, while taking the second a. as 
referring to tuarta, thinks the evangelist 
means to represent Jesus as riding on 
both alternately.—Ver. 8. 6 8é whetoros 
dxAos, etc., the most part of the crowd, 
follow the example of the two disciples, 
and spread their upper garments on 
the way, as it were to make a carpet for 
the object of their enthusiasm, after the 
manner of the peoples honouring their 
kings (vide Wetstein, ad loc.).—a@AXou 82 
éxomrov: Others, a small number com- 
paratively, took to cutting down branches 


KATA 


k. ii. 14. 
{Ch. xxvii. 


MATOAION 


XXI. 


Q. ot 8€ GxAor ot mpodyorres! Kat of dxodouBodvres expalor, 
Adyovres, “‘Qoavwvd 1H vid AaBiS- eddoynpévos 6 epxdpevos ev 


4(metaph, dvépate Kupiou: ‘Qoavva * év tots bWicros.” 


as here). 
Ch, xxvii. 
SI. 


(literal! 


Heb. F 
xii.26  TOAtS, A€youga, “Tis éotiw obtos;”” 


10. Kai eicedOdvros adtod eis ‘leporddupa, ‘éceioby mica 7 


I1. Ot 8€ SxAor EAeyor, 


g Mk. xi. = “Obrés eorw “Inoods 6 mpopyrys,? 6 dws NaLapér ris Fadvdalas.” 


Johnii.rs. 
h Mk. xi. 15 

(Hag. ii. 

22. Job 


12. KAI eiondOev 5° "Inoods eis Td tepdv tod Ocod,* kal ebéBade 
Tdytas Tods TwAodrTas Kal dyopdLovtas év TO lepG, Kal Tas TpaméLas 


i . . a ~ b a 
i Ch aiit.s. TOV ®xo\\uBiotay "Katéorpepe, kal tag 'kabSpas tay mwdovvTwr 


1 NBCDL add avroyv. 
% 9 omitted in BCA. 


of trees and scattering them about on the 
way. Had they no upper garments, or 
did they not care to use them in that 
way? The branches, if of any size, 
would not improve the road, neither 
indeed would the garments. Lightfoot, 
perceiving this—‘ hoc forsan equitantem 
prosterneret’’—thinks they used gar- 
ments and branches to make booths, as 
at the feast of tabernacles. It was well 
meant but embarrassing homage.—Ver. 9. 
ot dxAou: the crowd divided into two, 
one in front, one in rear, Jesus between. 
—xpalov: lip homage followed the 
carpeting of the way, in words borrowed 
from the Psalter (Ps. cxviii. 25, 26), and 
variously interpreted by commentators. 
—Qeavva te vig A. Hosanna (we 
sing) to the son of David (Bengel).— 
evoynpévos, etc. (and we say), “‘ Blessed, 
etc.,’’ repeating words from the Hallel 
used at the passover season.—‘Qaavva év 
Tots wplorors = may our Hosanna on 
earth be echoed and ratified in heaven! 
All this homage by deed and word speaks 
to a great enthusiasm, the outcome of 
the Galilean ministry; for the crowd 
consists of Galilcans. Perhaps the 
incident at Jericho, the healing of the 
blind men, and the vociferated title Son 
of David with which they saluted the 
Healer, gave the keynote. A little 
matter moves a crowd when it happens 
at the right moment. The mood of a 
festive season was on them.—Ver. Io, 
éccioOy: even Jerusalem, frozen with 
religious formalism and socially un- 
demonstrative, was stirred by the 
popular enthusiasm as by a mighty wind 
or by an earthquake (oe.opds), and 
asked (ver. 11), tis ottos;—6 mpodoy- 
nS, ¢tc.: a circumstantial answer 
specifying name, locality, and vocation ; 
not a low-pitched answer as Chrys. (and 


29 mpodytys Ingovs in NBD sah. cop. 
‘ rou Beov omitted in NBL verss. (W.H. omit in text). 


after him Schanz) thought (xapatfnAos 
jy aitavy h yveun, Kal tare Kai 
veovppévn, Hom. Ixvi.), as if they were 
ashamed of their recent outburst of 
enthusiasm. Rather spoken with pride 
=the man to whom we have accorded 
Messianic honours is a countryman of 
ours, Jesus, etc. 

Vv. 12-17. Fesus visits the Temple 
(Mk. xi. 11, 15-19, Lk. xix. 45-48).— 
Ver, 12. elondGev, etc. He entered 
the Temple. When? Nothing to show 
that it was not the same day (vide Mk.). 
—itéBahey. The fourth Gospel (ii. 14 f.) 
reports a similar clearing at the beginning 
of Christ’s ministry. Two questions have 
been much discussed. Were there one 
or two acts of this kind? and if only one 
was it at the beginning or at the end 
as reported by the Synop.? However 
these questions may be decided, it may 
be regarded as one of the historic 
certainties that Jesus did once at least 
and at some time sweep the Temple clear 
of the unholy traffic carried on there. 
The evangelists fittingly connect the act 
with the first visit of Jesus to Jer. they re- 
port—protestat first sight !—ravras Tots 
mw. kai ay.: the article not repeated 
after kal. Sellers and buyers viewed as 
one company—kindred in spirit, to be 
cleared out wholesale.—ras tpareéLas, 
etc.: these tables were in the court of 
the Gentiles, in the booths (tabernae) 
where all things needed for sacrifice 
were sold, and the money changers sat 
ready to give to all comers the didrachma 
for the temple tax in exchange for 
ordinary money at a small profit.— 
Ko\AvBiotev, from xédAvBos, a small 
coin, change money, hence agio ; hence 
our word to denote those who traded in 
exchange, condemned by Phryn., p. 440, 
while approving xéAAvBos. Theophy. 





g—I7. 


TAS TEpLoTepas. 


EYATTEAION 


263 


13. kat héyer adrots, “Féypamrat, ‘‘O ofkds pou 


otxos mpogeuy ts KAnOjcetat’’ Gpets S€ adtdv éroijcate | 1 om} \avov jJohn xi. 38. 


A ” 
Anotév. 
kat €Qepdmeucev adtous. 


ypappartets Ta Ooupdora & émoinge, Kal Tods taidas? KxpdLortas 


14. Kai mpoonAPov abtG tupdot Kai xwot év Ta lepa- 


eb.xi.38. 
Rev. vi. 15. 


15. ‘ISdvres 8é ot dpyxrepets Kai ot 


k here in- 


ae 2 ~ , ” 
ey TO lepd, kal héyortas, “‘Qaavva TH uid AaPid,”” HyavdxTyoay, trans. 


16. Kai eirov ait@, “’Akovers Ti obTot héyouow ;” 
héyer adtots, “Nat: obSérote dvéyvwre, ‘OTe ex ordpatos yymiwy 
kat *Ondaldvravy Karypticw atvor ;’”” 
efi Oev Ew THs TddEwS Eis ByPaviav, Kal nUhioOy éxel. 


1 wovecre in SYBL (Tisch., W.H.). 
1 sous after matday as well as before in 


Says: «oAAvBiorai elow ot wap’ Hpiv 
Aeydpevot tpatefirur: Kd\AvBos yap 
ei8ds éott vopiocparos evte\ys, doe 

Exopey TUXOv Hpets rovs SBoAovs FH Ta 
apyvpta (vide Hesychius and Suicer).— 
Tas weptotepds, doves, the poor man’s 
offering. The traffic was necessary, and 
might have been innocent; but the 
trading spirit soon develops abuses 
which were doubtless rampant at that 
period, making passover time a Jewish 
“ Holy Fair,” a grotesque and offensive 
combination of religion with shady 
‘“morality.—Ver. 13. yéypamrat, it stands 
written, in Isaiah lvi. 7; from the Sept. 
but with omission of maow tois €Oveoty, 
retained in Mk., and a_ peculiarly 
appropriate expression in the circum- 
stances, the abuse condemned having 
for its scene the court of the Gentiles.— 
omnjAratoy Ayoray, a den of robbers, a 
strong expression borrowed from another 
prophet (Jer. vii. 11), pointing probably 
to the avarice and fraud of the traders 
(rd yap dtdoKepSés Anotpikdy walos 
tori, Theophy.), taking advantage of 
simple provincials. This act of Jesus 
has been justified by the supposed right 
of the zealot (Num. xxv. 6-13), which is 
an imaginary right: ‘‘ein unfindbar 
Artikel” (Holtz., H. C.), or by the re- 
forming energy befitting the Messiah 
(Meyer). It needed no other justifica- 
tion than the indignation of a noble soul 
at sight of shameless deeds. Jesus was 
the only person in Israel who could do 
such a thing. All others had become 
accustomed to the evil. 

Vv. 14-17, peculiar to Mt.—Ver. 14. 
tuddot kal xwAol: that the blind and 
lame in the city should seek out Jesus is 
perfectly credible, though reported only 
by Mt. They would hear of the recent 


Lk. xi. 27 
(with pac- 
tous). Ch. 
XXxiv. 19. 
Mk. xili. 
17. Lk. 
xxi. 23 (to 
suckle), 


*O 8é “Inaods 


17, kat kataXuray avtods 


NBDLN. 


healing at Jericho, and of many other 
acts of healing, and desire to get a bene- 
fit for themselves, —Ver. 15. Ta Oavpacra: 
here only in N.T., the wonderful things, 
a comprehensive phrase apparently 
chosen to include all the notable things 
done by Jesus (Meyer), among which 
may be reckoned not only the cures, and 
the cleansing of the temple, but the en- 
thusiasm which He had awakened in the 
crowd, to the priests and scribes perhaps 
the most offensive feature of the situa- 
tion.—revs maifas, etc.: the boys and 
girls of the city, true to the spirit of youth, 
caught up and echoed the cry of the pil- 
grim crowd and shouted in the temple pre- 
cincts: ‘Hosanna, etc.”. yavdxrnoay, 
they were piqued, like the ten (xx. 24).— 
Ver. 16. aGkovets, etc.: the holy men at- 
tack the least objectionable phenomenon 
because they could do so safely ; not the 
enthusiasm of the crowd, the Messianic 
homage, the act of zeal, all deeply offen- 
sive to them, but the innocent shouts of 
children echoing the cry of seniors. They 
were forsooth unseemly in such a place! 
Hypocrites andcowards! No fault found 
with the desecration of the sacred pre- 
cincts by an unhallowed traffic.—vat, 
yes, of course: cheery, hearty, yea, not 
without enjoyment of the ridiculous dis- 
tress of the sanctimonious guardians of 
the temple.—ov8. avéyvwre as in xix. 4: 
felicitous citation from Ps. viii. 3, not to 
be prosaically interpreted as if children 
in arms three or four years old, still being 
suckled according to the custom of 
Hebrew mothers, were among the shout- 
ing juniors, These prompt happy cita- 
tions show how familiar Jesus was with 
the O. T.—Ver. 17. BnOaviav, Bethany, 
15 stadia from Jerusalem (John xi. 18), rest- 
ing place of Jesus in the Passion week— 


264 KATA MAT@AION 


18. Npwtas! 8€ éravdywr ” 


XXI. 


> 4 , ‘ 
eis THY Woh, éwelvage* 19. Kal ido» 


guKyy play emi Hs S800, Oey ex adtyy, Kal odSery cipev cv adtf 


ei pi) pUAAG povov: Kal Aéyer adtH,® “ Myxer €x coi Kapmds yévnTat 


- > dA ” 
lheretwice, €l¢ TOV alova. 
frequently 


Kat é&ypdv0n 'wapaxpipa 1% ouKi. 


20. Kai 


in Lk. and i8dvtes of pa@yral ebadpacayv, Aéyortes, “ Nds wapaxphpa eénpdvOy 


Acts. POmPY 
ouKy ; 


21. "AmoxpuBeis S€ 5 “Ingots elmev adtois, “’Auiy héyw 


m Acts x.20. Opty, dv Exnte miotw, Kal ph ™ SiaxpOjTe, od pdvoy Td Tis cUKiS 


Rom. iv. 


20; xiv.23. TorgeTe, GAA Kay TO Sper ToUTw eElmyre, “ApOynTe kai BAyOnte eis 


Jamesi. 6. 


Thy O@ddacoav, yerfoetar* 22. Kal wdvta Soa Gy airjonte ev tH 


mpogeuxf, TiotevovTes, AnperGe.” 


23. KAI €\@dvt. att@* eis 1d tepdy, mpoonOov atta &SdoxovT 


oi dpxepets Kat ot mpeoBuTepor Tod aod, éyortes, “Ev toia 


> , a ~ ‘ , eT ‘ 3 , , ” 
éfougia TadTa moveis; Kal Tis gor Edwke Tiy efouciay tavTHy ; 


1 wrpwt in NBD. 


2 emavayaywy in NBL. 


3 ov before pyxett in BL. Wanting in CD. 
“eXBovtos avrov in KBCDL. The reading in T. R. (dat.) is a grammatical 


correction. 


true friends there (vide Stanley, S.and P.), 
—ntdicby, passed the night; surely not 
in the open air, as Wetstein and Grotius 
think. At passover time quarters could 
not easily be got in the city, but the 
house of Martha and Mary would be open 
to Jesus (cf. Lk. xxi. 37). 

Vv. 18-22. The barren fig tree (Mk. 
xi. 12-14, 19-26). —The story of two morn- 
ing journeys from Bethany to Jerusalem 
(vide Mk.) is here compressed into one.— 
Ver. 18. éarelvace, He felt hungry. The 
fact seems to favour the hypothesis of a 
bivouac under the sky overnight. Why 
shouldonebe hungry leaving the hospitable 
house of friends? (vide Mk.). This was 
no difficulty for the Fathers who regarded 
the hunger as assumed (oxnpariferar 
meway, Euthy.).—Ver. 19. ov«7jv plav: 
els in late Greek was often used for tts, 
but the meaning here probably is that 
Jesus looking around saw a solitary fig 
tree.—éml tis 6500, by the wayside, not 
necessarily above (Meyer).—1A@ev én’ 
avy, came close to it, not climbed it 
(Fritzsche).—e. py pvAXa: leaves only, 
no fruit. Jesus expected to find fruit. 
Perhaps judging from Galilean experi- 
ence, where by the’ lake-shore the fig 
time was ten months long (Joseph., Bell. 
J., ili. 108. Vide Holtz., H. C.), but 
vide on Mk. xi. 13.—ov pykétt, etc. : ac- 
cording to some writers this was a pre- 
diction based on the observation that the 
tree was diseased, put in the form of a 
doom. So Bleek, and Furrer who --- 


marks: ‘‘Then said He, who knew na- 
ture and the human heart, ‘ This tree 
will soon wither’; for a fig tree with full 
leaf in early spring without fruit is a dis- 
eased tree’? (Wanderungen, p. 172).— 
Kal é& mwapaypypa, cf. Mk.’s account. 
—Ver. 20. of pa€nral, etc.: the disciples 
wondered at the immediate withering of 
the tree. Did they expect it to die, asa 
diseased tree, gradually ?—-Ver. 21 con- 
tains a thought similar to that in xvii. 
20, q.U.—76 THS ovK}s, the matter of the 
fig tree, as if it were a small affair, not 
worth speaking about. The question of 
the disciples did not draw from Jesus ex- 
planations as to the motive of the male- 
diction. The cursing of the fig tree has 
always been regarded as of symbolic im- 
port, the tree being in Christ’s mind an 
emblem of the Jewish people, with a great 
show of religion and no fruit of real 
godliness, This hypothesis is very 
credible, 

Vv. 23-27. Interrogation as to authority 
(Mk. xi. 27-33, Lk. xx. 1-8), wherewith 
suitably opens the inevitable final conflict 
between Jesus and the religious leaders 
of the people.—Ver. 23. é¢A@dvtos avtod 
é. +. t.: coming on the second day to 
the temple, the place of concourse, where 
He was sure to meet His foes, nothing 
loath to speak His mind to them.— 
Si8doKovrt: yet He came to teach, to do 
good, not merely to fight.—év ofa 
éEovcia, by what sort of authority? the 
question ever asked by the representa- 





18—-28, EYATTEAION 265 


24. AmwoxpOeis 8¢! 6 “Ingods eimev attois, ““Epwrjow Spas kayo 
Adyov €va, dy edy eliryTé por, Kay Spiv ép@ év wota efougia radta 
Tod. 25. TO Pdtticpa? "lwdvvou wibev Hv; €& odpavod, H ef 
avOpdmwv ;*” Ol S€ BredoyiLovro map * éautois, héyortes, “Edy 
» > 2 lol > a c a , > > > , 7 A 
elmwper, €& odpavoi, épet Hutv, Atari odv odk émotedoate alta ; 
26. édv Sé etmwpev, €& dvOpdmwv, poBovpeba tov dxdov: mdvtes 
, 
yap "€xouot Tov “lwdvyny as mpopytyny. * 27. Kat dmoxpibértes n vide Ch 
x xiv. 5. 
"Egy aitots Kal adtds, ‘Oude 
éy® héyw bpiv év woia efovela tadra tod. 28. Ti dé piv Soxet ; 


advOpwros etxe Téxva Svo,° Kal® wpocehOav TO mpdtw etme, Téxvor, 


~ > ~ ” 
TO “Inood etzov, ‘ OdK oldaper. 


1 Some copies omit Se. 
2 ro before lwavvov in NBCZ 33. 


SNBCD have it. 


3 BL have ev (W.H. in brackets). 


4 ws mpodyntyy before exovar in $BCLZ 33 (so in modern editions). 


5 So in &CDL al. 


Svo rexva in B (W.H. in margin). 


6 kat is found in BCD and other uncials but wanting in LZ. Tisch. omits and 


W.H. relegate to the margin. 


tives of established order and custom 
at epoch-making initiators. So the 
Judaists interrogated St. Paul as to his 
right to be an apostle.—ravra, vague (cf. 
xi, 25) and comprehensive. They have 
in view all the offences of which Jesus 
had been guilty, throughout His ministry 
—all well known to them—whatever He 
had done in the spirit of unconventional 
freedom which He had exhibited since 
His arrival in Jerusalem.—xai tis: the 
second question is but an echo of the 
first: the quality of the authority (motq) 
depends on its source.—ravrny, this au- 
thority, which you arrogate, and which 
so many unhappily acknowledge. It was 
a question as to the legitimacy of an un- 
deniable influence. That spiritual power 
accredits itself was beyond the compre- 
hension of these legalists.— Ver. 24. 
Jesus replies by an embarrassing counter- 
question as to the ministry of the Baptist. 
—Adyov éva, hardly: one question for 
your many (Beng.) rather: a question, or 
thing, one and the same (cf. for els in 
this sense Gen. xli. 25, 26; 1 Cor. iii. 8, 
xi. 5), an analogous question as we should 
say; one answer would do for theirs and 
for His.—Ver. 25. 7d Bawriopa 7d ’I., 
the baptism as representing John’s whole 
ministry.—e& ovp. 4 é§ av@., from heaven 
or from men? The antithesis is foreign 
to legitimist modes of thought, which 
would combine the two: from heaven 
but through men; if not through men 
not from heaven. The most gigantic 
and baleful instance of this fetish in 
modern times is the notion of church 


sacraments and orders depending on ordi- 
nation. On the same principle St. Paul 
was no apostle, because his orders came 
to him ‘‘not from men nor by man,” 
Gal. i. 1.—éav efrwpev, etc. The audible 
and formal answer of the scribes was 
ov« otdapey, in ver. 27. All that goes be- 
fore from éay to rpodyrny is the reasoning 
on which it was based, either unspoken 
(wap’ or évy €avrots, Mt.) or spoken to 
each other (mpds, Mk. xi. 31); not likely 
to have been overheard, guessed rather 
from the puzzled expression on their 
faces.—ovx émuotevoate: the reference 
here may be to John’s witness to Jesus, 
or it may be general=why did ye not re- 
ceive his message as a whole ?—Ver. 26. 
éay Se, etc.: the mode of expression here 
is awkward. Meyer finds in the sentence 
an aposiopesis=‘‘if we say of men—we 
fear the people”. What they mean is: 
we must not say of men, because we fear, 
etc. (cf. Mk.).—Ver. 27. ov8é éyd, etc. : 
Jesus was not afraid to answer their 
question, but He felt it was not worth 
while giving an answer to opportunists. 
Vv. 28-32. Parable of the two sons, 
in Mt. only, introduced by the familiar 
formula, tr 8¢ tpiv Soxet (xvii. 25, xviii. 
12), and having for its aim to contrast 
the conduct of the Pharisees towards the 
Baptist with that of the publicans. And 
as the publicans are simply used as a 
foil to bring out more clearly the Pharisaic 
character, the main subject of remark, it 
is highly probable that the son who 
represents the Pharisee was mentioned 
first, and the son who represents the 


266 


o Lk. xiii. 
14 John 
v.17; ix. 4. elev,” 06 bw : 
2 Thess. 
iii. 10. 

p Ch. xxvii. 


3. 2Cor. kUpte* Kal ox dmpdOe. 31. 


. Tatpds ;"” 


thy Bactheiav Tod Cecod. 


KATA MATOAION 
Umaye, ovpepor ° épydLou év TO dpredGvi prov.} 
Jotepov S€ PpetapednGeis, dawqd0e. 


TpocehOdv TO Seutépw elev SoadTws. 


A€youow auré,® ‘0 mpdtos.’ 


XXI. 


29. ‘O 3€ droxpibeis 
30. Kai 
6 8€ daroxpibels etiev, "Ey, 
Tis ék tv S00 éroinge 7d OAnpa Tod 


"4 Adyet adrois 6 Inaois, 


““"Apiy Aéyw piv, Ste of TeAGvar kal ai mépvar mpodyouaw Spas eis 
32. 7AOe yap mpds Spas “lwdvyns? ev 


q hf a Pet. 7686 scopes yl Kal ouUK émortedoate ahd ot S€ TeAGvar Kat al 


2 (odd5 


Tod MoTedoat auto. 


Topva. émioteuoay aura * bpeis Sé iSdvres ob © perepedOnre Uotepor 


1 pov is wanting in {CDLAX. Tisch., Trg., omit, W.H. relegate to margin. 
2 B inverts the order of the two answers, so that verses 29, 30 stand thus: eyo, 


KUpLe, KaL OVK amndOev. 
euwev. 


aw pocehOwy Se Tw Sevtepw evvrev woavTes. 
ov Gehw* vorepoy perapednbers awndbe. 


o Se aroxpiets 
Though supported only by some 


cursives and versions this reading of B commends itself as the true one, and it has 


been adopted by W.H. and Weiss. 
7 NBDL omit auto. 


* Of course this should be 6 torepos on B’s reading of vv. 29, 30. 


Vide below Syr. Sin. is not on the side of B. 


So in B. 


® lwavyns before mpos v. in NBCL 33. * ovSein B. Some cursives and versions. 


publican second; the order in which 
they stand in B, and adopted by W. and 
H. The parable, therefore, should read 
thus: “A certain man had two sons. 
He said to one, Go work, etc. He re- 
plied, Yes, sir, and went not. To the 
other he said the same. He replied, I 
will not, and afterwards went.’’— Ver. 28. 
T@ Gpteh@ve: constant need of work in 
a vineyard, and of superintendence of 
workers.—Ver. 29. éy#: laconic and em- 
phatic as if eager to obey—xvpte, with 
all due politeness, and most filial recogni- 
tion of paternal authority, the two 
words = our “ Yes, sir’’.—Ver. 30. o¥ 
6éXw, I will not, I am not inclined; rude, 
sulky, unmannerly, disobedient, and 
making no pretence to filial loyalty.— 
Ver. 31. To the question, Who did the 
will of the father? the answer, when the 
parable is arranged as above, must, of 
course, be 6 torepos; the may-sayer, 
not the yea-sayer. It is a wonder any 
answer was given at all when the pur- 
port of the parable was so transparent.— 
Gpiv A€yw wv: introducing here, as 
always, a very important assertion. The 
statement following would give deadly 
offence to the Pharisees.—reA@vat, mdp- 
vat, the publicans and the harlots, the 
two socially lowest classes. Jesus speaks 
here from definite knowledge, not only 
of what had happened in connection 
with the Baptist ministry, but of facts 
connected with Hisown. He has doubt- 


less reminiscences of the ‘“ Capernaum 
mission’ (chap. viii, 9-13) to go upon.— 


_mpodyovoty,go before, anticipate (mpoAap- 


Bavovow, Euthy.), present tense: they 
are going before you now; last first, first 
last. Chrysostom, in Hom. Ixvii., gives 
an interesting story of a courtesan of 
his time in illustration of this.—Ver, 32. 
év 689 Sixavocvvns: not merely in the 
sense of being a good pious man with 
whose life no fault could be found 
(Meyer; the Fathers, Chrys., Euthy., 
Theophy.), but in the specific sense of 
following their own legal way. John 
was a conservative in religion not less 
than the Pharisees. He differed from 
them only by being thoroughly sincere 
and earnest. They could not, therefore, 
excuse themselves for not being sympa- 
thetic towards him on the ground of his 
being an innovator, as they could with 
plausibility in the case of Jesus. The 
meaning thus is: He cultivated legal 
piety like yourselves, yet, etc.—tpets 82 
lSdvres, when ye saw how the sinful took 
John’s summons to repent ye did not 
even late in the day follow their ex- 
ample and change your attitude. They 
were too proud to take an example from 
publicans and harlots.—rot moretoat, 
inf, of result with tov. 

Vv. 33-46. Parable of the rebellious 
vine-dressers (Mk. xii, 1-12, Lk. xx. 9-19). 
—Ver. 33. GAAnv wm. a., hear another 
parable ; spoken at the same time, and 





| 
1 


29—38. 


33. ““ANAny wapaBodiy dxodoate. 
wétns, Sotis épiteucey dpmedGva, kat *dpaypov ato wepreOyke, 
kal *dpugev ev adta *Anvov, Kat woddunce “TUpyov, Kat €édor0” 


autév yewpyois, Kat dwedypnoev. 


kaptav, dméotehe Tos Soudous aitod mpds Tods yewpyous, aPetv 
‘ , € \ U 
kat AaBdvtes of yewpyol Tods BovAous 79, 20; 


TOUS KapToUs avTOU* 35. 


EYATTEAION 


267 


dvOpwrds tts} Hy olxodec- 

r Mk. xii. 1. 
Lk. xiv. 
23. Eph 
vas 


34. Ste S€ Hyytoev 6 Kaipos TGy 8 Ch. xxv. 


1. Mk 
xi 17 
t Rev. xiv. 


xix. 15. 


adtov, dv perv ederpay, dv 8€ dexteway, dv S€ " éABoBoAnoay. u Mk. xi. 


36. wadw aréoterdev GAous Soudous TAelovas TOV TMpdTwv: Kat 
37. dotepov 8€ dméateike mpds adtous 


, A 
éroinoav adtois aoavtws. 


Tov uldy adtod, Aéywv, “ ’Evtpamyjcovtar Tov uldy pou. 


Lk. xili. 4; 
Xiv. 28. 

v Ch. xxiii. 
37. Lk. 
xiii. 34. 
Acts vii. 


38. Ot Se 


A 58. 
yewpyol iSsvres Tdv vidv elroy év Eautois, Otrds €or 6 KAnpovdpos *w Lk. xviii. 


~ , ~~ 
SeGre, dtroxteivwpev adTov, kal KaTdoxwpev > Thy KAnpovopiay avTou. 


1 rug wanting in many uncials. 
2 efeSero in NBCL. 


a,4. Heb 
xii. 9. 


egeSoro is a grammatical correction. 


2 sxwpev in WBDLZ 33 (Tisch., W.H.). 


of kindredimport. The abrupt introduc- 
tion betrays emotion. Jesus is aware 
that He has given mortal offence, and 
here shows His knowledge by fore- 
shadowing His own doom. The former 
parable has exposed the insincerity of 
the leaders of Israel, this exposes their 
open revolt against even divine authority. 
—dGpaeXGva; it is another vineyard par- 
able. They were both probably extem- 
porised, the one suggesting the other, 
the picture of nondoing calling up the 
companion picture of misdoing.—dpaypov 
a. mepteOnke, etc.: detailed description 
of the pains taken by the landlord in the 
construction of the vineyard, based on 
Isaiah’s song of the vineyard (chap. v. 2), 
all with a view to fruitfulness, and to 
fruit of the best kind; for the owner, at 
least, is very much in earnest: a hedge 
to protect against wild beasts, a press 
and vat that the grapes may be squeezed 
and the juice preserved, a tower that the 
ripe fruit may not be stolen.—é&€Sero, 
let it out on hire ; on what terms—whether 
for a rent in money or on the metayer 
system, produce divided between owner 
and workers—does not here appear. The 
latter seems to be implied in the parallels 
(Mk, xii. 2, Gard tov Kapwov, Lk. xx. Io, 
and Tov Kapirov).—da7redqpnoev, went 
abroad, to leave them freedom, and also 
to give them time; for the newly planted 
vines would not bear fruit for two or 
three years. No unreasonableness in 
this landlord.—Ver. 34. katpos: not 
merely the season of the year, but the 
time at which the new vines might be 
expected to hear.—rots xapwovs; the 


whole, apparently implying a money rent. 
The mode of tenure probably not thought 
of by this evangelist.—avtov should prob- 
ably be referred to the owner, not to the 
vineyard = ‘‘his fruits,” as in A. V.— 
Ver. 35. AaBdvres of y., etc. The 
husbandmen treat the messengers in the 
most barbarous and truculent manner: 
beating, killing, stoning to death; highly 
improbable in the natural sphere, but 
another instance in which parables have 
to violate natural probability in order to 
describe truly men’s conduct in the 
spiritual sphere. On éSeipav Kypke re- 
remarks: the verb 8épew for verberare is 
so rare in profane writers that some have 
thought that for €Sepav should be read 
e8ypav, from Salpw.—Ver. 36. mAelovas 
+. m™., more than the first. Some take 
awh. as referring to quality rather than 
number: better than the former (Bengel, 
Goebel, etc.), which is a legitimate but 
not likely rendering. The intention is 
to emphasise the number of persons sent 
(prophets).—acavtws: no difference in 
the treatment; savage mood chronic.— 
Ver.37. torepov, not afterwards merely, 
but finally, the last step was now to be 
taken, the mission of the son and heir ; 
excuses conceivable hitherto : doubt as to 
credentials, a provoking manner in those 
sent, etc.; not yet conclusively proved 
that deliberate defiance is intended. 
The patient master will make that clear 
before taking further steps.—évrpami- 
covtat (pass. for mid.), they will show 
respect to. It is assumed that they will 
have no difficulty in knowing him.—Ver. 
38. iSdvres: neither have they; they 


268 


KATA MATOAION 


XXI. 


39- Kal AaPdvres adrdov €f€Badov Efw Tod dpmehGvos kal dwékteivay. 


40. Stay odv EAOy 6 KUptos Tod dprehdvos, Tl Woijger Tois yewpyots 


6 =. , ” 
Ch. xxvi. €KELVOLS ; 
54: : 
xiv. 49. 
Lk, xxiv. 


- 


27. John avT@ rods Kaptrods éy Tots Katpots abtav.”” 


- 


31; xii. 10. 


kal Tov dprrehOva éxddcerar ! 


41. Adyouow atta, “Kaxods Kax@s drodécet abtods - 


Gos yewpyots, olrves droddaouow 
42. Adyer abtois 6 


Vv. 39. x a a 
Mk. viii, “Inoods, “ OdSdmote dvéyvwre' év tals * ypaats, ‘ AlBov dv ” dwedoxt- 


Lk. ix. 22, LAaY OL OiKOSopodyTEs, OUTOS éyernOy Els KEpadty ywvias: mapa 


Heb, xii. 
17 al. 


1 exSwoerat in all uncials nearly. 


recognise at once the son and heir, and 
resolve forthwith on desperate courses, 
which are at once carried out. They 
eject the son, kill him, and seize the in- 
heritance. The action of the parable is 
confined to a single season, the mes- 
sengers following close on each other. 
But Jesus obviously has in His eye the 
whole history of Israel, from the settle- 
ment in Canaan till His own time, and 
sees in it God’s care about fruit (a holy 
nation), the mission of the successive 
prophets to insist that fruit be forth- 
coming, and the persistent neglect and 
disloyalty ofthe people. Neglect, for there 
was no fruit to give to the messengers, 
though that does not come out in the 
parable. The picture is a very sombre 
one, but it is broadly true. Israel, on 
the whole, had not only not done God’s 
will, but had badly treated those who 
urged her to do it. She killed her 
prophets (Mt. xxiii. 37). 

Vv. 40-46. Application.—érav otv 
€XOy 6 x., etc.: what would you expect 
the owner to do after such ongoings 
have been reported to him? Observe 
the subjunctive after Srav compared with 
the indicative Hyyvoev after Ste, ver. 34. 
Ste points to a definite time past, Stay 
is indefinite (vide Hermann, Viger, p. 
437).—Ver. 41. Aéyovo, they say: who? 
the men incriminated, though they could 
not but see through the thin veil of the 
allegory. In Mk. and Lk. the words 
appear to be put into Christ’s mouth.— 
Kakous Kak@s GroAdoer: a solemn fact 
classically expressed (‘‘en Graeci ser- 
monis peritiam in Matthaeo ’’—Raphel, 
Annot.) = He will badly destroy bad 
men.—otrtwes, such as; he will give out 
the vineyard to husbandmen of a different 
stamp.—t. x. év Tots Katpots avrTav: 
the fruits in their (the fruits’) seasons, 
regularly year by year.—Ver. 42. 
ovdemote aveyvwre, etc.: 
Christ’s impromptu felicitous quotations ; 


another of 


Kupiou éyévero adty, kal éort Oaupacth év dp0arpois ipa ;’ 


exSogerat in minusc. only. 


from Ps. cxvili. 22, 23 (Sept.). This quota- 
tion contains, in germ, another parable, 
in which the ejected and murdered heir 
of the former parable becomes the re- 
jected stone of the builders of the theo- 
cratic edifice ; only, however, to become 
eventually the accepted honoured stone 
of God. It is an apposite citation, 
because probably regarded as Messianic 
by those in whose hearing it was made (it 
was so regarded by the Rabbis—Schott- 
gen, ad loc.), and because it intimated 
to them that by killing Jesus they would 
not be done with Him.—Ver. 43. 8a 
rovro, introducing the application of the 
oracle, and implying that the persons 
addressed are the builders = therefore.— 
% Baovrela +. 6.: the doom is forfeiture 
of privilege, the kingdom taken from 
them and given to others.—é@ve, to a 
nation; previously, as Paul calls it, a 
no nation (ovx €0ve, Rom. x. 19), the 
reference being, plainly, to the heathen 
world.—ro.otvTt tT. kK. ae: Cf. ili. 8, 10; 
vii. 17, bringing forth the fruits of it (the 
kingdom). The hope that the new 
nation will bring forth the fruit is the 
ground of the transference. God elects 
with a view to usefulness; a useless 
elect people has no prescriptive rights.— 
Ver. 44. This verse, bracketed by W.H., 
found in the same connection in Lk. 
(xx. 18), looks rather like an interpola- 
tion, yet it suits the situation, serving as 
a solemn warning to men meditating 
evil intentions against the Speaker.—é 
aeaov: he who falls on the stone, as if 
stumbling against it (Is. viii. 14).— 
ovvOkacOicerat, shall be broken in 
pieces, like an earthen vessel falling ona 
rock. This compound is found only in 
late Greek authors.—éq’ dv 8 Gy réoy, 
on whom it shall fall, in judgment. The 
distinction is between men who believe 
not in the Christ through misunderstand 
ing and those who reject Him through 
an evil heart of unbelief. Both suffer in 





39—46. 


EYATVEAION 


269 


43. Ad TodTo Aéyw spiv, Str dpOjoetar dp’ Spay % Baowreia rod 


G00, Kai SoOycerar Ever TovodyTt Tos KapToUs auTijs. 


44. Kat 6 


megav émt tov AiBov toutoy “cuvOX\acOncetar- ep dv 8 dy wéon, e Lk. xx. 18 


’ 
*Aixpyoer adtév % 


1 45. Kat dxovcavres ot dpxtepets Kal oie Lk. xx. 18 


Papicaio. tas wapaBohds abtod €yvwoay Gre wepi aitay déye- 
46. nai {ytodvtes adtév xparyoat, époByOyaay tods dxhous, 


ered} 2 ds rpodyrny abtov cixov. 


1 This whole ver. (44) is omitted in D, 33, old Latin versions, Orig., etc. Tisch. 
omits and W.H. bracket. Weiss regards it as genuine, and thinks that if it had come 
in from Lk. it would have stood after ver. 42. 


9 ewes in BDL 33. 


consequence, but not in the same way, 
or to the same extent. The one is 
broken, hurt in limb; the other crushed 
to powder, which the winds blow away. 
—ucprjoet, from Atkpds, a winnowing 
fork, to winnow, to scatter to the winds, 
implying reduction to dust capable of 
being so scattered = grinding to powder 
(conteret, Vulg.). For the distinction 
taken in this verse, cf. chaps. xi. 6; xii. 
31, 32.—Ver. 45. The priests and 
Pharisees of course perceived the drift of 
these parabolic speeches about the two 
sons, the vine-dressers, and the rejected 
stone, and (ver. 46) would have appre- 
hended Him on the spot (Lk. xx. 19) 
had they not feared the people.—énei, 
since, introducing the reason of the fear, 
same as in ver. 26.—ets mpodiytny = as 
m., ver. 26, and in xiv. 5, also in reference 
to John. On this use of els vide Winer, 
§ 32,4, b 
CHAPTER XXII. PARABLE OF THE 
WEDDING FEAST AND ENCOUNTERS 
WITH OPPONENTS.— Vv. 1-14. The 
royal wedding.—This parable is peculiar 
to Mt., and while in some respects very 
suitable to the situation, may not un- 
reasonably be suspected to owe its place 
here to the evangelist’s habit of grouping 
kindred matter. The second part of the 
parable referring to the man without a 
wedding robe has noconnection with the 
present situation, or with the Pharisees 
who are supposed to be addressed. An- 
other question has been much discussed, 
viz., whether this parable was spoken by 
Jesus at all on any occasion, the idea of 
many critics being that it is a parable of 
Christ’s reconstructed by the evangelist 
or some other person, so as to make it 
cover the sin and fate of the Jews, the 
calling of the Gentiles, and the Divine 
demand for righteousness in all recipients 
ot His grace. The resemblance between 


¥ es in NBL (Tisch., W.H.). 


this parable and that of the Supper, in 
Lk. xiv. 16-24, is obvious. Assuming 
that Jesus uttered a parable of this type, 
the question arises: which of the two 
forms given by Mt. and Lk. comes 
nearer to the original? The general 
verdict is in favour of Luke’s. As to the 
question of the authenticity of Mt.’s 
parable, the mere fact that the two 
parables have a common theme and 
many features similar is no proof that 
both could not proceed from Jesus. Why 
should not the later parable be the same 
theme handled by the same Artist with 
variations so as to make it serve a 
different while connected purpose, the 
earlier being a parable of Grace, the 
later a parable of fudgment upon grace 
despised or abused? If the didactic 
aim of the two parables was as just in- 
dicated, the method of variation was 
preferable to the use of two parables 
totally unconnected. ‘‘ What is common 
gives emphasis to what is peculiar, and 
bids us mark what it is that is judged ’’ 
(The Parabolic Teaching of Christ, p. 
463). The main objections to the 
authenticity of the parable are its 
allegorical character, and its too distinct 
anticipation of history. The former ob- 
jection rests on the assumption that 
Jesus uttered no parables of the allegorical 
type. On this, vide remarks on the 
parable of the Sower, chap. xiii. 

Ver. 1. év mapaBodais, the plural does 
not imply more than one parable, but 
merely indicates the style of address = 


parabolically.—Ver. 2. ydpovs, a 
wedding feast; plural, because the 
festivities lasted for days, seven in 


Judges xiv. 17. The suggestion that the 
feast is connected with the handing over 
of the kingdom to the son (** quem pater 
successorem declarare volebat,’’ Kuinoel) 
is not to be despised. The marriage 


270 


a here sev- 
eral times; 
XXV. 10. 
Lk. xii. 36; 


KATA MATOAION 


XXII. 


XXII. 1. KAl dawoxpiBets 5 “Ingots mdédw elev adrois év Tapa- 
Bodais,' éywr, 2. “‘Quoddy i Bactheta tdv ovpavav évOpadrrw 


xiv. 8 in BaowAet, Satis ewoinge “ydpous TH uid adtod* 3. Kal dméorerhe 


all plural). 


b vide Ch, TOUS SovAous avTod *xakdoat Tods KexAnpévous Eis Tods ydpous, kai 


ix, 13. 


Cor. 2.27. OUK 79edov eXOetv. 4. Mddww dwéorekey GAAous Soddous, héywr, 


o 


Lk. xi. 38; 
xiv, 12. 
Acts xiv. 


a 


cs 13; ak ydépous 
ere only . 
in N. T. 
(Joseph, 
Ant., viii. 
2,4. Cf. orevrds in Lk. xv. 23, 27, 30). 


' Elarte Tois xexAnpévors, ‘ISou, 76 * dpiordy pou roipaca,? ot * radpot 
(3. Heb. ou Kat Ta “owtioTd TeOupdva, Kal mdvta Etoinas Seite e€ig Tods 
5+ Ot S€ duednoavres dwpOov, 6 pev® cis tov Tov 
dypdv, 6 85 eis * Thy éuropiay avtod* 6. ot S€ Aowrol Kparjcartes 


1 aurois after wapaBoAats in BDL (modern editors). 
2 yrotpaxa in SBCDLE and adopted by modern editors, 
® oo pev, os Se in NBCLE, several cursives. 


4 ert in BCD, 13, 33, 69, etc. 


and recognition of the son as heir to the 
throne might be combined, which would 
give to the occasion a political signifi- 
cance, and make appearance at the 
marriage a test of loyalty. Eastern 
monarchs had often many sons by 
different wives, and heirship to the 
throne did not go by primogeniture, but 
by the pleasure of the sovereign, deter- 
mined in many cases by affection for a 
favourite wife, as in the case of Solomon 
(Koetsveld, de Gelijk.)—Ver. 3. xahéoat 
Tovs KexAnpévous, to invite the already 
invited. This second invitation seems 
to accord with Eastern custom (Esther 
vi. 14). The first invitation was given 
to the people of Israel by the prophets 
in the Messianic pictures of a good time 
coming. This aspect of the prophetic 
ministry was welcomed. Israel never 
responded to the prophetic demand for 
righteousness, as shown in the parable of 
the vine-dressers, but they were pleased to 
hear of God’s gracious visitation in the 
latter days, to be invited to a feast in the 
indefinite future time. How they would 
act when the feast was due remained to 
be seen.—rovs SovAous, the servants, are 
John the Baptist and Jesus Himself, 
whose joint message to their generation 
was: the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, 
feast time at length arrived.—ovx 70edov 
é\Gciv. Israel in all her generations had 
been willing in a general way, quite in- 
tending to come; and the generation of 
John and Jesus were also willing in a 
general way, if it had only been the 
right son who was going to be married. 
How could they be expected to accept 
the obscure Nazarene for Bridegroom 


and Heir ?—Ver. 4. GAdovs BovdAous 
refers to the apostles whose ministry 
gave to the same generation a second 
chance.—eiware: the second set of 
messengers are instructed what to say ; 
they are expected not merely to invite to 
but to commend the feast, to provoke 
desire.—l8ov, to arrest attention.— 
Gpioréy pov, the midday meal, as 
distinct from 8eimvov, which came later 
in the day (vide Lk. xiv. 12, where both 
are named = early dinner and supper). 
With the dpicroy the festivities begin.— 
jrotpaka, perfect, I have in readiness.— 
Tavpot, oitioTa, bulls, or oxen, and fed 
beasts : speak to a feast on a vast scale. 
—reOupéva, slain, and therefore must be 
eaten without delay. The word is often 
used in connection with the slaying of 
sacrificial victims, and the idea of 
sacrifice may be in view here (Koetsveld). 
—mavta, etc.: all things ready, come to 
the feast. This message put into the 
mouths of the second set of servants 
happily describes the ministry of the 
apostles compared with that of our Lord, 
as more urgent or aggressive, and pro- 
claiming a more developed gospel. 
“They talked as it were of oxen and 
fed beasts and the other accompaniments 
of a feast, with an eloquence less 
dignified, but more fitted to impress the 
million with a sense of the riches of 
Divine grace” (The Parabolic Teaching 
of Christ). 

Vv. 5-7. ot 5? GueAncavres dwqAGov. 
The Vulgate resolves the participle and 
translates: ‘‘neglexerunt et abierunt,” so 
also the A.V. and R.V.; justly, for the 
participle points out the state of mind 





‘is rare in Mt.; here, Ch. xxvii. 48, xxviii. 12. 


I—I0. 


rods SoUNous avrod ‘UBpicay Kal dwéKxreway. 


EYAITTEAION 


271 


7- *Axovoas de 61 Lk. xi. 453 
xviii. 32. 


Baotdets! dpyioOy, Kat méppas Ta Sotpatedpata? attod dmadeve Acts xiv.s, 


‘ a > , .Y x , TEST Waker 
Tous ovets €KELVOUS, KL THY TOAL QUTWY eveTTpN oe. 


Tots SovAors auTod, ‘O pév ydpos ETousds eotiy, of SE KEeKAnpEvor OUK a7. 


- ” 
joav ago. 


a ” , > AY , 
daous Gy eUpynte, KadéoaTe €is TOUS yapous. 


Q. wopevece obv emt Tas 'Srefddous Tay 6dav, Kal 


g Lk. xxiii. 

8. Tére Aéyer 11. Acts 
xxiii. 10, 

Rev. 

ix. 16; xix. 

14, 19. 

h here only 
in N. T. 

i here only 


Io. Kat é&edOdvtes 


c 3 oX > os > 4 63 ‘ , , J 8 2 
ot SovAOL EKELVOL Elg TAS O00US GUYHYyAyOY TdayTas OTGOUS” EUpOY, inN. T. 


, J ‘ 2 6 ess ‘ > Xn 6 3 , 43 é 
TOVT}POUS TE KQL aya OUS Kal ETANTVT) O Yopos OVOKELL VY, 


1 For axovoas S¢0 Bac. NBL have o Se BactAevus. 


2D has to orparevpa (Trg. in margin), 


3 ovs in ND (W_H ). 


which gave rise to the conduct specified. 
They treated the pressing invitations 
and glowing descriptions of the servants 
with indifference.—és pév, ds 8: this 
one to his own (t8:ov for avtot = proprius 
for suus) field, that one to his trading 
(€pwopiay here only in N. T. Cf. Lk. at 
this point).—Ver. 6. Adovrol, the rest, as 
if of GueAnjoavres were only a part, the 
preater part, of the invited, while the 
expression by itself naturally covers the 
whole. Weiss finds in oro a trace of 
patching: the parable originally referred 
to the people of Israel as a whole, but 
Mt. introduced a reference to the San- 
hedrists and here has them specially 
in view as the Aotrot. Koetsveld 
remarks on the improbability of the 
story at this point : men at a distance— 
rulers of provinces—could not be invited 
in the morning with the expectation of 
their being present at the palace by mid- 
day. So far this makes for the hypothesis 
of remodelling by a second hand. But 
even in Christ’s acknowledged parables 
improbabilities are sometimes introduced 
to meet the requirements of the case ; 
e.g., in Lk.’s version of the parable all 
refuse. —KparyoavTes . . . UB. Kal 
aaréxrewav: acts of open rebellion in- 
evitably leading to war. This feature, 
according to Weiss, lies outside the 
picture. Not so, if the marriage feast 
was to be the occasion for recognising 
the sonas heir. Then refusal to come 
meant withholding homage, rebellion in 
the bud, and acts of violence were but 
the next step.—Ver. 7. Ta oTpatetparta : 
the plural appears surprising, but the 
meaning seems to be, not separate 
armies sent one after another, but forces. 
—damnoheoe, everpyoev: the allegory here 
evidently refers to the destruction of 


(Ps, s35 
exix. 136). 
j This part. 
Often in Acts and Heb. 
‘ vupdwv in NBL (Tisch., W.H.). 
Jerusalem; no argument against 


authenticity, if xxiv. 2 be a word of 
Jesus. Note that the destruction of 
Jerusalem is represented as taking place 
before the calling of those without = the 
Gentiles. This is not according to the 
historic fact. This makes for authenticity, 
as a later allegorist would have been 
likely to observe the historical order 
(vide Schanz). 

Vv. 8-10. tére: after the second set of 
servants, as many as survived, had re- 
turned and reported their ill-success.— 
héyet, he says to them.—é€rowpos, ready, 
and more.—Ver. 9. éml tas 81e§d8o0us 
is variously interpreted: at the crossing- 
places of the country roads (Fritzsche, 
De Wette, Meyer, Goebel); or at the 
places in the city whence the great roads 
leading into the country start (Kypke, 
Loesner, Kuinoel, Trench, Weiss). ‘‘Ac- 
cording as we emphasise one or other 
prep. in the compound werd, either: the 
places whence the roads run out, or 
Oriental roads passing into the city 
through gates”’ (Holtz, H. C.). The 
second view is the more likely were it 
only because, the time pressing, the 
place where new guests are to be found 
must be near at hand. In the open 
spaces of the city, strangers from the 
country as well as the lower population 
ot the town could be met with; the 
foreign element = Gentiles, mainly in 
view.—Ver, 10, wovnpovs tekal dyabous: 
not in the mood to make distinctions. 
v€ connects mov. and dya@. together as 
one company = all they found, of all 
sorts, bad or good, the market-place 
swept clean.—érAyoOn, was filled ; satis- 
factory after the trouble in getting guests 
at all.vupgov, the marriage dining- 
hall; in ix. 15 the brideshamber. 


272 


KATA MATOAICN 


XXII. 


k Lk xxiii 11. eloehOdv Be 6 Baoteds “Oedoacbar tods dvaxepevous cider 


55- 


exet dvOpwrov ork evdedupévor EvSupa ydpous 12. Kal Aéyer avira, 


‘Eraipe, mas elon bes Dde pit Exwv Evdupa yapou; ‘O Se | épipaby. 


1. 25; 


13. Téte etwev 56 Bactheds! Tots Sraxdvois, Ajoavres acto’ 


iv.39. Lk. wé8ag Kal yxeipas, dGpare auvrdév Kal éxBddere? eis 1d oxdros 7d 


Fim, v.18. efwtepov: éxet Eorat 6 KAauOuds Kal 6 Bpuypds Tar dddvTur. 


14. Woddol ydp eiot KANTO, ddiyou S€ exAeKxToL.” 


1 aurey after BaoiXevs in NBL, cursives (33, etc.). 
2 For apate a. xat exB. SQBL have simply exBadere avrovw (Tisch., W.H.). 


Vv. 11-14. The man without a wedding 
garment.—Though this feature has no 
connection with the polemic against the 
Sanhedrists, it does not follow, as even 
Weiss (Matthaus-Evang.) admits, that 
it was not an authentic part of a parable 
spoken by Jesus. It would form a suit- 
able pendant to any parable of grace, as 
showing that, while the door of the king- 
dom is open to all, personal holiness 
cannot be dispensed with.—Ver. 11. Oed- 
cac$at: we are not to suppose that the 
king came in to look out for offenders, 
but rather to show his countenance to his 
guests and make them welcome.—év@pw- 
woy, etc.: while he was going round 
among the guests smiling welcome and 
speaking here and there a gracious word, 
his eye lighted on a man without a 
wedding robe. Only one? More might 
have been expected in such a company, 
but one suffices to illustrate the principle. 
—ovix évSe5.: we have here an example of 
occasional departure from the rule that 
participles in the N. T. take prof as the 
negative in all relations.—Ver. 12. €ratpe, 
as in xx. 13.—1mG@s elo7AOes GSe: the 
question might mean, By what way did 
you come in? the logic of the question 
being, had you entered by the door you 
would have received a wedding robe like 
the rest, therefore you must have come 
over a wall or through a window, or 
somehow slipped in unobserved (Koets- 
veld). This assumes that the guests 
were supplied with robes by the king’s 
servants, which in the circumstances is 
intrinsically probable. All had to come 
in a hurry as they were, and some would 
have no suitable raiment, even had there 
been time to put iton. What the custom 
was is not very clear, The parable 
leaves this point in the background, and 
simply indicates that a suitable robe was 
necessary, however obtained. The king’s 
question probably means, how dared you 
come hither without, etc. ?—py €xwy : pr 


this time, not ov, as in ver. 11, implying 
blame. Euthymius includes the ques- 
tion as to how the man got in among the 
matters not to be inquired into, &a thy 
avtrovoplay (freedom) tis mapaBodAjs.— 
6 88 épipoOn, he was dumb, not so much 
from a sense of guilt as from confusion 
in presence of the great king finding 
fault, and from fear of punishment.— 
Ver. 13. tots Staxdvois, the servants 
waiting on the guests, cf. Lk. xxii, 27, 
John ii. 5.—8yoavres, éxBadere: dispro- 
portionate fuss, we are apt to think, 
about the rude act of an unmannerly 
clown. Enough surely simply to turn 
him out, instead of binding him hand 
and foot as a criminal preparatory to 
some fearful doom. But matters of eti- 
quette are seriously viewed at courts, 
especially in the East, and the king’s 
temper is already ruffled by previous 
insults, which make him jealous for his 
honour. And the anger of the king 
serves the didactic aim of the parable, 
which is to enforce the lesson: sin not 
because grace abounds. After all the 
doom of the offender is simply to be 
turned out of the festive chamber into the 
darkness of night outside.—éxet éorat, 
etc.: stock-phrase descriptive ‘of the 
misery of one cast out into the darkness, 
possibly no part of the parable. On 
this expression Furrer remarks: ‘‘ How 
weird and frightful, for the wanderer 
who has lost his way, the night, when 
clouds cover the heavens, and through 
the deep darkness the howling and teeth- 
grinding of hungry wolves strike the ear 
of the lonely one! Truly no figure could 
more impressively describe the anguish of 
the God-forsaken” (Wanderungen, p. 
181).—Ver. 14. mwodAol yap: if, as yap 
might suggest, the concluding aphorism 
referred exclusiveiy to the fate of the 
unrobed guest, we should be obliged to 
conclude that the story did not supply 2 
good illustration of its truth, only one 





r1—16, 


EYATTEAION 


273 


15. Tére topev9evtes ot Sapicator cupPoUdrovy EXaBov Gws avTov m here only 


* qayiesowow ev Moyw. 


16. kat atooteANouowy adTO Tous paynTas ve below 
atdtav peta TOv “Hpwdiavdv, Aéyovtes,! “ ArSdoxade, oldapev Ste " fonaeres: 
GAnOHs ef, kal Thy G5dv Tod Oeod ev adyOela BiddoKers, Kal ov pet ; 
“weder oor wept oddevds, ob yap ° Bhémers cis TMpdowroy avOpdtrwr. Syd eae 


1 Xeyovtas in KQBL in agreement with payras. 


0 2 Cor. x.7 
(Ta Kata mpoowror). 


The reading Aeyovres has CDAZ 


al. in its favour, but modern editors prefer the other. 


out of many guests called being rejected. 
But the gnome really expresses the 
didactic drift of the whole parable. From 
first to last many were called, but com- 
paratively few took part in the feast, 
either from lack of will to be there or 
from coming thither irreverently. 

Vv. 15-22. The tribute question 
(Mk. xii. 13-17, Lk. xx. 20-26).—In this 
astute scheme the Sanhedrists, according 
to Mk., were the prime movers, using 
other parties as their agents. Here the 
Pharisees act on their own motion.— 
Ver. 15. ‘rote, then, with reference to 
xxl. 46, when the Sanhedrists were ata 
loss how to get Jesus into their power.— 
ovpBovdArov éhaBov may refer either to 


process: consulting together; or to 
result: formed a plan.—8zrws, either 


how (quomodo, Beza, wie, H. C.), which, 
however, would more naturally take the 
future indicative (Fritzsche), or, better, 
in order that.—may.8evawouy, they might 
ensnare, an Alexandrine word, not in 
classics, here and in Sept. (vide Eccl. 
ix. 12).—év Adyw, by a word, either the 
question they were to ask (8v’ épwrrjoeus, 
Euthy.), or the answer they hoped He 
would give (Meyer). For the idea, cf. 
Is. xxix. 21.—Ver. 16. amooréAXovow, 
as in Mk. xii. 13; there intelligible, here 
one wonders why the sent of Mk. should 
be senders of others instead of acting 
themselves, The explanation may be 
that the leading plotters felt themselves 
to be discredited with Jesus by their 
notorious attitude, and, therefore, used 
others more likely to succeed. More 
than fault-finding is now intended—even 
to draw Jesus into a compromising 
utterance.—tovs paOytas 4., disciples, 
apparently meant to be emphasised ; 7.e., 
scholars, not masters; young men, pre- 
sumably not incapable of appreciating 
Jesus, in whose case a friendly feeling 
towards Him was not incredible, as in 
the case of older members of the 
party. —pera 7. ‘“Hpwdiavav, with 
Herodians, named here only in Mat., 


associated with Sadducees in Mk. viii. 
15; why so called is a matter of con- 
jecture, and the guesses are many: 
soldiers of Herod (Jerome) ; courtiers of 
Herod (Fritzsche, following Syr. ver.) ; 
Jews belonging to the northern tetrar- 
chies governed by members of the Herod 
family (Lutteroth); favourers of the 
Roman dominion (Orig., De W., etc.) ; 
sympathisers with the desire for a national 
kingdom so far gratified or stimulated 
by the rule of the Herod family. The 
last the most probable, and adopted by 
many: Wetstein, Meyer, Weiss, Keil, 
Schanz, etc. The best clue to the 
spirit of the party is their association 
with the Pharisees here. It presumably 
means sympathy with the Pharisees in 
the matter at issue; #.e., nationalism 
versus willing submission to a foreign 
yoke; only not religious or theocratic, as 
in case of Pharisees, but secular, as 
suited men of Sadducaic proclivities. 
The object aimed at implies such sym- 
pathy. To succeed the snare must be 
hidden. Had the two parties been on 
opposite sides Jesus would have been 
put on His guard. The name of this 
party probably originated in a kind of 
hero-worship for Herod the Great. Vide 
on xvi. 1.—)éyovrtas, etc., the snare set 
with much astuteness, and well baited 
with flattery, the bait coming first.— 
SiSdaoKade, teacher, an appropriate ad- 
dress from scholars in search of know- 
ledge, or desiring the solution ofa knotty 
question.—oiSapev, we know, everybody 
knows. Even Pharisees understood so 
far the character of Jesus, as here 
appears; for their disciples say what 
they have been instructed to say. There- 
fore their infamous theory of a league 
with Beelzebub (xii. 24) was a sin against 
light; 7.e., against the Holy Ghost. 
Pharisaic scholars might even feel a 
sentimental, half-sincere admiration for 
the character described, nature not yet 
dead in them as in their teachers. The 
points in the character specified are— 


18 


274 

p here only 17, eine} ody Hpiv, th cor Soxet; 
In ae 

q here, A ou ; * 
arall., 


. , 
om.i.a3; metpdLete, OtroKpiTat ; 
viii. ag al. 


Heb. x. 1. OL 8 mpoojveykay abtS Syvdprov. 


r Mk. xii. 16. 


” 
Lk. xx.a4. 4) Teikdy adty Kat f *emypady ; 


Mk. xv. 26. 


KATA MATOAION 


XXII. 


» a ~ , 
éfeort Sodvat xivoov Kaicapt, 


18. Fvods 8€ 6 “Inoods Thy wornpiay adtav ele, “Ti pe 
19. émBeifard por 7d ? vdutopa Tod Kyvaou.” 


20. kal éyer adtois,? “ Tivos 
21. Aéyouow aita,® “Kaloapos.”’ 


Lk. xxiii, Tote A€yet adtots, “ *"Amddote ody Ta Kaicapos Kaicapt* kal Ta Tod 


8. a a ~ , 
s paral. and @€00 TH @eG.” 22. Kal dxovcavtes Oadpacay: Kai dpevres adtov 


Row. nll ara hGov. 


sense. 


1 evrov in LZ 33: adopted by Tisch. and W.H., though ewe is found in SBC. 
2 DLZ add o Incove after avrowg and W.H. put it in margin. 


* 89B omit avte ; found in DLZA, etc. 


(x) sincerity—adnOis ; (2) fidelity, as a 
religious teacher—xai T. 6 T. 6. év ahnBeig 
SiSacxes; (3) fearlessness—ov péAe, 
etc.; (4) no respecter of persons—ov 
Bdérets, etc. = will speak the truth to 
all and about all impartially. The 
compliment, besides being treacherous, 
was insulting, implying that Jesus was a 
reckless simpleton who would give Him- 
self away, and a vain man who could be 
flattered. But, in reality, they sinned in 
ignorance. Such men could not under- 
stand the character of Jesus thoroughly: 
e.g., His humility, His wisdom, and His 
superiority to partisan points of view.— 
Ver. 17. elwov otv, etc.: the snare, a 
question as to the lawfulness in a 
religious point of view (tear:—fas est, 
Grotius) of paying tribute to Caesar. 
The question implies a possible antago- 
nism between such payment and duty to 
God as theocratic Head of the nation. 
Vide Deut. xvii. 15.—% o¥: yes or no? 
they expect or desire a negative answer, 
and they demand a plain one—responsum 
votundum, Bengel; for an obvious reason 
indicated by Lk. (xx. 20). They de- 
manded more than they were ready to 
give, whatever their secret leanings; no 
fear of them playing a heroic part. 

Vv. 18-22. Christ's reply and its 
effect.—Ver. 18. ‘wovnpiav, vroxpiral, 
wickedness, hypocrites; the former the 
evangelist’s word, the latter Christ’s, 
both thoroughly deserved. It was a 
wicked plot against His life veiled under 
apparently sincere compliments of young 
inquirers, and men of the world who posed 
as admirers of straightforwardness.—Ver. 
Ig. TO vopiopa (Latin numisma, here 
only in N. T.) rod xyvoov, the current 
coin of the tribute, 7.¢., in which the 
tribute was paid, a roundabout name for 
a denarius (Mark).—8nvdprov, a Roman 


coin, silver, in which metal tribute was 
paid (Pliny, N. H., 33, 3, 15; Marquardt, 
Rom. Alt., 3, 2, 147).—Ver. 20. weixor: 
the coin produced bore an image ; perhaps 
not necessarily, though Roman, as the 
Roman rulers were very considerate of 
Jewish prejudices in this as in other 
matters (Holtzmann, H. C.), but at 
passover time there would be plenty of 
coins bearing Caesar’s image and. in- 
scription to be had even in the pockets 
of would-be zealots.—Ver. 21. amd8ore, 
the ordinary word for paying dues 
(Meyer), yet there is point in Chrysos- 
tom’s remark: ov ydp éott Toto Sovvat, 
GAN’ GroSotvar: kal TovTo kai ad 7749 
elkdvos, kal aro THs émtypadis SeixvuTat 
(H. Ixx.). The image and inscription 
showed that giving (ver. 17) tribute to 
Caesar was only giving back to him 
his own. This was an unanswerable 
argumentum ad hominem as addressed 
to men who had no scruple about using 
Caesar’s coin for ordinary purposes, but 
of course it did not settle the question. 
The previous question might be raised, 
Had Caesar a right to coin money for 
Palestine, t.e., to rule over it? The coin 
showed that he was ruler de facto, but 
not necessarily de jure, unless on the 
doctrine that might is right. The really 
important point in Christ’s answer is, 
not what is said but what is implied, 
viz., that national independence is not 
an ultimate good, nor the patriotism that 
fights for it an ultimate virtue. This 
doctrine Jesus held in common with the 
prophets. He virtually asserted it by 
distinguishing between the things of 
Caesar and the things of God. To have 
treated these as one, the latter category 
absorbing the former, would have been 
to say: The kingdom of God means the 
kingdom restored to Israel. By treating 





17—29. 


EYATTEAION 


275 


23. Ev exeivy TH Hepa mpoonNOov abt LadSouxaior, ot! Aéyovres 


py etvor dvdotacw, Kal ennpwtyoav abtdv, 24. Aeyortes, “ Avdd- 


okae, Mworjs etmev, ‘Edy tis dmro8dvy pi Exwv téxva, * émyap-t here only 
in N. T. 


Bpevoer 5 Adehpds adtod Thy yuvatka abTou, Kal dvactice omépHa (Gen. 
25. "Hoav S€ wap ‘piv émra adeApoi: Kal 6 Pyviii's, 


TO AdEAPS adTod.’ 
‘ 


Tp@Tos yapyoas? éredeUTHcE* Kal ph Exwv oTeppa, abiKe Thy uMkxii. 24, 


yuvatka adtod TO 4deh>o adtod. 
Tpitos, ws Tav émrd. 


26. dpoiws kat 6 Sevtepos, Kal 6 i paee 
27. Sotepov Sé mévtwv dnéBave Kat ® 4 yur. viz. Heb. 

28. év TH o8v dvacrdce,! tivos tov éwra EotaL yur; mdvtes yap Jamesi. 
2g. "Amoxpileis S€ 6 “Incots ettev attois, “* M\a- ns hd 


™ > 7» 
EOXOV GUTH. 


1 SSBDZ omit on (Tisch., W.H.). 
word. Vide below. 


It might fall out by similar ending of previous 


2 ynpas in $BLEX, several cursives. yapyoas has probably been substituted as the 
more usual word: it is the reading of D, etc. 
% «at omitted in \QBLA, found in D; may have come in from Mk. 


‘ ovy after avaotace: in BDL. 


them as distinct Jesus said in effect: The 
kingdom of God is not of this world, 
it is possible to be a true citizen of the 
kingdom and yet quietly submit to the 
civil rule of a foreign potentate. This 
is the permanent didactic significance of 
the shrewd reply, safe and true (tutum et 
verum, Bengel), by which Jesus outwitted 
His crafty foes.—Ver. 22. é@avpacav, 
wondered ; the reply a genuine surprise, 
they had not thought it possible that He 
could slip out of their hands so com- 
pletely and so easily. 

Vv. 23-33. The Sadducaic pussle 
(Mk. xii. 18-27, Lk. xx. 27-38).—Ver. 23. 
a poo Gov, approached, but with different 
intent, aiming at amusement rather than 
deadly mischief. Jesus was of no party, 
and the butt of all the parties.—A¢yovres, 
with ot, introduces the creed of the 
Sadducees; without it, what they said to 
Jesus. They came and said: We do not 
believe in the resurrection, and we will 
prove to you its absurdity. This is 
probably Mt.’s meaning. He would 
not think it necessary to explain the 
tenets of the Sadducees to Jewish readers. 
—Ver. 24. Mwojjs eltrev, what is put into 
the mouth of all is a free combination 
of Deut. xxv. 5, 6, with Gen, xxxviii. 8. 
In the latter text the Sept. has émeyap- 


Bpevoat for the Heb. O° = to perform 


the part of a Jevir (Latin for brother-in- 
law) by marrying a deceased brother's 
widow having no children, An ancient 
custom not confined to Israel, but 


practised by Arabians and other peoples 
(vide Ewald, Alterthiimer, p. 278; 
Benzinger, H. A., p. 345).—Ver. 25. 
wap ‘piv: this phrase ‘with us,” in 
Matthew only, seems to turn an ima- 
ginary case into a fact (Holtz., H. C.). 
A fact it could hardly be. As Chrys. 
humorously remarks, after the second 
the brothers would shun the woman as 
a thing of evil omen (otwvicavto av tiv 
yuvatka, H.1xx.).—Ver. 26. €ws tov érra 
till the seven, 1.e., till the number was 
exhausted by death. ‘ Usque eo dum 
illi septem extincti essent”’ (Fritzsche).— 
Ver. 28. ovv, introducing the puzzling 
question based on the case stated.—yuvy 
either subject = whose will the woman be? 
or better, the article being wanting, pre- 
dicate = whose wife will she be? Cf. 
Luke, where yuvy is used twice.—aavres 
yap é.a., all had her, and therefore (such 
is the implied thought) all had equal 
rights. Very clever puzzle, but not 
insuperably difficult even for Talmudists 
cherishing materialistic ideas of the 
resurrection life, who gave the first 
husband the prior claim (Schéttgen). 
Vv. 29-33. Christ’s answer.—One at 
first wonders that He deigned to answer 
such triflers; but He was willing meekly 
to instruct even the perverse, and He 
never forgot that there might be receptive 
earnest people within hearing. The 
Sadducees drew from Him one of His 
great words.—Ver. 29. mwAavao6e, ye err, 
passionless unprovocative statement, as 
if speaking indulgently to ignorant men.— 


276 


vaoGe, pi) cides Tas ypadds, pydé Thy Sdvapty rod Ccod. 


KATA MATOAION 


XXII. 


30. éy 


yop TH dvacrdce: ove yapovow, odTe €xyapiLovrat,! GAN’ ds dyyedo 


Tou cod év? oupava €iot. 


31. mept 8€ ris dvagtdcews Tay vexpar, 


ovk dvéyvute Td pnOev Spiv bwd tod Geod, Myovtos, 32. ‘’Eyd eipu 


& Ocds “ABpadp, Kal 6 Oeds “load, Kal & Oeds "laxwB ;’ 
€or 5° Geds Oeds* vexpdy, GAA Lodvtov.” 


Oux 


33. Kat dxovoartes 


oi Sxdor éferAHooorto emt TH Si8aX7 avrod. 
34- Oi 8€ Gapicator, dkodcavtes St. ehipwoe Tods LadSouxatous, 


v Lk. vii. 30; 


x. 25; xi, TUMHXONGaY ew Td aUTd, 35. Kai emnpdtyoey els ef avTay " vopLKds, 
Pie. iii. a3, mreipdLwv aurdv, kai héywr, 36. “ ArSdoxahe, rota évrod} peyahn 


1 yapilovrar in ${BDL ; the compound in many uncials, 


7 \9BL have tw before ovpava. 
* 49D (Tisch.) omit o. 


meaning clear. Tisch. and W.H. omit, 


DAZ omit. 
W.H. in brackets, 
* The second @eos is wanting in \BDI_A al. 


It has been added to make the 


* wat Aeywy is probably a mechanical addition, It is wanting in MBL 33, Egypt. 
verss.; found in DAZ. Tisch. and W.H. omit. 


pi) elSdres, etc.: doubly ignorant; of the 
Scriptures and of God’s power, the latter 
form of ignorance being dealt with first.— 
Ver. 30. év yap T. avaotaoet might be 
rendered, with Fritzsche, in the re- 
surrection life or state, though in strict- 
ness the phrase should be taken as in 
ver. 28.—@s adyyelot, as angels, so far as 
marriage is concerned, not necessarily 
implying sexlessness as the Fathers 
supposed.—év t@ ovpav@ refers to the 
resurrected dead (Weiss), not to angels 
(Meyer) = they live an angelic life in 
heaven; by the transforming power of 
God.—Ver. 31. Thus far of the mode, 
now of the fact of resurrection.—ovx 
avéyvwre, have ye not read? Many 
times, but not with Christ’s eyes. We 
find what we bring.—ré AnOév vpiv, that 
said to you; to Moses first, but a word 
in season for the Sadducaic state of 
mind.—Ver. 32. "Ey elut, etc., quoted 
from Ex. iii. 6. The stress does not lie 
on elut, to which there is nothing corre- 
sponding in the Hebrew, but on the 
relation implied in the title: God of 
Abraham. Note in this connection the 
repetition of the Divine name before each 
of the patriarchal names, and here the 
article 6 before 6eds each time (not so in 
Sept.). The idea is that the Eternal 
could not stand in such intimate con- 
nection with the merely temporal. The 
argument holds a fortiori in reference to 
Christ’s name for God, Father, which 
compels belief in human immortality, and 


in the immortality of all, for God is 
Father of all men, whereas the text quoted 
might avail in proof only of the immor- 
tality of the great ones, the heroes of the 
race.—ovx éorw 6 Qeds, with the article 
eds is subject, and the idea: God does 
not belong to the dead ; without, it would 
be predicate = He is not a God of the 
dead. Onsecond 6s vide critical notes. 

Vv. 34-40. The great commandment 
(Mk. xii. 28-34).—In a still more marked 
degree than in the case-of the man in 
quest of eternal life, Mk.’s account pre- 
sents the subject of this incident in a 
more favourable light than that of Mt. 
The difference must be allowed to stand. 
Mk.’s version is welcome as showing a 
good side even in the scribe or Pharisee 
world.—Ver. 34. dakxovoavrtes, hearing ; 
not without pleasure, if also with annoy- 
ance, at the uniform success of Jesus.— 
ebl(pwoev: silenced, muzzled, from dipds, 
a muzzle (ver. 12, used in literal sense in 
Deut. xxv. 4).—Ver. 35. els 2& airav 
one of the men who met together to con- 
sult, after witnessing the discomfiture 
of the scribes, acting in concert with 
them, and hoping to do better.—vopurds : 
here only in Mt., several times in Lk. 
for the scribe class = a man well up in 
the law.—Ver. 36. ola évrohy: what 
sort of a commandment ? it is a question 
not about an individual commandment, 
but about the qualities that determine 
greatness in the legal region. This was 
a question of the schools. The dis. 





30—42. 


> ra , ri ” 
EV TO VOLO ; 


EYATTEAION 


277 


37. “0 8é "Inoods etrev! atta, “’Ayamjcets Kuptov 


Tov Gedy gou, év Sy TH Kapdia cou, Kat év Sly TH WuXA cou, Kal ey w with é 


ee a , 
ody TH Savoia cou. 


, ~ ‘ 
39. Seutépa 8€% Spola adty,* “Ayarycers tov myoioy gou ds 


oeauTov. 


mpopytar * kpépavta.” 5 


41. Luvnypevav S€ Tdv dapicaiwy, émnpdtyncev aitods 6 "Ingods, 
42. héywv, “Ti bpiv Sone mepi tod Xprotod ; 


38. att éoti mpdtyn Kal peyddyn? évtody. 


40. év TavTats tats Suclv évtoAats ddos 6 vouos Kal ot 


tut here 
only; with 
ex and 
gen. in 
Acts 
XXVili. 4; 
with ewe 
and gen., 
Gal. iii. 13 
(of one 
hanging 


, ce, > ” 
TLVOS ULOS EOTL ; On a cross). 


1 For o S¢ Inoovs evrev NBL, Egypt. verss., have o 8 epn. So Trg., Tisch., 


W.H., Ws. 


2 peyadn Kat mpwrn in SBDLZ. The scribes would be apt to introduce the 
inverted order (as in T. R.) as the more natural. 


5 $9B omit &e. 


‘For opowa avtT B has simply opows, which W.H. place in the margin. 


Perhaps it is the true reading. 


>In S$BDLZE the verb comes before @: wpopyras and is singular ; doubtless the 


true reading. 


tinction between little and great was re- 
cognised (vide chap. v. 19), and the 
vrounds of the distinction debated (vide 
Schéttgen, ad loc., who goes into the 
matter at length). Jesus had already 
made a contribution to the discussion by 
setting the ethical above the ritual (xv. 
1-20, cf. xix. 18-22).—Ver. 37. ayar- 
yjoets, etc. Jesus replies by citing Deut. 
vi. 5, which inculcates supreme, devoted 
love to God, and pronouncing this the 
great (weyaAn) and greatest, first (rpwrn) 
commandment. ‘The clauses referring 
to heart, soul, and mind are to be taken 
cumulatively, as meaning love to the 
uttermost degree; with ‘all that is 
within” us (wavra ta évrds pov, Ps. ciii. 
1). This commandment is cited not 
merely as an individual precept, but as 
indicating the spirit that gives value to 
all obedience.—Ver. 39. Sevtépa: a 
second commandment is added from 
Lev. xix. 18, enjoining loving a neigh- 
bour as ourselves. According to T. R., 
this second is declared like to the first 
(6pota aity). The laconic reading of B 
(Sevr. Gpoiws) amounts to the same 
thing = the second is also a great, first 
commandment, being, though formally 
subordinate to the first, really the first 
in another form: love to God and love to 
man one. Euthy. Zig. suggests that 
Jesus added the second commandment 
in tacit rebuke of their lack of love to 
Himself.—Ver. 40. 6. 6 vépos kpéparat. 
Jesus winds up by declaring that on 


these two hangs, is suspended, the whole 
law, also the prophets = the moral drift 
of the whole O. T. is love; no law or 
performance of law of any value save as 
love is the soul of it. So Jesus soars 
away far above the petty disputes of the 
schools about the relative worth of 
isolated precepts ; teaching the organic 
unity of duty. 

Vv. 41-46. Counter question of Fesus 
(Mk. xii. 35-37; Lk. xx. 41-44).—Not 
meant merely to puzzle or silence foes, 
or even to hint a mysterious doctrine as 
to the Speaker’s person, but to make 
Pharisees and scribes, and Sanhedrists 
generally, revise their whole ideas of the 
Messiah and the Messianic kingdom, 
which had led them to reject Him.— 
Ver, 42. t tpiv Soxet; what think 
you ? first generally of the Christ (aepi 
7. X.); second more particularly as to 
His descent (tivos vids éort). — rod 
AaBis, David’s, the answer expected. 
Messiah must be David’s son: that was 
the great idea of the scribes, carrying 
along with it hopes of royal dignity and 
a restored kingdom.—Ver. 43. mds ovv, 
etc.: the question is meant to bring out 
another side of Messiah’s relation to 
David, based on an admittedly Messianic 
oracle (Ps. cx. 1), and overlooked by the 
scribes. The object of the question is 
not, as some have supposed, to deny in 
toto the sonship, but to hint doubt as to 
the importance attached to it. Think 
out the idea of Lordship and see where 


278 


Adyovow ait, “Tod AaBis.” 


KATA MATOAION 


XXII. 43—46. 


43. Ad€yet adrots, “Mas ody AaBid 


x Cf. mvev-* av *arvedpate Kiptov adtov Kahet!; héywr, 44. ‘ Elrev 5* Kipros 


ware in 


Gal. v. 5. T@ KUpiw prov, KdBou éx Sefdv pou, ews Gv 96 Tods exPpots cou 


StromdS.ov 2 tOv wodav cov.’ 


A ea > A ” 
y here, mWOs ulds attou éott ; 


one 


45. Ei odv AaBid cadet adrdv Kupror, 


6. Kat oddets éS0vato att a&roKxpiOjvat 4 
> drroxpiOj 


ohn xxi, AOyors o08€ * érdApno€ Tis dm éxelyns THs hpépas émepwricat 


12 al, ao. 3 
(with inf,), @UTOV OUKETL. 


‘ SQBDLZ put cadet first, but differ in the order of kuptov avroyv. 


29 omitted in NBDZ. 
4 amon. avtw in NBDLZAX. 


it will lead you, said Jesus in effect. 
The scribes began at the wrong end: at 
the physical and material, and it landed 
them in secularity. Ifthey had begun 
with Lordship it would have led them 
into the spiritual sphere, and made them 
ready to accept as Christ one greater 
than David in the spiritual order, though 
totally lacking the conventional grandeur 
of royal persons, only an unpretending 
Son of Man. 

CHAPTER XXIII. THE GREAT ANTI- 
Puarisaic Discourse. This is one of 
the great discourses peculiar to the first 
Gospel. That some such words were 
spoken by Jesus in Jerusalem in the 
Passion week may be inferred from Mk. 
xii. 38-40, Lk. xx. 45-47. The few sen- 
tences there reported look like a frag- 
ment, just enough to show that there 
must have been more-—-too meagre (gar 
zu dirftig., De W.) to have been all that 
Jesus said on such a large topic at such 
a solemn time. A weighty, deliberate, 
full, final statement, in the form of a 
dying testimony, was to be expected from 
One who had so often criticised the pre- 
vailing religious system in an occasional 
manner in His Galilean ministry—a 
summing up in the head-quarters of 
scribism of past prophetic censures 
uttered in the provinces. In sucha final 
protest repetitions might be looked for 
(Nésgen). In any case, whether all the 
words here brought together were spoken 
at this time or not, the evangelist did 
well to collect them into one body, and 
he could not have introduced the collec- 
tion at a more appropriate place. 

Vv. 1-12. Introduction to the dis- 
course.—Ver. I. Tots SxAotg Kal 7. 
padynrais: the discourse is about scribes 
and Pharisees, but the audience is con- 
ceived to consist of the disciples and the 
people. Meyer describes the situation 
thus: in the foreground Jesus and His 


3 vroxatw in NBDL al. 


disciples ; a little further off the 3yAos ; 
in the background the Pharisees.—Ver. 
2. émi t. M. xadéSpas, on the seat of 
Moses, short for, on the seat of a teacher 
whose function it was to interpret the 
Mosaic Law. The Jews spoke of the 
teacher’s seat as we speak of a professor’s 
chair.—éxa@ioav, in effect, a gnomic 
aorist = solent sedere (Fritzsche), not a 
case of the aorist used as a perfect = have 
taken and now occupy, etc. (Erasmus). 
Burton (Syntax) sees in this and other 
aorists in N, T. a tendency towards use 
of aorist for perfect not yet realised: 
‘‘ rhetorical figure on the way to become 
grammatical idiom, but not yet become 
such,”’ § 55.—ot ap. Wendt (L. F., i., 
186) thinks this an addition by the evan- 
gelist, the statement strictly applying only 
to the scribes.—Ver. 3. etmwoy, say, in 
the sense of enjoining ; no need therefore 
of rypetv as in T. R.—arowjoare kat 
typettre: The natural order if the pre- 
vious typetv be omitted. The diverse 
tenses are significant, the former pointing 
to detailed performance, the latter to 
habitual observance. Christ here recog- 
nises the legitimacy of the scribal func- 
tion of interpretation in a broad way, 
which may appear too unqualified and 
incompatible with His teaching at other 
times (Mt. xv. 1-20) (so Holtz., H. C.). 
Allowance must be made for Christ’s 
habit of unqualified statement, especially 
here when He is going to attack in an 
uncompromising ‘manner the conduct of 
the Jewish doctors. He means: as 
teachers they have their place, but be- 
ware of following their example.—Ver. 
4 illustrates the previous statement.— 
Seopevovor, etc., they bind together, 
like sheaves, heavy backloads of rules. 
Think, ¢.g., of the innumerable rules for 
Sabbath observance similar to that pro- 
hibiting rubbing ears of corn as work— 
threshing. — 8voBdotaxta may be a 





XXIII. 1—6. 


EYATTEAION 


279 


XXIII. 1. TOTE 6 *Inaods eXddyge Tots SxAots Kal Tots pabyTalsa here only 


in this 


attod, 2. héywv, ‘Emt tis Mwcéws kabédpas éxdbioay ot ypappatets sense(Gen 


kal ot apicaio.: 3. wdvta ovv dca av! 


ov TroLouct. 
Kat émTiOéacw émt Tovs 


aitav ov 6édouct °Kivjoar autd. 


Totovat mpds TO OeabFvar Tots avOpwrots. 


» Ch ~ 9 = XXXVii. 7. 

eitwow piv Thpelv,” THpELTE Judith viii, 

‘ age a Se x ” orn x fava Nat Xe A y 3, Spay- 

kat tovette 8+ Kata S€ Ta Epya auTay ph movette* A€youcs yap Kal jira). Lk. 
, Vill, 29. 

4. “Seopevouar yap* poptia Bapéa kai SucBdorakta,> Acts xxii 

A a (to put 

*Spous Tov avOparwy - TO S€ SaxtUdry ° inchaine) 

-~ _b here and 

5. mavta S€ Ta Epya avTav in Lk. x. 

“mdatdvoucr 8€7 Th. Bh. xxvii 

*pudakTypia att@y, Kat peyaddvoust Ta Kpdoteda Tov ipatiwy 3? ae 

aurav®- 6, gidodat te® thy ‘mpwroxdiciay év Tots Seimvors, Kal move, the 
and fro). 


Acts xxiv. 5 (to excite, metaph.). 
e here only in N. T. f Lk. xiv. 7, 8. 


da Cor. vi. 11, 13 (of the broadening or enlarging of the heart). 


1 eav in NLZAX; av in BD (Tisch.,, W.H. have eay). 


2 8BDLZ omit typew. 


3 SSBDLZ invert the order of the two verbs. 


4 Be in BLA 33. 
5 &9L omit nat SvoBaoraxta (Tisch.). 


D has wouete, the rest moinoate. 


BDAz have the words, which may have 


come in from Lk. (xi. 46), but may also be a genuine reading (W.H. in margin), 


6 For tw Se SaxtvAw SBDL read avrou Se tw Sax. 


8 WBD omit tov patiey auTwy. 


spurious reading imported from Lk. xi. 
46, but it states a fact, and was doubtless 
used by Jesus on some occasion. It shows 
by the way that He had no thought of un- 
qualified approval of the teaching of the 
scribes.—émt T. Gpovs, on the shoulders, 
that they may feel the full weight, de- 
manding punctual compliance.—atrol 
Se +. SaxTvAq, etc., they are not willing 
to move or touch them with a finger; 
proverbial (Elsner) for ‘‘will not take the 
smallest trouble to keep their ownrules”’, 
A strong statement pointing to the subtle 
ways of evading strict rules invented by 
the scribes. ‘‘ The picture is of the 
merciless camel or ass driver who makes 
up burdens not only heavy, but unwieldy 
and so difficult to carry, and then placing 
them on the animal’s shoulders, stands 
by indifferent, raising no finger to lighten 


or even adjust the burden” (Carr, 
CG ds): 

Vv. 5-7. The foregoing statement is 
of course to be taken cum grano. 


Teachers who absolutely disregarded 
their own Jaws would soon forfeit all 
respect. In point of fact they made a 
great show of zeal in doing. Jesus 
therefore goes on to tax them with acting 
from low motives.—Ver. 5. amavta 8é, 
etc., in so far as they comply with their 
rules they act with a view to be seen of 


7 yap in BDL, curs. verss. 
* 8 in NBDLAY. 


men. This is a repetition of an old 
charge (Mt. vi.).—mAatuvovat yap, etc. : 
illustrative instances drawn from the 
phylacteries and the tassels attached to 
the upper garment, the former being 
broadened, the latter lengthened to 
attract notice. The phylacteries (pvAax- 
tpta) were an admirable symbol at once 
of Pharisaic ostentation and Pharisaic 
make-believe. They were little boxes 
attached to the forehead and the left arm 
near the heart, containing pieces of 
parchment with certain texts written on 
them (Ex. xiii. 1-10, 11-16; Deut. vi. 
4-10; xi. 13-22) containing figurative 
injunctions to keep in memory God’s 
laws and dealings, afterwards mechani- 
cally interpreted, whence these visible 
symbols of obedience on forehead and 
arm. The size of the phylacteries indexed 
the measure of zeal, and the wearing of 
large ones was apt to take the place of 
obedience. It was with the Pharisees as 
with Carlyle’s advertising hatter, who 
sent a cart through the street with a huge 
hat in it instead of making good hats. 
For details on phylacteries and fringes 
consult works on Jewish antiquities. 
Lund, Fiidischen Heiligthiimer (1701), has 
a chapter (p. 796) on the dress of the 
Pharisees with pictorial illustrations. It 
has been discussed whether the name 


280 


KATA MATOAION 


XXIII. 


gparall.and Tag * mpwroKxadeSpias ev Tats cuvaywyats, 7. Kal Tods dowacpods ey 
Tats dyopais, kai KkaheloBar bmd Tav dvOpdmwv, paBBi, paBBi'- 
8. dpeis S€ ph KAnOAre, faBBi- els ydp eotw Spav 6 Kabnynrys, 


Lk. xi. 43. 


& Xpiotds *- 


mdvtes S€ Gpets AdeXpol ore. 


9. Kal marépa pp) 


kahéonte Opav emi ris yas: els ydp eorw 6 watip spar,’ & év tots 


h here only otlpavots.4 
in N. T xadnynts,° F Xpuords. 


10. pnde KdnOiTe, 


“xaOnyntai: eis yap bpav éorw 6 


15. 6 8€ petiwv Spay Eotar dpav SidKovos. 


12. dotis S€ SWdoe éauTdv, raTewwOijceTaL: Kal Sorts Tawewdcet 


dautév, bpwOyceTar. 


13- ““Ovai 3€ Gpuiv, ypappatets Kai Papicaior, Srokpitai, St 
, a ~ ‘ 
KateoQlete Tas oikias TaY xnpOy, Kal mpopdcer pakpd mpogeuxé- 


1 SQ BLAX omit the second par. 


2 BU, several cursives, have o §i8acKadogs instead of o xa. o Xptoros, which 


seems a gloss from ver. 1o. 
3 vypwy before o watnp in WBZ 33. 


* 0 ovpavtos for o ev T. ovpavots in HBL 33. 


Fort kadny. up. eotiv ets in BDL 33. 


vx. points to the keeping of the law or 
to the use of these things as amulets to 
ward off harm. The former was doubt- 
less originally in view, but the super- 
stitious abuse would soon creep in. The 
word is the equivalent in Hellenistic 


Greek for the Chaldee if 25> prayers. 


—Ver.6. mpwtokdiciav: with religious 
ostentation goes social vanity, love of the 
first place at feasts, and first seats 
(wpwroxafedpias) in synagogues; an 
insatiable hunger for prominence.—Ver. 
7. Tovs aomacpods, the (usual) saluta- 
tions, in themselves innocent courtesies, 
but coveted because offered in public 
places, and as demonstrations of respect. 
—pafBi, literally, my great one, like the 
French monsieur ; in Christ’s time a new 
title of honour for the Jewish doctors 
(vide Lightfoot, Ewald. Gesch. Christi, 
p- 305; Schiirer, ii., p. 315, who says the 
title came into use after the time of 
Christ).—Ver, 8. tpeis, you, emphatic: 
the Twelve, an earnest aside to them in 
especial (an interpolation by the evan- 
gelist, Weiss-Meyer), be not ye called 
Rabbi.—pq KdnOATe, ‘Do not seek to be 
called, if others call you this it will not 
be your fault’. Euthy. Zig.—Ver. 9g. 
matépa = abba, another title of honour 
for the Rabbis (Schéttgen). The clause 
is to be translated: a father of you call 
not upon earth = do not pronounce this 
sacred name with reference to men. 
Vide Winer, § 64, 4, and cf. Heb. iii. 13. 


—Ver. ro. «xadnyntat, kindred with 
68yyot (ver. 16), guides, leaders in 
thought, desiring abject discipleship 


from followers. Gradatio: Rabbi, pater, 
ductor, Beng. The threefold counsel 
shows the intensely anti-prelatic spirit 
of Jesus. In spite of this earnest warn- 
ing the love of pre-eminence and leader- 
ship has prevailed in the Church to the 
detriment of independence, the sense of 
responsibility, and loyalty to God.— 
6 Xpirrés: in this place though not in 
ver. 8 a part of the true text, but possibly 
an addition by the evangelist (‘‘a proof 
that Matthew here speaks, not Jesus,” 
H. C.).—Vv. 11, 12, repeat in substance 
the teaching of xx. 26: xviii. 4; worth 
repeating and by no means out of place 
here. 

Vv. 13-31. The seven woes.—There 
are eight, if we count that in ver. 13 of 
T. R., but as this ver. is omitted in the 
best MSS. and appears to be a gloss from 
Mk. and Lk. I do not count it. Vide 
notes on Mk, xii. go. These woes seem 
to be spoken directly to the scribes and 
Pharisees. Weiss regards this as a 
rhetorical apostrophe, the disciples being 
the real audience throughout.—Ver. 14. 
umoxpttal. Vide at vi.2. This epithet 
is applied to the scribes and Pharisees 
in each of the woes with terrific iteration. 
—rhelete, ye shut the gates or the doors 
of the Kingdom of God, conceived asa 
city or palace. This the real effect of 
their action, not the ostensible. They 





7—16. 


pevor* 8d TodTo AjnpecVe weproadrepoy Kpipa.! 


EYATTEAION 


281 


14. Odai? Spty, 


A a , , , 
Ypapparets Kat Papigator, UmoKpiTat, ott KNeiete THY Baordetay 


~ > ~ »” ~ > , 
Tv otpavay Eumpocbey tav avOpamrwy - 
, a 
oud Tovs eicepyopevous adiete cicehOetv. 
an a“ , @ 
PaTels Kal Papicator, bnoenitt Ti ears tiv @ddaccay Kat 


ns 
i > 
Thy Enpav Troujoat eva. 1 pooyuror, Kal oTay Ee TFOLELTE auTov ae with 


uidy yeéeryns Simddrepoy bpov. 


Aéyortes, “Os Gv dudon ev 7H vad, obdév eat: Os B Gy dpdon ev 43. 


16. Odat pty, S3yyol Tuddot, 


Spets yap otk eicépxecde, 


I Odat Gpty a 

5: piv, yp rie job Gh a5 

(without 
yiy AG, 


cn ant 'W.H. )}s 
Ol j Acts ii. 10; 
vi. 5; xiii. 


1 Ver. 13 omitted in $§BDLZ, some cursives, versions (including Syr. Sin.), 


I‘athers, and by modern editors. 


2 §¢ must be supplied here if ver. 13 be omitted. 


claimed to be opening the Kingdom 
while really shutting it, and therein lay 
their hypocrisy. —tpmpoobey T. Ge: as it 
were in men’s faces, when they are in 
the act of entering.—wtpets yap, etc. Cf. 
Vv. 20. They thought themselves 
certainly within, but in the judgment of 
Jesus, with all their parade of piety, 
they were without.—r. eloepxopevous, 
those in the mood to enter, in the act of 
entering; the reference is to sincere 
seekers after God, and the statement is 
that the scribes were the worst advisers 
such persons could go to: the effect of 
their teaching would be to keep them 
out. This is the position implied 
throughout the Sermon on the Mount 
and in xi. 28-30.—Ver. 15. The second 
woe is the complement of the first: it 
represents the false guides, as, while 
utterly incompetent for the function, 
extremely eager to exercise it.—7weptia- 
yere, ye move about, intransitive, the 
accusative following being governed by 
Tepl.—t. Enpay, the dry (land), some- 
times typa is similarly used for the sea 
(examples in Elsner). Cf. Wvxpév for 
cold water in x. 42. To compass sea 
and land is proverbial for doing anything 
with great zeal.—r. éva mpooyAvtov, to 
make a single proselyte. The zeal here 
ascribed to the Pharisees seems in one 
sense alien to their character as described 
in Lk. xviii. 11. One would expect them 
rather to be pleased to be a select few 
superior to all others than to be animated 
with a burning desire to gain recruits 
whether from Jews or from Gentiles. 
For an elaborate discussion of the 
question as to the existence of the 
proselytising spirit among the Jews vide 
Danz’s treatise in Meuschen, Nov. Test. 
ex Tal. illustratum, p. 649. Vide also 
Wetstein, ad loc. Winsche (Beitrage, 
p- 285) cites passages from the Talmud 


to prove that the Pharisees, far from 
being addicted to proselytising, were 
rather reserved in this respect. He con- 
cludes that Mt. xxiii. 15 must refer not 
to making proselytes to Judaism from 
Gentiles, but to making additions to 
their sect from among Jews (Sectirerei). 
This, however, is against the meaning 
of mpoorAvtos. Assuming the fact to 
have been as stated, the point to be 
noted is that the Pharisees and scribes 
aimed chiefly, not at bringing men into 
the Kingdom of God, but into their own 
coterie.—8imAdtepov v., twofold more, 
duplo quam, Vulgate. Kypke, while 
aware that the comparative of dios 
(SumAdtepos) does not occur in profane 
writers, thinks it is used here in the 
sense of deceitful, and renders, ye make 
him a son of gehenna, more fraudulent, 
more hypocritical than yourselves. 
Briefly the idea is: the more converted 
the more perverted, ‘“‘je bekehrter desto 
verkehrter ” (Holtz., H. C.). 

Vv. 16-22. The third woe refers to 
the Jesuitry of the scribes in the matter 
of oaths; the point emphasised, how- 
ever, is their stupidity in this part of 
their teaching (cf. Mt. v. 33 f.), where 
Christ’s teaching is directed against the 
use of oaths at all.—Ver. 16. 68ny. 
tuphol, blind guides, not only deceivers 
but deceived themselves, lacking spiritual 
insight even in the simplest matters. 
Three instances of their blindness in 
reference to oaths are directly or in- 
directly indicated: oaths by the temple 
and the gold of the temple, by the altar 
and the offerings on it, by heaven and 
the throne of God therein. The principle 
underlying Rabbinical judgments as to 
the relative value of oaths seems to have 
been: the special form more binding 
than the general; therefore gold of the 
temple more than the temple, sacrifice on 


282 


kabsol. here TO 
andinver. ‘ 


KATA MATOAION 


XpuoG tod vaod, * detde. 


XXIL1. 


17. pwpol Kal Tupdot+ tis yap 


"Sonly, pethwv éoriv, 6 xpuods, 6 vads 6 dytdhwr! tiv yxpucdvi 


1 Lk. xiii. 4 
(W.H,). 
Acts i. 19; 


dpdoy ev TH BSdpw TH erdvw adtod, ddeidet. 


18. Kai, “Os dy dpdon év tO Ouoiacrypiw, obS€v eat: ds 8 dy 


19. pwpot kat? 


ii. 9, 14, TupAots Th yap petLov, Td Sdpor, % 1d Ouortacthpiov Td dyidLov Td 


and other 


places  S@pov; 
(with acc. 
of place). 

mCh.xxvili. , , 5 ae 
2,with G0TO Kal éy TO “ KaTOLKOUVTL 
eTravw 
and gen. 


laytacas in NBDZ. 


20. 6 obv dudoas ev TH Ouctactypiw dprder ev atte Kal 
‘ ‘ 


év maou Tots emdvw adtod* 21. Kal 6 dpdcas év Ta vad ouvder ev 


, ~ lal 
abTov’ 22. kai 6 dpdcag év TO odpava 


dprder év 7G Opdvw Tod cod Kai év TA ™ KaOnpévw emdvw adTod. 


2 wwpat Kat omitted in $DLZ. BCAzasin T, R.; Tisch. omits; W.H. relegate 


to margin. 


3 katouxnoayTe in CDLZAX al. 
KaToukynoayTe in margin. 


altar more than altar, throne of God in 
heaven more than heaven. Specialising 
indicated greater earnestness. Whether 
these forms of oath were actually used 
or current, and what precisely they 
meant, e.g., gold of the temple: was it 
ornament, utensil, or treasure? is 
immaterial. They may have been only 
hypothetical forms devised to illustrate 
an argument in the schools.—ov8év éon, 
opeider: the formulae for non-binding 
and binding oaths; it is nothing (the 
oath, vis.); he is indebted, bound to 


performance = \\5f},—Ver. 17. 


yap peiLov: Jesus answers this question 
by asserting the opposite principle to 
that laid down by the Rabbis: the 
general includes and is more important 
than the particular, which He applies to 
all the three cases (vv. 17, 19, 22). This 
is the more logical position, but the 
main point of difference is moral. The 
tendency of the Rabbis was to enlarge 
the sphere of insincere, idle, meaningless 
speech. Christ’s aim was to inculcate 
absolute sincerity = always mean what 
you say; let none of your utterances be 
merely conventional generalities. Be 
as much in earnest when you say ‘‘by 
the temple”’ as when you say ‘“ by the 
gold of the temple” ; rather be so truth- 
ful that you shall not need to say either. 

Vv. 23-24. The fourth woe refers to 
tithe-paying (Lk. xi. 42).—amwodexatotre: 
a Hellenistic word=ye pay tithes, as in 
Gen. xxviii. 22; to take tithes from in 
Heb. vii. 5, 6.—7Svocpoy, avnfov, cvpr- 
vow: garden herbs—mint (literally, sweet 
smelling), dill, also aromatic, cumin 
(Kimmel, German) with aromatic seeds. 


tls 


KaToikouytt in NB it. vul. Tisch., W.H., with 


All marketable commodities, used as con- 
diments, or for medicinal purposes, pre- 
sumably all tithable, the point being 
not that the Pharisees were wilful in 
tithe-paying, but that they were ex- 
tremely scrupulous. Vide articles in 
Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible. The 
Talmud itself, however, in a sentence 
quoted by Lightfoot (‘‘decimatio oleorum 
est a Rabbinis”) represents tithing of herba 
as arefinement of the Rabbis.—ra Bapv- 
tepa: either, the weightier, in the sense 
of xxii. 36 (Meyer), or the more difficult 
to do, in the sense of ver. 4 (Weiss after 
Fritzsche). The idea seems tobe: they 
made a great show of zeal in doing what 
was easy, and shirked the serious and 
more arduous requirements of duty.—r. 
xp(ovy, righteous judgment, implying and 
=the love of righteousness, a passion for 
justice.—7é €deos, neuter, after the fashion 
of later Greek, not tov €Xeov, as in T. 
R.: mercy; sadly neglected by Phari- 
sees, much insisted on by Jesus.—r. 
atoviv, faith, in the sense of fidelity, true- 
heartedness. As a curiosity in the history 
of exegesis may be cited the use of this 
text by Schortinghuis, a Dutch pietist of 
the eighteenth century, in support of the 
duty of judging the spiritual state of 
others (xpiowv) ! Vide Ritschl, Geschichte 
des Pictismus, i., 329.—rTatra the greater 
things last mentioned.—éSe., it was your 
duty to do.—dxeiva, and those things, 
the tithings, etc.: this the secondary 
duty; its subordinate place might be 
brought out by rendering: ‘‘ while not 
neglecting to pay tithes as scrupulously 
as you please”, Bengel thinks tatra 
and éxetva here refer not to the order 
of the words but to the relative import- 





17—26. 


EYATTEAION 


283 


“cc eh er aldead = ‘ ia) , 0a n> . ‘ 
23. “Oval uty, ypaypatets Kal Papicator, GwoKpitat, OTe ™ daro- n Lk. xi. 42; 


XViii. 12. 


a ‘ <e 
Sexatoite Td HSvocpov Kat Td GynPov Kai Td KUptvov, Kal d>yKaTe Heb. vii-s. 


Ta BapUtepa Tod vouou, Thy Kplow Kal tov ENeov! Kal Thy miotwW- 
Taita? ee. moijoat, Kdxetva pi adrévar.® 
ot* °SidiLovres Tov Pxdvwma, Thy Sé Kdpyndov *katativortes. 
25. Oval Spiv, ypappatets Kat Papicaior, droKpitat, dt. kabapilere 
TO €EwOev Tod ToTHpiou Kal THs Tapoidos, Eowley S€ yeuouor ef > 


re a Age , 
apTayns Kat "aKpactas. 


TO €vTds TOO ToTHpiou Kal THs TapoWpidos,® iva yevnrat Kal Td exTds 


attav™ kabapdv. 


1 +o eheos in BDL. 
2 $e after ravta in BCLAZ. 
F adewar in NBL. 


26. dapicate tupheé, Kabdpicov mpadtorv 


o here only 
an NGL. 

, (Amos vi. 

24. S8nyot tuddot, 6). 

p here only 
in N. T. 

q Rev. xii. 
16 (same 
sense). 1 
Cor. xv. 
54. 2 Cor. 
v.4. Heb. 
xi, 29 (to 
swallow 
eis 

t Lk. x1. 39. 
Heb. x. 34. 

8 1 Cor. vii. 5. 


Tov eAeov a grammatical correction. 


adgrevac in CDAZ ai, 
* o. omitted in BL, by oversight, Weiss thinks. 


Tisch. retains, W.H. omit. 


5 CD omit e§, which, however, is in BLAZ, and is retained by Tisch., W.H., 


and other editors. 


S xa tns wapoyibos is in \BCLAX al., but is omitted by D, and may be a 
mechanical repetition from ver. 25 (Tisch. omits, W.H. bracket). 


7avtov in BD and several cursives, the natural reading if kat rns mapow. be 


omitted. 


ance of the things (‘‘non pro serie ver- 
borum, sed pro ratione rerum’’). On this 
view ‘‘these’”’ means tithe-paying. — 
Ver. 24. SwdriLovres (Ska and An, 
Passow), a little used word, for which 
Hesychius gives as a synonym, 8néo, 
to strain through.— Tov Kevwra, tH 
kapndov, the gnat, the camel: article 
as usual in proverbial sayings. The 
proper object of the former part. is otvoy : 
straining the wine so as to remove the 
unclean midge. Swallowing the camelis a 
monstrous supposition, but relevant, the 
camel being unclean, chewing the cud 
but not parting the hoof (Lev. xi. 4). 
The proverb clinches the lesson of the 
previous verse. 

Vv. 25-26. Fifth woe, directed against 
externalism (Lk. xi. 39-41).—r7js wapowpt- 
Sos, the dish, on which viands were served. 
In classics it meant the meat, not the dish 
(rd Gov ovxl Sé TS Gyyeiov, Phryn., p. 
176). Rutherford (New Phryn., p. 265) re- 
marks that our word ‘‘dish” has the 
same ambiguity.—érwlev 82 yépovcwy é€ : 
within both cup and plate are full of, or 
from. é« is either redundant or it points to 
the fulness as resulting from the things 
following : filled with wine and meat pur- 
chased by the wages of unrighteousness : 
luxuries acquired by plunder and licence. 
The verb yépove. occurs again in ver. 27 


without éx, and this is in favour of the 
second view. But on the other hand in 
ver. 26 the vessels are conceived of as 
defiled by aprayy and axpacia, there- 
fore presumably as filled with them. Here 
as in vi. 22, 23, the physical and ethical 
are mixed in the figure.—Ver. 26. apt- 
gate tupdé: change from plural to 
singular with increased earnestness, and 
a certain friendliness of tone, as of one 
who would gladly induce the person ad- 
dressed to mend his ways.—xaGdpioov: if 
éf, ver. 25, is taken = by, then this verb will 
mean: see that the wine in the cup be 
no more the product of robbery and un- 
bridled desire for other people’s property 
(Weiss and Meyer). On the other view, 
that the cup is filled with these vices, the 
meaning will be, get rid of them.—tva 
yévntat, etc., in order that the outside 
may become clean. The ethical clean- 
ness is conceived of as ensuring the cere- 
monial. Or, in other words, ethical 
purity gives all the cleanness you need 
(‘‘all things are clean unto you,” Lk. xi. 
41). Practically this amounts to treating 
ceremonial cleanness as of little account. 
Christ’s way of thinking and the Phari- 
saic were really incompatible. 

Vv. 27-28. Sixth woe, referring to no 
special Pharisaic vice, but giving a 
graphic picture of their hypocrisy in 


284 


KATA MA'TCAION 


XXIII. 


‘ “ - ‘ a 
27. “Oval duty, ypapparets Kat Papicator, Swoxperat, Sri wap- 
t Ch. xxvii opoudtLere! *rdpois “Kexoveapévors, oitwes ebwev pev aivovtar 


61, 64, 66; Z 

xxviii. 1. * @patot, Eowbev S€ yenoucw dotéwy vexpdv Kal mdons dxalapalas. 

om. 1M, a a 

tory 28. otrw Kai Speis efwler pev datvecde tots avOpdmoig BSixaror, 
» Acts Xx, 

pa Eowbey S€ pectoi ote? broxpicews kal dvopias. 29. Odal spir, 
v Acts iii. 2, 


to, Rom, ypappaters Kal Papicator, SroKpital, STL ocKoSomerte TOdS Tddou 
? Pp Ss S 


xX. 15. 


a A ‘ a a A 
TOv TpopyT@y, Kal koopeite TA pynpeta Tov Sixalwy, 30. kal 


héyere, Et per ® ev tals hpepars tov Tatépwy hpOv, odx ay jpev > 


Ww ~ Sa eae’ | 
w Lk. v. ro. KOLYWYOL QAUTWY 


« Cor. x 
18, 20. 
Heb. x. 33. 


> ~ o A ~ 
€y TO Atpate TOY TpOpyTay. 


TAnpwcate® Td péTpoy Tay Tatépwy Spay. 


31. dote paptupeite 


i 6 A e 1 aay edie n~ ‘ , que a 
éauTots, OTL ulol €oTe TOV hoveugdyTwy Tos Tpopytas: 32. kal UPELS 


33- Sets, yevyjpara 


1 B 1 have the simple opoafere, which W.H. place in the margin. 


2 eote peorot in NBCDL 13, 33, 69 al. 


8 mpe8a in both places in most uncials, including &BCDL. 


* avtwy before xowwvos in BD (W.H.). 


* edypwoete in B 60, ewAnpwoate in D; both, according to Weiss, arising from 
inability to understand the sense of the imperative (W.H. have B’s reading in 


margin). 


general (cf. Lk. xi. 44).—Ver. 27. mapo- 
povalere, in B épordLere, under either form 
an hapaxleg.—xKexoviapeévots (from xovia, 
dust, slaked lime), whitewashed, referring 
to the practice of whitewashing the sepul- 
chres in the month Adar, before passover 
time, to make them conspicuous, inad- 
vertent approach involving uncleanness. 
They would be wearing their fresh coat 
just then, so that the comparison was 
seasonable (vide Wetstein, ad loc.).— 
tEwhev, ErwSev, again a contrast between 
without and within, which may have 
suggested the comparison.—epaiot, fair, 
without; the result but not the intention 
in the natural sphere, the aim in the 
spiritual, the Pharisee being concerned 
about appearance (chap. vi.).—- do0réwv, 
etc., revolting contrast: without, quite 
an attractive feature in the landscape ; 
within, only death-fraught loathsome- 
ness.—Ver. 28. ovUtw, etc.: the figure 
apposite on both sides; the Pharisaic 
character apparently saintly; really in- 
wardly, full of godlessness and immorality 
(avopias), the result being gross syste- 
matic hypocrisy. 

Vv. 29-33. Final woe (Lk. xi. 47-48), 
dealing with yet another phase of hypoc- 
risy and a new form of the contrast 
between without and within; apparent 
zeal for the honour of deceased prophets, 
real affinity with their murderers.—Ver. 
29. olxoSopetre, may point to repair or 
extension of old buildings, or to new 
edifices, like some modern monuments, 


the outcome of dilettante hero-worship.— 
tagovs, pvnpeta, probably synonyms, 
though there may have been monuments 
to the dead apart from burying places, 
to which the former word points.— 
wpodytev and Stkatwy are also practi- 
cally synonymous, though the latter is 
a wider category.—koopette points to de- 
coration as distinct from building opera- 
tions. Firrer (Wanderungen, p. 77) 
suggests that Jesus had in view the 
tomb of Zechariah, the prophet named in 
the sequel, in the valley of Jehoshaphat, 
which he describes as a lovely little 
temple with ornamental half and quarter 
pillars of the Ionic order.—Ver. 30. eé- 
yete: they not merely thought, or said by 
deed, but actually so pointed the moral 
of their action, not trusting to others 
to draw the inference.—vpe8a, not in 
classics, Hpnv the usual form of sing. in 
N. T. being also rare; the imperfect, but 
must be translated in our tongue, ‘if we 
had been”. For the imperfect, used 
when we should use a pluperfect, vide 
Mt. xiv. 4, and consult Burton, § 29.— 
ovKn Gv 7peGa, the indicative with Gy, as 
usual in suppositions contrary to fact, 
vide Burton, § 248.—Ver. 31. @ore, with 
indicative expressing result = therefore. 
—avtois, to and against yourselves. 
Jesus reads more meaning into their 
words than they intended : ‘‘ our fathers ”’; 
yes! they are your fathers, in spirit as 
well as in blood.—Ver. 32. wal, and, as 
ye have called yourselves their sons, 





27—36. 


3 by A ~ , SAS a f? La , 
EXLOVOV, TAS HUyHTE GTO THS KPLoEwS THS yEevvyns ; 


EYATTEAION 


285 


34. Atd TovTo, 


idou, éy amoore\Xw Tpds Spas mpopytas Kai gohods Kat * ypappa- x vide Ch. 


a = a ‘ A 
tets: kal! €& adtav dwoKxtevette kal otaupdcete, kal ef abtav 


xiii. 52. 


pactiydoete €v Taig ocuvaywyats Sudv, Kal Sidfere awd 1ddews 


eis modu: 35. Srws EAOy Ef Spas wav alpa Sikarov exxuvdpevoy ” 


518: fol lol > a fol ° » nw , oa A o 
€ml THS yis, ard ToU alpatos ABeX tod Stkalou, €ws To alwatos 


, nw A A ~ 
Zaxaptou viod Bapaxiou, dv ébovedoate petagd Tod vaot Kal Tod 


Ouotacrypiou. 


36. dphy déyw Spiv, Hée taita wdvta® ent thy 


1 SQBAX 1, 13, 33, 69 a/. omit xas, found in CDL. 
2 exyuvvopevoy in SBCDAL al., 1, 33 al. 
8 q@avta tavtTa in BXAX (W.H. in margin); as in T. R., in ${CDL, Vul. Cop. 


(Tisch., W.H. in text). 


so show yourselves to be such indeed 
(Weiss).—aAnpdoate. The reading wAn- 
pwoere is due to shrinking from the idea 
conveyed by the imperative. To the 
same cause is due the permissive (Grotius 
al.) or ironical (De W.) senses put 
upon the imperative. Christ means what 
He says: ‘“ Fill up the measure of your 
fathers ; crown their misdeeds by killing 
the prophet God has sent to you. Do at 
last what has long been in your hearts. 
The hour is come.”—Ver. 33. Awful 
ending to a terrific charge, indicating 
that the men who are predestined to 
superlative wickedness are appropriately 
doomed to the uttermost penalty. —deus, 
yev. éxiSvav ; already stigmatised as 
false, fools, blind, they are now described 
as venomous, murderous in thought and 
deed. Cf. iii. 7.—mwGs dvynrte, the de- 
liberative subjunctive. ‘ The verb of a 
deliberative question is most frequently 
in the first person, but occasionally in 
the second or third. Mt. xxiii. 33, Rom. 
x. 14.”—Burton, § 170. 

Vv. 34-36. Peroration (Lk. xi. 49-51). 
—Ver. 34. Sua toro. The sense requires 
that this be connected with both vv. 32 
and 33. ‘The idea is that all God’s deal- 
ings with Israel have been arranged from 
the first so as to ensure that the genera- 
tion addressed shall fill up the measure 
of Israel’s guilt and penalty. The refer- 
ence of dmooréAdw is not confined to 
what had been done for that generation. 
It covers all the generations from Abel 
downwards. The form in which the 
thought is expressed at first creates a 
contrary impression: “Eyo amooréAhw. 
But either the éy® is used in a supra- 
historical sense, or it must be regarded 
as a somewhat unsuitable word, and the 
correct expression of the source found in 
Luke’s 4 codia Tod Oeod eimev, what fol- 


lows becoming thus a quotation, either 
in reality from some unknown writing, 
as many think, or in the conception of 
the speaker. I see no insuperable diffi- 
culty in taking Mt.’s form as the original. 
Olshausen conceives of Jesus as speak- 
ing, not as a personality involved in the 
limits of temporal life, but as the Son of 
God, as the essential wisdom of God. 
The éy® might be justified without this 
high reference to the Divinity of Jesus, 
as proceeding from His prophetic con- 
sciousness in an exalted state of mind. 
The prophet habitually spoke in the 
name of God. Jesus alsoat sucha great 
moment might speak, as it were imper- 
sonally,in the name of God, or of wisdom. 
Resch, Agrapha, p. 274 ff., endeavours 
to show that ‘the wisdom of God” 
was, like ‘‘the Son of Man,” one of the 
self-designations of Jesus. Whether that 
be so or not, I think it is clear from this 
passage, and also from .Mt. xi. 28-30 
(vide remarks there), that He did some- 
times, aS it were, personate wisdom. 
The present @woo-réAhw, regards the his- 
tory of Israel sub specie acternitatis, for 
which the distinction of present and past 
does not exist.—mpodytas, etc.: these 
names for the Sent clearly show that 
past and present are both in view. It is 
not merely the apostles, ypapparets (cf. 
xiii. 52) =amoorédovs, Lk. xi. 49, that are 
in view.—oravpecerte, a hint at the im- 
pending tragic event, the Speaker one of 
the Sent.—xal é& avtéy, etc.: a glance at 
the fortunes of the Twelve. Cf. chap. x. 
16-23.—Ver. 35. 6mws €A6y: divine in- 
tention read in the light of result. God 
sent messengers that they might be 
killed, and that Israel by killing them 
might deserve to suffer in the final gene- 
ration wrath to the uttermost. Vide on 
Mt. xxii. 7,—atpa, thrice named; “ ter 


286 


KATA MATOAION 


XXIII. 37—39. 


y > priv. yevedy ravTyy. 37. ‘lepougadip, ‘lepoucadrp, %) dwoxteivouca tods 


xiii. 27. 
Lk. xiii.34; 


Tpopytas Kat AdoBododca Tods dweotahpévous mpds adtTyy, toodKis 
pass. Mk. /0Anoa 7 émouvayayetw Ta téxva gou, "dy 


* tpdtrov emouvdyer 


c Lk. xiii. 34. Rev. iv. 8; 


1. 33. Lk. , , a 
aE 4. 1 ta > voooia éautas? bwd Tas ° mrépuyas, kal ox iOedjoate ; 
+ 37s > ‘ , <a ed » ‘ “. 

seame a Pot, ails fr é ti Spay Epypos®+ 39. Aéyw yap spiv, 

uk. xiii, O80 € lOnTe Gm apTt, € t 5 

ee py " c apTt, éws Gy eimyte, Eddoynpevos & epxdpevos er 

i. 11; vii. Ovépate Kupiou. 

28. 2 Tim. 

iii. 8. a here and in Lk. xiii. 94. b here in N. T. (Ps. lxxxiv. 3). 

ix. 9; xii. 14. 


2 opvis before ertovvaye: in EDL 1, 33, 69 al. 


2 auTns in NDA 33 (Tisch.). 
autys, but within brackets). 


3 BL omit epynpos, found in very many uncials (\¥CDAX al.) and versions. 


B has neither avrng nor eavtns (W.H. have 


The 


omission might be an assimilation to Lk. (xiii. 35), where the word is wanting in 


many of the best MSS., but it is more likely to be an explanatory gloss. 


below. 


hoc dicitur uno hoc versu magna vi,” 
Bengel.—amé rt. 4., etc., from the blood 
of Abel, the first martyr, mentioned in 
the first book of the Hebrew Bible, to 
the blood of Zechariah, the prophet 
named in the last book (2 Chron. xxiv. 
20-22).—viod Bapaytov, the designation 
of the last but one of the minor prophets, 
applied here to the other Zechariah, by 
inadvertence either of the evangelist or 
of an early copyist.—év éovevoate, 
whom ye (through your spiritual ances- 
tors) slew; fact as stated in 2 Chron. 
xxiv. 21.—Ver. 36. apy: solemn intro- 
duction of a statement terrible to think 
of: sins of countless generations accum- 
ulating for ages, and punished in a final 
representative generation ; true, however 
terrible. 

Vv. 37-39. Apostrophe to the Holy 
City (Lk. xiii. 34).— Elra mpds thy mod 
arootpéper Tov Adyov. Chrys., H. Ixxiv. 
—Ver. 37. ‘lepovcadyp, the Hebrew 
form of the name, exceptional in Mt., 
very appropriate to the solemn situation. 
Twice spoken; why? ‘It is the fashion 
of one pitying, bewailing, and greatly 
loving,” Chrys. —Gmoxtetvovoa, A.Bo- 
Bodotca: present participles, denoting 
habit and repute, now and always be- 
having so—killing, stoning.—1pés avrny, 
to her, not to thee, because the rede 
are in the nominative, while ‘lepovraAnp 
is vocative: ‘‘exemplum compellationis 
per vocativum ad quam deinceps non 
amplius spectatur’’ (Fritzsche). Grotius 
regards the transition from second to 
third person as an _ Orientalism.— 
mogoakts, how often; on this word has 
been based the inference of frequent 


Vide 


visits to Jerusalem not mentioned in the 
Synoptics. But the allusion may be to 
the whole history of Israel (so Orig., 
Hil., Jer.,) and to the whole people, as 
the children of the metropolis, the 
Speaker still continuing to speak in the 
name of God, as in ver. 34, and including 
Himself among God’s agents.—épuis, a 
bird or fowl; after Plato, a hen; so 
here, the emblem of anxious love. @eppov 
76 {Gov wept tad exyova, Chrys. She 
gathers her chickens under her wings for 
protection against impending danger. 
This Jesus and all the prophets desired 
to do; a truth to be set over against the 
statement in vv. 34-35, which seems to 
suggest that God’s aim was Israel’s 
damnation.—ra voocla (Attic, veorrta: 
form disapproved by Phryn., p. 206), her 
brood of young birds. Cf. Ps. Ixxxiv. 4, 
where, as here, a pathetic use is made 
of the emblem.—otx 7behqjoare, ye 
would not, though I would (70éAn@a). 
Man’s_ consent necessary.—Ver. 38. 
tSov, etc., solemn, sorrowful abandon- 
ment of the city to its fate—adlerar 
tpiv, spoken to the inhabitants of 
Israel.—é6 olxos ¥., your house, i.¢., the 
city, not the temple; the people are 
conceived of as one family.—€pnpos, 
wanting in BL, and omitted by W.H., 
is not necessary to the sense. The 
sentence is, indeed, more impressive 
without it: ‘Behold your house is 
abandoned to your care: those who 
would have saved you giving up further 
effort”. What will happen left to be 
imagined ; just what €pypos expresses— 
desolation.—Ver. 39. am’ apt, from 
this moment, Christ’s prophetic work 


XXIV. 1—3. 


XXIV. 1. KAI éfeOdv 5 "Incods eémopeveto amd Tob tepod! 
mpoojAOoy of pabyrat adtod émdetar adTd Tas oikodopas TOU tepou. 
2. 6 8€ “Inoods? etmev adtots, “Od Bdémete wavta tatTa*; aphy 
héyw Spiv, od ph ddeOf de AiBos emi AiBov, Ss od pi * * karaduby- b 


” 
oeTar. 


adT@ ot padytat Kar iBiav, héyortes, “Eimé fpiv, mote tadta 
A A a , ‘ a , 
Zotar; Kal Tl Td onpetov THs OFS ” mapoucias, Kal THs ° *cuvTEelas 


EYATTEAION 


3. KaOnpévou S¢ adtod ei Tod Gpous Tav éhatav, poc7Bov 


287 


Kal a parall. Ch 
XXVi. 61. 
Acts vi. 
14. 2Cor. 
v.1. Gal. 
ii. 18. 
again vv 
27, 37) 39. 
nowhere 
else in 
Gospp., 
frequent 

in Epistles. 

c vide Ch. 

Xiii. 39 


1 awo Tov tepov etropeveto in SBDLAZ (so modern editors). 


2 For o 8 Ingovs $NBDL al. versions have o Se arroxpiOers without Incovs. 


3 ravuta mavra in NBCLX al. 
4 py wanting in NBCDLXAZX al, 


done now: it remains only to die.—éws 
av etrnre: a future contingency on 
which it depends whether they shall ever 
see Him again (Weiss in Meyer). He 
will not trouble them any more till their 
mood change and they be ready to re- 
ceive Him with a Messianic salutation. 

The exquisite finish of this discourse, 
in the case of ordinary orators, would 
suggest premeditation and even writing. 
We have no means of knowing to what 
extent Jesus had considered beforehand 
what He was to say on this momentous 
occasion. The references to the whited 
sepulchres and the tombs of the prophets 
show that the speech was in part at 
least an extempore utterance. 

CHAPTER XXIV. THE APOCALYPTIC 
Discourse. This chapter and its 
synoptical parallels (Mk. xiii., Lk. xxi.) 
present, in many respects, the most 
difficult problem in the evangelic records. 
Many questions may be, have been, 
asked concerning this discourse on things 
to come. Which of the three versions 
comes nearest to what Jesus said? Did 
He say all that is here reported on this 
occasion, or have we in all the versions, 
more or less, a combination of words 
spoken at different times? Were the 
words here collected, all of them, or even 
the greater number of them, ever spoken 
by Jesus at any time; have the evan- 
gelists not worked up into the discourse 
a Jewish, or Jewish-Christian, apoca- 
lypse, or given us a composition of 
their own, consisting of certain logia of 
the Master, as the nucleus, with addi- 
tions, modifications, and comments in 
the light of subsequent events? Finally, 
what is the didactic significance of the 
discourse, what did Jesus mean to teach 
His disciples respecting the themes 
treated: the Ruin of the Holy City, 


D has the words in same order as T. R. 


5 ens omitted in BCL 1, 33 al. 


the Coming of the Son of Man, and the 
End of the Age, and the connection 
between these things? A history of 
opinion on these topics cannot here be 
given; aconfident attempt at answering 
the questions propounded I am not pre- 
pared to make; perhaps a final satis- 
factory solution of the problem is not 
attainable. I offer only a few general 
considerations which may, at least, help 
readers to assume aright attitude towards 
the problem, and to bring to the study of 
the discourse a sympathetic spirit. 

1. The time was suitable for some 
such utterance. The situation was this: 
Jesus expecting death in a few days; 
convinced that the moral and religious 
condition of the Jewish people is hope- 
lessly bad, and that it must ere long end 
in disaster and ruin; surrounded by 
friends who are to be, after the decease 
of their Master, the missionaries of a 
new faith in a troublous time, when an 
old world is going down and a new 
world is coming into being. Here surely 
is an occasion to provoke the prophetic 
mood! At such supreme crises pro- 
phetic utterances, apocalyptic forecasts, 
are inevitable. Here they are, whom- 
soever we have to thank forthem. From 
whom are they more likely to have pro- 
ceeded than from Him who had such 
clear insight into the moral forces at 
work, and into the spiritual phenome- 
nology of the time ? 

2. The aim of any prophetic discourse 
Jesus might deliver at this crisis, like that 
of all true prophecy, would be ethical ; 
not to foretell, like a soothsayer, but to 
forewarn and forearm the representatives 
of a new faith, so that they might not 
lose their heads or their hearts in an evil 
perplexing time—not to gratify curiosity 
but to fortify against coming trial. 


288 


J 4 ea) ” 
d with uy TOU GLWVOS ; 


and aor. : ae ? 
sub. Mk. py Tis pas wAavyon. 
xiii. 5. 
Lk. xxi. 8. Lou, éyorTes, 
Acts xiii. 

40. 1 Cor, viii. 9; x. 12. 


3. Prophetic utterance with such an 
aim would not need to be exact in state- 
ments as to dates and details, but only to 
be true as to the sequence and general 
character of events. From all we know 
of Hebrew prophecy it was to be ex- 
pected that the prophesying of Jesus 
would possess only this latter kind of 
truth, instead of being like a “ history of 
events before they cometo pass’’, The 
version of the evangelic apocalypse that 
least resembles the description of pro- 
phecy now quoted from Butler’s Analogy 
(part ii., chap. vii.) will come nearest to 
the original utterance. This considera- 
tion tells in favour of Mt. and Mk. 

4. All prophetic or apocalyptic utter- 
ances have much in common; phraseo- 
logy and imagery tending to become 
stereotyped. The prophetic literature 
of the O. T. had indeed provided a 
vocabulary, which by the Christian era 
had become normative for all speech 
concerning the future. Hence Jewish, 
Jewish-Christian, and Pauline utterances 
of this kind would in many particulars 
resemble one another, and it might be 
difficult to decide by mere internal evi- 
dence from what circle any particular 
utterance emanated. But it is not pro- 
bable that the evangelists would introduce 
into a professed report of a discourse 
by Jesus a current apocalypse of known 
Jewish origin unless they had reason to 
believe that Jesus had adopted it, or en- 
dorsed its forecast of the future (vide 
Weizsacker, Untersuchungen iiber die 
Evang. Gesch., pp. 126, 551). 

5. As we have seen reason to believe 
that in previous reports of our Lord’s 
Discourses (e.g., of the Sermon on the 
Mount and of the Mission Discourse, 
chap. x.) grouping of kindred material 
irrespective of historical occasion has 
taken place, so we cannot be surprised if 
traces of a similar procedure present 
themselves here. The remark applies 
especially to the latter part of the 
chapter, vv. 37-51, which contain logia 
given by Lk. in other connections (chaps. 
xii. and xvii.). 

Vv. 1-3. Introduction (cf. Mk. xiii. 
1-4; Lk. xxi. 5-7).—Ver. 1. é&edOav, 
going out from the temple, within whose 
precincts the foregoing anti-Pharisaic 
manifesto had been spoken. The position 


KATA MATOAION 


XXIV. 


4. Kal doxpubels 5 "Ingots etwev adrois, “4 Bhéirere, 
5. woddol yap éNedoovrar emt TO dvdpari 
"Ey eipt & Xpiords: Kat toddAods mayijcouat. 
Gal. v.15. Heb. xii. 25; with wi and fut. ind. Col. ii.8. Heb. iii. 12. 


assigned to &wé tov lepod before the 
verb, éwop. in the best MSS., suggests 
connection with é&eA@av. Some, however 
(Weiss, Schanz, etc.), insist that the 
words must be taken with érop. to give 
to the latter a definite sense. In reality 
they go along with both, the full meaning 
being: going out from the temple. He 
was going away from it, when, etc.— 
éwopeveto: the imperfect, indicating an 
action in progress when something else 
happened. There is an emphasis on the 
idea of the verb. He was going away, 
like one who did not mean to return. 
Hence the action of the disciples next 
reported.—émSeigar: they came to their 
Master, going before in a deeply pre- 
occupied mood, and tried to change the 
gloomy current of His thoughts by in- 
viting Him to look back at the sacred 
structure ; innocent, woman-like but 
vain attempt.—ras olkoSopas: the 
whole group of buildings belonging to 
the holy house; magnificent, splendid, 
as described by Josephus (B. J., v., 5, 
6), appearing to one approaching from a 
distance like a snow mountain (pe 
xtovos mAnpe) topped with golden 
pinnacles, which for forty years, in his 
Napoleonic passion for architecture, 
Herod the Great had been building to 
the glory of God and of himself.—Ver. 
2. 6 8é diox., but, adversatively. He 
answered, in a mood entirely different 
from theirs.—ov Bdéqere; do you not see 
all these things ? = you ask me to look 
at them, let me ask you in turn to takea 
good look at them.—ratra : these things, 
not buildings, implying indifference to 
the splendours admired by the disciples. 
—ov pi adeOq, etc.: mot an exact 
description ex eventu, but a strong state- 
ment of coming destruction (by fire) in 
prophetically coloured language (Micah 
iii. 12; Jer. xxvi. 18). So Holtz., H.C.— 
Ver. 3. An interval of silence would 
naturally follow so stern a speech. This 
verse accordingly shows us Jesus with 
His disciples now on the other side of 
the Kidron, and sitting on the slope 
of Olivet, with face turned towards 
Jerusalem ; Master and disciples sitting 
apart, and thinking their own thoughts. 
Satisfied that the Master means what 
He has said, and not daring to dispute 
His prophetic insight, they accept the 


I—~7. 


6. MedAnjoete 82 dkxovew modduous Kat °dkods modpey. 
wh *Opocicbe+ Set yap wévta! yeveoPar. 
7. Eyep9jcetat yap €0vos émt eOvos, kal Bactdeta émi Bacthelay: 

kat €oovrat iypot Kat Aotpot,? Kat ceipol fxata § +émous. © 


EYAITEAION 


289 


dpate, e vide Ch. 


A a iv. 24. 
GN’ oUtw éott 1d TéAOS. £ Mk. xiii. 7, 
z Thess. 
ii. 2. 
same | 
phrase in 
Mk. xiii. 8, 


1 wayra omitted in DBL 1, 33, 209. The sentente is more impressive without. 


7S3BD a b e ff? omit kat Aotpot possibly by similar ending (Weiss). 
Mod. editions omit (Trg. in margin). 


are in CA® al. 


fate predicted for Jerusalem, and now 
desire to know the when and how.—xazt’ 
titav looks as if borrowed from Mk., 
where it refers to four of the disciples 
coming apart from the rest. It goes 
without saying that none but the Twelve 
were there.—rl 76 onpetov T. o. 7., etc. 
The questioners took for granted that 
all three things went together: destruc- 
tion of temple, advent of Son of Man, 
end of the current age. Perhaps the 
association of the three helped them to 
accept the first as a fact. Weizsacker 
(Untersuchungen, p. 549, note 1) suggests 
that the second and third questions are 
filled in by the evangelist to correspond 
with the answer. So also Weiss in 
Meyer. The main subject of interroga- 
tion is the predicted ruin; when will it 
happen, and how shall it be known when 
itis at hand, so as to be prepared for 
it? Cf. Mk. and Lk., where this alone 
is the subject of question.—mapovola 
(literally presence, second presence) and 
ovvtéAeia TOU aig@vos are the technical 
terms of the apostolic age, for the second 
advent of Christ and the close of the pre- 
sent order of things, and they occurin Mt. 
only, so far as the Gospels are concerned. 
Do not the ideas also belong to that age, 
and are not the questions here put into 
the mouth of the Twelve too advanced 
for disciples? 

Vv. 4-14. Signs prelusive of the end. 
(Mk. xiii. 5-13, Lk. xxi. 8-19).—Ver 4. 
BAéwere: again (vide ver. 2), but here= 
see to it, take heed. Cf. Heb. iii. 12.— 
wiavjoy, lest any one deceive you; 
striking the practical ethical keynote of 
the whole discourse: its aim not to 
gratify curiosity, but to guard against 
deception and terror (pt Opoeto Ge, ver. 6) 
—heads cool, hearts brave, in a tragic 
epoch.—Ver. 5. woAXot yap éAevoovrat, 
etc., the first omen the advent of pseudo- 
Messiahs. This first mentioned, quite 
naturally. Ruin of Jerusalem and the 
nation will come through revolt against 
Rome, and the deepest cause of revolt 
will be the Messianic hope as popularly 
understood. Volcanic outbursts of 


The words 


Messianic fanaticism inevitable, all the 
more that they have rejected the true 
spiritual Christ. Josephus testifies that 
this was the chief incentive to war 
against Rome (B. J., vi. 54). The aim 
of the popular Messianic hope was inde- 
pendence, and all leaders of movements 
having that goal in view came in the 
name of ‘Christs,” whether they 
formally assumed that name or not. It 
is doubtful if any did before the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem, but that does not 
falsify Christ’s prediction, which is ex- 
ressed in terms of an idea rather than 
in technical terms suggested by fact. It 
is not a vaticinium ex eventu; yet 
strictly true, if we understand by one 
coming in the name of Christ a leader of 
the fight for liberty (vindicem libertatis, 
Grotius).—aohhots wAavfcovoiw. The 
political Christs, leaders of the war 
against Rome, deceived the bulk of the 
people. Jesus wished His followers to 
hold entirely aloof from the movement. 
To warn them against sympathising with 
it was by no means superfluous (vide Lk. 
xxiv. 21, Acts i. 6).—Ver. 6. Second 
Sign: wars.—ohénovs Kal dxods w.: 
vague phrase suitable to the prophetic 
style, not ex eventu; well rendered in 
A. V. ‘wars and rumours of wars” = wars 
near and remote (Bengel, Meyer), or 
better: ‘‘actual and _ threatened” 
(Speaker’s Com.), The reference is not 
to wars anywhere in the world, but to 
those in the Holy Land, arising, as they 
were sure sooner or later to do, out of 
Messianic fanaticisms. Christ speaks 
not out of foreknowledge of the actual 
facts as reported by contemporary 
historians and collected by modern 
commentators (Grotius, etc.), but by 
prophetic logic: given Messianic hopes 
misdirected, hence wars, hence ruin.— 
peAAryjoere, future of a verb, whose very 
meaning points to the future: ye will be 
about to hear, by-and-by, not for a 
while; often delusive times of peace 
before tragic times of war. Vide 
Carlyle’s French Revolution, book i.— 
Opare, pr) Ppoetce, see, be not scared 


~I9 


290 


b Mk. xiii 8. 8. wdvra Sé tradra dpxh * ddiver. 


Acts ii. 24. 


KATA MATOAION 


XXIV. 


9. Téte wapaddcougw Spas 


rThess.v.ets OA, Kal diroKTevodow buds: Kat evecbe piooujevor Ord 
. 2 


wavtwy Tay eOvav Sid Td Svopd prov. 


IO. kal TéTe ckavdahia0y- 


govtat ToOAKoL, Kal &AArjous Tapadadaouar, Kal proyrouow &AAH ous * 


out of your wits (@podw, originally = cry 
aloud; later use = to terrify, as if with 
a scream ; here passive in neuter sense). 
This reference to coming wars of libera- 
tion was natural, and necessary if the 
aim was to fortify disciples against 
future events. Nevertheless at this point, 
in the opinion of many critics, begins 
the so-called “‘ Jewish apocalypse,” which 
Mk. and after him Mt. and Lk. have 
interwoven with the genuine utterance 
of Jesus. The latter embraces all about 
false Christs and apostolic tribulations 
(4-5, 9-14, 22-23), the former all about 
war, flight, and the coming of the Son 
of Man with awful accompaniments (7-8, 
15-22, 29-31). Vide Wendt, L. J.,i., p 
10 f., where the two series are given 
separately, from Mk., following in the 
main Weiffenbach. This critical 
analysis is ingenious but not convinc- 
ing. Pseudo-Christs in the sense ex- 
plained and wars of liberation went 
together in fact, and it was natural they 
should go together in prophetic thought. 
The political Messiahs divorced from the 
politics become mere ghosts, which 
nobody need fear.—&et ydp y. Their 
eventual coming is a divine necessity, 
let even that consideration act as a 
sedative ; and for the rest remember that 
the beginning of the tragedy is not the 
end —aA)’ otrw t.7.: the end being the 
thing inquired about—the destruction of 
the temple and all that went along with 
it.—Ver. 7. Further development of the 
war-portent, possibly here the prophetic 
range of vision widens beyond the 
bounds of Palestine, yet not necessarily. 
In support of limiting the reference to 
Palestine Kypke quotes from Josephus 
words describing the zealots as causing 
strife between people and people, city 
and city, and involving the nation in 
civil war (B. J., iv., 6).—Atpot kat Aoipol, 
famines and pestilences, the usual 
accompaniments of war, every way likely 
to be named together as in T. R.—«at 
gwetopot, and earthquakes, representing 
all sorts of unusual physical phenomena 
having no necessary connection with the 
political, but appealing to the imagina- 
tion at such times, so heightening the 
gloom. Several such specified in com- 
mentaries (vide, e.g., Speaker’s C., and 
Alford, from whom the particulars are 


quoted), but no stress should be laid on 
them.—kara témovs: most take this as 
meaning not earthquakes passing from 
place to place (Meyer) but here and 
there, passim. Vide Elsner and Raphel, 
who cite classic examples. Grotius 


enumerates the places where they 
occurred.—Ver. 8. wavra 85: yet all 
these but a beginning of pains. It is 


not necessary to find here an allusion to 
the Rabbinical idea of tne birth pangs of 
Messiah, but simply the use of a 
natural and frequent Biblical emblem 
for distress of any sort. As to the date 
of the Rabbinical idea vide Keil. The 
beginning: such an accumulation of 
horrors might well appear to the in- 
experienced the end, hence the remark to 
prevent panic. 

Vv. 9-14. Third sign, drawn from 
apostolic experiences. This passage 
Weiss regards as an interpolation into 
the prophetic discourse by Matthew 
following Mark. It certainly resembles 
Mt. x. 17-22 (much less, however, than 
the corresponding passage in Mk. y; and 
individual phrases may be interpolations: 
but something of the kind was to be ex- 
pected here. The disciples were not to 
be mere spectators of the tragedy of the 
Jewish nation destroying itself. They 
were to be active the while, preaching 
the gospel of the kingdom, propagating 
the new faith, bringing in a new world. 
Jesus would have them go on with their 
work undistracted by false enthusiasms, 
or warlike terrors, and to this end assures 
them that they will have both to do and 
to suffer a great deal before the final 
crisis of Jerusalem comes. The ground 
of this prophetic forecast as to their 
experience is faith that God will not 
allow the work He (Jesus) has inaugu- 
rated to perish. The gospel will be 
preached widely, with whatever tribula- 
tions to the preachers.—Ver, 9. OAtuv, 
from 8A{Bw, originally pressure (orévwcts, 
Hesychius), in N. T. tropical, pressure 
from the evils of life, affliction. Again 
in ver. 29, in reference to the Jewish 
people. The apostles also are to have 
their thlipsis.—amoxrevovow tpas, they 
will kill you. Lk. xxi. 16 has ‘‘some of 
you”’ (é tpov). Some qualification of 
the blunt statement is needed ; such as: 
they will be in the mood to kill you (cf. 


8—15. 


II. Kal woddol Weuvdorpopfrat éyepOijcovrar, Kat whavycouc: Toh- i 
hots: 12. Kat Sid 7d 'aAnSuvOAvar Thy dvopiay ? puyjoeror 3 

dyday Tov wodhav: 13. 6 S€ bropetvas cis TéNOS, oUTOS GwOjoETaL. 24. 
14. Kal knpuyOycetat Toiro Td edayyédiov Tis Baciheias ev OAy TH 
oixoupévn, eis paoTUpLoy Tact tois €Oveot. 


TéNos. 
LK. xvi. 15. 


John xvi. 2).—rév é@vav: not in Mark, 
universalising the statement = hated by 
all the nations, not Jews only.—Ver. 
Io. oKavdadto$ycovrar: natural sequel 
of apostolic tribulation, many weak 
Christians made to stumble (vide xiii. 
21); this followed in turn by mutual 
treachery and hatred (kat add‘Aovs, 
etc.).—Ver. 11. w evdorpod rat, false 
prophets. The connection requires that 
these should be within the Christian 
community (otherwise in ver. 24), giving 
false presentations of the faith with 
corrupt motives. A common feature in 
connection with new religious move- 
ments (vide on vii. 15).—Ver. 12. dvoutay. 
Weiss and Holtzmann (H. C.) take this 
in the specific sense of antinomianism, 
a hibertine type of Christianity preached 
by the false prophets or apostles, the 
word in that sense of course to be credited 
to the evangelist. The word as used by 
Christ would naturally bear the general 
sense of godlessness or iniquity. We 
may wonder at the use of such a word 
in connection with nascent Christianity. 
It would require a considerable time to 
make room for such degeneracy. But 
the very point Jesus wishes to impress 
is that there will be room for that before 
the final crisis of Israel comes.—wuyjo- 
erat, etc., will cool the love of many. 
wy. is an hapax leg. 2nd future passive 
of Wixw, to breathe. One of the sad 
features of a degenerate time is that 
even the good loose their fervour.— 
aya, love of the brotherhood, here 
only in this sense in Synoptical Gospels, 
the distinctive virtue of the Christian, 
with a new name for a new thing.—Ver. 
13. 6 tropetvas, he that endureth; the 
verb used absolutely without object. 
The noun tropovy is another of the 
great words of the N. T. Love and 
Patience, primary virtues of the 
Christian: doing good, bearing ill. 
The endurance called for is not merely 
in love (Fritzsche), but in the faith and 
life of a Christian in face of all the evils 
enumerated.—eis réAos, to the end, z.e., 
of the @Alys, as long as there are trials 


EYATTEAION 


15. “Otay ody iSnte 76 | PS€huypa Tis ™ Epnpdoews, To pry Sev 


Rev. xvii. 4, 5; xxi. 27. 


291 


here and 
in Acts vi. 
7; Vii. 17; 
1x. 31; xii. 
j here only 
in N, T. 
\ ’ Or I Ra Gi wiles 
kal tote her “TO xv. 24 (rd 
téAos ab- 
solutely). 
IMk. xiii. 14. 


m Mk. xiii. 14. Lk. xxi. 20. 


to endure.—ow@jcerat, shall be saved in 
the sense of xvi. 25. The implied truth 
underlying this test is that there will be 
ample time for a full curriculum of trial 
testing character and sifting the true 
from the false or temporary Christian.— 
Ver. 14 asserts the same thing with 
regard to the preaching of the gospel of 
the kingdom: time for preaching it in 
the whole world, to all nations, before 
the end. Assuming that the terminus 
is the same this statement seems incon- 
sistent with that in x. 23. But the aim 
is different in the two cases. On the 
earlier occasion Jesus wished to ensure 
that all Israel should hear the gospel 
before the end came; therefore He 
emphasised the shortness of the time. 
Here He wishes to impress on the 
disciples that the end will not be for a 
good while; therefore He emphasises 
the amount of preaching that can be 
done. Just on this account we must 
not strain the phrases év 6Aq 7. oik., 
maciv tots €0. They simply mean: 
extensively even in the Hetihon world. 
But they have the merit of setting before 
the disciples a large programme to occupy 
their minds and keep them from thinking 
too much of the coming catastrophe. 
Vv. 15-22. The end at last (Mk. 
xiii. 14-20, Lk. xxi. 20-24).—6rtay ody, 
when therefore, referring partly to the 
preceding mention of the end, partly to 
the effect of the whole preceding state- 
ment: “This I have said to prevent 
premature alarm, not, however, as if the 
end will never come; it will, when 
therefore, etc.”’ ; the sequel pointing out 
the sign of the end now near, and what 
to do when it appears.—76 B&dAvypa 
TIS épypdcews: this the awful portent; 
what? The phrase is taken from Daniel 
as expressly stated in following clause 
(rd py9ev, etc.), vzde Dan. ix. 27, xi. 31, 
xii. 11. There and in 1 Macc. i. 54 it 
seems to refer to some outrage on Jewish 
religious feeling in connection with the 
temple (q@xodépnoay B. ép. ért To Ovora- 
otyptoy are the words in 1 Macc. 1. 54, 
similarly in vi. 7). In a Jewish apoca- 


292 


p Acts vi. x3 Std Aavidd Tod mpobiyrow, éotds ev 


(of the 
pag aah voeitw ‘) 
cf. John 
xi. 48 

(réros, of 
the land), aUTod ° 


autoo. 
év éxelvats Tals ipépats. 


lew in BDAY al. 
be the true reading. 


KATA MATOAION 


XXIV, 


* réTrw dyia - (6 avreyirmore 


16. téte of dy TH ‘lovdaia pevyérwoay emi! ra Spas 
17. 6 éml tod Sépartos ph earapuivdre Gpai tu® ék tis oikias 
18. kal 6 év TO dyp@ pi emotpepdtw dmiow dpa Ta tdtea 
1g. odal S€ tats ev yaotpi éxovcats Kai tais OndaLovoats 
20. mpoceixeoOe S€ iva ph yévntar 4 


The parall. have ets, and just on that account em (LZ) may 


2 xataBatw in NBDLZE& al. (Tisch., W.H.). 


Srain BLZAX al. rein D. 
4 ro ywatiov in NBDLZZ al. 


lypse, which this passage is by some 
supposed to form a part of, it might be 
expected to bear a similar meaning, a 

technical sense for a stereotyped ex- 
pression. Not so on the lips of Jesus, 
who was not the slave of phrases but 
their master, using them freely. Then 
as employed by Him it must point to 
some broad, easily recognisable fact, 
which His followers could at once see 
and regard as a signal for flight; a fact 
not merely shocking religious feeling but 
threatening life, which He would have 
no disciple sacrifice in a cause with 
which they could have no sympathy. 
Then finally, true to the prophetic as 
distinct from the apocalyptic style, it 
must point to something revealing pro- 
phetic insight rather than a miraculous 
foresight of some very special circum- 
stance connected with the end. This 
consideration shuts out the statue of 
Titus or Caligula or Hadrian (Jerome), 
the erection of a heathen altar, the 
atrocities perpetrated in the temple by 
the Zealots, etc. Luke gives the clue 
(ver. 20). The horror is the Roman army, 
and the thing to be dreaded and fled 
from is not any religious outrage it may 
perpetrate, but the desolation it will 
inevitably bring. That is the emphatic 
word in the prophetic phrase.—épypecews 
is genitive of apposition = the horror 
which consists in desolation of the land. 
The appearance of the Romans in 
Palestine would at once become known 
to all. And it would be the signal for 
flight, for it would mean the end near, 
inevitable and terrible.—év téw@ ayly, 
one naturally thinks of the temple or the 
holy city and its environs, but a “ holy 
place” in the prophetic style might mean 
the holy /and. And Jesus can hardly 
have meant that disciples were to wait 
till the fatal hour had come.—é ayvayw- 


The plural is pointless. 


goKwy, etc.: this is most likely an 
interpolated remark of the evangelist 
bidding his readers note the corres- 
pondence between Christ’s warning word 
and the fact. In Christ’s own mouth it 
would imply too much stress laid on 
Daniel’s words as a guide, which indeed 
they are not. In Mark there is no 
reference to Daniel, therefore the re- 
ference there must be to the gospel (on 
this verse consult Weiss-Meyer). 

Ver. 16. ot év rq ’l., those in Judaea 
who have no part in the struggle, with 
special reference to disciples of Jesus. 
There would naturally be some in the 
city, therefore the counsel to fly must 
refer to a point of time antecedent to the 
commencement of the siege.—émi ra Spy, 
to the mountains outside of Judaea, t.e., 
east of the Jordan; general as befits 
prophetic speech. The actual place of 
refuge was Pella, as we learn from 
Eusebius, H. E., iii., 5, 3.—Vv. 17, 18 
vividly express the urgency of the flight. — 
6 éri 1. 5., etc., the man on the house 
top must fly without stopping to get 
articles of value in the house down the 
outside stair and off.—ra é« fr. olk., 
elliptical = the things in his house, 
from his house.—6 év t@ ayp@, let the 
man in the field, on hearing the fatal 
report, fly in his tunic, not returning 
home for his upper robe. ‘‘No man 
works in his mantle, the peasant leaves 
it at home, now as in Christ’s time” 
(Furrer, Wanderungen, p. 117).—VV. 19, 
20 describe the pathos of the situation: 
woe to women with child, they cannot 
get rid of their burden; and to women 
nursing, they cannot abandon their 
children as men can their money or 
their clothes (816 Tov Seopoy THs Hicews, 
Euthy. Cf. Chrys. and Theophy.). A 
touch this worthy of Jesus, sign mark of 
genuineness.— Ver. 20. mpocevyerde, 





fasted.—Vv. 21, 22. 


16—25. 


guy} bpay °xepavos, pydé ev! caPBdrw. 


EYATTEAION 


293 


21. “Eotat yap téte 0 vide Ch. 
xvi. 3. 


Prius peydAn, cia od yéyovey Gm dpxijs Kéopou Ews Tod viv, 008’ p here and 


of pay) yernrar. 


22. Kat et ph PéxodoBwOncay ai Hpepar exeivar 


in Mk. 
xiii. 20 in 
N.T., vide 


otk dy éod8y maga odp§- 81d 8 Tods *ékNexTods KohoBwOycovTat below. 


© ¢€ ’ > - 
ae npspar €KEelval. 


7 Ode, ph motevonte. 


Vv. 24, 31. 


23. Tére édy tis Spiv eltry, ISod, dde 6 Xptotds, pein tlk ry 


20,22. Lk. 

24. "EyepOjoovra: yap Wevddxprotos Kat evi Gall 

s iy tl 

Peudorpopytat, Kat *Scqoucr ‘onpeta peydra kal *tépata, dote “Shc” 
‘ : ‘ial 
mravqoat,? ef Suvatdv, Kal tods éxdeKtoUs. 25. iSou, mpoeipyka sence), 

e r Acts ii. 19 


(Deut. xiii. 1). 


1 SBA al. omit ev. 


2 rhavyoat is the reading of BXAZ al., and probably the true one. 
LZ have wAavac@at (W.H. with wAavqoat in margin). 


aAavyOynvat (Tisch.). 


etc. (tva px with subjunctive instead of 
infinitive as often in N. T. after verbs of 
exhorting, etc.), pray that your flight be 
not in winter (xetp@vos, gen. time in wh.) 
or on the Sabbath (caPBara, dat., pt. of 
time). The Sabbatarianism of this 
sentence is a sure sign that it was not 
uttered by Jesus, but emanated from a 
Jewish source, say many, ¢.g., Weizsacker 
(Untersuchungen, p. 124), Weiffenbach 
(Wiederkunftsgedanke, i., p. 103) ap- 
proving. But Jesus could feel even 
for Sabbatarians, if they were honest, as 
for those who, like John’s disciples, 
The extremity of 
the distress.—Ver. 21 represents it as 
unparalleled before or after, in terms re- 
calling those of Daniel xii. 1; ver. 22 as 
intolerable but for the shortness of the 
agony.—ékodoBdbyaav (from KodoBds, 
icddos, mutilated) literally to cut off, e.g., 
hands or feet, as in 2 Sam. iv. 12; here 
figuratively to cut short the time: nisi 
breviati fuissent (Vulgate). The aorist 
here, as in next clause (éo@0n), is used 
proleptically, as if the future were past, 
in accordance with the genius of pro- 
phecy.—ovx Gy, etc.: the ov« must be 
joined to the verb, and the meaning is: 
all flesh would be not saved ; joined to 
maoa the sense would be not all flesh, 
i.e., only some, would be saved.—éowby 
tefers to escape from physical death; in 
ver. 13 the reference is to salvation in a 
higher sense. ‘This is one of the reasons 
why this part of the discourse is regarded 
as not genuine. But surely Jesus cared 
for the safety both of body and soul 
(vide x. 22,30). The epistle of Barnabas 
(iv.) contains a passage about shortening 
of the days, ascribed to Enoch. Weiz- 
sacker (Untersuchungen, p. 125) presses 
this into the service of the Jewish apoca- 


s always plural and coupled with onzeta (John iv. 48. Acts ii. 19, 43, etc.). 


ND have 


lypse hypothesis.—81a 82 1. éxAextovs: 
the use of this term is not foreign to the 
vocabulary of Jesus (vide xxii. 14), yet it 
sounds strange to our ears as a designa- 
tion for Christians. It occurs often in 
the Book of Enoch, especially in the 
Similitudes. The Book begins: ‘‘ The 
words of the blessing of Enoch, where- 
with he blessed the elect and righteous 
who will be living in the day of tribula- 
tion when all the wicked and godless are 
removed” (vide Charles, The Book of 
Enoch, p. 58). The idea attaching to 


the word here seems to be: those 
selected for deliverance in a time of 
general destruction = the preserved. 


And the thought expressed in the clause 
is that the preserved are to be preservers. 
Out of regard to their intercessions away 
amid the mountains, the days of horror 
will be shortened. A thought worthy of 
Jesus. 

Vv. 23-28. False Christs again (Mk. 
xiii, 21-23, Lk. xvii. 23, 24, 37).—Ver. 24. 
evSédxpiorot, in the same sense as in 
ver. 5; there referred to as the cause 
of all the trouble, here as promising 
deliverance from the trouble they, or 
their like, have created. What would 
one not give for a Deliverer, a Messiah 
at such a dire crisis! The demand 
would create the supply, men offering 
themselves as Saviours from Rome’s 
power, with prophets ( wevSomrpopjrat) 
preaching smooth things, and assuring a 
despairing people of deliverance at the 
last hour.—py morevonre, says Jesus 
(ver. 23), do not believe them: no salva- 
tion possible; listen not, but flee.—xai 
Sacovowy, etc., and will give great signs 
and wonders. The words recall Deut. 
xiii. 1. Desperate situations require a 
full use of all possible powers of persua- 


294 


Ch. xxviii. dpi. 


KATA MATOAION 


XXIV. 


26. édv odv eltmwow Spiv, “ISod, é tH epypw earl, pi) 


ap 
18; xi. 36 eENOnTE~ “ISU, ev Tots Tapelois, pi morevonte. 27. dowep yap 


(of the 


gleam of %) ‘dotpamt éfépxerat dmd dvatohGv Kal datverat Ews Sucpay, 


a lamp); 
XVii. 24; 
several ‘ 


: 5 2 2A > a“ é a 0% < ug , 
timesin Yap~ e€av n TO TTWHA, EKEL TUVAXUNTDOVTAL OL €TOL. 


Rev. (pl.). 
a Lk. xvii. 


iy. Rev. z 
iv. 7; viii. 13 (W.H.); xii. 14. 
1 Most uncials (NBD, etc.) omit rat. 


sion: signs and wonders, or the pretence 
of them: easily accepted as such by a 
fanaticised multitude, and sometimes so 
clever and plausible as to tempt the wise 
to credence.—Gore, with infinitive to 
express tendency; often inclusive of 
result, but not here.—«l Suvardy, if pos- 
sible, the implication being that it is not. 
If it were the consequence would be 
fatal. The “elect” (rots éxXextovs)— 
selected by Providence for safety in the 
evil day—would be involved in the 
general calamity. Christians, at Israel's 
great crisis, were to be saved by unbelief 
in pseudo-messiahs and pseudo-prophets. 
—Ver.25. idov 1. v., emphatic nota bene, 
showing that there will be real danger 
of misplaced fatal confidences. Hence 
further expatiation on the topic in vv. 
26-28 in graphic, pithy, laconic speech. 
—vVer. 26. év TH éptjpe, a likely place 
for a Christ to be (Moses, Israel’s first 
deliverer).—py ekéABqre, go not out (cf. 
xi. 7, 8, 9).—é@v Tots rapetots (vide vi. 6), 
in the secret chambers, the plural in- 
dicating the kind of place, not any 
particular place. Both expressions—in 
the desert, in the secret recesses—point 
to non-visibility. The false prophets bid 
the people put their faith in a Messiah 
not in evidence, the Great Unseen = 
“The hour is come, and the man is 
somewhere, out of view, not far away, 
take my word for it”. Interpreters who 
seek for exact historical fulfilments point 
to Simon son of Gioras, and John of 
Giscala: the former the Messiah in the 
desert of Tekoah, gathering a confiding 
multitude about him; the latter the 
Messiah in the secret places, taking pos- 
session of the interior part of the temple 
with its belongings in the final struggle 
(vide Josephus, B. J., iv., 9, 5 and 7; 
v. 6, 1, and Lutteroth, ad loc.).—Ver. 
27. Gowep yap, etc.: the coming of the 
true Messiah, identified with the Son of 
Man, compared to the lightning, to sug- 
gest a contrast between Him and the 
false Christs as to visibility, and enforce 


o » ‘ al «< , a cia A , 
OUuTWS E€OTQaL Kat YY Wapovo.a Tov vlov TOU évOpadrrou. 


28. dSirou 
29. EvOéws 


dé peta Thy OAthuw Tay Hpepdv exetvwr, 6 Atos cKoTicOyjceTat, Kal 


7 NBDL omit yap. 


the counsel to pay no heed to those who 
say: He is here, or He is there.— 
Ver. 28. mra@pa, carcase, as in xiv. 12, 
q.v.—aerot, eagles, doubtless the carrion 
vultures are meant. The reference of 
this proverbial saying, as old as the 
book of Job (xxxix. 30), in this place is 
not clear. In the best text it comes in 
without connecting particle, the yap of 
T. R. being wanting. If we connect it 
with ver. 27 the idea will be that 
Messiah’s judicial function will be as 
universal as His appearance (Meyer and 
Weiss). But does not ver. 28 as well as 
ver. 27 refer to what is said about the 
false Christs, and mean: heed not these 
pretended Saviours; Israel cannot be 
saved: she is dead and must become the 
prey ofthe vultures? (So Lutteroth.) In 
this view the Jewish people are the 
carcase and the Roman army the eagles. 

Vv. 29-31. The coming of the Son of 
Man (Mk. xiii. 24-27, Lk. xxi. 25-28).— 
Thus far the eschatological discourse has 
been found to bear on the predicted 
tragic end of Jerusalem. At this point 
the wapovgia, which, according to the 
evangelist, was one of the subjects on 
which the disciples desired information, 
becomes the theme of discourse. What is 
said thereon is so perplexing as to tempt 
a modern expositor to wish it had not 
been there, or to have recourse to 
critical expedients to eliminate it from 
the text. But nothing would be gained 
by that unless we got rid, at the same 
time, of other sayings of kindred char- 
acter ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels. 
And there seems to be no reason to 
doubt that some such utterance would 
form a part of the eschatological dis- 
course, even if the disciples did not ask 
instruction on the subject. The revela- 
tion as to the last days of Israel naturally 
led up to it, and the best clue to the 
meaning of the Parusia-logion may be to 
regard it as a pendant to that revelation. 

Ver. 29. ev@éws. Each evangelist ex- 
presses himself here in his own way, 


—-——- 


26—3I. 


EYATTEAION 


293 


Hy gedivy ob Sdoe 3 *eyyos adris, Kat ot doteucy wecodvTat v Mk. xiii. 


dad tod odpavod, Kal at duvdpers tov odpavay cadcvOjcovrat. 
4 A A lel ~ A 

30. kai téTe hayyjoeTat TS OHpELOV TOU Ulod Tod dyOpdmou ev 1? 
s 


24. Lk. 
xi. 33 (T. 
R.). 


otpav@: Kal réte Kdpovrat wacat at dudal ths yijs, Kal ofovra 


tov uldv Tod avOpdmou, épydpevov emi Tay vehehGy Tod odpavod peta 


Suvdpews Kat Sd6fqs modi. 


31. kat dmootehet tods dyyéhous 


adrod peta “odAmyyos dovis® peyddys, Kat émiouvdgoucr tods wx Cor x, 


éxAexTods adtod én Tov tecodpwy dvénwy, dm’ Gxpwy odpavar ews 4 The 


ikpwv adToy. 
1 89D have ex (Tisch.). 


al have it and it is doubtless genuine. 


amo in BLXAZ (W.H.). 
3 $9LA omit dovys (Tisch., W.H. relegate to the margin). 


I 

Ss. iv. 
16. Heb. 
xii. 19, etc. 


7 SSBL omit ro. 
BD («at dovns) XZ 


4 B 1, 13, 69 add rev after ews (W.H. insert, but bracketed). 


Lk. most obviously adapting his words 
to suit the fact of a delayed parusia. 
Mt.’s word naturally means: immedi- 
ately, following close on the events 
going before, the thlifsis of Jerusalem. 
One of the ways by which those to 
whom ev@éws is a stumbling block strive 
to evade the difficulty is to look on it as 
an inaccurate translation by the Greek 


Matthew of DRMD , Supposed to be in 


Hebrew original.” So Schott, Comm. 
Ex. Dog.—é HAvos . . . cahevOyoovrat: 
a description in stock prophetic phrases 
(Is. xii. 9, xxxiv. 4, Joel iii. 15, etc.) of 
what seems to be a general collapse of 
the physical universe. Is that really 
what is meant? I doubt it. It seems 
to me that in true prophetic Oriental 
style the colossal imagery of the physical 
universe is used to describe the political 
and social consequences of the great 
Jewish catastrophe : national ruin, break- 
ing up of religious institutions and social 
order. The physical stands for the 
social, the shaking of heaven for the 
shaking of earth (Haggai ii. 6); or in 
the prophetic imagination the two are 
indissolubly blended: stars, thrones, 
city walls, temples, effete religions 
tumbling down into one vast mass of 
ruin. If this be the meaning ev0éws is 
to be strictly taken.—¢éyyos, applicable 
to both sun and moon, but oftener 
applied to the moon or stars; $@s 
oftenest to the sun, but also to the 
moon. Vide Trench, Syn., p. 163.—Ver. 
30. xat rére. Amid the general crash 
what longing would arise in Christian 
hearts for the presence of the Christ! 
To this longing the announcement in- 
troduced by these words ‘‘and then”’ 


responds,—td onpetov r. vi. tr. a. The 
question what is this sign has greatly 
perplexed commentators, who make 
becoming confessions of ignorance. 
“« We must not be positive in conjectur- 
ing,’ Morison. ‘ What this shall be 
it is vain to conjecture,’”’ Cambridge 
N.T. Is the reference not to Daniel vii. 
13, ‘one like the Son of Man,” and the 
meaning: the sign which zs the Son of 
Man, 7. v. t & being genitive of 
appos.? So Weiss after Storr and 
Wolf.—( onpetov viod, similis est illis 
quibus profani passim utuntur quand¢ di- 
cunt Bia ‘Hpaxdéos,”’ 2.¢., ‘‘ vis Herculis 
seu ipse Hercules,” Wolf, Curae Phil.) 
Christ His own sign, like the lightning 
or the sun, self-evidencing.—ai rére 
kéWovrat, etc.: a clause not in Mk. and 
obscure in meaning; why mourn? 
because they recognise in the coming 
One their Judge? or because they see 
in Him one who had been despised and 
rejected of men, and penitently (taking 
the sin home to themselves) acknow- 
ledge His claims ? (‘‘ believed on in the 
world,” 1 Tim. iii. 16).—épxépevov ... 
mwohhjjs, description of the coming, here 
as in xvi. 27, xxvi. 64, in terms drawn from 
Daniel vii. 13.—Ver. 31. peta oddmiyyos 
>. »., with a trumpet of mighty sound, an- 
other stock phrase of prophetic imagery 
(Is. xxvii. 13).—Kal éwtevvdgover tovs 
éxAexrovs a., and they (the angels or 
messengers) shall collect the elect (as in 
vv. 22, 24), showing that the advent is 
described in terms suited to the situa- 
tion previously depicted. The Christ 
comes for the comfort of those preserved 
from the general ruin.—ék Ty T. avépov: 
not merely from the mountains east of 
the Jordan, but from every quarter of the 


296 


KATA MATOAION 


XXIV. 


32. “Awd 8€ Tis ouxijs pdbere thy wapaBohfy: Srav HSy é 
ean KAdBos adtijs yévntar *dmadds, Kai TA UAAG expdy, yivdoxere 


xiii. 28. 
here and 
28. Lk. 
xxi. 30 
eee bs By hed 2 
22. TOV. KQL TTApEAEUT at 
co 4 yi map ovTat, 


inMk xiii. yiwwoKete Ott €yyus €or emt Odpats. 
mapérOy % yeved adty, Ews dv mdvta tadta yévytat. 


“Ott €yyds 7d Odpos: 33. odrw Kal dpeis, Stay Wyte wdvta Tada, 


34. dpi Aéyw Syiv,) of ph 
35+ O odjpavds 


ot S€ Adyor pou ob ph mapéAwor. 


36. Mepi 8€ tis hudpas exeivns Kai tHs® Gpas obSels older, obde 


ot Gyyeot Tay odpavdy,* ei ph 6 watjp pou? pdvos. 


37+ Qowep 


. « a a a A a 
826 ai hpépar Tod Nae, obtws Eotar Kal? % wapougia rod viod Tod 


1 BDL add om after up (W.H.). 
7 BDL read wapedevoerat. 
3 S)BDA al. omit rns before wpas. 


The plural (T. R.) is a grammatical correction. 


4 After evpavwy KBD, old Latin vers., and some cursives add ovS« o wos 


hich is adopted by most modern editors. 
6 yap in BD. 


> SS BDLAX omit pov. 


arth where faithful souls are found; 
tho of Is. xxvii. 13 again audible here. 
-an’ Gkpey, etc., echo of phrases in 
Deut. xxx. 4, Ps. xix. 7. This Parusia- 
logion is not to be regarded as a didactic 
statement, but simply as a Aéyos 
wapax\yoews for the comfort of anxious 
spirits. With that aim it naturally 
places the Parusia within the reach of 
those it is designed to comfort. After 
the ruin of Israel there is no history ; 
only the wind-up. Jerusalem destroyed, 
the curtain falls. Christ’s didactic words 
suggest another aspect, a delayed 
Parusia, vide on xvi. 28. From the fore- 
going exposition it appears that the 
coming of the Son of Man is not to be 
identified with the judgment of Jerusalem, 
but rather forms its preternatural back- 
ground. 

Vv. 32-36. Parabolic close (Mk. xiii. 
28-32, Lk. xxi. 29-33).—Ver. 32. amo 
THs ovKis, etc., from the fig tree learn 
its parable, rapid condensed speech 
befitting the tense state of mind; learn 
from that kind of tree (article generic) 
the lesson it can teach with regard to 
the moral order: Tender branch, young 
leaf = summer nigh. Schott, Comm. Ex. 
Dog., p. 125, renders amo T. o. ope ficus 
= ficum contemplando. On the form 
exéun vide notes on Mk.—Ver. 33. 
oUtTws Kk. v, so do ye also when ye see 
all these things, recognise that it is nigh, 
at the doors. What are “these things”? 
what “‘it’’?? The former are the things 
mentioned in vv. 15-21 (6Tav ovv tyre, 
ver. 15), the latter is the wapovoia.— 
Ver. 34. Solemn assurance that the 


TSSBL omit Kat. 


predicted will come to pass.—rdvra 
TavtTa is most. naturally taken to mean 
the same things as in ver. 33, the main 
subject of the discourse, the impending 
destruction of the Jewish state. Jesus 
was quite certain that they would happen 
within the then living generation (4 
yevea atrn), not merely through 
miraculous foresight but through clear 
insight into the moral forces at work.— 
Ver. 35. Declaration similar to that in 
chap. v. 18 concerning the validity of 
the law.—Ver. 36. wept 82 tis hyépas 
éxetvns kal rHs Gpas, of that day and 
hour. The reference is to the coming of 
the Son of Man, the expression through- 
out the N. T. having the value of an 
“indisputable fixed terminus technicus,” 
Weiffenbach, Wéiederkunftsgedanke, p. 
157-—ovdels olSev, no one knows, a 
statement made more emphatic by appli- 
cation to the angels of heaven, and even 
to the Son (v8 6 vids). The meaning 
is not that Jesus disclaims even for 
Himself knowledge of the precise day, 
month, or year of what in ver. 34 He 
has declared will happen within the 
present generation; whether, ¢.g., the 
crisis of the war would be in 69 or 70 
A.D, That is too trivial a matter to Be 
the subject of so solemn a declaration. 
It is an intimation that all statements 
as to the time of the wapovoia must be 
taken in a qualified sense as referring to 
a subject on which certain knowledge is 
not attainable or even desirable. It looks 
like Jesus correcting Himself, or using 
two ways of speaking, one for comfort 
(it will be soon), and one for caution (it 


32—43. 


évOpadirou. 


*xaTakhuopod, *TpwyovTes Kal WivovTEs, yapouvTEs Kai éxyapiLovres,” 
xpt is Hpépas eioqhOe Nae cis thy >KiPwrtdv, 39. Kal obx €yvwoar, in 


EYATTEAION 


38. dowep! yap joav év tais Hpépats tats mpd tox 


297 


Lk. xvii. 

27. 2Pet. 
ili. 6. 

a here and 

obn, 

vide reff. 


© + ec 4 A > a a ” ‘ 8 > 
€ws 7AGev 6 KaTakAuopos Kal Npev AmavTas, oUTwWS EgTaL Kat~ 7 below and 


mapougia tod utod tod dvOpwTrou. 


remarks. 
b Lk. xvii. 
Heb. 


A“ a 27. 
40. “Téte Sto écovtart éy tH dypO: 65 els wapadapBdverar, ix. 4; xi 


53 a 1 Pet. 

kat 65 els ddierar. 41. S00 *ddnPouom ev TH pUhon®- pia fii, 20. 
. oe ? Rev. xi.19 
mapohapBdverat, Kat pla adietac. cCLicxvillss, 
“~ > @ > Es , @ U elem Cieks iverat. 
42. “Cpnyopeite ovv, Ste odK oldate mota dpa? 4 KUptos byway Acts. xiv 
Epxetar’ 43. éxeivo S€ ywwwoxete, Or ei Wdet 6 oikodeomdTys Tola ie i" 
pudaxf 6 xdémrns Epxetat, éypnydpyoey Gv, Kat odx dy “elace tapi 
and inf.). 


1 ws in NBL 33. 
5 BD omit kat. 
6 puvdw in SBLAZ. D has pvdow. 


may not be so soon as even I think or 
you expect). His whole manner of 
speaking concerning the second advent 
seems to have two faces; providing on 
the one hand for the possibility of a 
Christian era, and on the other for an 
accelerated Parusia. 

Vv. 37-42 Watch therefore (cf. Lk. 
xvii. 26-30, 34-36).—Ver. 37. al jpépar 
a. Noe, the history of Noah used to illus- 
trate the uncertainty of the Parusia.— 
Ver. 38. joav with the following parti- 
ciples is not an instance of the peri- 
phrastic imperfect. It rather stands by 
itself, and the particles are descriptive 
predicates. Some charge these with 
sinister meaning: tp@yovres, hinting at 
gluttony because often used of beasts, 
though also, in the sense of eating, of men 
(John vi. 58, xiii. 18). So Beza and 
Grotius; yapotytes kal yapilovres, eu- 
phemistically pointing at sexual licences 
on both sides (Wolf, “omnia vagis libi- 
dinibus miscebantur”). The idea rather 
seems to be that all things went on as 
usual, as if nothing were going to happen. 
In the N. T., and especially in the fourth 
Gospel, tpd@yw seems to be used simply 
as a synonym for éo@iw. In like manner 
all distinction between éo8iew and yopra- 
ter9ar (= to feed cattle in classics) has 
disappeared. Vide Mk. vii. 27, 28, and 
consult Kennedy, Sources of New Testa- 
ment Greek, p. 82.—Ver. 39. ovK €yvo- 
gav, they did not know, scil., that the 
flood was coming till it was on them.— 
Ver. 40, 41 graphically illustrate the 
suddenness of the Parusia.—els els (ver. 
40) instead of els étépos, so pla pla in 
ver. 41. Of these idioms Herrmann in 


£ egovrat Svo in WB. 


249D 33 have the simple yapifovres (Tisch., W.H.). 


§ 9 in both places omitted in BDL. 
T qpepa in BDAY, cursives. 


Viger (p. 6) remarks: ‘‘Sapiunt Ebrais- 
mum ’’.—apahapBdverat, apietat, one 
is taken, one left. The reference may 
either be to the action of the angels, ver. 
31 (Meyer), or to the judicial action of 
the Son of Man seizing some, leaving 
free others (Weiss-Meyer). The sen- 
tences are probably proverbial (Schott), 
and the terms may admit of diverse 
application. However applied, they point 
to opposite destinies.— aAyCovoat, grind- 
ing: a7, late for aAdw, condemned by 
Phryn., p. 151.—év T@ ptdove (T. R.), in 
the mill house.—é. +. pudp (W.H.), in or 
with the millstone. The.reference is toa 
handmill, which required two to work it 
when grinding was carried on for a con- 
siderable time—women’s work (vide 
Robinson, i., 485 ; Furrer, Wand., p. 97; 
Bénzinger, p. 85, where a figure is 
given).—Ver. 42. ypnyopetre, watch, a 
frequently recurring exhortation, imply- 
ing not merely an uncertain but a delayed 
Parusia, tempting to be off guard, and so 
making such repeated exhortations neces- 
sary.—rolq npépq, on what sort of a day, 
early or late; so again in ver. 43, at 
what sort of a watch, seasonable or un- 
seasonable. 

Vv. 43-51. Two parables: the Thief 
and the Two Servants, enforcing the 
lesson: Watch !|—Ver. 43. y.ivwoxere, 
observe, nota bene.—ei qSet: supposition 
contrary to fact, therefore verbs in prot. 
and apod. indicative.—6 kdéwrns, admir- 
ably selected character. It is the thiez’s 
business to keep people in the dark as to 
the time of his coming, or as to his 
coming at all.—otxodeamdtns suggests 
the idea of a great man, but in reality it 


298 


Stopuyfvat! Thy oixiay adtod. 


KATA MATOAION 


XXIV. 44—51. 


44. 8d rodro nai dpeis yiveode 


Erousor Ste q Gpa od Soxeire,? 6 vids rod dvOpdwou Epyerar. 
45. Tis dpa éotly 6 mords doddos Kat ppdvipos, ov Katéotyoey 6 


Kuptos abroo® éri tis Oepameias+ adtod, rod SiBdvar° adrois thy 


¢ Lk, xil. 4a. tpopiyy *év °xaip@; 46. paxdpros 6 Soddos exetvos, dv e€dOdy 6 
I .v. 


“xuptos adtod edpyce: movodvTa ollTws.° 


{Ch, xxv. 5. 


éwi mao. tots imdpxovsw adrod Kataotyce adtév. 


47. “Apyy dAéyw duty, ore 
48. “Edv Sé 


Lk. i. ax etwy 6 KaKxds Soddos exeivos év TH Kapdia adrtod, ‘Xpovifer 6 Kdpids 


(to tarry, 


with é); pou? édOeiv,® 49. Kal dptyrat TUrrew Tods gurdoUAoUS,? éoOlery SE Kat 
po 84 pin 


xii. 45. 


5 na a 
Heb.x.37. wivery 1° peta tov peOudvtwv, 50. ket Sd KUpios TOU SoUAou éxeivou 


g here and 


in Lk. xii. €v Hpepa od mpocdokd, cal év dpa y od yiwdoxe, 51. xal © dixo- 


46. 
bh same 


Ul ER ‘ sh , > a cy a « a h Oy hes lal 
TOPNOEL AUTOV, KAL TO BeEpos QUTOU JLCTA THY UTTOKPLTWY YOEL* EKEL 


hrase in» c x Ni ye ‘ A 257 
Pie xii 46, CTU © kAauBpds Kat 6 Bpuypds TOy 68dvTwr. 


x 


1 StopvxyOyvar SYDIL 33; asin T. R. in BAX. 
puxOnvar & 


2 4 ov Soxeite wpa in SBD. 
4 o.xereras in BILAZ (W.H.). 


3 S8BDIL 1, 33 al. omit avtov. 
Gepatreras in D ail, 


° Souvar in RBCDILAZ. 8S8ovar is from Lk. 


® ovtws trovouvra in S§BCDIL. 
SS9B 33 omit eAGeuv. 
0 ecbin Se kat mivy in REBCDIL. 


is a poor peasant who is in view. He 
lives in a clay house, which can be dug 
through (sun-dried bricks), vide Sropux07- 
vat in last clause. Yet he is the master 
in his humble dwelling (cf. on vi. 19).— 
Ver. 45. tls, who, taken by Grotius, 
Kuinoel, Schott, etc. = ef tis, si quis, 
supposing a case. But, as Fritzsche 
points out, the article before w. S0)os is 
inconsistent with this sense.—movrés, 
pdévipos : two indispensable qualities in 
an upper servant, trusty and judicious.— 
Ocpametas (T. R.), service = body of ser- 
vants, otxetetas (B., W.H.), household 
=domestics.—Ver. 46 answers the ques- 
tion by felicitation.—paxdptos, implying 
that the virtue described is rare (vzde on 
chap. v. 3): a rare servant, who is not 
demoralised by delay, but keeps stead- 
fastly doing his duty.—éwi +. 1. tmdp- 
xovg, this one among a thousand is fit 
to be put in charge of the whole of his 
master’s estate.—Ver. 48. The other side 
of the picture—éav 82... éxeivos: not 
the same individual, but a man placed in 
the same fost (‘‘cui eadem provincia sit 
demandata,”’ Schott).—ypovier (again in 
xxv. 5): the servant begins to reflect on 
the fact that his lord is late in coming, 
and is demoralised.—apénrat, he (now) 
begins to play the tyrant (rvmwrew) and 


¥ ov before o kuptos in SBCDIL al. 
2 sBCDIL add avrov. 


to indulge in excess (éo@fy Kal alvp, 
etc.). Long delay is necessary to pro- 
duce such complete demoralisation.— 
Ver. 50. 4ge.: the master comes at last, 
and of course he will come unexpected. 
The delay has been so long that the un- 
worthy servant goes on his bad way as if 
the master would never come at all.— 
Ver. 51. StxoTopycet, he will cut him in 
sunder as with a saw, an actual mode of 
punishment in ancient times, and many 
commentators think that this barbarous 
penalty is seriously meant here. But this 
can hardly be, especially as in the follow- 
ing clause the man is supposed to be still 
alive. The probable meaning is: will 
cut him in two (so to speak) with a whip 
= thrash him, the base slave, unmerci- 
fully. It is astrong word, selected in sym- 
pathy with the master’s rage. So Schott: 
“verberibus multis eam _ castigavit”’. 
Koetsveld, De Gelijk., p. 246, and Grimm 
(Thayer) but with hesitancy. Beza and 
Grotius interpret: will divide him from 
the family = dismiss him.—pera tov 
umokptTev, with the hypocrites, 7.¢., eye- 
servants, who make a great show of zeal 
under the master’s eye, but are utterly 
negligent behind his back. In Lk. the 
corresponding phrase is tév ariorwyv, the 
unfaithful. 


XXV. 1—5. 


EYATTEAION 


299 


XXV. 1. “TOTE épowwOjcerar 4 Pacidela tov odpavav Séxa a John xviii 


Acts 


col a a Py tal > 3- 
twapOévois, atties AaPotoar tas “Aapmddas attav! efhOov eis xx.8. Rev. 


dmdyrnow ? tod vupdiou.? 2. wévte SE Hoav ef adrav® dpdvipor,4 a ab 
kai at° wévre pwpai.t 3. attves® pwpat, AaBodcar Tas Lapwddas ae a 
€autay,’ ok EhaPov ped” gautdy ’darov’ 4. at Sé dpdvipor EdaPBov a peels 
€davov év ois ayyelors adtav® peta Tav apwddwv atray.® pig 
5+ xpoviLovtos S€ tod vupdiov, *evucragav waoat Kal éxdbeudoy. Be - - 

feasts for 


anointing). 


1 eavtwy in BDL (W.H.). 


2 yravtnow in SBC (Tisch., W.H.). 
DE it. vull, Syr. Sin., Or., Hil. 
for further discussion. 


3 £ auTwy qoov in SBCDLZAY. 


Lk. xvi.6. Rev. vi. 6; xviii. 13 (commerce). 


c 2 Pet. ii. 3 (Ps. Ixxvi. 7), 


After vupduov is added rat tTys vupdys in 
W.H. place this reading in margin, and it calls 
Vide below for Resch’s view. 


4 pwpat, dpovipor in NBCDLZY, several cursives including 33. 


5 at omitted in NBCDLZ3X, 33 al. 
Sat yap for atives in NBCLZ 33. 


Tavtey in BCDA. WL have neither avt. nor eavt. (Tisch.). 
8 First avtwy omit RBDLZ. For second 8B have eavtwv. 


CHAPTER XXV. THREE ESCHATO- 
LOGICAL PARABLES. ‘These parables 
(especially the first and third) are appro- 
priately introduced by Mt. at this place, 
whether actually uttered in immediate 
connection with the Olivet discourse, or 
during the Passion week, or otherwise. 
In his reproduction of the book of 
Logia, Wendt gives the group of parables 
inculcating constant preparedness for the 
Parusia, including the Watting Servants 
(Lk. xii. 35-38) ; the Thief (Mt. xxiv. 43, 
44; Lk. xii. 39, 40); the Upper Servant 
(Mt. xxiv. 45-51; Lk. xii. 42, 48), and 
the Ten Virgins (Mt. xxv. 1-12; Lk. 
xii, 25), a somewhat earlier place (L. J., 
i., pp. 118-122). 

Vv. 1-13. Parable of the Ten Virgins, 
in Mt. only.—Ver. 1. tére, then, con- 
necting what follows in the evangelist’s 
mind with the time referred to in the 
previous parable, i.¢., with the Parusia. 
—Séxa wap%évors : ten virgins, not as 
the usual number—as to that no infor- 
mation is available—but as one coming 
readily to the mind of a Jew, as we 
might in a similar case say a dozen, — 
airives, such as; at might have been 
used, but the tendency in N. T. and late 
Greek is to prefer dotts to ds.—ras 
Aaprasas a., their torches consisting of 
a wooden staff held in the hand, with a 
dish at the top, in which was a piece of 
cloth or rope dipped in oil or pitch (vide 
Lightfoot, Hor. Heb.). Rutherford (New 
Phrynicus, p. 131) says that Aapardbas is 


here used in the sense of oil lamps, and 
that in the common dialect Aapmdas 
became equivalent to dAdyvos. — cis 
tm(air-)évrnow: vide at vill. 34.—rod 
vupdtouv: the bridegroom, who is con. 
ceived of as coming with his party to the 
house of the bride, where the marriage 
feast is to take place, contrary to the 
usual though possibly not the invariable 
custom (Judges xiv. 10). The parable at 
this point seems to be adapted to the 
spiritual situation—the Son of Man 
coming again. Resch thinks kal tis 
vupoyns a true part of the original 
parable, without which it cannot be 
understood (Aussercanonische Parallel- 
texte zu Mt. und Mk., p. 300).—Ver. 2. 
WEVTE pwpal, wéevTe Hpdvipot: equal num- 
bers of both, not intended to represent 
the proportion in the spiritual sphere; 
foolish, wise, not bad and good, but im- 
prudent and prudent, thoughtless and 
thoughtful. Even the ‘‘ foolish” might 
be very attractive, lovable girls; per- 
haps might have been the favourites at 
the feast: for wisdom is apt to be cold; 
foolish first named in best MSS., and 
properly, for they play the chief réle in 
the story, and are first characterised in 
the sequel.—Ver. 3. €Aatov: the state- 
ment about the foolish, indicating the 
nature or proof of their folly, is that 
they took their lamps but did not take 
oil. None? or only not a supply suffi- 
cient for an emergency—possible delay ? 
Goebel (Die Parabeln Fesu) decides for 


300 


d here only 6, 
in sense 
of trim. 

e Ch. ili. 9 
xvi. 8; 
XXxiii. 31. 


KATA MATOAION 


_ebépxeobe eis Admdvrnow adrtod. 


XXV, 


péons S€ vuxtds Kpavyh yéyover, “180d, & wupdhios epxerat,! 


2 7. Tore jyépOnoav wacom ai 


‘ wapOévor éxeivar, kal “éxdopnoay tas Aapmddas adtav.2 8. ai 88 


Rom. viii, pwpal Taig povipors elov, Adte piv ek rod edaiou spay, Ste al 


23. 1 Cor. 


ar tail Aapwddes pay oPévvurra. 


instances 


Q. “AwexpiOnoay 8€ at dpdvipor, 


of the re-A€youoat, Mijwote odk* dpxéoy tpiv Kat spiv- mopedeode Se 5 


flex. pron. 


used in ref. PaAROY pds Tos TwAOdVTaS, Kat dyopdoate * éauTais. 


to 1st and 
2nd pers.), 


10. dmep- 


1 epxerar omit NBCDLZ (Tisch., W.H.). 


2 Omit avrov NB (Tisch., W.H.). 


§ eautwy in NABLZX. 


* ov py in BCDXAX (W.H.), ove in NALZ (Tisch., W.H., in margin). 


5 The best authorities omit &. 


the former view. His idea of the whole 
situation is this: the virgins meet at the 
bride’s house, there wait the announce- 
ment of the bridegroom’s approach, 
then for the first time proceed to light 
their lamps, whereupon the foolish find 
that there is nothing in the dish except 
a dry wick, which goes out shortly after 
being lighted. In favour of this view he 
adduces the consideration that the other 
alternative makes the wise too wise, pro- 
viding for a rare occurrence, Perhaps, 
but on the other hand Goebel’s view 
makes the foolish too foolish, and also 
irrelevantly foolish, for in the case 
supposed they would have been at fault 
even if the bridegroom had not tarried. 
But the very point of the parable is to 
illustrate the effect of delay. On the 
various ways of conceiving the situation, 
vide The Parabolic Teaching of Christ.— 
Ver. 4. év tots dyyelous: the wise took 
oil in the vessels, i.e., in vessels, with an 
extra supply, distinct from the cups at 
the top of the torches containing oil.— 
Ver. 5. xpoviLovros Tr. v.: no reason given 
for delay, a possibility in natural life, 
the point on which the spiritual lesson, 
“be ready,” hinges. —éviorafav, they 
nodded, aorist, because a transient state; 
éxa@evdov, and remained for some time 
in slumber, imperfect, because the state 
continuous. Carr (Camb. N. T.) cites 
Plato, Afol. Socr., as illustrating the 
discriminating use of the two verbs in 
reference to the two stages of sleep.— 
maga, all, sleep in the circumstances 
perfectly natural and, everything bein 

ready, perfectly harmless.—Ver. 6. t8ov 
6 vuppios: at length at midnight a cry 
is raised by some one not asleep—lo / 
the bridegroom ; laconic, rousing, heard by 
all sleepers.—éfépyeobe els amdvrnow, 
go forth to meeting: no words that can 


be dispensed with here either. Go forth 
whence? from the bride’s house (Goebel) ; 
from some inn, or private dwelling on 
the way, whither they have turned in 
on finding that the bridegroom tarried 
(Bleek, Meyer, Weiss). On this point 
Goebel’s view is to be preferred.—Ver. 
7. éxéopynoay, trimmed, or proceeded 
to trim, for which the imperfect would 
have been more suitable. In the case of 
the five foolish it was an action attempted 
rather than performed, begun rather than 
completed.—Ver. 8. oPévvuyrat, are 
going out, as in R.V.—Ver. 9. arjyrore, 
lest, implying, and giving a reason for, 
an unexpressed declinature. Kypke 
renders, perhaps, fortasse, citing examples 
from classics, also Loesner, giving ex- 
amples from Philo. Elsner suggests that 
épare or BAdwere is understood before 
pymwore. Schott, putting a comma after 
tpiv, and omitting 8 after wopeveode, 
translates thus: lest perchance there be 
not enough for us and you, go rather to 
them that sell, etc. (‘‘ne forte oleum neque 
nobis neque vobis sufficiat, abite potius,” 
etc.).—1ropeveoOe, etc.: this seems 
a cold, ungenerous suggestion on the 
part of the wise, and apparently untrue 
to what was likely to occur among girls 
atsuchatime. Could the oil really be 
got at such a time of night? and, 
supposing it could, would going not 
throw them out of the festivities? 
Augustine says: ‘“‘non consulentium sed 
irridentium est ista responsio”’ (Serm. 
x¢., iii.,8). More humanely, in the modern 
spirit, Koetsveld suggests that the 
Marriage procession to music and song 
was very slow, and that there was a fair 
chance of overtaking it after the pur- 
chase (De Gelijk., p. 220). Let us 
hope so; but I fear we must fall back on 
the fact that ‘“‘ sudden emergencies bring 


6—15, 


xonevav 8€ adtav dyopdoa, FdOev 


eio7 Pov pet aitod €is Tols ydpous, Kat éxheicOy 4 Opa. 
II. Uotepov S€ Epxovrat Kai at Aowrai mapbévor, Aéyoucar, Kupte, 


Kupte, Gvogov Fv. 
bpiv, odk ofda Spas. 


Hpepav obd€ Thy Spay, ev 7 6 vids Tod AvOpwrrou EpxeTat.! 
14. “"Qowep yap avOpwros ‘dwodnpdv éxddece Tods iSlous 
Sovdous, Kat TapédwKey adTots Ta OmdpxyovTa avTOU: 15. kai @ pev 
3 p PX’ ‘ p 


eSwxe wévte TédXavTA, @ SE SUo, 


EYATI EAION 301 
ie , ‘ < 
6 vuudios> Kat al Eroupor 
12. “O 8€ doxpileis elmev, “Apiy éywo 
13. Fpnyopette obv, Ste ob oidate Thy 
f Ch. xxi. 33. 
Mk. xii. 1. 
Lk. xv. 13; 
ae 
@ dé &, éxdotw © Kata Thy iSiay% 2° 


1 The words ev 7 0 vtos 7. a. ep. are omitted in RABCDLXAX 33 al. plur., and 


by modern editors. 


into play a certain element of selfish- 
ness,” and take the advice of the wise as 
simply a refusal to be burdened with 
their neighbours’ affairs. 

Ver. 10. amepxopévwv,etc. Thefoolish 
took the advice and went to buy, and 
in so doing acted in character ; foolish in 
that asin not having a good supply of 
oil. They should have gone on without 
oil, the great matter being to be in time. 
By reckoning this as a point in their folly 
we bring the foolish virgins into analogy 
with the foolish builder in chap. vii. 26. 
Vide notes there, and also The Para- 
bolic Teaching of Christ, p. 505 f. Of 
course, on this view the oil has no signi- 
ficance in the spiritual sphere. It plays 
a great part in the history of interpreta- 
tion. For Chrys. and Euthy., the lamp 
=virginity, and the oil=pity, and the 
moral is: continence without charity 
worthless ; a good lesson. ‘ Nothing,” 
says the former, ‘‘is blinder than vir- 
ginity without pity; thus the people are 
used to call the merciless dark (oxKo- 
Tewous),’’ Hom. Ixxviii.—éxheloOn Ff Ovpa, 
the door was shut, because all the guests 
were supposed to be within; no hint 
given by the wise virgins that more were 
coming. ‘This improbable in the natural 
sphere.— Ver. II. «vpte, Kupte, etc., 
master, master, open to us; a last, 
urgent, desperate appeal, knocking hav- 
ing preceded (Lk. xiii. 25) without result. 
The fear that they are not going to be 
admitted has seized their hearts.—Ver. 
12. ovx ol6a ipas, I do not know you; 


in the natural sphere not a judicial penalty” 


for arriving too late, but an inference from 
the late arrival that those without cannot 
belong to the bridal party. The solemn 
tone, however (apiv A. v.), shows that 
the spiritual here invades the natural. 
Pricaeus refers to Lk. xi. 7 as helping 
to understand the temper of the speech 


from within = do not trouble me, the 
door is shut.— Ver. 13. The moral, 
yenyopette, watch; not directed against 
sleep (ver. 5) but against lack of fore- 
thought. The reference of the parable 
to the Parusia, according to Weiss 
(Meyer), is imposed upon it by the evan- 
gelist. 

Vv. 14-30. Parable of the Talents (cf. 
Lk. xix. 11-28), according to Weiss (Mt.- 
Ev., 535) and Wendt (L. J., i., 145) not 
a Parusia-parable originally, but spoken 
at some other time, and inculcating, like 
the parable of the unjust steward, skill 
and fidelity in the use of earthly goods. 
—Ver. 14. domep: suggests a compari- 
son between the parabolic history and 
the course of things in the kingdom, but 
the apodosis carrying out the comparison 
is omitted.—yap implies that the point of 
comparison is in the view of the evan- 
gelist the same as in the preceding para- 
ble.—amoSynpeav, about to go abroad.— 
éxaAece, etc., called his own servants and 
delivered to them his means; not an un- 
natural or unusual proceeding intro- 
duced against probability for the sake of 
the moral lesson; rather the best thing 
he could do with his money in his ab- 
sence,dividing it among carefully selected 
slaves, and leaving them to do their best 
with it. Investments could not then be 
made as now (vide Koetsveld, p. 254).— 
Ver. 15. wévre, Svo0, €v: the number of 
talents given in each case corresponded 
to the master’s judgme it_of the capacit 

vvapiv sea an All were ah. 

“pose to be trustworthy and more or less 
capable. Even one talent represented a 
considerable sum, especially for that 
‘period when a denarius was ’s wage. 
—rat aredjpyoev, and then he went 
away. So ends the account of the 
master’s action.—ev@éws should be con- 
nected with wopevfeis, whereby it gains 


302 


KATA MATOAION XXV, 


*Svvapyiws Kal diredypynoev ebOéws. 16. mopeubeis 5! 5 ta mévte 
tdédavta AaBdy ecipydoaro? év adrois, kal éwoingev® Ga wévte 
tédavta.* 17. doadtws Kal® 6 
Svo. 18. 6 Sé 7b Ev AaPdv drehOdv Gpugev ev TH yh,” Kal daré- 
Kpuie ® 13 dpydprov Tod Kupiou adrod. 19. Mera Sé xpdvov troddv ? 
Epxetat 6 KUptos tay Sothwv exeivwv, Kal ouvaipe. pet adtav 
Adyov.!0 
GAAa mévre TéXavTa, Aéywv, Kdpre, wévre téavTd por wapédwxas ° 


iSe, dAXa wévre TéNavTA exépdSnoa ew adtots.l4 21. "Eby Be 12 adtd 
p " 


Ta BUo éxépSyoe Kal atrds® ddda 


20. kal mpocehOay 6 Ta wévre TéNaVTA AoBwv mpoojveyKey 


1 SSB omit Se, the insertion of which is due to the evdews being taken as belong- 


ing to awednpyoer. 
2 npyacato in SBDL. 
3 exepSyoev in BCDLE (W.H.). 


It should be taken with wopevets (Tisch., W.H.). 


t& has erotnoev (Tisch.). 
* BL omit this second tadkavta (W.H.). 


5 kat omitted in SCL (Tisch., W.H., in text, insert in margin). 


§ kai autos omit NBCL. 
S expuvev in NABCDL 33. 


© Noyor before pet avtwv in $BCDLE. 


T ynv in SWBL (Tisch., W.H.). 
5 wodwv ypovov in SBCDL. 
1 em avtTois omit NBDL. 


12 $e omitted in KBCDLE, also in ver. 22 after mpocehOwy in SB. 


significance as indicating the temper of 
the servant. He lost no time in setting 
about plans for trading, with the talents 
entrusted to him (so Fritzsche, Weiss, 
Schanz, and Holtz., H. C.).—Ver. 16. 
elpydoaro év avtois, traded in or with 
them, used in classics also in this sense 
but without any preposition before 
the dative of the material.—aAAa wévre, 
other five, which speaks to a considerable 
period in the ordinary course of trade.— 
Ver. 17. ooavrws, in like manner ; that 
absolutely the same proportion between 
capital and gain should be maintained in 
the two cases was not likely but possible, 
and the supposition is convenient for the 
application.—Ver. 18. dpugev yav, dug 
up the earth, and hid the silver of his 
master. Not dishonest—the master_had 
not misjudged as to that—but indolent, 
unenterprising, timid. What he did was 
often done for safety. The master might 
have done it himself, but he wanted in- 
“crease as weltas safety. In Lk.’s para- 
ble the same type of man buries his 
pound in a napkin. A talent was too 
large to be put up that way. 

Vv. 19-23.—Ver. 19. todtyv xpédvov: 
the master returns after a long time, 
an important expression in a parable 
relating to the Parusia, as implying 
long delay.—ovvaipe. Adyov, maketh 
a reckoning, as in xviii. 23.—-Ver. 20. 
The first servant gives his report: 


sphere.—eice Gee. T. 


bringing five and five, he presents them 
to his master, and says: i8e, as if in- 
viting him to satisfy himself by count- 
ing.—Ver. 21. ev, well done! excellent! 
=edye in classics, which is the approved 
reading in Lk. xix. 17. Meyer takes it 
as an adverb, qualifying mords, but 
standing in so emphatic a position at the 
head of the sentence and so far from the 
word it is supposed to qualify it inevi- 
tably has the force of an interjection— 
aya0é kal mioré, devoted and faithful : 
two prime virtues in the circumstances. 
On the sense of &ya0és, vide xx. 15.—émi 
™. o€ katactyow, I will set thee over 


many things. The master_means to 


make extensive use of the talents and 


energy of one who had shown himself.so 
enthusiastic and trustworthy in a limited 
 Xapav 7. Kk. o. 

his clause seems to be epexegetical of the 
previous one, or to express the same idea 
under a different form. yapa has often 
been taken as referring to a feast given 
on the occasion of the master’s return 
(so De Wette, Trench, etc.). Others 
(Reuss, Meyer, Weiss, Speaker’s Com.) 
take it more generally as denoting the 
master’s state of joy. Thus viewed, the 
word takes us into the spiritual sphere, 
the joy of the Lord having nothing in 
common with the affairs of the bank 
(Reuss, Hist. Ev.). Weiss thinks this 
second description of the reward pro- 





16—28, 


& xUptos adtod, "ES, Sodde Gyabe Kat mord, eri ddiya fs mords, 
émt woAh@v ce KataoTicw: cicedOe eis Thy xapdy Tod Kupiou cov. 
22. Mpoceh@av Se kai 6 7a So tddavta AaBdv! cle, Kupre, dU0 
tédavTd por rapéSwxas: ie, GAha So tddavra exépSyoa em adrots.? 
23. "Eby abr 6 xupros adtod, Ei, SoGhe dya0e kal moré, ei dhiya 


fis muotés, émt wodGv ce Katactyow: cioedOe eis Thy Xapdy TOD j 


Kupiou ou. 


td @ 
Kupue, €yvav oe Ste ckAnpds et GvOpwxos, OepiLwv trou ob Eorerpas, 


kal cuvdyev obey od ) Sieokdpmicas - 


éxpupa Td tédavtév cou ev TH yij° ide, Exets TH ody. 
kpiOets S€ 6 KUptos attod etrey at7G, Nownpe Sodde kat * dxvypé, , 
” a , os > ” \ , Al) > iy , 

qoets Ste OepiLw Srv od« Eomerpa, nal guvdyw, dev ov drecxdpmica 
27. Se. obv ce? Badeiv Td dpyiprov 3 
eMOdy eyo ™éxopioduny dy Td époy aby ” TOK. 


1 ABCLAX omit AaBov. 


2 ge ovy in WBCL 33. 


ceeds from the evangelist interpreting 
the parable allegorically of Messiah’s re- 
turn. But we escape this inference if 
we take the phrase ‘‘the joy of thy lord” 
as=the joy of lordship (herilis gaudii, 
Grotius, and Elsner after him). The 
faithful slave is to be rewarded by ad- 
mission to fellowship in possession, part- 
nership. Cf. péroxos tov xXptorov in 
Heb. iii. 14=sharers (“ fellows”) with 


Christ, not merely ‘ artakers of Christ”. 


—Ver. 23. Praise and recompense 
awarded to the second servant in identi- 
cal terms: 


reward the same in recogni- 
ti f equal devotion and fidelity wi h 
unequal ability a j law of the King- 
dom of God, the second law bearing on 


“Work and Wages” there. For the 
first, vide on xx. 1-16. Euthymius re- 
marks toy 4 THs} Sidte Kal ton y orovdy. 

Vv. 24-30.—Ver. 24. eiAndds, the 
perfect participle, instead of AaBav in 
ver. 20, because the one fact as to him is 
that he is the man who has received_a 
talent Of waic e has made no usé, 
(So Weiss in Meyer.)—€yvwv oe ort, for 
éyvav Ste ov, by attraction.—oKAnpos, 
“hard”: grasping, ungenerous, taking 
all to himself, offering no inducements 
to his servants, as explained in the pro- 
verbial expressions following: @epifev, 
etc., reaping where you do not sow, and 
gathering where (80ev instead of Gov, a 
word signifying de loco, instead of a 
word signifying in loco; vide Kypke for 
pther examples) you did not scatter 


EYATTEAION 


SD have it. 
(wanting in }QBDL) at the end of ver. 22. 


393 


h here 
and in ver, 
23 only. 
i here only 
of a man. 
John vi. 
60 (of a 
word). Jas. 
iii. 4 (of 
the wind). 
Ch. xxvi. 
Mk. 


24. MpocehOdy Se kat 6 4d év td&davtov ciAnpas eine, Ste AOE 


a flock). 
Lk. xv. 13; 
xvi. 1 (of 
property). 
here and 
in Rom. 
xii. II. 
here only. 
.™m Heb. xi. 
: 19 (in 
TpameLitas: Kat suk 


28. dpate oty da 2 Lk. xix.23. 


25. kat poByGeis, dmehOdv 
26. ’Arro- * 


pou TOUS - 


Probably a gloss, as is also ew avrots 


3 ra apyvpta in SB. 


with the fan = appropriating everything 
produced on his land by the labour of his 
servants, without giving them any share 
—no inducement to work for such a 
curmudgeon of a master: all toil, no 
pay. Compare this with the real char- 
acter as revealed in: ‘Enter thou into 
the joy oflordship ’’.—Ver. 25. doByGets, 
etc., fearing: loss of the talent by trade; 
he thought the one thing to make sure 
of, in the case of such a master, was 
that what he had got might be safe.— 
“7H ya: the primitive bank of security. 
Vide xiii. 44.—U6e €ye1s TO adv, see you 
have what Gatoues to you; no idea that 
the master was eritied not only to the 
talent, but to what it might earn.— 
“Ver. 20. wovnpe (vide on vi. 23), 
““wicked”’ is too general a meaning: 
mean-spirited or grudging would suit the 
connection better. —zovnpos is the fitting 
reply to oxAnpos, and the opposite of 
&yaGos. You call me hard, I call you a 
churl: with no heart for your work, un- 
like your fellow-servant who put his whole 
heart into his work.—éxvypé, slothful ; 
a poor creature altogether: suspicious, 
timid, heartless, spiritless, idle.—7Seus, 
etc.: a question, neither making an 
admission nor expressing surprise or 
anger, but leading up to a charge of 
inconsistency = If that was your idea of 
me, why then, etc.—Ver. 27. Se, etc., 
you ought in that case to have cast my 
silver to the money-changers, or bankers, 
That could have been done without 


304 KATA MATOAION XXV. 
adrod rd tddavtov, Kal Sére 7G exovre ta Sea tddavta. 29. TG 
yap exovte twavtt Sobjcerat, nal meprocevOjoerar awd S€ rod! ph 

o Lk. xvii, Exovtos, kal & €xer, dpOyoerar dw airod. 30. Kal rdv ° dxpetov 

Io 


Soddov éxBdddere? eis Td oxdtos Td ebwrepov. 


éxet €otat 6 KAaud- 


pos kat 6 Bouypds tay d8érTwv. 

31. ““Orav Sé Eby 5 vids tod dvOpdmou év tH Sééy adtod, nat 
wdvres of Gyror® dyyehor pet’ adtod, 32. tére kaicer emi Apdvou 
Sdéns adtod, Kal cuvaxOjcerar* Eumpocbey aitod mdvta ta €Ovy, 
kat dopret® adtods dm’ dddAndov, dorep 5 mousy adopiler ra 


1 For amo 8 rou NBDL have rov 8« (Tisch., W.H.). 


* exBadere in HABCLXAZ. 


3 $BDL omit aytor. 


* cvvax@noovrat in BDL. The singular is a grammatical correction. 


® adopioes in KYLA (Tisch., W.H.). 


trouble or risk, and with profit to the 
master.—éy, apparently intended to be 
emphatic, suggesting a distribution of 
offices between servant and master= 
yours to put it into the bank, mine to 
take it out. So Field (Otium Nor.), 
who, following a hint of Chrys., trans- 
lates: ‘‘ And I should have gone (é\@ay) 
to the bank and received back mine own 
(or demanded it) with interest ’.—ovv 
téxy, literally, with offspring: a figura- 
tive name for interest on money.—Ver. 28. 
Gpare, etc., take the one talent from the 
man who made no use of it, and give it 
to the man who will make most? use of it. 
—Ver. 2g. General principle on which 
the direction rests pointing to a law of 
life, hard but inexorable—Ver. 30. 
dxpetoy, useless. Palairet renders in- 
juriosum; Kypke, improbum, Being 
useless, he was both injurious and un- 
just. The useless man does wrong all 
round, and there is no place for him 
either in this world or in the Kingdom 
of God. His place is in the outer dark- 
ness. 

Difference of opinion prevails as to 
whether this parable refers to_the use of 
material goods for the Kingdom of God, 
or to the use of spiritual gifts. It is not, 

ssibl ecide in ignorance 
of the historical occasion of the parable, 
nor is it necessary, as the same Taw 
appliess 1: evangere OLE Lae 

Vv. 31-46. The fudgment programme. 
—Much diversity of opinion has prevailed 
in reference to this remarkable passage ; 
as to the subjects of the judgment, and 
the authenticity of this judgment pro- 
gramme as a professed logion of Jesus. 
Are the judged all mankind, Christian 
and non-Christian, or Christians only, or 





BD have adopres as in T. R. (Weiss). 


non-Christian peoples, including un- 
believing Jews, or the Jewish people 
excluded? Even as early as Origen it 
was felt that there was room for doubt 
on such points. He says (Comm. in Ev. 
M.): ‘‘Utrum segregabuntur  gentes 
omnes ab omnibus qui in omnibus genera 
tionibus fuerint, an illae tantum quae 
in consummatione fuerint derelictae, aut 
illae tantum quaecrediderunt in Deum per 
Christum, et ipsae utrum omnes, an non 
omnes, non satis est manifestum. Tamen 
quibusdam videtur de differentia eorum, 
quae crediderunt haec esse dicta.” 
Recent opinion inclines to the view 
that the programme refers to heathen 
people only, and sets forth the principle 
on which they shall be judged. As to 
the authenticity of the Jogion critics hold 
widely discrepant views. Some regard 
it as a composition of the evangelists. 
So Pfleiderer, e.g., who sees in it simply 
the literary expression of a genial humane 
way of regarding the heathen on the part 
of the evangelist, an unknown Christian 
author of the second century, who had 
charity enough to accept Christlike love 
on the part of the heathen as an equiva- 
lent for Christian faith (Urchristenthum, 
p- 532). Holtzmann, H.C., also sees 
in it a second-hand composition, based 
on 4 Esdras vii. 33-35, Apoc. Bar, Ixxxiii. 
12. Weiss, on the other hand, recog- 
nises as basis an authentic logion of 
Jesus, setting forth love as the test of 
true discipleship, which has been worked 
over by the evangelist and altered into 
a judgment programme for heathendom. 
Wendt (L. ¥., p. 186) thinks that the 
logion in its original form was such a 
programme. This seems to be the most 
probable opinion. 


29—38. 


rpdBata dard tay Pépidwy, 33. kal orqcer Td wey mpdBata éx Sefrav p re 


atrod, Ta Bé épidia €f edwvipur. 
34. “Tére épet 6 Baotheds Tots 


eDoynpevor TOG TaTpds pou, KAnpovopycate Thy Hroacpevyy pir r 


Baoothetay a@md SxataBodys *Kécpou 


eSdixaté por payeiv: eSipyoa, cal émoricaré je: *Eévos jpny, Kat 

*curnydyeté pe> 36. yupvds, nat mepeBdderé pe* qo8dvyca, Kai” 
* éreokdacbé pe- év dudaxy pny, kal HAOeTe pds pe. 
dwoxpiOyjcovrat ait@ of Sixator, Aéyovtes, Kupie, méte oe eidopey 
mewarta, kai €pdpapey ; 7 Supavta, kat éroticaper - 


ve etdopev Eévov, kal cuvnydyopey ; 


Ver. 31. drav 88, the description 
following recalls xxiv. 30, to which the 
érav seems to refer.—Ver. 32. wavta Ta 
é8vy naturally suggests the heathen 
peoples as distinct from Jews, though 
the latter may be included, notwith- 
standing the fact that in one respect 
their judgment day had already come 
(xxiv. 15-22).—@optet: first a process 
of separation as in the interpretation of 
the parable of the tares (xiii. 40).—Ta 
xpopata ard Tav épidwy, the sheep from 
the young goats. Sheep and goats, 
theugh feeding together under the care 
of the same shepherd, seem of their own 
accord to separate into two companies. 
Tristram and Furrer bear witness to this. 
—Ver. 33. ral oryoet, etc., the bare plac- 
ing of the parties already judges, the good 
on the right, the evil on the left; sheep, 
emblems of the former; goats, of the 
latter. Why? No profit from goats, 
much from sheep; from their wool, milk, 
lambs, says Chrys., Hom. Ixxix. Lust 
and evil odour secure for the goat its 
unenviable emblematic significance, say 


others: ‘id animal et libidinosum et 
olidum” (Grotius). Lange suggests 
stubbornness as the sinister quality. 


More important is the point made by 
Weiss that the very fact that a separation 
is necessary implies that all were one 
flock, z.e., that the judged in the view of 
Jesus are all professing Christians, dis- 
ciples true or false. 

Vv. 34-40. of evAoynpévor tov warpds 
pov, my Father’s blessed ones, the 
participle being in effect a substantive. 
—kAnpovonyoare, etc.: this clause Weiss 
tegards as a proof that the parable 
originally referred to disciples, as for 
them only could the kingdom be said 
to be prepared from the foundation of 
the world. Wendt, holding the original 

a 


EYATTEAION 


A yupvov, Kat wepreBadoper ; 


305 


KV. 29. 
éx Seftav abtod, Actte, ot 


, , ‘ 
- 35- émewaoca ydp, kal 
Eph. ii. 19. 
Heb. xi.13. 
here and 
in vv. 38, 
43 (Deut. 
XXii. 2. 
osh.ii.18. 
udges 
xix. 18). 
Lk. i. 68, 
78; vii. 16. 
Acts vii. 
23. Jas.i. 
27. 


reference to have been to the heathen, 
brackets the words from ot evtdoy. to 
xéopov as of doubtful authenticity.—- 
Ver. 35. éwelvaca, eSidyoa, tévos Auny: 
hungry, thirsty, a stranger. The claims 
created by these situations are universally 
recognised though often neglected; to 
respond to them is a duty of ‘‘common 
humanity ”.—ovvnyayeré pe, ye received 
me (into your house) (cf. Judges xix. 18, 
—ovK tori avip cuvdyuv pe eis oixiay) 
Meyer, Weiss, and others, with stricter 
adherence to the literal meaning of the 
word, render: ye gathered me into the 
bosom of your family; Fritzsche: ye 
admitted me to your table (‘‘ simul con- 
vivio adhibuistis”’).—Ver. 36. yupvos, 
yo8evnoa, ev huAaky: deeper degrees of 
misery demanding higher degrees of 
charity ; naked = ill clad, relief more 
costly than in case of hunger or thirst - 
sick, calling for sympathy prompting to 
visits of succour or consolation; in 
prison, a situation at once discreditable 
and repulsive, demanding the highest 
measure of love in one who visits the 
prisoner, the temptation being strong to 
be ashamed of one viewed as a criminal, 
and to shrink from his cell, too often 
dark and loathsome.—éreoxeaoGé pe, 
this verb is often used in the O. T. and 
N. T. in the sense of gracious visitation 


on the part of God (for "¥)5) in Sept.) 


(vide Lk. i. 78, and the noun ém.oxoTy 
in Lk, xix. 44).—Ver. 37. kvpte: not 
necessarily spoken by disciples supposed 
to know or believe in Jesus (Weiss). 
The title fits the judicial dignity of the 
person addressed by whomsoever used. 
In disclaiming the praise accorded, those 
who call the Judge xv¥puos virtually deny 
personal acquaintance with Him.—vVer. 
40: éd’ Soov, in so far as = Kal’ Scov 
.o) 


37. lore 


38. wore SE, 


306 


KATA MATOAION 


XXV. 39—46. 


39. tote 8 ce cidouer doberi,! H ev pudaxd, Kal TAPopev mpds ce ; 


40. Kai daoxpibeig 6 Baciheds epet adtois, "Api Aéyw spiv, eq’ 


Soov éwoujoate evi ToUTwy Tay ddeApady jou? Tay eAaxioTuy, enol 


, 
éroujoare. 


41. “Téte épet Kal tots €& edwyvipwv, MopederOe dm eyo, ot ® 


o Mk. xi.at." Karnpapévot, eis TO Tip TO aidvoyv, TS Hropacpévov TO SraBdhw 


Lk. vi. 28. : 5 
Rom. xii. Kat Tots dyyéXots adtod. 
14. Jas. 

ii. g 


42. éreivaca ydp, kat otk éSdéKarTé por 
payeiv €3ipnoa, Kal odx émoricaré pe 43. févos ipny, Kal od 


ournydyeté pe* yuprds, Kat ob mepreBdderé we- doGevijs, Kal ev 


gudaki, Kal odk émeckdpaodd pe. 


, U 7m 4 
44. Tote dtroxpOyjoovtar attd 


A , ~ lol 
Kat abtot, Aéyovres, Kupte, mote oé elSopev mewavta, } Supdvta, 4 


v here and févov, 
in 1 John 
iv. 18 in 
N. T 


H yupvdr,  doBerq, ev udakh, Kat od StyKxovycapey oo ; 
45. Tote AroxpiOyjcetar adtois, Aéywv, “Apiy éyw Spiv, eh’ cov 


"g "4 > > , 4 aA 
(Ezek.xiv, UK €motjoate évi toUTwy T&v éhayiotwy, ovde epol éworjoare. 


Wis- 


3. ‘ ~ 
dom xi.14; 46. Kat dt *Aevcovtat otto. eis "KdAaowW aidvioy’ ot S€ Sikaror eis 


xvi. 24 al. 


in Sept.). Lwiy aidviey.”” 


1 BD have ac8evouvra (Tisch., W.H.). 


2B omits twv adehgwv pov, probably an error of similar ending. 


3 NBL 33 omit ot, a significant omission. 


4 avtw has only minus. to support it. 


(Heb. vii. 20), used of time in Mt. ix. 
15.—évi... &aylorwvy, the Judge’s 
brethren spoken of as a body apart, not 
subjects, but rather instruments, of judg- 
ment. This makes for the non-Christian 
position of the judged, The brethren 
are the Christian poor and needy and 
suffering, in the first place, but ultimately 
and inferentially any suffering people 
anywhere. Christian sufferers represent 
Christ, and human sufferers represent 
Christians.—rév éAaxiotrwy seems to be 
in apposition with &SeAgav, suggesting 
the idea that the brethren of the Son of 
Man are the insignificant of mankind, 
those likely to be overlooked, despised, 
neglected (cf. x. 42, xviii. 5). 

Vv. 41-46. Katynpapevor, cursed, not 
the cursed (ot wanting), and without 
Tov watpés pov. God has no cursed 
ones.—eis TO wp, etc., the eternal fire 
is represented as prepared not for the 
condemned men, but for the devil and 
his angels. Wendt brackets the clause 
KaTnpapevot... ayyéAots avTov to 
suggest that as Jesus spoke it the 
passage ran: go away from me, for I 
was hungry, etc.—Vv. 42, 43, simply 
negative all the statements contained in 
vv. 35, 36.-—Ver. 44 repeats in summary 
form the reply of the Sixatot, mutatis 
mutandis, rapidly enumerating the states 


Vide below. 


of need, and disclaiming, with reference 
to all, neglect of service, od SinKovicapey 
mot; ver. 45 repeats ver. 4o with the 
omission of trav aSeAdav pov and the 
addition of ov« before émowjoore.—Ver. 
46. «éAacty, here and in 1 John iv. 18 
(6 680s kédacw exer), from Kodkdlw = 
mutilation or pruning,-hence suggestive 
of corrective rather than of vindictive 
punishment as its tropical meaning. 
The use of this term in this place is one 
of the exegetical grounds rested on by 
those who advocate the ‘‘ larger hope’’. 
Another is the strict meaning of aiwvtos: 
agelong, not everlasting. From the 
combination results the phrase: age- 
long, pruning, or discipline, leaving 
room for the hope of ultimate salvation. 
But the doctrine of the future states 
must ultimately rest on deeper con- 
siderations than those supplied by verbal 
interpretation. Weiss (Mt.-Evang.) 
and Wendt (L. ¥.) regard ver. 46 as an 
interpolation by the evangelist. 

The doctrine of this passage is that 
love is the essence of true religion and 
the ultimate test of character for all men 
Christian or non-Christian. All who 
truly love are implicit Christians. For 
such everywhere the kingdom is pre- 
pared. They are its true citizens and 
God is ther Father. In calling those 


XXVI. 1—4. 


EYATTEAION 


a7] 


XXVI. 1. KAI éyéveto Ste érAdecer 6 “Ingots mdvtas tods hbyous 


, > a a > ~ ‘ 
ToUTous, etme Tols paOynTals aiTou, 2. 
vids Tod dvOpdrou wapadidorar eis Td 


To Wdoxa yivetat, Kat 6 


“ ”? 
oTaupwOjvat. 


3. Tére cuvxGnoay ot dpyrepets kat of ypapparets} 
kal ot wpecButepot Tod aod eis Thy “adAhy TOU dpxtepéws Tod 
heyoudvou Kaidpa, 4. kat ouveBouhedoayto tva tév “Incody kpary- 


‘Otdate 6 a S00 Aud . 58, 69. 
are ott werd Svo Hpdpas a vv. 58, 69 


54, 66; xv. 
16. Lk. 
xi. 21; 
XXil. 55. 
John xviii. 
15. Vide 
below. 


1 kat ot ypappaters omitted in $ABDL (Tisch., W.H., Ws.). 


who love the Father’s blessed ones 
Jesus made an important contribution to 
the doctrine of the Fatherhood, defining 
by discriminating use the title ‘‘ Father”. 

CHAPTERS XXVI.-XXVII. THE 
Passion History. These chapters 
give with exceptional fulness and 
minuteness of detail the story of Christ’s 
last sufferings and relative incidents. 
The story finds a place in all four 
Gospels (Mk. xiv., xv.; Lk. xxii., xxiii. ; 
John xviii., xix.), showing the intense 
interest felt by Christians of the apostolic 
age in all that related to the Passion of 
their Lord. Ofthethree strata of evangelic 
tradition relating respectively to what 
Jesus taught, what He did, and what He 
suffered, the last-named probably came 
first in origin. Men could wait for the 
words and deeds, but not for the awful 
tale of suffering. Even Holtzmann, who 
puts the teaching first, recognises the 
Passion drama as the nucleus of the 
tradition as to memorable facts and 
experiences. In the formation of the 
Passion chronicle the main facts would 
naturally come first ; around this nucleus 
would gather gradually accretions of 
minor incidents, till by the time the 
written records began to be compiled 
the collection of memorabilia had 
assumed the form it bears, say, in the 
Gospel of Mark; the historic truth on 
the solemn subject, at least as far as it 
could be ascertained. The passionless 
tone of the narrative in all four Gospels 
is remarkable ; the story is told in sub- 
dued accent, in few simple words, as if 
the narrator had no interest in the matter 
save that of the historian: damalds 
Gravta Sinyotvrar, Kal pdvns Tis 
Gyfetas dpovrifover.. Euthy. Zig. ad 
Mt. xxvi. 67. 

Chapter xxvi. and parallels contain the 
anointing, the betrayal, the Holy Supper, 
the agony, the apprehension, the trial, 
the denial by Peter. 

Vv. 1-5. Introductory (Mk. xiv. 1, 2, 
Lk. xxii. 1, 2).—Vv. 1-2 contain a pre- 
diction by Jesus two days before Passover 


of His approaching death; vwv. 3-5 a 
notice of a consultation by the authorities 
as to how they might compass His 
death. Inthe parallels the former item 
appears as a mere date for the latter, the 
prediction being eliminated.—Ver. 1. 
mavTas T. Adyous TovrTous, all these say- 
ings, most naturally taken as referring 
to the contents of chaps. xxiv., xxv., 
though a backward glance at the whole 
of Christ’s teaching is conceivable. Yet 
in case of such a comprehensive retro- 
spect why refer only to words? Why 
not to both dicta et facta ?—Ver. 2. 1d 
maoxa, used both of festival, as here, 
and of victim, as in ver. 17. The Passover 
began on the r4thof Nisan; it isreferred 
to here for the first time in our Gospel. 
—mapadiSorat, present, either used to 
describe vividly a future event (Burton, 
M. T., § 15) or to associate it with the 
feast day as a fixture (y{verau), ‘‘ calendar 
day and divine decree of death fixed 
beyond recall’’ (Holtz., H. C.), or to 
imply that the betrayal process is already 
begun in the thought of the false-hearted 
disciple.—Ver. 3. dre, two days before 
Passover.—o-vvynx8yoav points to a 
meeting of the Sanhedrim.—els thy 
avAny denotes the meeting place, either 
the palace of the high priest in accord- 
ance with the use of avA7 in later Greek 
(Weiss), or the court around which the 
palatial buildings were ranged (Meyer) 
= atrium in Vulgate, followed by Calvin. 
In the latter case the meeting would be 
informal. In any case it was at the 
high priest’s quarters they met: where- 
upon Chrys. remarks: ‘‘ See the inex- 
pressible corruption of Jewish affairs. 
Having lawless proceedings on hand 
they come to the high priest seeking 
authority where they should encounter 
hindrance”” (Hom, _ Ixxix.).—Kaidda, 
Caiaphas, surname, Joseph his name, 
seventeen years high priest (vide Joseph. 
Ant., 18, 2, 2; 4, 3).—Ver. 4. tva with 
subjunctive after a verb of effort or plan ; 
in classic Greek oftener 6mws with future 
indicative (Burton, § 205).—8dd® by, 


308 


awor Sddu,! Kal droxteivworr. 


KATA MATOAION 


XXVI. 


5+ €heyor 8d, “ Mi) ev rH eopri, Tra 


pi) OdpuBos yévyrar ev TO Aad.” 
6. Tod 8€ “Incod yevonevou ev Bnbavia év oixia Lipwvos tod 


b Mk. xiv.3. Nempod, 7. mpoonOey aitd yur) *addBaotpoy “ptpou exouca? 


Lk. vii. 


37 a 
(gender Baputipou,® Kal *Kxatéxeey emt thy xepaddy* adrod dvaxeypevou" 


doubtful). 
. ¢ Mk. xiv. 3 
(cf.const.). 


} darddera atty ; 


1 Sow kparnowor in NABDLAX (Tisch., W.H., Ws.). 


minusc. 


8. iSdvtes 8€ of pabytal adrod ® jyavdktnoay, Aéyovres, “Eis ti 
9. 7dvvato® yap todro 7d pupoy” mpabjvar 


T. R. supported only by 


* exovea before akaBacrpov pupov in NBDL 13, 33, 69, etc. 


Smrodutipov in NADL (Tisch.) as in T. R. in. BAX (W.H.). 


probably comes from John xii. 3. 


4 ew. tTHs Kehadns in KBD 1, 13, 69 al. (Tisch., W.H.), 
TSABDL al. omit ro pupow (Tisch., W.H.. Ws.). 


§ eSuvaro in BLA. 


craft, a method characteristic of clerics ; 
indigna consultatio (Bengel); cowardly 
and merciless.\—Ver. 5. €Aeyov Se: Se 
points back to ver. 1, which fixes the 

assion in Passover time, while the 

anhedrists thought it prudent to keep 
off the holy season for reason given.— 
py, etc., to avoid uproar apt to happen 
at Passover time, Josephus teste (B. J., 
1.5 45 3): 

Vv. 6-13. Anointing in Bethany (Mk. 
xiv. 3-9, cf. John xii. 1-11). Six days 
before Passover in John; no time fixed 
in Mt. and Mk. Certainly within 
Passion week. The thing chiefly to be 
noted is the setting of this pathetic scene, 
between priestly plotting and false 
discipleship. ‘* Hatred and baseness on 
either hand and true love in the midst ” 
eins of the Twelve).—Ver. 6. ov 

@ *Inoov, etc.: indicates the scene, in 
Bethany, and in the house of Simon 
known as the leper (the one spoken of 
in viii. 2?). The host of Lk. vii. 36 ff. 
was a Simon. On the other hand, the 
host of John xii. 1 f., or at least a pro- 
minent guest, was Lazarus, brother of 
Martha and Mary. This and other 
points of resemblance and difference 
raise the question: do all the four 
evangelists tell the same story in 
different ways? On this question end- 
less diversity of opinion has prevailed. 
The probability is that there were two 
anointings, the one reported with 
variations by Mt., Mk., and John, the 
other by Lk.; and that the two got 
somewhat mixed in the tradition, so 
that the precise details of each cannot 
now be ascertained. Happily the ethical 
or religious import of the two beautiful 


mwohvutTipov 


5 SSBDL omit avrov. 


stories is clear.—Ver. 7. a&AdBaorpoyv, an 
“alabaster”? (vase), the term, originally 
denoting the material, being transferred 
to the vessel made of it, like our word 
‘glass’ (Speaker’s Com.), in common use 
for preserving ointments (Pliny, N.H.., iii., 
3). An alabaster of nard (pvpov) was a 
present for a king. Among five precious 
articles sent by Cambyses to the King of 
Ethiopia was included a pipov ada. 
(Herod., iii., 20). On this ointment and 
its source vide ‘Tristram, Natural 
History of the Bible, p. 484 (quoted in 
notes on Mk.).—Baputipov (here only in 
N. T.), of great price; this noted to 
explain the sequel.—xedaA‘js : she broke 
the vase and poured the contents on 
the head of Jesus, feet in John; both 
possible; must be combined, say the 
Harmonists.—Ver. 8. jyavda«tyoav, as 
in xx. 24. The disciple-circle experienced 
various annoyances from first to last: 
Syrophenician woman, mothers and 
children, ambition of James and John, 
Mary of Bethany. The last the most 
singular of all. Probably all the disciples 
disapproved more or less. It was a 
woman's act, and they were men. She 
was a poet and they were somewhat 
prosaic.—dam@dera, waste, a precious 
thing thrown away. To how many 
things the term might be applied on 
similar grounds! The lives of the 
martyrs, ¢.g., cui bono? That is the 
question; not so easily answered as 
vulgar utilitarians think. Beside this 
criticism of Mary place Peter’s revolt 
against the death of Jesus (xvi. 22).— 
Ver. 9. So6Fvat, etc., to be given (the 
proceeds, subject easily understood) to 
the poor. How much better a use than 


5—I5. 


Woddod, Kai SoOijvar mrw ois.” 


a , 
adtots, “Ti *xdrous 


ewe Sé od mdvtote Exere. 


emt Tou gdépatés pou mpds TO * évtadidcat pe erroinger. 


EYATTEAION 


Bioh) 


10. Tvots 8€ 6 “Incods etiev 
‘rapéxeTe TH yuvaxt; Epyov yap Kxahdvd Lk. xi. 7; 
eipydoato ! eis end. II. wdvtote yap Tods TIwXods ExeTE pel” EauTay - 


XViil. 5. 
Gal. vi. 17. 


12. Badotoa yap attn To pupov ToiTo 


13. dprve a es 


héyw dpiv, Sou édv knpuxOf Td ebayyéAtoy TodTo év Ghw TH kdopw, 1.2). 


hadyOjcerar kat 6 éroinoey airy, eis *pynpdouvoy adits.” 
14. Tore topeubels ets Tav Swdexa, 5 Neydpevos ‘lovdas “loxapid- 
TS, THOS Tods dpxtepets, 15. etme, “Ti OedeTE por Soivar, Kayo 


1 mpyacaro in SD (Tisch., W.H.). 


to waste it in the expression of a senti- 
ment!—Ver. I0. yvovs, perceiving 
though not hearing. We have many 
mean thoughts we would be ashamed to 
speak plainly out.—ri xémous wapéyete, 
etc., why trouble ye the woman? a 
phrase not frequent in classic authors, 
though similar ones occur, and even this 
occasionally (vide Kypke); found not 
only here but in Lk. xi. 7, xviii. 5, Gal. 
vi. 17, the last place worthy to be 
associated with this; St. Paul and the 
heroine of Bethany kindred spirits, liable 
to ‘‘troubles’’ from the same sort of 
people and for similar reasons.—kadoyv, 
noble, heroic: a deed done under in- 
spiration of uncalculating love.—Ver. 11 
suggests a distinction between general 
ethical categories and duties arising out 
of special circumstances. Common men 
recognise the former. It takes a genius 
or a passionate lover to see and swiftly 
do the latter. Mary saw and did the 
rare thing, and so achieved an épyov 
xahov.—épé 8 od m., ‘*a melancholy 
litotes’”’ (Meyer).—Ver. 12. mpds To 
évtad., to prepare for burial by embalm- 
ing; sO near is my death, though ye 
thought not of it: effect of the woman’s 
act, not. her conscious purpose. The 
Syriac version introduces a quasi. She 
meant nothing but to show her love, 
quickened possibly by instinctive fore- 
boding of ill. But an act done in that 
spirit was the best embalming of Christ’s 
body, or rather of His act in dying, for 
the two acts were kindred. Hence 
naturally the solemn declaration follow- 
ing, an essential part of the story, of 
indubitable authenticity.x—Ver. 13. ‘Td 
€v. TovTo, this gospel, the gospel of my 
death of love.—éy 6Am T@ xodopy: after 
Gmov é€av might scem superfluous; not 
so, however: it serves to indicate the 
range of the ‘‘wheresoever’’: wide as 
the world, universality predicted for 


f Mk. xiv. 9. 
Acts x. 4 
(Sir. xlv. 
16 al), 


ep. in BL. 


Christianity, and algo for the heroine of 
the anointing. Chrysostom, illustrating 
Christ’s words, remarks: Even those 
dwelling in the British Isles (Bpettavixas 
yyjgovs) speak of the deed done in a 
house in Judaea by a harlot (Hom. Ixxx.: 


Chrys. identifies the anointing here 
with that in Lk. vii.). 
Vv. 14-16. $Fudas offers to betray 


Sesus (Mk. xiv. 10, 11, Lk. xxii. 3-6).— 
Ver. 14. 7TéTe, then; the roots of the — 
betrayal go much further back than the 
Bethany scene—vide on xvii. 22, 23— 
but that scene would help to precipitate 
the fatal step. Death at last at hand, 
according to the Master’s words. Then 
a base nature would feel uncomfortable 
in so unworldly company, and would be 
glad to escape to a more congenial 
atmosphere. Judas could not breathe 
freely amid the odours of the ointment 
and all it emblemed.—ets +. 8., one of 
the Twelve (!).—Ver. 15. rf Oédere, etc., 
what are ye willing to give me? Mary 
and Judas extreme opposites: she freely 
spending in love, he willing to sell his 
Master for money. What contrasts in 
the world and in the same small circle! 
The mercenary spirit of Judas is not so 
apparent in Mk. and Lk.—xayd, etc.: 
kal introducing a co-ordinate clause, 
instead of a subordinate clause, intro- 
duced by gee or tva ; a colloquialism or 
a Hebraism: the traitor mean in style as 
in spirit—éornoav, they placed (in 
the balance) = weighed out. Many 
interpret: they agreed = cuvepavycay. 
So Theophy.: ‘Not as many think, 
instead of é@Luyootatyncay”. This cor- 
responds with Mk. and Lk., and the 
likelihood is that the money would not 
be paid till the work was done (Fritzsche). 
But Mt. has the prophecies ever in view, 
and uses here a prophetic word (Zech. 
xi. 12, toTnGTay Toy pigOdy pov TpL. apy., 
Sept.), indifferent as to the time when 


310 


k here only iptv wapadhow adtdv; 
in this 
sense. 

h Lk. xxii. 6 


KATA MATOAION 


XXVI. 


” Ot 8 §€otngay adta tpidxovta dpyupta: 
16. kat dws rére eLyter * edxatpiay iva adtdv mapada. 
17. THe 8€ mpdty Tay ALUpwv mpoojAOoy of pabytal 7H "Iyood, 


héyovtes abtG,! “Mod Odes Eropdowpey cor payeiv Td wéoyxa ;” 


ihere only. 18. “O 8€ elev, ““Yadyere eis Thy wodw mpds Tov Selva, Kal elmate 


j Heb. xi. 28. adt@, “O BiddoKados Ayer, “O katpds prou éyyus €ott mpds ve 
16 'rdoxa peta TOY palyTay pou.” 


) row 


1g. Kal éroinoay ot pabytai 


és cuvératey adtots 6 "Incods, kal *Trolpacay 75 wdoxa. 


20. "Oias 3€ yevoudvns dvéketto peta Tay Bddexa. 


21. Kat 


éobidvrwy adtay elev, “’Apihy A€yw piv, Ste els ef Sudv wapaddcer 


pe.” 
1NBDLA omit avte. 


payment was made. Coined money was 
in use, but the shekels may have been 
weighed out in antique fashion by men 
careful to do an iniquitous thing in the 
most orthodox way. Or there may have 
been no weighing in the case, but only 
the use of an ancient form of speech 
after the practice had become obsolete 
(Field, Ot. Nor.). The amount = about 
three or four pounds sterling, a small 
sum for such a service; too small thinks 
Meyer, who suggests that the real 
amount was not known, and that the 
sum was fixed in the tradition to suit 
prophecy.—Ver. 16. evxatpiav, a good 
occasion, the verb, evxatpéw (Mk. vi. 31), 
belongs to late Greek (Lobeck, Phryn., 
p- 125). 

Vv. 17-19. Arrangements for Paschal 
Feast (Mk. xiv. 12-16, Lk. xxii. 7-13).— 
Ver. 17. i Séapaéryt.a. The sacred 
season which began on the 14th Nisan 
and lasted for seven days, was two feasts 
rolled into one, the Feast of the Passover 
and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, 
and it was called by either name in- 
differently.—7rod, where? A much more 
perplexing question is: when? Was it 
on the evening of the 13th (beginning of 
14th), as the Fourth Gospel seems to say, 
or on the evening of the following day, as 
the synoptical accounts seem to imply, 
that Jesus kept the Paschal Feast? This 
is one of many harmonistic problems 
arising out of the Gospel narratives from 
this point onwards, on which an immense 
amount of learned labour has been spent. 
The discussions are irksome, and their 
results uncertain; and they are apt to 
take the attention off iar more important 
matters: the essentials oi the moving 
tale, common to all the evangelists. 
We must be content to remain in doubt 


22. Kat Autrovpevor opddpa aptavto Adyeww atT@ Exactos 


as to many points.—Oédeis Eroipdowpey, 
the deliberative subjunctive, without 
tva after Oéhets.—Ver. 18. tmdyere, 20 
ye into the city, t.e., Jerusalem.—mpos 
vov Seiva, to such a one, evidently no 
sufficient direction. Mk. and Lk. are 
more explicit. Mt. here, as often, 
abbreviates. Doubtless a previous under- 
standing had been come to between Jesus 
and an unknown friend in Jerusalem. 
Euthy. suggests that a roundabout 
direction was given to keep Judas in 
ignorance as to the rendezvous.—6 katpés 
pov., my time (of death). Some (Grotius, 
Speaker’s Com., Carr, Camb. N.T.) find 
in the words a reason for anticipating the 
time of the Paschal Feast, and so one of 
the indications, even in the Synoptics, 
that John’s date of the Passion is the true 
one.—row@ +t. 7. I make or keep (pre- 
sent, not future), a usual expression in 
such a connection. Examples in Raphel. 
—pera T. p.: making thirteen with the 
Master, a suitable number (justa dpatpia, 
Grotius), between the prescribed limits 
of ten and twenty. The lamb had to be 
entirely consumed (Ex, xii. 4, 43). Did 
Jesus and the Twelve eat the Paschal 
lamb? 

Vv. 20-25. The presence of a traitor 
announced (Mk. xiv. 18-21, Lk. xxii. 
21-23).—VV. 20, 21. dias 8 y. It is 
evening, and the company are at supper, 
and during the meal (éo@.dvtwv av., ver. 
21) Jesus made a startling announce- 
ment. At what stage is not indicated. 
Elsner suggests a late stage: ‘Cum 
fere comedissent; vergente ad finem 
coena,”’ because an early announcement 
would have killed appetite——Ver. 21. 
mapadswcet pe, Shall betray me. General 
announcement, without any clue to the 
individual, as in Mk. ver, 18,—Ver. 22. 


16—26. EYAITEAION 


git 


autav,) “Myre éyd etpt, xdpie;” 23. ‘O S€ droxpileis elmer, 

“"O éuBdpas pet nod év tO *tpuBAiw Thy xeipa,? obtds pe Tapa-k here and 
1 in parall. 

here and 

in Mk. xiv. 


Sdoe. 24. 6 per vids Tod dvOpdmou 'imdye, Kabds yéypantaLl 


Tept attod: odai 8¢ 7H dvOpdTrw exeiva, Br ob 6 vids Tod GvOpsmou 21 in 


Trapadid - Kahdv Hv atta, el ox eyervnOn 6 av eKELVOS.” 
padsisorar: Kahdv hy atta, et odk éyervyiOn 6 GvOpwmos exetvos. 


sense of 
dying. 


25. ‘ArroxpiOeis S€ “lovdas & mapadido0ds adtdv cite, “Mytt eyo 


€ipt, paBBi ;” 


Adyet adtd, “™ 2d ™ eitras.” 


m ver. 64. 


26. ‘Eobidvtwy S€ adtav, AaBwy 6 "Ingots tév® dptor, kal edAoyn- 


oas, ekNage kat €5i8ou * Tots jraOytais, Kai* etme, ‘ AdBete, pdyere- 


1 ets exaoros without avtwv in NBCLZ 33 (Tisch., W.H.). 
2 nv xetpa before ev tw TpvBAw in NABLZ. 


3 88BCDLZ omit tov. 


* For ed:S0u 7. p. kat exe SBDLZ, cursives, have Sous r. p. evtrev. 


Avutrovpevot seems a weak word, and the 
addition of the evangelist’s pet word 
oddd5pa does not make it strong. 
None of the accounts realistically ex- 
press the effect which must have been 
produced.—pfavro helps to bring out 
the situation: they began to inquire 
after some moments of mute astonish- 
ment.—piyte éyo, etc., can it be I? 
expecting or hoping for a negative 
answer; yet not too sure: probably 
many of them were conscious of fear; 
even Peter might be, quite compatibly 
with his boldness a little later.—Ver. 23. 
6 éuBaas, he who dipped, dips, or shall 
have dipped. The aorist participle de- 
cides nothing as to time, but merely 
points to a single act, as distinct from a 
process (cf. the present in Mk.). The 
expression in Mt. does not necessarily 
identify the man unless we render: 
who has just dipped, and conceive of 
Jesus as dipping immediately after. (So 
Weiss.) In favour of this view it may 
be said that there was no sense in refer- 
ring to a single act of dipping, when there 
would be many in the course of the 
meal, unless the circumstances were such 
as to make it indicate the individual 
disciple. The mere dipping in the same 
dish would not identify the traitur, be- 
cause there would be several, three or 
four, doing the same thing, the company 
being divided into perhaps three groups, 
each having a separate dish.—riy yelpa. 
The ancients used their hands, not 
knives and forks. So still in the East.— 
tpuBAtw. Hesychius gives for this word 
bfoBadiov = acetabulum, a vessel for 
vinegar. Hence Elsner thinks the re- 
ference is to a vessel full of bitter herbs 
steeped in vinegar, a dish partaken of at 


the beginning of the meal. More pro- 
bably the words point to a dish containing 
a mixture of fruit—dates, figs, etc.— 
vinegar and spices, in which bread was 
dipped, the colour of bricks or mud, to 
remind them of the Egyptian bondage 
(vide Buxtorf, Lex. Talm., p. 831). The 
custom of dipping here referred to is 
illustrated by the following from Furrer 
(Wanderungen, p. 133): ‘Before us 
stood two plates, one with strongly spiced 
macaroni, the other with a dish of fine 
cut leeks andonions. Spoons there were 
none. ‘There were four of us who dipped 
into the same dish.”—Ver. 24. tmayeu, 
goeth, a euphemism for death. Cf. John 
xiii, 33.—kaXdv qv without the dy, not 
unusual in conditional sentences of this 
sort: supposition contrary to fact (vide 
Burton, M. T., §§ 248-9). 

Vv. 26-29. The Lord’s Supper (Mk. 
xiv. 22-25; Lk. xxii. 19, 20).—Ver. 26. 
éo@. 5¢ avt@v: same phrase as in ver. 
21, with $é€ added to introduce another 
memorable incident of the paschal supper. 
No details are given regarding that meal, 
so that we do not know how far our 
Lord followed the usual routine, for 
which consult Lightfoot, Hor. Heb., or 
Smith’s Dictionary, article Passover. 
Neither can we with certainty fix the 
place of the Holy Supper in the paschal 
meal, or in relation to the announcement 
of the traitor. The evangelists did not 
concern themselves about such subordi- 
nate matters.—AaBay, etc., having taken 
a cake of bread and given thanks He 
broke it. The benediction may have 
been an old form put to a new use, or 
original.—etAoyjoas has not aptov for 
its object, which would in that case have 
been placed after it.—Sots, etc., giving 


KATA MATOAION 


XXVI. 


27. Kat AaBiy 1d? worjpioy, Kai® 


29. heyw Se Spty, dre 4 


n ~ 


TY 


312 
rooTé gore TS coped pou.” 
edxapioTyioas, edwKer aitois, A€ywv, “Mere @& adrod mdvtes: 
28. todto ydp éort TS ald pou, Td THs Katyys 8 Siadykns, TO Tept 
wokha@y éxxuvdpevoy eis Ader dpapTidv. 
of miw dw dpti ék tovtou Tov yevynpatos ® THs dprédou, ews 
aCh. xii, THS Apépas ekeivns, Stay atts mivw pel spay Kawov ey 
ra Bacideia Tod “watpds pou.” 


! S$BLZAE omit ro (Tisch., W.H., Ws.). 


2 xat is in NBD, but wanting in CLZAZ 1, 33. 


W.H. put it in brackets. 


$ For pov, ro THs Katyns MBLZ have pov rns, omitting kawys. D has the same 


with xawvns. 


4 $§DZZX omit ot: (Tisch., W.H., Ws.); ABCLA have ort. 


5 yevnpatos in NABCDL al. pl. 


to the disciples ; the cake broken into as 
many morsels, either in the act of giving 
or before the distribution began.—AaBere 
ayere, take, eat.—AadPBere only in Mk. 
(W. and H.).—ddyere probably an inter- 
pretative addition, true but unnecessary, 
by our evangelist.—rotré éotiv To copa 
pov, this is my body. The éott is the 
copula of symbolic significance. Jesus 
at this sacred moment uses a beautifully 
simple, pathetic, and poetic symbol of 
His death. But this symbol has had the 
fate of all religious symbolism, which is 
to run into fetish worship ; in view of 
which the question is raising itself in 
some thoughtful minds whether discon- 
tinuance, at least for a time, of the use 
efsacraments would not be a benefit to 
the religion of the spirit and more in 
harmony with the mind of Christ than 
their obligatory observance.—Ver. 27. 
wotyptov, a cup, the article being 
omitted in best MSS. It is idle, and in 
spirit Rabbinical, to inquire which of 
the four cups drunk at the paschal feast. 
The evangelist had no interest in such a 
question.—evxaptotyoas: a different 
word from that used in reference to the 
bread, but similar in import = having 
given thanks to God. Observe, Jesus 
was in the mood, and able, at that hour, 
_ to thank and praise, confident that good 
would come out of evil. In Gethsemane 
He was able only to submit.—hé€yoy, 
etc.: Mk.’s statement that all drank of 
the cup, Mt. turns into a direction by 
Jesus to do so, liturgical practice in- 
fluencing the report here as in dayere. 
Jesus would use the fewest words possible 
at such an hour.—Ver. 28. to atpa pov: 
the very colour of the wine suggestive ; 
hence called alpa ora¢vdfs in Deut. 


xxxii. 14; my blood, pointing to the 
passion, like the breaking of the bread.— 
THs Siabyxns (for the two gen. pov 
7. 8. dependent on ala, vide Winer, 
30, 3, 3), the blood of me, ofthe covenant. 
The introduction of the idea appropriate 
to the circumstances: dying men make 
wills (StariGevrat of arobvicKovtes, 
Euthy.). The epithet raisin T. R. is 
superfluous, because involved in the 
idea. The covenant of course is new. 
It is Jeremiah’s new covenant come 
at last. . The blood of the covenant 
suggests an analogy between it and the 
covenant with Israel ratified by sacrifice 
(Ex. xxiv. 8).—1é wept woddav éxxuvd- 
pevov: the shedding for many suggests 
sacrificial analogies; the present parti- 
ciple vividly conceives that which is 
about to happen as now happening; 
mept jody is an echo of dyti aroAh@v 
in xx, 28.—eis Gdeoww Gpaptiay: not in 
Mk., and may be a comment on Christ’s 
words, supplied by Mt.; but it is a true 
comment. For what else could the 
blood be shed according to Levitical 
analogies and even Jeremiah’s new 
covenant, which includes among its 
blessings the complete forgiveness of 
sin ?—Ver. 29 contains an express state- 
ment of the fact implied in the preceding 
actions, viz., that death is near. It ig 
the last time I shall drink paschal (rovtov 
7. y-, etc.) wine with you. I am to die at 
this passover. The second half of the sen- 
tence is not to be taken prosaically. It is 
the thought of meeting again, brought 
in to brighten the gloom of the leave- 
taking (‘‘ so tritt zu dem Lebewohl ein 
Gedanke an das Wiedersehen,” Holtz., 
H.C.). To disentangle figure from fact 
in this poetic utterance about the new 


27—35. 


30. Kat °Suviaavtes ef Pov eis Td Spos THv eAardv. 


héyet attois 6 ‘Inoods, “Mdvres Spets cxavdadicOycene ev enoi év 


~ \ , 
TH VUKTL TAUTY. 


muc@ycetat! ta mpoBata THs woipyys.” 


pe, Tpodéw bpds eis thy Tadthatav.” 


EYATPEAION 


33 


31. TéTe o Mk. xiv. 26 
(absol. as 
here). 


yéypamtat yap, ‘Natdgw tov woipéva, kal Stagkop- 


32. peta dé Td eyepOFvat 
33- Atroxpifels Sé 6 Metpos 


nt , 
etrev atta, “Et kal? wdvtes ckavdahiaOncovrat év col, éya obdéroTe 


oKavSadtcOnoopae.” 


34. Edy adt@ 6 "Ingois, “"Apiyy Néyw oot, OT p ver. 74, 


Mk. xiv. 


> , a 4 ‘ Pp ahé a ‘ & , » 
€vy TOUTH TH VUKTL, ply © aAEKTOPG dwvicat, tTpis Gwrapynoyn BE. 30,68. Lk. 


35- Adyet att@ 6 Mérpos, “Kav Sén pe ody coi drobavetv, ov pix) oe 


> , 2»? 
aTapynoouar. 


“‘Opolws Kat mdvtes ot pabyTal elroy. 


XXii. 34,60. 
John xiii 
38; xvili 


1 §tarxopmrigPyoovras in SABCILZ. The sing. a correction. 


3 kat omitted in most uncials. 


wine is impossible. Hence such com- 
ments as those of Bengel and Meyer, to 
the effect that xawov points to a new 
kind of wine (‘‘novitatem dicit plane 
singularem,” Beng.), serve no purpose. 
They turn poetry into prose, and pathos 
into bathos. 

The remarkable transaction narrated 
in vv. 26-29 was an acted parable pro- 
claiming at once the fact and the epoch- 
making significance of the approaching 
passion. It sets in a striking light the 
personality of Jesus; His originality, 
His tenderness, His mastery of the situa- 
tion, His consciousness of being through 
His life and His death the inaugurator of 
a new era,—Was Judas present? Who 
can tell? Lk.’s narrative seems to imply 
that he was. Mt. and Mk. give no sign. 
They cannot have regarded his absence 
as of vital importance. 

Vv. 30-46. Gethsemane (Mk. xiv. 26-42, 
Lk. xxii. 39-46).—Ver. 30. tpviycavres. 
With this participle, referring to the last 
act within the supper chamber—the sing- 
ing of the paschal hymn (the Hallel, part 
2, Ps. 115-118, or possibly a new song, 
Grotius)—we pass without, and after talk 
between Jesus and the disciples, arising 
out of the situation, arrive at the scene 
of another sacred memory of the passion 
eve. If, as is said (Lightfoot, Hor. 
Heb.), it was required of Jews that they 
should spend passover night in Jeru- 
salem, the spirit of Jesus led Him else- 
where—towards the Mount of Olives, to 
the garden of the agony.—Ver. 31. téte, 
then, on the way through the valley be- 
tween the city and Olivet, the valley of 
Jehoshaphat (Kedron), suggestive of pro- 
phetic memories (Joel ili., Zech. xiii., 
xiv.), leading up, as well as the present 
situation, to the topic.—7rayvres, all ; one 


false-hearted, all without exception weak. 
—y époi, in what is to befal me.—v Tq 
vy. T. SO near is the crisis, a matter of 
hours. The shadow of Gethsemane is 
beginning to fall on Christ’s own spirit, 
and He knows how it must fare with 
men unprepared for what is coming.— 
yéypamrat yap: in Zech. xiii. 7, freely 
reproduced from the Hebrew.—Ver. 32 
predicts a brighter future to alleviate the 
gloom. The Shepherd will yet again go 
before His flock (wpodfw, pastoris more, 
Grotius), leading them.—ets 7. FadtAaiay, 
the place of reunion. This verse is want- 
ing in the Fayum Fragment, which 
Harnack regards as a sign of its great 
antiquity. Resch, Agrapha, p. 495.— 
Ver. 33. el wavres oxavdartaOrycovrat, 
if, or although, all shall be offended; the 
future implies great probability of the case 
supposed ; Peter is willing to concede the 
likelihood of the assertion in reference to 
all the rest.—éy® ovdémote, I, never, 
vehemently spoken and truly, so far as 
he knows himself ; sincere in feeling, but 
weaker than he is aware of.—Ver. 34. év. 
7. T. V., repetition of statement in ver. 31, 
with added emphasis (ap jy, etc.), and = 
never ? this night I tell you.—mptw adé- 
KTopa dwvyjocat: more exact specifica- 
tion of the time to make the statement 
more impressive = before the dawn,— 
&XéxTwp, poetic form for dhextpuav. This 
fowl not mentioned in O. T.; probably 
introduced into Palestine after the exile, 
possibly from Babylon (Benzinger, pp. 
38, 94). Not allowed to be kept in Jeru- 
salem according to Lightfoot, but this 
is contradicted by others (Schéttgen, 
Winsche). In any case the prohibition 
would not apply to the Romans. Though 
no hens had been in Jerusalem, Jesus 
might have spoken the words to mark 


314 


q Mk. xiv. 
32. John 
IV. 5. 
Acts i. 18, 


19; iv. 34 GireNOdv mpogedgupar eKel.” 


(pl. lands); 


i. 26. 
& parall. 


3s éyo OXw, GAN as ad.” 


KATA MATOAION 


XXVI, 


36. TOTE epxerat pet’ adtdv & “Inaois cis *xwplov heydpevor 
FeBonpavy, kal Aéyer Tots pabytats, “Kabioate ato’, ews ob! 
2 37. Kat mapadaBav tov Mérpoy 
kal tods S¥o0 viods ZePedatouv, Hpgato AumeioMar Kal * ddypoveiv. 
““ 38. tore héyer adrois, “*Mepitumds eotw i Wuxy pou Ews Oavdrou - 
* Phil, pecvare Ode kal ypyyoperte pet e00.” 39. Kal mpoehOdy 3 puxpdy, 
Erecev emt Tpdowmoy alto mpoceuxdpevos, Kal Aéywr, “Mdtep pou, 
et Suvardy €or, ‘mapeNOérw dm é400 1d morhpiov TodTO* mA obKX 
40. Kal €pxerar mpds tods palytds, 


t here and val edpioxer adtods KabevSortas, Kal Aéyer TH Métpw, “ Odrws obk 


in Mk. xiv. 
35: 


1 The reading varies here, some MSS. having ems ov (B, etc.), some ews av (DLA), 


some ews (NYCM). 


2 exer mpomeveiwpar in BDL 33 al. 
So in BE (W.H. in text). 
margin). 
wpoeAGwy the true reading. 


the time of night.—rpis, thrice, sugges- 
tive of denial in aggravated form; on 
which, not on the precise number of 
times, as an instance of miraculous pre- 
diction, stress should be laid.—Ver. 35: 
intensified protestation of fidelity—xat 
before éav («av) intensive, introducing an 
extreme case, death for the Master.—ov 
py, making the predictive future em- 
phatically negative=I certainly will not. 
—époiws, similarly, weaker than Mk.’s 
@oavtTws. Very improbable, thinks De 
Wette. But the disciples were placed in 
a delicate position by Peter’s protesta- 
tions, and would have to say something, 
however faint-heartedly. 

Vv. 36-46. The agony (so called from 
the word aywvia in Lk. xxii. 44, a drag 
Xey.).—Ver. 36. xwplov, a place in the 
sense of a property or farm = villa in 
Vulgate, ager, Hilary, Grundstick, 
Weizsacker’s translation.—le8onpavi, 


probably = jow Ka, an oil press. 


Descriptions of the place now identified 
with it in Robinson’s Researches, Furrer’s 
Wanderungen, and Stanley’s Sinai and 
Palestine. — naBioate avtov: Jesus 
arranges that a good distance shall be 
between Himself and the body of the 
disciples when He enters the valley of 
the shadow of death. He expects no 
help from them.—éxei, there! pointing 
to the place visible in the moonlight.— 
Ver. 37- mapartaBov: He takes the 
same three as at the transfiguration 
along with Him that they may be near 
enough to prevent a feeling of utter 


Most uncials read mpocehOwv (Tisch., W.H.,. in 
Weiss thinks this an assimilation to Mt.’s usual expression, and 


isolation.—jjpfaro, He began. This 
beginning refers to the appearance of 
distress; the inward beginning came 
earlier. He hid His feelings till He had 
reduced His following to three; then 
allowed them to appear to those who, 
He hoped, could bear the revelation and 
give Him a little sympathy.—a8ypoveiv, 
of uncertain derivation. Euthy, gives 
as its equivalent Bapv@vpeiv, to be 
dejected or heavy-hearted.—Ver. 38. 
tore héyet avt.: He confides to the three 
His state of mind without reserve, as if 
He wished it to be known. Cf. the use 
made in the epistle to the Hebrews of 
this frank manifestation of weakness as 
showing that Christ could not have 
usurped the priestly office, but rather 
simply submitted to be made a priest 
(chap. v. 7, 8).—2reptAvmros, overwhelmed 
with distress, ‘‘tiber und wber traurig” 
(Weiss).—€ws Qavarov, mortally = death 
by anticipation, showing that it was the 
Passion with all its horrors vividly 
realised that was causing the distress. 
Hilary, true to his docetic tendency, 
represents Christ as distressed on accoun’ 
of the three, fearing they might altogethe: 
lose their faith in God.—a@%e: the three 
stationed nearer the scene of agony to 
keep watch there.—Ver. 39. puxpov, a 
little space, presumably near enough for 
them to hear (cf. Lk. xxii. 41).—émi 
apécwmov, on His face, not on knees, 
summa demissio (Beng.).—marep, Father! 
Weiss in Markus-Evang. seems to think 
that the one word Abba was all the three 
heard, the rest of the prayer being an 


36—46. 


EYAITEAION 315 


toxvoate play Spay ypnyopyjoa pet epod; 41. ypyyopette Kat 
mpovedxeabe, tva py eloéNOnte els tretpacpdy. Td pey mvedpa 


mpdOupov, 7 Sé cap§ doBevns.” 42. Mdduy “éx “Seutépou dweAOuyu Mk. xiv. 


72. John 


mpoonusato, héywr, “Mdrep pou, et oF Suvatat Todto TO ToTHptoy! ix. 24. 


Acts xi. 9 


mapehOeiy Gm euo0,” édy py) adtd miw, yernOjtw Td OéAnpd cov.” Heb. ix. 


43. Kat é€Oay edpicker aitods mad? KabedSovtas: aoav yap 


28. 


autay ot d6>0ahpoi ’ BeBapnpevor. 44. Kat ddets adrouds, diel Ody v Mk. xiv. 


aadu,* 
EpXeETat 
Aoumroy 


, 40 GL. R.). 
mpoonugato ék TplTou, Tov adtévy Aéyov eimmv.5 45. TéTE Lk. ix. 32, 
Xxi. 34. 2 


mpos ToUs pabyTas adTod,® kai Aéyer adTots, ““Kabevdere TO" Cor. i. 8; 
‘ 3 , of a id Ul bad < 9 a c ce A to 
Kat dvamavecQe- idou, HyyiKey  Gpa, Kai 6 ulds Tod 


GvOpumou mapadidotar eis yxeipas duaptwhay. 46. éyetpecbe, 


Gywpev. idou, HyytKery 6 Tapadidous pe.” 
1 S$ABCILA omit to wotyptov (Tisch., W.H.). 
2 SEDL omit am epov (Tisch., W.H.). * wadtv evpev autovs in SBCDILZ. 
4 wakty amehOwv in S8BCDIL. 5 }9BL have a second waAty after e:trev. 
® Most uncials omit avtov. 7 ro omitted in BCL. 


expansion and interpretation by the comes He will be independent of them. 


evangeli 


st. But ifthey heard one word —Ver. 42. éywv, saying; whereupon 


they could hear more. The prayer follow the words. Mark simply states 
uttered in such a state of distress would that Jesus prayed to the same effect.— 


be a lo 
icyupas 


ud outburst (cf. peta cpavyys ov Svvarar: od not wy. He knows that 
, Heb. v. 7), at once, therefore it is not possible, yet the voice of nature 


before the disciples had time to fallasleep says strongly: would that it were !—Ver. 


or even 
this cup 
not as I 


get drowsy.—td wortrpiov T., 43. Kaevdovras: again! surprising, one 
(of death).—2Ajy, etc., howbeit would say incredible on first thoughts, 
wish, but as Thou, expressively but not on second. It was late and they 


elliptical; no doubt spoken in a calmer were sad, and sadness is soporific.—Ver. 
tone, the subdued accent suggestive ofa 44. Jesus leaves them sleeping and goes 
change of mood even if the very wordsdid away again for the final struggle, praying 
not distinctly reach the ear of the three. as before.—Ver. 45. kaGevdere . ie 


Grotius, 


from theological solicitudes, avamwaveoQe, sleep now and rest; not 


takes 0éhkw=OeAorps, ‘vellem”’ (‘more ironical or reproachful, nor yet seriously 
Hebraeorum, qui neque potentialem meant, but concessive = ye may sleep 
neque optativum modum habent”).— and rest indefinitely so far as I am con- 


Ver. 40. 
ately aft 


épxetat: not necessarily immedi- cerned; I need no longer your watchful 
er uttering the foregoing prayer. interest. The Master’s time of weakness 


Jesus may have lain on the ground for a_ is past; He is prepared to face the worst. 


consider 


able time silent.—rt@ Métpw: all —# dpa: He expects the worst to begin 


three were asleep, but the reproach forthwith: the cup, which He prayed 


was mo 


st fitly addressed to Peter, the might pass, to be put immediately into 


ovTws: Euthy. puts a mark of interroga- first step, on the point of being taken.— 
tion after this word, whereby we get this apaprwAdy,the Sanhedrists, with whom 


sense - 


would-be valiant and loyal disciple-— His hands.—qwapad{Sorar, betrayal the free 


So? Is this what it has come Judas has been bargaining. — éyefp. 6 « 


to? You were not able to watch with Gymwp.: sudden change of mood, on Cpr 


me one 
consona 
Vv. 4 


hour! A spirited rendering in signs of a hostile approach: arise, let us 
nce with Mark’s version. go; spoken as if by a general to his army. 
2-46. Further progress of the —6 mwapad.dovs, the traitor is seen to be 


agony.—That Jesus had not yet reached coming. Itis noticeable that throughout 
final victory is apparent from His com-_ the narrative, in speaking of the action 
plaint against the disciples. He eae, al Tuee lice engaans ie aed 


craving, 
not got. 


needing a sympathy He had_ instead of mpoSiSopr: the former ex- 
When the moment of triumph presses the idea of delivering to death, 1 


316 KATA MATOAION XXVI. 


47. Kat Ere adtod Aadodvros, iBot, “lovSas eis trav Sddexa HAGE, 

w here and Kat per attod dxXos Todds peta paxatpav kat “drwy, awd tov 
in parall. : ‘ a a © OA (Waa ya 
«=cudgels, dpxtepéwy Kat mpecButépwy tod aod. 48. 6 S€ wapadidobs adrov 
ESwxevy abtois onpetov, Néywr, “Ov dv pidyjow, adtés ore Kpati- 

gate altéy.” 49. Kal et0éws, mpocehOay TO "Incod ete, “ Xaipe, 

paBBi,” Kat xatedt\noey adtév. 50. 6 S8€ ‘Incods elev adta, 
““Eraipe, éh @! mdper;” Tére mpooedOdvtes eréBadoy Tas xeipas 


1 ep o in SABCDLA, etc. (modern editors). 


the latter of delivering into the hands of reasserts itself in his soul, and he feels 
those who sought His life (Euthy. on he must salute Him affectionately. At 
ver. 21). the same instant it flashes upon him that 

The scene in the garden is intrinsically the kiss which both smouldering love 
probable and without doubt historical. and cowardice compel may be utilised as 
The temptation was to suppress rather asign. Inconsistent motives? Yes, but 
than to invent in regard both to the such is human nature, especially in the 
behaviour of Jesus and to that of His Judas type: two-souled men, drawn 
disciples. It is not the creation of theo- opposite ways by the good and evil in 
logy, though theology has made itsown them; betraying loved ones, then hang- 
use of it. It is recorded simply because ing themselves.—Ver. 48. atrdéds éorwy, 
it was known to have happened. He and no other is the man.—Ver. 4g. 

Vv. 47-56. The apprehension (Mk. xiv. kareptnoev, kissed Him heartily. In 
43-52, Lk. xxii. 47-53).—els 7. 8@8exa, as late Greek there was a tendency to use 
in ver. 14, repeated not for information, compounds with the force of the simple 
but as the literary reflection of the vgrb, and this has been supposed to be a- 


chronic horror of the apostolic church case in point (De Wette). But coming 
that such a thing should be possible. after gtArjow, ver. 48, the compound 
That it was not only possible but a fact verb is plainly used with intention. It 
is one of the almost undisputed cer- occurs again in Lk. vii. 38, 45, xv. 20, 
tainties of the passion history. Even obviously with intensive force. Whata 
Brandt, who treats that history very tremendous contrast between the woman 
sceptically, accepts it as fact (Die Evan- in Simon’s house (Lk. vii.) and Judas! 
gelische Geschichte, p. 18)-—per avtot, Both kissed Jesus fervently: with strong 
etc.: the description of the company to emotion; yet the one could have died for 
whom Judas acted as guide is vague; 6x. Him, the other betrays Him to death. 
wok. is elastic, and might mean scores, Did Jesus remember the woman at that 
hundreds, thousands, according to the moment ?—Ver. 50. ératpe: so might a 
standard of comparison.—éyAos does master salute a discipfe, isci 

not suggest soldiery as its constituents, ion i i Le 
neither does the description of the arms word here (so Elsner, Palairet, Wolf, 
borne—swords and staves. Lk. (xxii. Schanz, Carr,Camb.N. T.). It answers 
52, oTpaTnyous T. tepov) seems to have to pai in the salute of Judas.—éq’ 6 
in his mind the temple police, consisting mdpe., usually taken as a question: ‘‘ad 
of priests and Levites with assistants, quid venisti?” Vulg. Wherefore art thou 
and this view appears intrinsically pro- come? A.V. ‘“‘Wozubistduda?” Weiz- 
bable, though Brandt (EZ. G., p. 4) scouts sacker. Against this is the grammatical 
it. The Jewish authorities would make gbjection that instead of 8 should have— 


arrangements to ensure their purpose ; the Winer, § 2 maintains t 
temple police was at theircommand, and as might be used instead of tis in a 
they would send a sufficiently large direct question in late Greek. To get 
number to overpower the followers of over the difficulty various suggestions 
their victim, however desperate their re- have been made: Fritzsche renders: 
sistance.—Ver. 48. €Swxev: the traitor, friend, for what work you are come! 
as he approached the place where he taking 6= olov. Others treat the sen- 
shrewdly guessed Jesus would be, gave tence as elliptical, and supply words 
(dedit, Vulg.), not had given. His plan before or after: ¢.g., say for what you 
was not cut and dry from thes“irst. Is- are come (Morison), or what you have 
flashed upon him as he drew near and come for, that do, R. V., Meyer, Weiss. 
began to think how he would meet The last is least satisfactory, for Judas 
his Master. The old charm oi the Master had already done it, as Jesus instinctively 


47—55: 


Pye A ? A ‘ LeeN 
€wit Tov Ingotv, Kat éxpdtynoay attdv. 


Gmro\ouvrar. 


EYATTEAION 


317 


51. Kat i8ou, ets ray pera 


‘Ingod, éxteivas thy xetpa, *dnéonace ty pdyaipay adtod, Kal * here only 
A C = x A . a “ = “ 5 in same 
matdfas tov Sodhoy tod apyxtepews adethey adtou Td 7 dtiov. ane 

. SIM- 

52. téTe Ayer 67H 6 “Ingods, “’Amdatpepov cov Ty pdyatpay t Be verb). 
> cy , 2A \ € , > , ae, 
Eig TOV TOTOV auTHS’ mdavTes yap ot AaBdvTes pdyatpay ev payatpa xxii. 41. 
2 a ‘B) ue , P ” ate p ibs x pe Acts xx. 

53-7 SoKxets Ste od SUvapor Opt.” TWapakaAeoar Toy 30; xxi.1. 

y Mk. xiv. 

Ag (Dak 


TaTépa pou, Kal wapagtyoer por wAeious 79 SHSexa Aeyedvas 


ay yeh ; 
yeveoOa ;” 


55- Ev éxetvyn TH Spa eimev & “Inaots Tors Sydots, “ ‘As 
Ayothy e&HdOete peta paxatpdy Kal Eddwv *ouddaBety pe; 


1 gov after Thy payatpay in BDL. 


54. Ts obv TAnpwOdow at ypadhai, Ste otrw Bet 51. 


Lk. xxii. 


John 
XViii. 10 
(T. R,). 
> . Z parall. 
emt Actsi. 16; 
oy Sst Ge 
Ka§ exit 27. 


A apr after wapaorycet por in NBL 33 al. (Tisch., W.H.). 


3 For wiectovs 4 SBD have tiew. 


The reading in T. R. is a grammatical 


correction, uncalled for as the construction in mAeww 8. Aeyewvas is good Greek. 


knew.  Fritzsche’s suggestion is in- 
genious, and puts a worthy thought into 
Christ’s mouth. Perhaps the best solu- 
tion is to take the words as a question in 
effect, though not in form. Disciple, 
for which, or as which, you are present ? 
Comrade, and as a comrade here? So 
Judas pretended, and by the laconic 
phrase Jesus at once states and exposes 
the pretence, possibly pointing to the 
crowd behind in proof of the contrary. 
So in effect Beng.: ‘‘hoccine illud est 
cujus causa ades?’’; also Schanz. _The 


oint is that the Master gives the false 
aacipte to understand that He does not 


__ believe in his paraded affection. 


Vv. 51-54. Blood drawn.—l8ov, intro- 
ducing a second scene connected with 
the apprehension (cf. ver. 47) ; the use of 
a weapon by one of Christ’s disciples. A 
quite likely occurrence if any of them 
happened to have weapons in their 
hands, though we may wonder at that. 
It might be a large knife used in connec- 
tion with the Paschal feast. Who used 
the weapon is not said by the Synop. 
Did they know? The article before 
paxatpay might suggest that the whole 
party were armed, each disciple having 
his sword. The fear that they might be 
explains the largeness of the band fol- 
lowing Judas.—Ver. 52. amdéotpeor: 
Jesus could not encourage the use of 
arms by His disciples, and the order to 
sheathe the weapon He was sure to give. 
The accompanying word, containing a 
general legal maxim: draw the sword, 
perish with the sword (the subsequent 
history of the Jewish people a tragic 


exemplification of its truth), suitably en- 
forces the order. Weiss thinks that this 
word recorded here was spoken by Jesus 
at some other time, if at all, for it appears 
to be only a free reproduction of Rev. 
xiii. 10 (Meyer, ed. Weiss). This and 
the next two verses are wanting in Mk. 
and Lk.—Ver. 53 gives another reason 
for not using the sword: if it were God’s 
will that His Son should be rescued it 
could be done in a different way. The 
way suggested is described in military 
language, the verbs wapaxadety and 
mapioravar being both used in classics in 
connection with military matters, and the 
word \eye@vas suggesting the battalions 
of the Roman army.—8odcxa, twelve 
legions, one for each of the twelve dis- 
ciples.—Aelw, even more than that vast 
number, Divine resources boundless. The 
free play of imagination displayed in this 
conception of a great army of angels 
evinces the elasticity of Christ’s spirit 
and His perfect self-possession at a criti- 
cal moment.—Ver. 54. w@s ovv: refers 
to both forms of aid, that of the sword 
and that of angels (Grotius, Fritzsche) ; 
rescue in any form inconsistent with the 
predicted destiny of Messiah to be a 
sufferer.—tt otTw, etc., the purport of 
all prophetic scripture is that thus it 
should be: apprehension and all that is 
to follow. 

Vv. 55, 56. Fesus complains of the 
manner of His apprehension.—év én. 7. 
pq, connects with éxpatygay aitéy in 
ver. 50. Having said what was necessary 
to the bellicose disciple, Jesus turns to 
the party which had come to arrest Him, 


KATA MATOAION 


XXVI. 


Hpépay mpds Suds! exabeLonny SiSdoxwv dv 1H tepd,? Kai ox 


éxparjgaté pe. 
ypapat tay mpopntay.” 
Epuyor. 


56. toito 8€ Sdov yéyovev, tva mAnpwldow al 
Tére ot padytal® wdvres adpévres adtov 


57. Ol 8€ xparjoavres tév ‘Ingoivy dmjyayor mpds Katdhay tds 
Gpxiepéa, Srou ot ypapparets Kal of mpeoButepo ourjxOnoar, 
58. “O 8€ Mérpos jeodolOea aitd dwd* paxpdbev, Ews Tis addis 
Tou dpxtepéws~ Kal cicehOdy Eow exdOyTo peta Tay UwnpeTay, idely 


I NBL 33 omit wpos vpas (Tisch., W.H.). 
2 «vy Te tepw before exafeLouny in NBL 33 (Tisch., W.H.). 
* B has avtov after pa@yrat (W.H. in margin). 


4 BD have amo (W.H. in brackets). 


here called trois 6xAots.—as earl Aqoriy, 
etc. : the words may be taken either asa 
question or as a statement of fact. In 
either case Jesus complains that they 
have arrested Him as if He were a 
robber or other criminal. A robber as 
distinct from a thief (vide Trench, 
Synonyms) is one who uses violence to 
possess himself of others’ property, and 
Christ’s complaint is in the first place 
that they have treated Him as one who 
meant to offer resistance. But the 
reference to His past habit in the sequel 
seems to show that He has another com- 
plaint in His mind, viz., that they have 
regarded Him as one hiding from justice. 
The allusion is to the invasion of His 
privacy in the garden, and the implied 
suggestion that they have put a false 
construction on His presence there. 
They think He has been seeking escape 
from His fate when in fact He has been 
bracing Himself up for it! To what 
misconstruction the holiest and noblest 
actions are liable, and how humiliating 
to the heroic soul! It was thoroughly 
characteristic of Jesus that He should 
feel the humiliation, and that He should 
at once give expression to the feeling. 
This against Brandt (p. 6), who thinks 
this utterance in no respect appropriate 
to the situation.—xa@’ *jpépay, etc. : 
Jesus asks in effect why they did not 
apprehend Him while, for several days 
in succession, He sat in the temple pre- 
cincts teaching. To this it might be 
replied that that was easier said than 
done, in midst of a miscellaneous crowd 
containing not a few friends of the ob- 
noxious teacher (so Brandt). But what 
Jesus is concerned to point out is, not 
the practicability of arrest in the temple, 
but that His behaviour had been fear- 


SCLA omit (Tisch.), 


less. How could they imagine that a 
man who spoke His mind so openly 
could slink away into hiding-places like 
an evil-doer? Brandt remarks that the 
complaint is addressed to the wrong 
persons: to the underlings rather than 
to the hierarchs. It is addressed to 
those who actually apprehended Jesus, 
whoever they were. Who composed 
that crowd it would not be easy in the 
dark to know.—Ver. 56. ‘otro 88, etc.: 
a formula of the evangelist, introducing 
another reference by Jesus to the pro- 
phecies in these terms, tva mrAynpwidow, 
etc. Jesus reconciles Himself to the in- 
dignity in the manner of His arrest, as 
to the arrest itself, and all that it in- 
volved, by the thought that it was in 
His ‘‘cup” as described by the prophets, 
The prophetic picture of Messiah’s ex- 
perience acted as a sedative to His 
spirit.—rére, then, when the appre- 
hension had been effected, and meekly 
submitted to by Jesus.—mdvres, Peter 
included.—€vyoy, fled, to save them- 
selves, since their Master could not be 
saved. This another bitter drop in the 
cup: absolute loneliness. 

Vv. 57-68. Before Caiaphas (Mk. xiv. 
53-65; Lk. xxii. 54, 66-71).—apos Kaua- 
day, to Caiaphas, who sent them forth, 
and who expects their return with their 
victim.—6mov, where, 7.¢., in the palace 
of Caiaphas.—yp. wal mp.: scribes and 
presbyters, priests and presbyters in ver. 
3. Mk. names all the three; doubtless 
true to the fact.—ovvyx6qnoay, were 
assembled, waiting for the arrival of the 
party sent out to arrest Jesus. In Mk. 
the coming together of the Sanhedrim 
appears to be synchronous with the 
arrival of Jesus. This meeting happens 
when the world is asleep, and when 


56—62. 


TS TéXos. 


EYATTEAION 


319 


59. Of $e Apyxrepets Kal of mpeoBuTepor! Kal 7d guvédptoy 


a Ch. xv. 1g 


Shov é€Lyjtouy *hevdopaptupiay xard Tol ‘Ingo’, Saws adtov Oavatw- bCh. xii. 43 


gwot, 60. kai? ody “edpov: Kal modhav 
OdvTwy, obx eSpov.? otepoy Sé moovehOdvtes SUo Pevdopdptupes® 61. 


eitrov, “ObTos Epn, Atvvapat xataddoat Tov vady Tod Geos, kai * Sia 


cal dec ~ > 5 a ES ee Lay | 
TplWY NPEPWy OLKOOOKYTAL AUTOY. 


> CN Et N43 2Q A € , . , = , e A Ai 
€LTey GUTW, Oude QWOKPLYY ; Te OUTOL TOU KATAWAPTUPOUCLY ; 


c 1 Cor. xv 

*WevSonaptipwy mpogeh- : Be, 
Mk. ii. 1 
Acts xxiv 
17. Gal 


ii. I. 
62. Kat dvactas 6 dpyrepeds e Ch. xxvii 


> 13. Mk. 
Xiv. 60. 


ISSBDL 69 it. vg., Egypt. verss., omit os wpeoButepot, which comes in from 


ver. 57. 
? For the passage kat ovK evpov. . . 


ovk evpoy SWBCL verss. have cat ovk evpoy 


tokAwy moooeASovtwv Wevdopcptupwv (Tisch., W.H., Ws.). 


3 NBL omit bevSonaprupes. 


judicial iniquity can be perpetrated 
quietly.— Ver. 58 is the prelude to the 
story of Peter’s denial, which is resumed 
at ver. 69 after the account of the trial. 
Similarly in Mk. Lk. gives the story 
without interruption.—paxpdé$ev, from 
afar: Peter followed his Master, having 
after a while recovered from the general 
panic ; more courageous than the rest, 
yet not courageous enough; just enough 
of the hero in him to bring him into the 
region of temptation.—éws +. av. Cf. 
Mk., ver. 54.—iSeiv 1d réAXos, to see the 
end; a good Greek phrase. Motives: 
curiosity and honest interest in the fate 
of his loved Master. Jerome puts these 
alternatively: ‘‘vel amore discipuli vel 
humana curiositate”’, 

Vv. 59-68. The trial.—Ver. 59. 1. 
ovv. Sdov, the whole Sanhedrim, ef. 
mavrtes in Heb. iii. 16, the statement in 
both cases admitting of a few exceptions. 
— wWevSopaprupiay, false evidence, of 
course in the first place from the evan- 
gelist’s point of view (paptvpiay in 
Mk.), but substantially true to the fact. 
They wanted evidence for a foregone 
conclusion ; no matter though it was false 
if it only looked true and hung fairly well 
together. Jesus was apprehended to be 
put to death, and the trial was only a 
blind, a form rendered necessary by the 
fact that there was a Procurator to be 
Satisfied.— Ver. 60. odx edpov: they found 
not false witness that looked plausible 
and justified capital punishment.— 
mo\hov mw. .: it was not for want of 
witnesses of a kind; many offered them- 
selves and made statements, but they did 
not serve the purpose: either trivia! or 
inconsistent ; conceivable in the circum- 
stances: coming forward on the spur of 
the moment from the crowd in answer 
to an invitation from prejudiced judges 


* B omits avrov (W.H.). 


eager for damnatory evidence. Those 
who responded deserved to be stigma- 
tised as false. None but base, mean 
creatures would have borne evidence in 
such a case.—8vo, only two had anything 
to say worth serious attention.—Ver. 61. 
ovTos py, this person said: then follows 
a version of a word really spoken by 
Jesus, of a startling character, concerning 
destroying and rebuilding the temple. 
An inaccurate report of so remarkable a 
saying might easily go abroad, and the 
version given by the two witnesses seems 
from xxvii. 40 to have been current. They 
might, therefore, have borne wrong evi- 
dence without being false in intention..— 
Svvapat, in an emphatic position, makes 
Jesus appear as one boasting of preter- 
natural power, and tév vady ‘ov Beod, 
as irreverently parading His power in 
connection with a sacred object.—&1a r. 
y-, literally throug three days = after: 
for similar use of the preposition, vide 
Gal. ii. 1. The meaning is: after three 
days I will complete the rebuilding, so 
that 81a in effect is=év in John ii. 19.— 
Ver. 62. davaoras 6 ap.: the high priest 
rose up not because he felt the evidence 
just led to be very serious, rather in irri- 
tation because the most damaging state- 
ments amounted to nothing more serious. 
A man could not be sentenced to death 
for a boastful word (Grotius).—ov8év 
awokpivy .. . kaTapaptupovowy: either 
one question as in Vulg.: ‘nihil re- 
spondes ad ea quae isti adversum te 
testificantur ?””’ or two as in A. V. and 
R. V., so also Weizsacker: answerest 
Thou nothing? what do these witness 
against Thee? It is an attempt of a 
baffled man to draw Jesus into explana- 
tions about the saying which will make 
it more damaging as evidence against 
Him. What about this pretentious word 


320 


63. ‘O 8é "Ingots éoudsma. 


KATA MATOAION 


XXVI. 


kai dwoxpibeis? 6 dpytepeds elev ada, 


fhere only. “*’E€opxiLw oe kata Tod G00 Tod Lavtos, iva iptv elays, et od ef 


oe 5 Xpiords, 6 vids Tod Ged.” 
g Mk. xiv 


64. Adyet atrd & "Ingods, “Xd elias. 


63. Acts WARY Adyw Spir, dr’ dptt See dv vldv Tod dvOpatrou siglo 


xiv. 14 


b Mk. xiv. ex SefvGv tis Suvdpews Kal épxdpevov emt trav veehGy Tod odpavod.” 


iil. 29 (T. 65. Tore 6 sei cg Paiteenss Ta ipdtia adrtod, 


R.), with 


gen.of €Bd\acdypnoe: 

penalty aa g 

(Gen. THY Braodnyptay adrod. 

XXVi. TI). , 
i Mk. xiv. 65. etrov, “*"Evoyos Oavdtou éorti.” 

1 Cor. iv. a ee 

It, alee. Tpdcwrov avTou, Kal 


xii. 


1 BLZ vul. copt. al. omit amoxpuOets. 
2? NcBDLZZ 33 omit ott. 


of yours; is it true that you said it, and 
what does it mean ?—Ver. 63. éovdra: 
Jesus seeing the drift of the questions 
gave the high priest no assistance, but 
continued silent.—éfopxilw (¢Sopxéw more 
common in classics), The high priest 
now takes a new line, seeing that there 
is no chance of conviction any other 
way. He puts Jesus on His oath as to 
the cardinal question of Messiahship.— 
eLai el 6 Xpicros, etc.: not two ques- 
tions but one, Son of God being exe- 
getical of the title Christ. If He was 
the one He was the other ifso facto.— 
Ver. 64. ot elwas: in current phrase= 
Iam. Was Jesus morally bound to an- 
swer? Why not continue silent? First, 
the whole ministry of Jesus had made 
the question inevitable. Second, the 
high priest was the proper person to ask 
it. Third, it was an important oppor- 
tunity for giving expression to His Mes- 
sianic self-consciousness. Fourth, silence 
would, in the cirumstances, have amount- 
ed to denial.—wAnv not=“ neverthe- 
less,’ but rather = nay more: I have 
something more startling to tell you. 
What follows describes the future of the 
Son of Man in apocalyptic terms, and 
is meant to suggest the thought: “ the 
time is coming when you and I shall 
change places; I then the Judge, you 
the prisoners at the bar”’. 

Vv. 65-68. dre: At last they have, 
or think they have, Him at their mercy. 
—Siéppnev, etc.: a very imposing act as 
the expression of true emotion ; in reality 
a theatrical action demanded by custom 
and performed in accordance with rule: 
length and locality of rent, the garments 
to be rent (the nether; all of them, even 


66. Ti Spiv Soxet;” 


‘éxohddioay ator: 


héyor, “"Ore? 


Ti €tt xpetavy Exoney paptipwy; ide, viv qKxovcate 


Ot Sé doxpibévres 
67. Téte évémrucay eis Td 
ot de Seedriaes 68. 


Petii. ao. N€yorres, “ Mpodyteucoy Huiv, Xptoré, tis €or 6 walcas oe ;” 


> S8BDLZ omit avrov. 


if there were ten, said the Rabbinical 
rule: note the plural here, ra iparia), all 
fixed. A common custom among Eastern 
peoples, It was highly proper that holy 
men should seem shocked immeasurably 
by ‘blasphemy ”. — éBdacdrpycer : 

Was it blasphemy for a man to call Him- 
self Messiah in a country where a mes 
siah was expected? Obviously not. It 
might be to call oneself Messiah falsely. 
But that was a point for careful and de- 
liberate examination, nct to be taken for 
granted. The judgment of the high 
priest and the obsequious vote of the 
Sanhedrim were manifestly premature. 
But it does not follow from this that the 
evangelist’s account of the trial is un- 
historical (Brandt, p. 62). The Sanhe- 
drists, as reported, behave uo more.— 
Ver. 66. €voyos OBavdrov: death the 
penalty of blasphemy, Lev. xxiv. 15, and 
of being a false prophet, Deut. xviii. 20. 
—Vv. 67-68: to judicial injustice suc- 
ceed personal indignities: spitting in the 
face (évérrugav), smiting with the fist 
(€xoAadioay, not Attic, kovSvAifw used 
instead), or with the open hand 
(éppamicay, originally to beat with 
rods). Euthy. Zig. dist nguishes the two 
last words thus: KoAa¢iopos is a stroke 
on the neck with the hollow of the hand 
so as to make a noise, pamtopas a stroke 
on the face. The p petrators of these 
outrages in Mk. are tivés and of v7r7- 
pérar, the former word presumably point- 
ing to some Sanhedrists. In Mt. the 
connection suggests Sanhedrists alone. 
Incredible that they should condescend 
to so unworthy pra eedings, one is in- 
clined to say. Yet it was night, there 
was intense dislike and they might feel 


63—75- 


EYATTEAION 


321 


69. ‘0 S€ Métpos Efw exdOnto! ev rH addy, Kat mpcondOev abro 


pia ) madiony, A¢youca, “Kai od Ro0a peta ‘Inood rod FadtAatou.” j parall. Lk. 


70. “O 8€ jpyncaro éumpoober wdvtwr, héywr, “ Odx oida ti héyets.” 
71. EgedOdvta S€ adtév? eis tov “ muh@va, eldev adtoy GAAn, Kat 
Aéyer Tois éxet, “Kat? obtos fy peta ‘Incod rod NaLwpaiov.’ 
72. Kat wad qpyycaro'pe0 Spxou, “ “Ort odk ofda Tov avOpwrov.” | 
73. Meta puxpdv S€ mpocedOdvtes of Eotates eitov TO Métpw, 
“°AhnOds Kat od €& adtav et- Kai ydp 7) “Aahid cou *SyAdv oe 


a 33 
TTOLEL. 


ovk o1da Tov GvOpwrov.” 


74. Tote jpgato Katavabepatifer* cai dpvdew, "Ort 
Kat evOéws ddextwp épuvyce. 


xii. 45. 
Acts xii. 
13. Gal. 
iv. 22. 
> k Lk. xvi. 20, 
Acts x. 17; 
xiv. 13. 
Ch. xiv. 7 
(same 
phrase). 
m John iv. 
42; Vill.43. 
n 1 Cor. xv 
27. Gal. 
ili, 11, 


75. kat 


éuvyoOn 6 Mérpos Tod Prpatos Tod° ‘Inco’ eipnxdros auTd,® “Or 


mpi ahéktopa gwvijca, rpis dwapyion pe. 


* exhauge TLKpaS. 


! exadyto efw in NBDLZ. 
3 89BD omit «ae before ovtos. 


° The article is wanting in most uncials. 


they did God service by disgracing a 
pretender. Hence the invitation to the 
would-be christ to prophesy (wpod7tev- 
gov) who smote him when he was struck 
behind the back or blindfolded (Mk. xiv. 
65). Thus did they fill up the early hours 
of the morning on that miserable night. 
Sceptical critics, ¢g., Brandt, p. 69, 
also Holtz., H. C., suggest that the 
colouring of this passage is drawn from 
O. T. texts, such as Micah iv. 14 (Sept. 
Vee AGH Vi.) WSs Oli. 3-5, Ue kings 
xxii. 24, and that probably the texts 
created the “facts”. That of course is 
abstractly possible, but the statement 
of the evangelist is intrinsically pro- 
bable, and it is to be noted that not even 
in Mt. is there a “that it might be ful- 
filled”. 

Vv. 69-75. Peter’s denial (Mk. xiv. 66- 
72, Lk. xxii. 54-62). The discrepancies 
of the four accounts here are perplexing 
but not surprising. It would be difficult 
for any one present in the confused 
throng gathered within the palace gate 
that night to tell exactly what happened. 
Peter himself, the hero of the tale, had 
probably only hazy recollections of some 
particulars, and might not always relate 
the incident in the same way. Har- 
monistic efforts are wasted time. Com- 
parative exegesis may partly explain how 
One narrative, say Mt.’s, arose out of 
another, ¢.g., Mk.’s (Weiss, Marcus- 
Evang.). But on the whole it is best 
to take each version by itself, as one way 
of telling a story, which in the main is 


o Ch. ii. 18. 
kat é@feMOav ef mx. v. 38, 
39. Lk. vi. 

ZI, 25. 


2 S9BLZ omit this avtov. 
* The mass of uncials have xatafcpatiferv. 


§ SBDL omit auto. 


accepted even by writers like Brandt 
as one of the certainties of the Passion 
history. 

Ver. 69. 6 82M. : S€ resumes the Peter- 
episode introduced at ver. 58.—éxa0nro, 
was sitting, while the judicial proceed- 
ings were going on.—avAq, here means 
the court, atrium; the trial would take 
place in a chamber within the buildings 
surrounding the court.—pia 7., one 
servant girl, to distinguish from another 
referred to in ver. 71 (@AAn).—xal ov, 
you too, as if she had seen Jesus in com- 
pany with His disciples, Peter one of 
them, recognisable again, perhaps during 
the last few days.—ladthaiov: He a 
Galilean; you, too, by your tongue.— 
Ver. 70. ov« otda, etc.: affectation of 
extreme ignorance. So far from know- 
ing the man I don’t even know what you 
are talking about. This said before all 
(pm. wdvrwy). First denial, entailing 
others to follow.—Ver. 71. eis rf. 
mvA@va, to or towards the gateway, 
away from the crowd in the court.— 
GAQ (wardioxy), another saw him, and 
said, not to him, but to others there (not 
easy to escape !).—otros, etc., this per- 
son, pointing to him, was, etc.—Ver. 72. 
pe’ Spkov: second denial, more em- 
phatic, with an oath, and more direct: I 
know not the man (rév av.).—Ver. 73. ot 
eota@tes, loungers; seeing Peter’s con- 
fusion, and amusing themselves by 
tormenting him. — ahy@ds, beyond 
doubt, you, too, are one of them; of the 
notorious gang.—H Aadid: They had 


2t 


322 


KATA MATOAILON 


XXVIL. 


XXVIT. 1. MPQIAL BE yevonévys, cupBovAroy EXaBov wavtes ot 


Gpxtepets Kal ot mpeoBitepor tod aod Kata Tod “Ingod, wore 


A > , ‘ , em , 4 
Bavatauat adtév: 2, kat Siycavres adtév dmyyayov, kal wapédwxay 


abtév Novtiw! Midtw TO Hyepour. 


3. Téte iddv “lodSas 6 mapadiSods? adrdéy, Ste KarexpiOn, pera- 


pedndeis dméotpepe® ta tprdkovta dpytpia tots dpxrepedor Kat 


4 avrov Novtiw omitted in BLE; C omits avrov. 


gloss. 
* wapadovg in BL 33. 


heard him speak in his second denial, 
which so leads up to a third. Galilean 
speech was defective in pronouncing the 


gutturals, and making Yj = [)-—Ver. 74. 


kata@epatifey (here only, xatava@. in 
T. R., probably belonging to vulgar 
speech, Meyer), to call down curses on 
himself, sign of irritation and despera- 
tion; has lost self-control. completely. 
—kal ev@is: just after this passionate 
outburst a cock crew.—‘* Magna circum. 
stantia,” Beng.—Ver. 75. Kal éuvio0n: 
The cock crowing caused a sudden re- 
vulsion of feeling, and flashed in on 
Peter’s mind the light of a vivid recollec- 
tion: the word his Master had spoken.— 
ampiv, etc., repeated as in ver. 34.— 
éfeXOv, going out, neither in fear of 
apprehension (Chrys., Euthy.) nor from 
shame (Orig., Jer.), but that he might 
give free rein to penitent feeling.— 
éxAavoev, wept loudly, as distinct from 
Saxpvev (John xi. 35), to shed tears. 
CHAPTER XXVII. THE PAassION 
History CONTINUED.—Vv. 1,2. Morn- 
ing meeting of the Sanhedrim (Mk. xv. 
mee lek.e XXil.0 00, | Xx net )e— Vela Te 
cupBovAtov €daBov: this consultation 
took place at a meeting of Sanhedrim, 
which was probably only a continuation 
of the night meeting, though regarded as 
formally a second meeting, to keep right 
with the law which humanely required, 
at least, two sittings in a grave criminal 
case; the Sanhedrists in this, as in all 
things, careful to observe the letter, 
while sinning against the spirit of the 
law. Those who were present at the 
night meeting would scarcely have time 
to go home, as the hearing of many 
witnesses (xxvi. 59) would take hours. 
Absent members might be summoned to 
the morning meeting (Elsner), or might 
come, knowing that they were expected. 
—tmdyres points to a full meeting, as 
does also tov Aaod after mpeoButepor. 
The meeting was supremely important, 


The words are an explanatory 


> eorpewe in NBL (Tisch., W.H., Ws.). 


though in one respect pro formd. The 
law or custom required a death sentence 
to be pronounced during day-time. 
Therefore, the vote of the night meeting 
had to be formally confirmed. Then they 
had to consider in what shape the case 
was to be put so as to ensure the consent 
of Pilate to the execution of their sen- 
tence ; a most vital matter.—déore @ava- 
Taga avTéy, So that they might compass 
His death; the phrase seems meant to 
cover both aspects of the business on 
hand: the formal sentence of death, 
and the adoption ot means for securing 
that it might be carried into effect.— 
Gore, with infinitive, here expresses 
tendency: that He should die, the drift 
of all done. The result as yet remained 
uncertain.—Ver. 2. Syaavres: no men 
tion of binding before in Mt.’s narrative, 
lf Jesus was bound at His apprehension 
the fetters must have been taken oft 
during the trial.—amyyayoy, etc., they 
led Him away and delivered Him to 
Pontius Pilate. No mention at this 
point what they had resolved to say to 
Pilate. That comes out in Pilate’s 
questioning. Pilate was a very undesir- 
able judge to come to with such a cause 
a poor representative of Roman authority ; 
as described by Philo. and Josephus, as 
destitute of fear of God or respect for 
justice, as the unjust judge of the 
parable ; but, like him, accessible on the 
side of self-interest, as, no doubt, the 
Sanhedrists knew very well.—r@ hyepovt, 
the governor; a general title for one 
exercising supreme authority as repre 
senting the emperor. The more specific 
title was éitpomos, procurator. The 
ordinary residence of procurators was 
Caesarea, on the sea coast, but it was 
their custom to be in Jerusalem at 
passover time, with a detachment of 
soldiers, to watch over the public peace. 

Vv. 3-10. The despair of Fudas.— 
Peculiar to Matthew ; interesting to the 
evangelist as a testimony even from the 





EYATTEAION 


I—Io. 


323 


trois! mpecButépots, 4. Aéywr, ““Huaptov mapadods atua * dQdov.” a here and 
peoBurép Y pap p p re an 
22 . . 


Oi Sé etrrov, “Ti mpds Huds; od sper. 5- Kat pipas ta dpydpra 


év TO vaa,® dvexdpnoe- Kai dweNOdv -danytato. 6. Ol dé dpxvepets b here only 
D vad,® dvexdpy ty pxtepeis b here or 

haBdvtes ta Gpydpia eimov, “OdK efeot. Badeivy atta els Tov (Tobit iii. 
a 10). 

*xopBavay, éret *tiph atpards éote.” 7. ZupBovAroy d¢ haPérres, « here only. 

jyopacay e& adtay tév dypov Tod * kepapéws, eis *tagiy tots §€vors. 9. Acts 

» ma iv. 34. 1 

8. 81d exdnOn 6 aypds exetvos dypos alpatos, Ews THs oHpPEpov. Corea 
> ec A al. 

g. Tote emnpwby 7d pndev Sid *lepeptou Tod mpodyjtou, AéyovTos,e Rom. ix. 
x a I. 

‘Kal 2daBov Ta Tpidkovta apytpta, Thy Tiwty TOO TeTiLHpEVoU, 8v ¢ here only: 


éripjoavto did uidy “lopand: Io. Kai edwxav alta eis Tov dypov 


Tod Kepapéws, Kad ouvéragé por Kuptos.” 


1 SSBCL 33 omit tots. 


2 oy in the most important uncials. 


3 ets Tov vaov in SQBL 33, 69 al. (Tisch., W.H., Ws.). 


false disciple to the innocence of Jesus, 
and the wickedness of His enemies, and 
as a curious instance of prophecy ful- 
filled.—Ver. 3. 1Tére connects the re- 
pentance of Judas with the leading of 
Jesus away to Pilate which he regarded 
as sealing his fate. What happened was 
but the natural result of the apprehension 
which he himself had brought about, and 
he doubtless had the natural issue in 
view at the moment of apprehension. 
But reaction had set in, partly as a 
matter of course in a ‘‘two-souled”’ 
man, partly at sight of the grim reality: 
his Master led to death by his assistance 
(Sr. Karexp(On).—petrapeAnfels, regret- 
ting, rueing what he had done: wishing 
it were undone.—améotpewe (€orperpe 
W.H. as in Is. xxxviii. 8), returned the 
thirty pieces of silver, a sign in such a 
nature that the repentance as far as it 
went was very real.—Ver. 4. jpaptov, I 
sinned, I did wrong.—rapaSovs a. a. ex- 
plainshow. The sinningand the betraying 
are one, therefore the participle does not 
point to an act antecedent to that of the 
main verb.—alpa a@eov, innocent blood, 
for the blood of an innocent person. So 
in Deut. xxvii. 25. Palairet cites ex- 
amples to prove that Greek writers used 
atpa as = GvOpwros.—ti mpos Hpas: 
that is not our concern.—ovd ower, look 
thou to that = ‘‘tu videris,”’ a Latinism. 
The sentiment itself a Cainism. ‘‘ Ad 
modum Caini loquuntur vera progenies 
Caini” (Grotius).—Ver. 5. eis Tov vadv: 
not in that part of the temple where the 
Sanhedrim met (Grotius), or in the 
temple at large, in a place accessible to 
laymen (Fritzsche, Bleek), or near the 
temple (Kypke), but in the holy place 


itself (Meyer, Weiss, Schanz, Carr, 
Morison); the act of a desperate man 
determined they should get the money, 
and perhaps hoping it might be a kind 
of atonement for his sin.—amyyéarto, 
strangled himself; usually reconciled 
with Acts i. 18 by the supposition that 
the rope broke. The suggestion of 
Grotius that the verb points to death from 
grief (“non laqueo sed moestitia ”) has 
met with little favour.—Ver.6. kopBavay, 
the treasury, referred to by this name by 
Joseph. (B. J. ii. 9, 4).—tipy aipards 
éott: exclusion of blood money from the 
treasury, an extension of the law against 
the wages of harlotry (Deut. xxiii. 18).— 
Ver. 7. Tov Gypov T. Kepapéws, the field 
ofthe potter. The smallness of the price 
has suggested to some (Grotius, e.g.) that 
it was a field for potter’s clay got cheap 
because worked out. But in that case it 
would naturally be called the field of the 
potters.—tévois most take as referring to 
Jews from other lands dying at Jerusalem 
at passover time.—Ver.8. aypds aipatos 
= aceldama, Acts i. 18, name otherwise 
explained there.—€ws tHS onpepov: 
phrase frequent in O. T. history; sign 
of late date of Gospel, thinks De Wette. 

Vv. 9, 10. Prophetic reference, rote, 
as in ii, 17, not tva or 6mws.—d.a 
*lepeptov, by Jeremiah, in reality by 
Zechariah (xi. 13), the reference to 
Jeremiah probably due to there being 
somewhat similar texts in that prophet 
(xviii. 2, 3, xxxil. 6-15) running in the 
evangelist’s mind. Apettyerror. More 
serious is the question whether this is 
not a case of prophecy creating “‘ facts,” 
whether the whole story here told is not 
a legend growing out of the O. T. text 


324 KATA 


MATOAION 


XXVII. 


11. “O 8€ "Ingods Eoty! Eprpoober Tod Hyepdvos~ Kal emnpwdtycer 
abrév 6 iyepdv, Aéywv, “Xd ef & Baciteds Tay "loudaiwy;” ‘O Se 


"Ingots En atta? “Xd éyets.” 


12. Kal év 16 KatnyyopetoOar 


adtév b3d tOv dpxepéwy Kai Tv mpecBuTépwr, obSev dmeKpivato. 


13. Tore Aéyer adTS 6 MuAdtos, “OdK doves méca cod KaTapap- 


A » 
Tupovst ; 


BaupdLew tov tyepndva Alay. 


14. Kat odk dwexpiQn adt@ mpds ob8€ ev fipa, dote 


> NBCLE have eorabn, for which the scribes substituted the more usual earn. 
? avtw has the support of ABXAX, but Tisch. and W.H. (in text) on the authority 


of SXL omit it. 


quoted. So Brandt, who thinks the 
betrayal the only fact in the story of 
Judas, all the rest legendary (E. G., p. 
11). The truth rather seems to be that 
facts, historical traditions, suggested 
texts which otherwise would never have 
been thought of. This may be inferred 
from the manipulation necessary to make 
the prophecy correspond to the facts: 
€\aBov, Ist person singular in Sept., 
3rd person plural here = they took; the 
expression ‘the children of Israel ” 
introduced with apparent intention to 
make the nation responsible for the 
betrayal ; the substitution of the phrase 
‘the field of the potter’ for ‘‘ the house 
of the Lord”. And after all the mani- 
pulation how different the circumstances 
in the two cases! In the one case it is 
the prophet himself, valued at a petty 
sum, who cast his price into the House of 
the Lord; in the other, it is the priests, 
who bought the life of the prophet of 
Nazareth for a small sum, who give the 
money for a potter’s field. The only 
real point of resemblance is the small 
value set upon a prophet in either case. 
It is a most unsatisfactory instance of 
prophetic fulfilment, almost as much so 
as that in Mt. ii. 23. But its very un- 
satisfactoriness makes for the historicity 
of the story. That the prophetic text, 
once associated with the story in the 
minds of believers, reacted on the manner 
of telling it, e.g., as to the weighing of 
the price (xxvi. 15), and the casting of 
the money into the holy place (xxvii. 5), 
is conceivable. 

Vv. 11-26. Fesus before Pilate (Mk. 
xv. 2-15, Lk. xxiii. 2-7, 13-25).—Ver. 11. 
6 82 “Incots: Sé resumes an interrupted 
story (ver. 2).—ov et, etc.: Art Thou the 
King of the Jews? The question reveals 
the form in which the Sanhedrists pre- 
sented their accusation. They had 
translated ‘‘ Christ” into ‘ King of the 


Jews” for Pilate’s benefit, so astutely 
giving a political aspect to what under 
the other name was only a question of 
religion, or, as a Roman would view it, 
superstition. A most unprincipled pro- 
ceeding, for the confession of Jesus that 
He was the Christ no more inferred a 
political animus than their own Messianic 
expectations.—od A€yers = yes. One is 
hardly prepared for such a reply to an 
equivocal question, and there is a 
temptation to seek escape by taking 
the words interrogatively = dost thou 
say so? or evasively, with Theophy. = 
you say, I make no statement. Ex- 
planations such as are given in John 
xvili. 33-37 were certainly necessary.— 
Ver. 12. The accusations here referred 
to appear to have been made on the back 
of Pilate’s first question and Christ’s 
answer. Mark indicates that they were 
copious. In Lukethecharge is formulated 
before Pilate begins to interrogate (xxiii. 
2). The purpose of their statements 
would be to substantiate the main charge 
that Jesus claimed to be King of the 
Jews in a sense hostile to Roman 
supremacy. What were the materials 
of proof? Possibly perverse construc- 
tion of the healing ministry, of the con- 
sequent popularity, of Christ’s brusquely 
independent attitude towards Rabbinism, 
suggesting a defiant spirit generally.— 
ovdev amexpivaro (note use of Ist aorist 
middle instead of the more usual arrex- 
pi§n). Jesus made no reply to these 
plausible mendacities, defence vain in 
such a case.—Ver. 13. Pilate noting 
His silence directs His attention to what 
they have been saying.—Ver. 14. Kat 
ov amexpi0n: still no reply, though 
no disrespect to the governor intended. 
—Gore Oavpatev, etc., the governor 
was very much (Atav, at the end, 
emphatic) astonished: at the silence, 
and at the man; the silence attracting 








11I—20. 


EYATTEAION 


B75 


15. Kara 8€ éoprhy Scidder 6 iyendv “dwoddew eva TO dyAw g Mk. x. 1. 


'Séopuov, dv 7edov. 


BapaBBav. 


“Tiva Oédete Grohtow bpiv; BapaBBav, % “Incodv tov heydpevov 


Xptotév ;” 


18. qde yap ore “Sia “GOdvoy twapédwxay adtdv. 


Lk. iv. 46. 


16. etxov S€ tote S€oproy! ewionpoy, Aeydpevoy Acts xvii. 


> A A 2. 
17. cuvnypevwv obv adtav, elmev adtots 6 MuAdTos, hActsiii. 13. 


i here and 
in Mk. xv. 
6in Gospp. 
Acts xvi. 


19. KaOynpévou 8é adtod émt tod Bypatos, dmdotethe pds adtév 7} Eph iii. 1 


A > a , c , ‘ A , > , 2 a al. 
yuri adtod, Ad€youga, “Mndév cor Kal TO Sixaiw exeivw> WoAAG | Rom.xviz 


A ” , 2, > > , 2 
yap emalov onpepov kat dvap 8 autdv. 

c , ” a ” ° > 7 a a 
ot mpecButepor Emrercay Tods Sx ous, tva aitiowvTat Tov BapaBBav, 


attention to the Silent One.——A new 
type of Jew this. The result of his 
observation is a favourable impression ; 
how could it be otherwise? Pilate was 
evidently not alarmed by the charge 
brought against Jesus. Why? Appa- 
rently at first glance he saw that the 
man before him was not likely to be a 
pretender to royalty in any sense that he 
need trouble himself about. The ov in 
an emphatic position in ver. rr suggests 
this = You the King of the Jews! Then 
there was nothing to bear out the pre- 
tension: no position, prestige, wealth, 
following; no troops, etc. (Grotius). 

Vv. 15-18. Appeal to the people.— 
Pilate, not inexperienced in Jewish affairs, 
nor without insight into the ways of the 
ruling class, suspects that there are two 
sides to this matter. The very accusa- 
tion suggests that the accused may be 
innocently popular, and the accusers 
jealous. An existing custom gives the 
opportunity of putting this to the test.— 
Ver. 15. Kata éoprnv, at feast time 
(singulis festis, Hermann, Viger, p. 633), 
not all feasts, but the passover meant.— 
ei@Qer, was accustomed; time and cir- 
cumstances of the origin of this custom 
unknown; a custom likely to arise 
sooner or later, as it symbolised the 
nature of the passover as a passing over 
(Weiss-Meyer), and helped to make the 
governor’s presence at that season wear 
a gracious aspect; on that account pro- 
bably originating under the Romans,— 
Ver. 16. etyov: they, the people (6xAq, 
ver 15).—éwionpov: pointing not to the 
magnitude of his crime, but to the fact 
that for some reason or other he was an 
object of popular interest.—BapaBBav, 
accusative of BapaBBas =son of a 
father, or with double p, and retaining 
the y at the end, Bar-Rabban = son of 
a Rabbi. Jerome in his Commentary on 
Mt. mentions that in the Hebrew Gospel 
the word was interpreted filius magistri 
ecovum. Origen mentions that in some 





(in a good 
sense). 
k Phil. 1. 15. 


20. Ot 8€ dpyxtencts Kal 


MSS. this man bore the name ¥esus, an 
identity of name which makes the con- 
trast of character all the more striking. 
But the reading has little authority.— 
Ver. 17. thva OédeTe Grokicw. Here 
Pilate seems to take the initiative; in 
Mk. he is first reminded of the custom 
(xv. 8). Mk.’s whole account is fuller 
and clearer.—Bap. 4 ‘Ino. The two 
names put before the people, as pre- 
sumably both popular more or less, 
Barabbas for some unknown reason, 
Jesus by inference from being called 
“Christ”. No favouritism implied. 
Pilate is feeling his way, wants to do the 
popular thing as safest for himself.—Ver. 
18. Yer, he knew, perhaps too strong 
a word, the fact being that he shrewdly 
suspected—knew his men, and instinc- 
tively divined that if Jesus was a popular 
favourite the Pharisees would be jealous. 
This explains his sang froid in reference 
to the title ‘‘ King of the Jews,” also his 
offering the name of Jesus to the people. 

Vv. 19-20. Interlude of Pilate’s wife, 
in Mt. alone, probably introduced to ex- 
plain the bias of Pilate in favour of 
Jesus apparent in the sequel (Weiss- 
Meyer).—Ver. 19. unSev, etc., nothing 
to thee and that just one = have nothing 
to do with proceedings against Him.— 
mwoAXG yap : reason for the advice, an un- 
pleasant dream in the morning (oypepov, 
to-day, early). The historicity of this 
incident is of course doubted, the use 
made of it, with embellishments, in 
apocryphal writings (Acta Pilati) being 
pressed into the service. But it is quite 
credible nevertheless. First, the wife of 
Pilate might be there, for it had become 
customary for wives to accompany pro- 
vincial governors. Tacitus, Ann. iii. 33, 
34, Mentions an unsuccessful attempt in 
the senate to put down the practice. 
Second, she had a husband that much 
needed good advice, and would often get 
it from a good wife. Third, it was a 
womanly act. 


Tov 8€ “Ingodv dmodoworr. 


adtots, “Tiva O\ere Grd T&v B00 dwoddow Spiv ;” 


“ BapaBBav.” } 

Tov eydpevov Xptotdv ; ” 

Mk. x. 26; 23. “O 8€ Hyepdv® Ey, “Th 
Xv. 14 ( 


H,). 


XXVi, II. 


KATA MATOAION 


XXVII. 


21. dwoxpiels S€ 6 iyepov elev 
Ot S¢€ eltov, 


22. Aé€yer adrots 6 Middtos, “ Ti obv roujow “Inoodr 
A€youow att? mdvtes, “ ZravpwOyTw.” 


, 
yap kaxdv éroinoev;” Ot 8é | Tepic- 


‘Kets 8 Expatov, Aéyovtes, “ ZtaupwOjtTw.” 24. “I8dv Bé 6 Muddros, 


mhere only, Ott oUS€v @hedet, AAAA pGAXov OdpuBos yiverat, AaBdv Gwp, ™ darevi- 


Warto Tas xelpas dtrévavtt 4 


aiwatos Tod Suxatou © 


Tod SxAou, Aéywr, 


ToUTou* pets dipeoGe.” 


cc? 


AOGds eipe did Tod 
25. Kat dmoxpibets 


mas 6 Aads ele, “TS aipa adtod ep’ Hyds Kal emi Ta Texva Hav.” 


n here and 26, Téte dwéducev adtots Tov BapaBBav: tov Se ‘Inoodv ™ ppaychha- 


in Mk. xv. 
15. 


1 roy before Bap. in NBL 1, 33. 
2 avtw omitted in NABDAZ. 


4 xatevavTt in BD (W.H. in text bracketed), 


cas TapédwKey iva cTaupwOy. 


3 NB 33, 69 omit nyepov. 
NLAZ have amevavte (Tisch.). 


5 BD omit tov Sikatov, which probably has crept in from ver. 19. 


Vv. 20-26. Result of the appeal to the 
people.—Ver. 20. ot 8 apy., etc.: the 
Sanhedrists saw the danger, and set 
themselves to bias the popular judgment, 
not sure what might otherwise happen— 
with success, émweroav. So when, after 
due interval, the governor put the ques- 

‘tion, the reply was (ver. 21) tév BapaB- 
Bay, and to the further question what 
then was to be done with Jesus: the 
unanimous (mavtes) reply was Zravpw- 
@yjrw. Where were the men who had 
a few days ago shouted Hosanna? If 
there, how fickle; if absent, why? Or 
were they silent, cowed by the prevailing 
mood ?—Ver. 23. Tt yap xaxov: ellipti- 
cal, implying unwillingness to carry out 
the popular will. (Fritzsche, Grotius.) 
Some, Palairet, Raphel, etc., take yap 
as redundant.—epioods Expafov, they 
kept crying out more loudly. Cf. Mk., 
where the force of weptoo@s comes out 
more distinctly.—Ver. 24. Sti ovdev 
edei, that it was no use, but rather 
only provoked a more savage demand, 
as is the way of mobs.—)cBdv 8wp, 
etc.: washed his hands, following a 
Jewish custom, the meaning of which 
all present fully understood, accompany- 
ing the action with verbal protestations 
of innocence. This also, with the grim 
reply of the people (ver. 25), peculiar to 
Mt.; a ‘traditional addition’ (Weiss). 
—vVer. 26. téte aréd\voev: Pilate, lack- 
ing the passion for justice, judges not 
according to the merits but according to 
policy. When he discovered that Jesus 


was not a popular favourite, in fact had no 
friends, he had no more interest in Him, 
but acted as the people wished, loosing 
Barabbas and delivering Jesus to be 
crucified, after having first subjected 
Him to scourging (dpayeAX\ooas = 
flagello, a Latinism probably borrowed 
from Mk.). Such was the barbarous 
practice of the Romans. It is alluded to 
by Josephus (B. J., v. 11, 1) in these 
terms: paotryotpevor 5} kal mpoBacav- 
{opevot tod Oavdrov mwacav aixkiav 
GverTaupotyTo Tov Telyovs GvTLKpv. 
Brandt thinks that the alleged custom of 
releasing a prisoner had no existence, and 
that the story in the Gospels arose out 
of an occurrence at a later time, the 
release of a prisoner the son of a Rabbi 
concerned in a tumult. The Christians 
said; they release the son of the Scribe 
and they crucified our Jesus, and at last 
the incident was read back into the story 
of the Passion (EZ. G., pp. 94-105). 

Vv. 27-31. Fesus the sport of the 
soldiery (Mk. xv. 16-20).—Ver. 27. ré7ve: 
when Jesus had been sentenced to cruci- 
fixion.—oi orpati@rat tT. 4., the soldiers 
of the governor, i.e., his bodyguard.— 
mapahaBdvres, etc.: they conducted 
Jesus from the scene of judgment (with- 
out) to the mpattwptoy, i.e., the official 
residence of the procurator, either Herod’s 
palace, or more probably a palace con- 
nected with the fort Antonia, with 
barracks attached. The word has various 
meanings: a general’s tent, a governor’s 
residence, the barracks of the Praetorian 


2I—32, 


EYATTEAION 


327 


27. TOTE of otpari@tar Tod Hyepsvos, tapahaPovtes tov ‘Inoodv 


> x, 0 , , 5219) ye éx ‘ A s 

ELS TO “ WHALTWPLOY, TUYNYAyOv ET GUTOV OAHY THY OTrELpaY * 28. ka.0 et 
it 16. 

exducavtes! adtov, mepidOyxav abtS xapdda KoKkivyy?- 

mréEavtes atépavoy é& dxavOav, émeOnnay emt Thy Kehadiy § adtou, 


kal kddapov emt thy Sefiav 4 adtod* Kal yovuTeTicarytes Eutpoobey 


adtod, évématfov® adta, éyovtes, 


KV. 
John 
XKviii. 28- 
33; xix. 9. 
Acts xxiii. 
35- Phil. 
re 


29. Kat 


“Xatpe, 6 Baowteis® tay 


, 
loudaiwy:” 30. Kal éumricavtes eis adtév, EhaBov tév Kddapor, 


kat €tuttov eis Thy Kepadiy adtou. 


4 
31. Kal ote évérratgav adta, 


e&éSucay abtov Thy xAapuda, Kai évéducay adtov Ta ipdria adTod ¢ 


\ A 
Kal Gtryyayov adtév eis TO oTaUupa@cal. 


32. Egepxdpevor 8€ edpov 


1 BD and some old Latin codd. have evSvcavres, which Weiss thinks has been 


changed into ex. from not being understood. 


Vide below. 


* yAapvba coxxivyny before meprefykay in BDL 6g al. (Tisch., W.H.) 


3 ew. THS Kehadys in NBL 6g. 
Jey ty Sefta in NABDLZ 1, 33, 69 al. 
5 everrarLav in BDL 33. 


6 BDA have Baotdev (W.H. in brackets, o Baw. in margin). 


guard, the Praetorian guard itself.— 
ouvyyayov, etc.: gathered about Him 
(for sport) the whole owetpay, at most a 
cohort of 600, more probably a maniple 
of 200. (‘ omwetpa, anything twisted 
round like a ball of thread, is a transla- 
tion of ‘manipulus’; a wisp of hay.” 
Carr in Cam. N. T., ad loc.) A large 
number to assemble for such a purpose, 
but Roman soldiers at passover time 
would always be on the alert for serious 
work or sport, and here was no ordinary 
chance of both, a man sentenced to be 
crucified who passed for King of the 
Jews. What more natural than to make 
sport of Him, and through Him to show 
their contempt for the Jewish people? 
(Holtzmann, H.C.).—Ver. 28. éxdvo- 
avres (or évd.) a.: taking off (or putting 
on) His clothes. If we adopt the former 
reading, the implied situation will be 
this: Jesus first stripped for scourging, 
then reclothed ; then stripped again at 
the commencement of the mocking pro- 
cess. If the latter, this: Jesus after 
scourging led naked to the praetorium, 
there clothed, all but His upper gar- 
ment, instead of which they put on 
xAapvsa x. (Meyer).—xAap. koxkivyy, a 
scarlet cloak, probably a soldier’s sagum. 
Carr renders asoldier’s scarf, and suggests 
that it may have been a worn-out scarf 
of Pilate’s (Herod’s, Elsner). The ridi- 
cule would be more lifelike if it was 
really a fine article that might be, or had 
been, worn by a potentate.—mhéfavtes 
or. cf d., weaving out of thorns a crown ; 


not, say Meyer and Weiss, hard and 
sharp, so as to Cause great pain, but 
young, flexible, easily plaited, the aim 
being to ridicule not to inflict torture. 
Possibly, but the soldiers would not 
make a point of avoiding giving pain. 
They would take what came first to 
hand.—kxdAapov, a reed; apparently 
under the gov. of éwé@yxav, but really 
the object of €@yxav, understood.—yovv- 
aeTyoavtes: after the investiture comes 
the homage, by lowly gesture and wor- 
shipful salutation: yatpe BaotAed +. ’I. 
Hail, King of the Jews. A mockery of 
the nation in intention quite as much as 
of the particular victim. Loesner (Ob: 
serv.ad N, T.) adduces from Philo. (in 
Flaccum, 6) a historic parallel, in which 
the youth of Alexandria treat similarly a 
half-witted person, Karabas, the real 
design being to insult Herod Agrippa. 
Schanz and Holtzmann also refer to this 
incident.—Ver. 30. At this point rough 
sport turns into brutal treatment, as the 
moment for execution of the sentence 
approaches.—éparrvoavres: spitting, sub- 
stituted for kissing, the final act of 
homage, followed by striking with the 
mock sceptre (€rumtov €. tT. K.).—Ver. 
31. e&€Svoav, etc.: they took off the 
mock royal robe, and put on again His 
own garments (ra iparca, the upper 
garments, but why the plural ?). No 
mention of the crown; left on according 
to some of the ancients, Origen, e.g.: 
“‘semel imposita et nunquam detracta ” ; 
and, according to the same Father, con 





328 


KATA MATOAION 


XXVIL. 


Ch v. 4: GvOpwrov Kupyvaioy, dvépate Eipwva: todrov  jyydpevoay tva apy 


q John iv. Tov oTaupdy avTod. 


J: Ibe 
r Acts viii. 


33. KAI édOdvtes eis té1ov Aeydpevoy Fodyoba, ds! eoTe Neyopevos 


23. ’ ™ ~ a a 
rt xiii, 1 Kpavlou tém05,2 34. Tédwxay atta * meV dfos 8 peta * xodis 


(same 
const.). 


19 in most uncials. 


3 owov in NBDL (Tisch., W.H.). 
from Mk. 


# meAnoev in NBDLZ. 


sumed by the head of Jesus (*‘ consumpta 
a capite Jesu”). Taken off doubtless 
along with the rest, for there must be no 
mockery of Jesus or Jews before the 
public. Such proceedings only for the 
barracks (Holtz., H.C.). 

Vv. 32-38. Crucifixion (Mk. xv. 21-27 ; 
Lk. xxiii. 26, 35-38).—This part of the 
story begins with the closing words of 
ver. 31: ‘they led Him away to be 
crucified ”,—Ver. 32. é&epxspevor: going 
out (of the city) according to later 
Roman custom, and in harmony also 
with Jewish usage (Num. xv. 35, I 
Kings xxi. 23, Acts vii. 58).—av@p. Kup.: 
a man of Cyrene, in Libya, presumably 
recognisable as a stranger, with whom 
liberties might be taken.—yyyapevoav, 
compelled; a military requisition. Cf. 
at chap. v. 41.—tva G@py +. o. Jesus, 
carrying His cross according to the cus- 
tom, has broken down under His burden, 
Gethsemane, betrayal, the ordeal of the 
past sleepless night, scourging, have 
made the flesh weak. No compassion 
for Him in finding a substitute; the 
cross must be carried, and the soldiers 
will not.—otavpov: see on ver. 35.— 
Todyo8a: Weiss remarks on the double 
heydpevov—before the name, and in the 
following interpretation—and thinks it a 
sign that Mt. is copying from Mk. One 
wonders indeed why Mt., writing for 
Jews, should explain the word at all.— 
Kpaviov tomos, place of a skull (‘« Cal- 
variae locus,” Vulg., whence ‘‘ Calvary” 
in Lk., A. V.), of skulls rather, say many 
interpreters; a place of execution, skulls 
lying all about (Jerome started this view). 
Recent interpreters (including Schanz) 
more naturally take the word as pointing 
to the shape of the hill. The locality is 
quite uncertain. 

Ver. 34. olvov pera xoArs p., wine 
mingled with gall. Mk. has éopupvic- 
pévoy ov., wine drugged with myrrh, a 
drink given by a merciful custom before 
execution to deaden the sense of pain. 


* peptypevoy: Kal yevodpevos obx 7behe* mety. 


35. LTaupwoartes 


2 kpaviov Toros heyopevos in NBL 1, 33 al. 
Weiss thinks it possible that owwos has come 


The wine would be the sour wine or 
posca used by Roman soldiers, In Mk. 
Jesus declines the drink, apparently with- 
out tasting, desiring to suffer with clear 
mind. In Mt. He tastes (yevodpevos) 
and then declines, apparently because 
unpalatable, suggesting a different motive 
in the offerers, not mercy but cruelty; 
maltreatment in the very drink offered. 
To this view of the proceeding is ascribed 
the pera xodrjs of Mt.’s text, not without 
the joint influence of Ps. Ixix. 22 (Meyer 
and Weiss). Harmonists strive to re- 
concile the two accounts by taking yoA 
as signifying in Hellenistic usage any 
bitter liquid (quamvis amaritiem, Els- 
ner), and therefore among other things 
myrrh, Prov. v. 4, Lament. iii. 15 
(Sept.), in which xoAy stands for worm- 


wood, J))7, are cited in proof of this. 


Against the idea that Mt ’s text has been 
altered from Mk.’s under the influence of 
Ps. Ixix. 22, is the retention of otvos (6f0s 
in Ps. and in T. R.) and the absence ol 
any reference to the passage in the 
usual style—‘ that it might be fulfilled,” 
etc. 

Ver. 35. otavpecavtes (from orav- 
péw, to drive stakes; in later Greek, and 
in N. T., to impale on a stake, eravpés). 
All the evangelists touch lightly the 
fact of crucifixion, hurrying over the 
painful subject as quickly as possible; 
Mt., most of all, disposing of it in a 
participial clause, Many questions on 
which there has been much discussion 
suggest themselves, ¢.g., as to the struc- 
ture and form of the cross: did it consist 
of an upright beam (palus, stipes) anda 
cross beam (fatibulum, antenna), or of 
the former only, the hands being nailed 
to the beam above the head? (so Fulda, 
Das Kreuz und die Kreuzigung, 1878). 
Was Christ’s cross a crux commissa (T) 
or a crux immissa (t)? Or is this dis- 
tinction a purely imaginary one, as Fulda 
(p. 126) maintains against Justus Lip- 


33—38. 


EYATTCEAION 


329 


8é adrov, *Siepepioavto Ta twadtia auTod, * Bdddovtes! “KAypov: tvat Lk. xi. 17, 


lal NS MC ‘ © x A , ¢ Ld Re, , s 
twAnpwhh Td pyYev bro tod mpodytou, ‘ Atepepicavto Ta ipaTia pou 
c ~ ‘ ‘ SN ¢ , ” ~ 22 
€auTots, Kal €mt Tov ipaticpov pou EBadov KA‘jpov. 


, wo ees, > ~ 
KaOypevor “éthipouy autTov éxet. 


Kepadis attoo thy “aitlay attod yeypappevny, “ObTds éotwy 


‘Inoods 6 Baothets Tay “lovdaiwy.” 


att® So Anotal, eis ex Seay Kal ets ef edwvdpur. 


i Badovtes in AD (W.H. in margin). 


2 From iva 7A1/,w8y to end of ver. 35 is omitted in RABDLZ. 


come in from John xix. 24. 


sius, till Fulda the great authority on the 
subject of crucifixion? The work of the 
more recent writer should certainly be 
consulted before coming to a final de- 
cision on the form of the cross or the 
method of crucifixion. Another question 
is, what did Jesus carry to the place of 
execution: the upright post or the cross 
beam? (the latter according to Mar- 
quhardt, Rém. Alter. vii. 1, 1). And how 
was His body fixed to the cross: were 
the feet, ¢.g., nailed as well as the hands, 
or only tied to the beam with a rope or 
with wands or left free? The passages 
cited from ancient authors bearing on 
the subject, Artemidorus, Plautus, Seneca, 
are diversely interpreted, and the practice 
does not seem to have been invariable. 
Crucifixion was at best a rude mode of 
executing justice, and, especially in time 
of war, seems to have been performed by 
soldiers in diverse fashions, according to 
their whim (GAAov GAA oxypate mpos 
xAevnv, Joseph., v. 11,1; plates showing 
various forms in Fulda). Still there 
would be a normal mode, and in the case 
of Jesus, when only one or two were put to 
death, it would probably be followed. His 
cross has generally been supposed to have 
been a crux immissa, with the accusation 
on the point of the upright post above the 
cross beam, with a peg whereon to sit. 
Whether His feet were pierced with 
nails cannot be certainly determined. 
Paulus took the negative side in the 
interest of the hypothesis that Jesus did 
not really die on the cross; Meyer 
strongly maintains the contrary, vide ad 
loc. The fragment of the Gospel of 
Peter speaks of nails in the hands only: 
“then they drew the nails from the 
hands of the Lord”. Fulda takes the 
same view, representing the hands as 
nailed, the teet as tied to the beam.—ra 
twaria: the probability is that Jesus had 
been stript absolutely naked (yupvot 


18 ; xii. 52, 

53; XXil. 

17. Acts 

eG eee 

37. Kat eéwéOnkav émdvw TiS here and 


in parall. 
ver. 54. 
Ch. xxviii. 
4. Acts 
xii. 5, 6 
(same 
sense). 

w Mk. xv. 26. Acts xxv. 18, 37. 


38. Tote otaupotytar abv 


It has probably 


oravpovvtat, Artemid., Oneirocritica, ii. 
58). On the dividing of the garments 
vide John xix. 23 f. The prophetic refer- 
ence tva wAnpw6y in T. R. has little 
authority, and seems inserted from John 
xix. 24, by a scribe who thought it what 
the first evangelist should say. This is 
a second instance where a chance of 
prophetic citation is not taken advantage 
of.—Ver. 36: this statement about the 
executioners sitting down to watch Jesus 
takes the place of a statement as to the 
time of execution in Mk. The purpose 
apparently was to guard against a rescue. 
—Ver. 37: this fact is mentioned out of 
its proper place. It is probable that the 
placard with the accusation was fixed up 
before the cross was erected. As it 
stands in Mt.’s narrative, it looks like an 
after-thought of the soldiers as they sat 
keeping watch, their final jest at the 
expense of their victim and the nation to 
which He belonged. What the custom 
was as to this is not known. Of the 
various versions of the inscription Mk.’s 
is the shortest: THE KING OF THE JEWS; 
to this Mt. prefixes: This is Jesus.—Ver. 
38: réte introduces the fact mentioned as 
an accompaniment of the crucifixion of 
Jesus, without indicating its precise place 
in the course of events.—oravpovvrat, 
the historical present with lively effect ; 
and passive, probably to imply that this 
act was performed by other soldiers. 
This very slight notice grows into a 
considerable incident in the hands of 
Luke. 

Vv. 39-44. Taunts of spectators (Mk. 
xv. 29-32; Lk. xxiii. 35-37, 39). The 
last drop in Christ’s bitter cup. To us 
it may seem incredible that even His 
worst enemies could be guilty of any- 
thing so brutal as to hurl taunts at one 
suffering the agonies of crucifixion. But 
men then ielt very differently from us, 
thanks to the civilising influence of the 


33° 


Tptoly udpats oikodopav, caov ceautév: ei uids el tod Geod, 


KATA MA'TOAION 


XXVII. 


39. Ol S€ waparopeudpevor EBLachypoury adtdv, * kwodvtes Tas 
Kepahds aitay, 40. kal Aéyovtes, “‘O katadtwy tov vadv Kal éy 


1 


xatéBy Oc dad Tod oraupod.” 41. “Opolws Se kal? ot dpxvepets epmai- 


Lovres peta Tov ypappatéwy Kal mpeoButépwy Edeyoy, 42. ‘“AAous 


x vide Ch. 
xxiii. 4. 
éowoev, éauTdv of Sdvatar odcat. 

a aA ~ ‘ , > 
kataBdtw viv dad Tou oTaupoU, Kal TLoTEVTOpEY AUTO. 
émt tov Oedv5+ fucdobw viv adtdy,® ei her adtdv. 

y Kom. v 


ei® Baowheds “lopand éott, 


@.4 43. wémoWev 


eime yap, “OTe 


4 7 
6. Gal ii, Q€00 eipt vids.” 44. TS 8 adrd kal ot AnoTtat ot ¥ cucTaupwhevres 


go(infig. » wv j A 
sense), Q@UTO! dveldiLov abta.® 


1 ec vios Geov et in B (W.H. in margin). 
opowws kat in BK (W.H. in brackets), 


2? opotws simply in NAL (Tisch.). 
3 SSBDL omit et (Tisch., W.H.). 
5 emt tw Gew in B (W.H. in margin). 
7 ov avte in NBDL. 


Christian faith, which has made the 
whole details of the Passion history so 
revolting to the Christian heart. These 
sneers at the great Sufferer are not in- 
vented fulfilments of prophecy (Ps. xxii. 
7, 8; so Brandt), but belong to the 
certainties of the tragic story as told by 
the synoptists.—Ver. 39. ot wapamropevd- 
pevot, the passers by: the place of cruci- 
fixion therefore near a road; going to or 
from the temple services (Speaker's Com.) ; 
or on work-day business, the 13th not 
the 14th of the month? (Fritzsche, De 
Wette).—xtvodvtes T. k. a, Shaking or 
nodding the head in the direction of the 
cross, as if to say: that is what it has 
come to.—Ver. 40. 6 xatadiov (cf. 7 
amoxtelvovoa, xxiii. 37), this and the 
other taunts seem to be echoes of words 
said to or about Jesus at the trial, of 
which a report has already gone abroad 
among the populace. Whether the say- 
ing about destroying the temple was 
otherwise known can only be a matter of 
conjecture.—el vids ef tr. 0.: Jesus had 
confessed Himself to be the Son of God 
at the trial (xxvi. 64).—kxaraBnO&: the 
God of this world and all men of the 
world have but one thought as to Son- 
ship; of course it means exceptional 
privilege. ‘What can a Son of God have 
to do with a cross?—Ver. 41. dpolws, 
etc.: one might have expected the digni- 
taries, priests, scribes, elders, to have 
left that low-minded work to the mob. 
But they condescend to their level, yet 
with a difference. They speak about the 
Sufferer, not to Him, and in a tone of 
affected seriousness and fairness,—Ver. 


4 em avtov in NBL. 
6 SSBL 33 omit avrov. 
8 avrov in all uncials. 


42. GAdovs éowoev, etc., He saved 
others, Himself He cannot save. Both 
facts ; the former they can now afford to 
admit, and they do so all the more 
readily that it serves as a foil to the 
other fact patent to everybody. — 
Bactreds “1. Messianic King — the 
claim involved in the confession before 
the Sanhedrim, refuted by the cross, for 
who could believe that Messiah would 
be crucified ?—KatraBdtw viv, etc.: yet 
let Him come down now from the cross, 
and we will believe on’ Him at once. 
These pious scoffers profess their readi- 
ness to accept descent from the cross as 
the conclusive sign from heaven they had 
always been asking for.—Ver. 43. This 
looks like a mere echo of Ps. xxii. 9 (not 
a literal quotation from the Sept., how- 
ever, rather recalling Is. xxxvi. 5) rather 
than a word likely to be spoken by the 
Sanhedrists. What did they know about 
the personal piety of Jesus? Probably 
they were aware that He used to call 
God ‘Father,’ and that may be the 
basis of the statement, along with the 
confession of Sonship before the San- 
hedrim: @eod eipt vids.—viv, now is the 
time for testing the value of His trust; a 
plausible wicked sneer.—et @éder adrov, 
if He love Him, an emphatic if, the love 
disproved by the fact.—@éAe. is used in 
the sense of love in the Sept. (Ps. xviii. 
20; xli, 12). Palairet gives examples of 
a similar use in Greek authors.—Ver. 44: 
the co-crucified brigands join with the 
mob and the priests in ribaldry.—ré 
avto: Fritzsche supplies éroiouv after 
this phrase and renders: the same thing 


39—49. 


EYATTEAION 


a3) 


45. Awd S€ Extys dpas oxdtos éyévero emt Tacav Thy yy Ews 


Spas evvdrns: 46. wept S€ thy evvdtyny dpay dveBonoev! 6 “Inaods 
povi peyddy, héyor, “HAL, HAL? Aopad > caBaxBart ;” Todt €or, 


“Oecd pou, Ged prov, ivati pe * éyxatehumes Se 
éotétwy 4 dkodaavtes EXeyov, “OT “HAiav pwvei ouTos. 
cd9ws Spapmy eis é& adtay, kal AaBdv * ondyyov, mAHoas Te dgous, 
Kal wepibeis Kadduw, emdtifey adtdv: 49. of S€ Aovmol Edeyor,” a 
“Ades, wer ei Epxerat “HAlas cdowv adtov. § 


47+ Twés S€ tTOv eket z Mk. xv. 34 
Nae Goren: 
48. Kat g. 2 Tim. 
Iv, 10, 16. 
Heb. x. 
25; xiii. 5. 
Mk. xv. 
36. John 
xix. 29. 


1 eBongev in BL 33, 69 (Trg., W.H.) from Mk.? 


2 Edo, EXot in B (W.H. in text). 


3 \epa in NBL; there are other variants. 


4 eatyKoTwyv in $YBCL 33. 
5 BD have evrav (W.-H. in brackets). 


§ \9BCL add addos Se AaBwv Aoyyny evutev avtov THv whevpay Kat efyOev vdwp 


kat oa (W.H. in double brackets). 


4id the robbers, for they too reproached 
iim (‘‘ idem vero etiam latrones fecerunt, 
nempe ei conviciati sunt”). It seems 
simpler to take avré as one of two ac- 
cusatives, depending on d&velSiLov, abrév 
following (the true reading) being the 
other, Vide Winer, § 32, 4. 

Vv. 45-49. Darkness without and 
within (Mk. xv. 33-36, Lk. xxiii. 44-46). 
—Ver. 45. amd 82 Exrns Spas: three 
hours, according to Mark (ver. 25, ¢f. 
33), after the crucifixion the darkness 
came on. This is the first reference in 
Matthew toatimeof day. The definite- 
ness of the statement in this respect 
seems to vouch for the historicity of the 
fact stated. Those who find in it legend 
or myth point to the Egyptian darkness, 
and prophetic texts such as Amos viii. 9, 
Joel ii. 31, etc. (none of which, however, 
are cited by the evangelist), as explaining 
the rise of the story. The cause of this 
darkness is unknown (vide notes on 
Mark). It could not, of course, be an 
eclipse of the sun at full moon. Origen 
saw this and explained the phenomenon 
by the hypothesis of dense masses of 
cloud hiding the sun. Others (Paulus, 
De Wette, etc.) have suggested a darken- 
ing such as is wont to precede an earth- 
quake. To the evangelist the event 
probably appeared supernatural.—émi 7. 
t yiv, Origen and many after him 
restrict the reference to Palestine. The 
fragment of the Gospel of Peter limits it 
to judaea (waoav +. ‘lovSaiav). In the 
thought of the evangelist the expression 
had probably a wider though indefinite 
range of meaning, the whole earth 
(Weiss) or the whole Roman world 


It is an early addition from John xix. 34. 


(Grotius).—éws &. évvdrns: the end as 
exactly indicated as the beginning, 
another sign of historicity. The fact 
stated probably interested the evangelist 
as an emblem of the spiritual eclipse 
next to be related.—Ver. 46. ‘At, Hr, 
etc.: the opening words of Ps. xxii., but 
partly at least in Aramaic not in Hebrew, 
wholly so as they stand in Codex B 
(W.H.), é€Awl, éAwi, etc., corresponding 
exactly to the version in Mark.—vwAt, 
mHAt, if the true reading in Matthew, 
seems to be an alteration made to suit 
what follows, whereby the utterance of 
Jesus becomes a mixture of Hebrew and 
Aramaic. It is not likely that Jesus 
would so express Himself. He would 
speak wholly either in Hebrew or in 
Aramaic, saying in the one case: ‘eli 
eli lamah asavtani’’; in the other: ‘ eloi 
eloi lema savachtani”. The form the 
utterance assumed in the earliest evan- 
gelic report might be an important 
clue. This Resch finds in the reading of 
Codex D, which gives the words in 
Hebrew. Resch holds that D often pre- 
serves the readings of the Urevangelium, 
which, contrary to Weiss, he believes to 
have contained a Passion history in 
brief outline (Agrapha, p. 53). Brandt 
expresses a similar view (E. G., pp. 
228-232). The probability is that Jesus 
spoke in Hebrew. It is no argument 
against this that the spectators might 
not understand what He said, for the 
utterance was not meant for the ears of 
men. The historicity of the occurrence 
has been called in question on the ground 
that one in a state of dire distress would 
not express his feelings in borrowed 


332 


in 


(Gen. 
xxxv. 38). 
c here in 
parall. and 
in Heb. 
vi. 19: ix 


KATA MATOAION 


XXVII. 


» here only 50. “O 8€ "Ingods madw Kpdéas puri peyddry *ddixe 7d * mvedpa. 

51. Kal i800, 1d °xatamdracpa Tod vaod €oxicOy eis S00) dd 

dvwley Ews Kdtw Kal H yy eoeloOy, Kai ai wétpar eoyxioOyoar : 
‘ cy a , ‘ 4 , ~ d 

52. kal Td pynpeta dvewxOnoav, Kai modhd oopata tov * kexoupy- 


a; x20, pévav *dyiwy hyépOn,? 53. Kat éehOdvres ex TOV pyypelwv, peta Thy 


d 1 Cor. xv. 


18, 20. 1eyepow adtod, eionOov eis Thy dyiav modu, Kal 


Thess. iv. A 
13, 15 al, TWoAXots. 
e here only 


in Gospp. f Heb. ix. 24 (pass. as here). 


* evepavicOyoar 


1 ets Svo after karw in BCL (Tisch., W.H.). 
2 nyep@y is as usual the sing. to suit a neut. pl. nom. myepOyoav in QBDL. 


phrases. The alternative is that the 
words were put into the mouth of Jesus 
by persons desirous that in this as in all 
other respects His experience should 
correspond to prophetic anticipations. 
But who would have the boldness to 
impute to Him a sentiment which 
seemed to justify the taunt : ‘Let Him 
deliver Him if Helove Him”? Brandt’s 
reply to this is: Jewish Christians who 
had not a high idea of Christ’s Person 
(E. G., p. 245). That in some Christian 
circles the cry of desertion was an offence 
appears from the rendering of “eli eli” in 
Evang. Petri— Sivapis pov 7 8. p. = 
my strength, my strength. Its omission 
by Luke proves the same thing.—Ver. 
47- Teves 8: not Roman soldiers, for 
they knew nothing about Elias; might 
be Hellenistic Jews who did not under- 
stand Hebrew or Aramaean (Grotius) ; 
more probably heartless persons who 
only affected to misunderstand. It was 
poor wit, and showed small capacity for 


turning to advantage the words spoken..: 


How much more to the purpose to have 
said: Hear Him! He actually confesses 
that His God in whom He trusted has 
forsaken Him.—Ver. 48. els é& avtav, 
one of the bystanders, not one of the 
wives, with some human pity, acting 
under the impression, how got not 
indicated, that the sufferer was afflicted 
with thirst.—d£ous, sour wine, posca, the 
drink of Roman soldiers, with sponge 
and reed at hand, for use on such 
occasions.—Ver. 49. adeg: either re- 
dundant coalescing with tSepev = let us 
see (cf. chap. vii. 4), age videamus, 
Grotius (vide also Burton, M. T., § 
161), or meaning: hold, stop, don’t give 
Him the drink, let us see whether Elias 
will come (€pyerat, comes without fail) 
to help Him. The latter is the more 
probable. The Aowoi belong to the 
scoffing crew. The remainder of this 


— 


verse about the spear thrust—another, 
final, act of mercy, though attested by 
important MSS., seems to be imported 
from John xix. 34. It is omitted in R, V. 

Vv. 50-56. Death and its accompani- 
ments (Mk. xv. 37-41, Lk. xxili. 46-49). 
—Ver. 50. waduw, pointing back to the 
cry in ver. 46.—dwvqj peyady. The 
Fathers found in the loud cry a proof 
that Jesus died voluntarily, not from 
physical exhaustion. Some modern 
writers, on the contrary, regard the cry 
as the utterance of one dying of a 
ruptured heart (Dr. Stroud on The 
Physical Cause of Christ’s Death; 
Hanna, The Last Day of Our Lord’s 
Passion). Mt.’s narrative, like Mk.’s, 
gives the impression that the cry was 
inarticulate. Brandt recognises this 
cry as historical.—Ver. 51. «at iSov, 
introducing solemnly a series of preter- 
natural accompaniments, all but the first 
peculiar to Mt.—rto xataméracpa, the 
veil between the holy place and the most 
holy.—éoxio6y: this fact, the rending 
of the veil, is mentioned by all the 
Synoptists, though Lk. introduces it at 
an early point in the narrative. It might 
have happened, as a natural event, an 
accidental coincidence, though it is not 
so viewed by the evangelist. A symbolic 
fiction, according to Brandt. The 
legendary spirit took hold of this event, 
magnifying the miracle. In the Hebrew 
Gospel the rending of the veil is trans- 
formed into the fracture of the lintel of 
the temple: “ Superliminare templi in- 
finitae magnitudinis fractum esse atque 
divisum ” (Jerome, Com.).—xai 4 yj, etc. : 
an earthquake, preceding and condition- 
ing the greatest marvel of all, the opening 
of the graves and the resurrection of 
many Saints (vv. 52 and 53). We seem 
here to be in the region of Christian 
legend. Certainly the legendary spirit 
laid hold of this feature with great eager. 


50—58. 


EYArTEAION 


54. O S€ éxardvtapxos Kal of pet atTod THpodvTes Tov “Incoov, 


iSdvres Tov ceropov Kal Ta yevdpeva,! epoBnOncay opddpa, Aێyovtes, 


‘“AdyPas Geos utds 2 Fv obTos.” 


. "Hoav Sé€ éxet yuvaikes modAat ard paxpdbev Bewpovcar 
Y Pp p ) 


A ~ ~ , ~ ~ 
aitives HkohoUOnoay TS “Inood amd THs FahtAaias, Siaxovotcar auT@ - 


56. év ats qv Mapla 7% Maydadnrn, Kal Mapia 7 


c 


a 3 la ‘4 
Tov ‘laxwBou Kai 


‘lwot PTH, Kat  pHTHp TOV uid ZeBedaiou. 
57. OWIAE S€ yevonevyns, Aev GvOpwiros mAovaios dd “Apipa- 


Batas, toUvopa “won, os Kal adtés éuabytevce® 1H “Inaod- 


58. ovTos tmpoced\Ouy TS MeAdtw, nTHGaTo TO Gaua TOU “Inaod. 
ro) ry 2a 


1 y.vopeva in BD 33. 


2 BD have wos cov (W.H. in margin). 


3So in BLA. SCD have epa@ntevOn, which, though adopted by Tisch and 
W.H. (text), may be suspected of assimilation to the form used in Chap. xiii. 52, 


xxvill, 19. Vide below. 

ness, expanding and going into details, 
giving, é¢.g., the names of those who rose: 
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. (Vide Evang. 
Nicod., c. 17, and The Acts of Pilate in 
Thilo’s Codex Apocryphus, N. T., p. 810). 
—Ver. 53. peta Thy €yepow avrod, after 
the raising (active) of Jesus (by God), z.e., 
after Christ’s own resurrection; not after 
the raising (of them) by Him, as if attod 
were genitive subjective. So Fritzsche, 
who, however, brackets the phrase as a 
doubtful reading. €yepow occurs here 
only in N. T.—Ver. 54. éxatdévtapyos = 
xevtupiwv in Mk., the officer in charge 
of the detachment entrusted with the 
execution, not hitherto mentioned.— 
of per avtov, etc.: the whole military 
party make pious reflections in Mt.; in 
Mk., with more probability, the centurion 
only.—rai Ta yivépeva, and (generally) 
the things happening, the earthquake 
included. For a similar use of nai vide 
XXVi. 59.—vios 8e00: Lk. substitutes for 
this “‘a just man’”’. In the centurion’s 
mouth the words would mean more than 
that and less than the sense they bear for 
a Christian = a hero, an extraordinary 
man. Yet Lk.’s rendering is to the point, 
because the Roman soldier is conceived 
as seeing in the events the anger of the 
gods at the treatment of an innocent 
man.—Ver. 55. yvvatkes, women, bolder 
than men, love casting out fear. Lk. 
associates with them others called ot 
yvworot avto, His acquaintance, which 
might include the disciples. Though 
they fled panic-stricken they may have 
tallied and returned to see the end, 
either along with the women or mixed in 
the crowd, and so have become qualified 
afterwards for witnessing to what hap- 


pened. It is no argument against thi: 
that no mention is made of them in the 
narratives. It is no part of the plan of 
the evangelists to indicate the sources 
of their information. The women are not 
mentioned for this purpose, but because 
they have a part to play in the sequel. 
If they had been introduced as witnesses 
it would not have been made so clear 
that they stood ‘‘afar off”’ (416 paxpdbev). 
In like manner that Peter followed his 
Master to the judgment hall is told, not 
that he may be available as a witness, 
but because there is a story of denial to 
relate about him.—odAal, many, a 
tribute to the impression made on 
feminine hearts by the Galilean ministry ; 
for it was from Galilee they came, as the 
following clause states (aitives, etc., 
defining them as women who knew Him 
well, loved Him warmly, and served 
Him devotedly).—Ver. 56. év ats: three 
out of the many named, with a reference 
to the sequel, or as the best known. 
Mary of Magdala (first mention in 
Mt.), Mary, the mother of a well-known 
pair of brothers, and the mother of the 
sons of Zebedee (Salome in Mk.). 

Vv. 57-66. Burial (Mk. xv. 42-47, 
Lk. xxiii. 50-56). 7AQev, etc., there came 
(to the place of crucifixion, the centre of 
interest in the preceding narrative) a 
man (unknown to readers), rich (this fact 
put in the forefront by Mt.—eiox7pov 
BovAeuvtys in Mk. On = evoyypov 
Phrynichus remarks that the vulgar take 
it as =rich, or in good social position, 
while the ancients took it as applying to 
the noble or symmetrical. Mt. may be 
following vulgar usage, but also with 
an eye to Is. liii.g: ‘with the rich in 


334 


téte 6 Middros exéXeucev drodo0jvat TS cdpa.! 


KATA MATOAION 


XXVII 


59. kal AaBov Td 


g here and gina 6 “lwohp * éverddigev adits? owSd Kalapa, Go. Kai eOnKer 


in Lk. 
xxiii. 53. 
John xx. 7. 


h Mk. xv. 46 qpookudioas AiBov péyav TH Bupa Tod pynpetou, dwmOev. 


(Ex. xxi. 
33). 
i'Mk, xi, xe; OR 
John i.ag. TOU TAdou. 
Acts x. 9 
al, 
j 2 Cor. vi. 


at ~ na > a i ah a“ . ‘ 
auTd év TO KawwG abtod prynpetw, 6 ” éMatéunoey ev TH TéTpAa’ Kal 


61. Hy 


Sé éxet Mapia 7 MaySadnvy, kal 7 GAN Mapia, Kabijpevar dmévavTt 


62. THe Sé ' éraprov, ris €otl pera thy wapacKkeuyy, curnxOnoay 


8. 1 Tim, Ot Gpxvepets Kal of Gapicator mpds Middrov, 63. AéyovTes, “ Kupte, 


iv. 1 (adj.). > 


2 john 7. €HYHTOnpEY Ott exeivos 64 wAdvos elev Err Lav, MeTa Tpeis Hpépas 


1S9BL omit to cwpe (Tisch., W.H.). 


2 BD have ev before owwSove (W.H. in brackets). 


His death”) ; from Arimathaea (Ramath- 
aim Zophim, 1 Sam. i. 1); the name 
Foseph, and the relation to Jesus that of 
a disciple (éua@yrevoe, which, if the 
correct reading, is an instance of the use 
of this verb in a neuter sense. Cf. xiii. 52, 
xxviii. 19, Acts xiv. 21).—Ver. 58. 
apooe\Oav: from the cross Joseph re- 
turns, and approaches Pilate to beg the 
body of Jesus for burial. In the case of 
the crucified such a request was neces- 
sary, but was generally granted (‘‘ Eorum 
in quos animadvertitur corpora non aliter 
sepeliuntur quam si fuerit petitum et 
permissum’”’. Ulpian. de Cadav. punit. 
in Justinian, Corpus Fur. Civ. xlviii. 
24,1). The general practice was to leave 
the bodies to waste. The privilege of 
burial was sometimes granted for money. 
There is nothing to show that Pilate con- 
descended to such meanness, at least inthe 
present instance, though Theophy. sug- 
gests that he did.— éxéAevorev Grodo0Fvat, 
he ordered it to be delivered.—Ver. 59. 
évervAttey (little used, found in Aristo- 
phanes), wrapped.—owvddvte kabapq, in 
clean, i.¢., never before used linen.— 
civdev is of uncertain derivation and 
varying sense, being applied to cloths of 
diverse material, but here generally 
understood as meaning linen cloth, 
wrapped in strips round the body as in 
the case of mummies in Egypt, the body 
being first washed (Acts ix. 37). As to 
this way of preparing dead bodies for 
burial we have no details in O. T. 
(Benzinger, p. 163).—Ver. 60. év To 
KaLv@ avTov pynpel@, in his own new 
tomb, recently prepared for himself. 
This not brought out in parallels.— 
éhatépnoev (Ads tépvw): the aorist for 
the pluperfect, as in ver. 55; he had 
hewn out of the rock = év rq 7rét~a, the 
article pointing to the custom of making 


sepulchres in rock.—d(@ov péyay: the 
usual mode of shutting the door of the 
tomb; the Jews cailed the stone golal, 
the roller.—anwqdOev: the entombment 
over, Joseph went away; but the Dead 
One was not left alone.—Ver. 61. qv Se 
éxet, etc., but, in contrast to Joseph, there 
was there Mary, the woman of Magdala, 
also the other Mary, sitting in front of 
the tomb.—ra¢gov here, as in xxiii. 27, 29, 
used of a place of burial, not of the act 
of burial. The word is peculiar to Mt. 
in the N. T. 

Vv. 62-66. Precautions against theft of 
the body ; peculiar to Mt., and among the 
less certain elements of the Passion 
history, owing its origin and presence 
in this Gospel apparently to the exigen- 
cies of the primitive Christian apologetic 
against Jewish unbelief, which, as we 
gather from ver. 64, must have sought 
to invalidate the faith in the resurrection 
of Jesus by the hypothesis of theft 
accounting for an empty grave. The 
transactions here recorded effectually 
dispose of that hypothesis by making 
theft impossible. Is the story true, or 
must we, with Meyer, relegate it to the 
category of unhistorical legend? Meyer 
founds largely on the impossibility of 
Christ predicting so distinctly as is here 
implied, even to His own disciples, His 
resurrection. That means that the priests 
and Pharisees could have had no such 
solicitude as is ascribed to them. All 
turns on that. If they had such fears, 
so originating, it would be quite natural 
to take precautions against a trick. I 
think it quite possible that even inde- 
pendently of the saying in chap. xii. 40, 
given as spoken fo Pharisees, it had some- 
how reached their ears that Jesus had 
predicted His Passion, and in speaking 
of it was wont to connect with it the idea 


59—66. 


éyetpopat. 


TpLTNS Hpépas: pHmore EhOdvtes of palyTai adtod 


EYALTEAION 


335 


64. xéXeugov ovv * éogadtoOFvat Tov Tdov Ews THS k Acts xvi 


24. 
Vyuxtos? Krépwou 


lol ~ A al Nie) 
autdév, kal etrwot TH ad, “HyépOn amd tOv vexpav- Kai EoTar 


éoxdty 'whdvy xElpwv THS TPwTNS.” 


, » 
“"Exete ™kovoTwdtav: Omdyete, dopadioacbe ws oldate. 


S€ mopeuOevtes Aopadicavto Tov Tdpoy, ohpayicavtes Tov AiBov m 


PETA THS KoUoTWoias. 


65. "Epy S€% adtois 6 MuddTos, | here only 


in Gospels, 
frequent 
in Epp. 
here and 
in Ch. 
XXViii. 11, 


66. Ot 


1 SB omit avtov, found in CDL al. (W.H. place it in margin). 
2 vuktos wanting in many uncials (Tisch., W.H. omit). 
3 BL and other uncials omit S« (Tisch., W.H., in margin). 


of rising again, and it was natural that at 
such a time they should not despise such 
reports. 

Ver. 62. Tq émavpiov, the next day, i.e., 
the Jewish Sabbath, curiously described 
as the day (fTts) petra THY Tapackevty, 
the more important day defined by refer- 
ence to the less important, suggesting 
that Mt. has his eye on Mk.’s narrative 
(xv. 42). So Weiss-Meyer.—Ver. 63. 
éxetvos: contemptuous reference, as to 
one not worthy to be named, and far 
off, a thing of the past removed for ever 
by death.—6 wAdvos: a wanderer in the 
first place, then derivatively, from the 
character of many wanderers, in N. T.a 
deceiver.—éye(popat, present for future, 
expressing strong confidence.—Ver. 64. 
éws 7.Tpitys Hépas : the definite specifica- 
tion of time here and in ver. 63 may have 
been imported into the story in the course 
of ‘the tradition. 4 éoxatn mwAdvy, the 
last delusion = faith in the resurrection, 
beliet in the Messiahship of Jesus being 
the first.—yeipwy, worse, not so much 
in character as in consequences, more 
serious.—Ver. 65. €xete: probably im- 
perative, not indicative= have your watch, 
the ready assent ot a man who thinks 
there is not likely to be much need for it, 
but has no objections to gratify their 
wish in a small matter. So most recent 
interpreters— Meyer, Weiss, Holtz., Weiz- 
sacker, Morison, Spk., Com., Alford. The 
Vulgate takes it as indicative = habetis, 
which Schanz follows. This rendering 
implies that Pilate wished them to be 
content with what they had already, 
either their own temple watch or soldiers 
already put at their disposal. Carr (Camb. 
N. T.) doubts the correctness of the 
modern interpretation on the ground that 
no clear example of the use of €yewv in 
the sense of ‘“‘to take” occurs in either 
classical or Hellenistic ‘Greek.—Kovo- 
twdlav, a guard, a Latinism, a natural 


word for the Roman Pilate to use.— 
imdyete Godadicagbe, the three verbs: 
éx. Umay. aopad.; following each other 
without connecting particles form an 
asyndeton “‘ indicating impatience on the 
part of Pilate” (Camb. N. T.).—0os 
otéate, as ye know how.—Ver, 66. jo- 
gadicavro is to be taken with the last 
clause-—peta tHS KovoTwoias, which 
points to the main mevns of securing the 
tomb against plunder. The participial 
clause—ogpaytoavtes tov Ai@ov—is a 
parenthesis pointing to an additional 
precaution, sealing the stone, with a 
thread over it and sealed to the tomb 
at either end. The worthy men did their 
best to prevent theft, and—the resur- 
rection | 

CHAPTER XXVIII. THE ReEsuR- 
RECTION AND THE GREAT COMMISSION. 

Vv. 1-10. The open grave (Mk. xvi. 
1-8, Lk. xxiv. 1-11).—Ver. 1. 6We... . 
oaBBdrwy, a curious and puzzling note 
of time, inconsistent with itself if trans- 
lated “late on Sabbath, towards day- 
break on the first day of the week,’’ and 
on the assumption that the day is sup- 
posed to begin and end at sunset. That 
would give, as the time at which the events 
to be narrated happened, the afternoon 
of one day and the early morning of the 
next. Of course the two clauses are meant 
to coincide in meaning, and a way out 
of the difficulty must be sought. One is 
to take éWe as = post, after the Sabbath, 
or late in comparison with the Sabbath, 
oaBBarwy in clause I being in effect a 
genitive of comparison. So Euthy. and 
Grotius, who take oaB8B. as = the whole 
passover week, De Wette, Weizsacker, 
etc. Another is to take éWe as = not later 
than, but late on, and to assume that the 
day is conceived to begin and end with 
sunrise according to the civil mode of 
reckoning. So Kypke, Meyer, Weiss, 
Morison. Authorities are divided as ta 


336 


a Lk xxi 
54, vide 
notes 
there. 

Tadoy. 


KATA MATOAION 


XXVIII. 1. "OWE 8¢ caBBdrtwr, 
Bdrwr, WAGe Mapia 4 MaySadnvy, kal  GAXn Mapia, Sewpyoat Tov 


XX VIII. 


~ 


7 


“émipwokouon eis pilav caB- 


2. Kai ido0, ceopds eyévero péyas: dyyehos yap Kupiou 


xataBads €f obpavod, mpocehOdy! dexddtce Tov (Dov dd Tis OUpas,® 


b here only kal €xdOnTo érdvyw adtod. 


in é if 
(Gen. v.3). Kal Td €vSupa attod Aeuxdy doel® yudv. 
autou éceicOyoavy ot typodvtes, Kal éyévovto 


3. Ty S€ Wf ida adtod ds dotpamh, 
4. amd 8€ tod pdBou 
4 3 


< ‘ , 
WOEL veKpol, 


5. “Amwoxpieis 8€ & Gyyedos ete Tats yuvarti, “Mi oPetobe 


duets: of8a ydp St “Incody tov éotaupwpevov Lnteite. 
€otty GSe* HyépOn ydp, Kabws ele. 


1 cat before wpomedOwv in NEBCL. 


6. ovK 
~ » a , o 
Sete, iSete toy TOmov Sou 


7 BD omit aro ts Bupas (so Tisch. and W.H.). 
5 SBD have ws here, and with these LA in end of ver. 4. 


4 eyevnPyoav in SBCDL 33. 


Greek usage, Meyer and Weiss, e.g., con- 
tending that éyé always means lateness 
of the period specified, and still current. 
Holtzmann, H. C.,remarks that only from 
the second clause do we learn that by 
the first is not meant the evening of the 
Sabbath, but the end of the night follow- 
ing, conceived as still belonging to 
the Sabbath.—rq émidwokovey, supply 
pepe Or Gpq.—eis plav. o., towards day 
one of the week (Sabbath in first clause). 
—7\Ge, came, singular though more than 
one concerned, as in xxvii. 56,61. Mary 
of Magdala, evidently the heroine among 
the women.—@ewp7jcat tT. T., to see the 
sepulchre ; no word of anointing, that 
being excluded by the story of the watch. 
—Ver. 2. The particulars in this and the 
following two verses are peculiar to Mt.: 
first, an earthquake (weropos), as in xxvii. 
51; second, an angel descending from 
heaven ; third, the angel rolling away the 
stone; fourth, the angel sitting on the 
stone as guard.—Ver. 3. t8éa (here only 
in N. T.; in Sept., Dan. i. 13, 15), the ap- 
pearance, aspect (of the countenance of 
the angel). Vide Trench, Syn., p. 262, on 
popo7, oxApa, iS€a.—as dorpawy (xxiv. 
27), as lightning—brilliant, dazzling.— 
76 évSupa a., his raiment as distinct from 
his face—as xiv, white as snow (cf. Mt. 
xvii. 2).—Ver. 4. @s vexpol: the keepers, 
through fear of the angel, were shaken as 
by an earthquake, and became as dead 
men—stupefied, helpless, totally incapaci- 
tated for action by way of preventing 
what is assumed, though not directly 
stated, to have happened. The resur- 
rection is not described. 

Vv. 5-7- The angel speaks to the 


women.—pn poBeiobe pets, fear not 
yé, with tacit reference to the guards.— 
ota yap: yap gives a reason for the 
soothing tone of the address. The 
angel recognises them as triends of the 
Crucified.— Ver. 6. ov €ottv, etc.: with 
what sublime simplicity and brevity is 
the amazing story told! ‘Versus hic 
incisa habet perquam apta” (Beng.). The 
last clause is better without the epithet 
6 xUptos, more in keeping with the rest. 
Bengel calls it gloriosa appellatio, but, 
as Meyer remarks, just on that account 
it was more liable to be added than 
omitted.—Ver. 7. ‘tTayd wopevdeioar: 
introducing ‘‘ quite in his own (the 
evangelist’s) manner of expression ” 
(Weiss) the command of the angel = 
go quickly and tell, etc.—mpodyet: pre- 
sent; He is even now going before you 
into Galilee ; in accordance with the pre- 
diction in xxvi. 32 the risen Shepherd is 
on His way to the pre-appointed rendez- 
vous.—6wWeoOe, there shall ye see Him, 
and be able to satisfy yourselves that He 
is indeed risen. With this word ends 
the message to the disciples.—i8ov etaov 
tpiv, behold I said it to you = note what 
I say, and see if it do not come true. 
Mark has xa@as elev tpiv = as He said 
to you, referring to the promise of Jesus, 
and forming part of the message to the 
disciples. 

Vv. 8-10. Appearance of Fesus to the 
women on the way to deliver their 
message.—Ver. 8. ameh@ovoar: the 
reading of T. R. (@&eA@.) implies that they 
had been within the tomb, of which no 
mention is made in Matthew. They 
went away from, not out of, the tomb, ~ 


EYATTEAION 


I—I0. 


c U 1 


exetto 6 Kupios.1 7. kal taxd mopevOeioa. etmare tots palyrats 


Hyepon awd Tv vexpOv- Kal iSod, mpodye: buds eis Thy 
FadtXatays éxet adtév decode. 8. Kat éged- 
Boicat? tax) drd tod pvypeiou peta pdBou kal xapas peyddys, 
g. ds 8é émopedovto 
5 


> a @ 

avTou, ott 
> ‘ > ce a 2» 
iSou, etmov duty. 


ESpapov dmayyethat tots padytats adrod. 
dmayyethat Tots pabytats autod,® Kal iSou, 64 “Inoods danvrncev 
autats, héywv, “ Xatpere.” Al 8€ mpogedPoica expdtngav adrou 
Tos mWddas, Kal mpooekivnoav atta. 10. TéTe Aéyer adtais 6 


"Ingots: “Mi poBelobe - Srdyere, dmayyeiAate Tots Adehpois pou, 


337 


a » 
iva, dréOwow eis Thy FadtAalav, KaKel pe OpovTat. 


189B 33 omit o kuptos (W.H. relegate to margin). 
2 ame Povoat in SBCL 33 (Tisch., W.H.). 
3 From ag 5S. erop. to avtov is omitted in ED 33, 69 and many versions, and 


left out by modern editors. 
(avrov—avTov). 


4 S9ABCA omit 0; found in DL, 


amo +. pv., depending on ameotoat, in 
Mark on épvyov.—peta PdBov kal yapas 
peyadys, with fear and great joy. ‘This 
union of apparently opposite emotions is 
true to human nature. All powerful 
tides of gladness cause nervous thrills 
that feel like fear and trembling. Cf. 


Isaiah lx. 5 and Phil. ii. 12. The fear 
and trembling St. Paul speaks of are the 


result of an exhilarating consciousness 
of having a great solemn work in hand 
—a race to run, a prize to win.—Ver, 9. 
kat i8ov, and behold, another surprise 
(ver. 2). They are on the way to tell 
the disciples that they are to be favoured 
with a meeting in Galilee, and lo! they 
are themselves privileged to meet the 
risen One.—trivrngev, cf. chap. viii. 
34, Xxv. I, 6.—éxpatyoay, etc., they took 
hold of His feet and cast themselves 
before Him; the gesture befitting the 
circumstances, an unlooked-for meeting 
with one who has been crucified and 
whose aspect is greatly changed. Im- 
possible to resume the old familiar 
relations as if nothing had happened.— 
Ver. 10. py dofeiobe: kindly in word 
and tone, meant to remove the embarrass- 
ment visible in their manner.—wtmayere, 
amayyeikate, another asyndeton as in 
xxvii.65. The instructions to the women 
simply repeat, in much the same words, 
those given by the angel (ver. 7), with the 
exception that the disciples are spoken of 
by the kindly name of *‘ brethren ”’. 

The similarity of vv. 9, 10 to John xx. 
14-18 has been remarked on (vide Weiss, 
Meyer, on ver. g). It has been lately 


The passage may have fallen out by similar ending 


° SBC have varnvTygev. 


commented on in connection with the 
theory of a ‘‘four-gospel Canon’? pre- 
pared by the Presbyters of Asia Minor 
in the beginning of the second cen- 
tury. Vide Der Schluss des Marcus-Ev- 
angeliums der Vier-Evangelien-Kanon 
und die Kleinasiatischen Presbyter, by 
Dr. Paul Rohrbach. Rohrbach’s idea is 
that when this Canon was prepared the 
editors altered more or less the state- 
ments of the Synoptists as to the visions 
of the Risen Christ so as to bring them 
somewhat into harmony with those of 
the fourth Gospel. For this purpose 
Mark’s original ending was cancelled 
and the present one, vv. 9-20, put in its 
place. The editorial procedure in the 
case of Matthew consisted in inserting 
vv. Q, fo in the narrative, thus providing 
for at least one vision in Jerusalem, and 
making room for more, and so cancelling 
the impression otherwise produced that 
Jesus was seen only in Galilee. In 
support of the view that vv. g, ro are 
an editorial addition at a later date 
Rohrbach adduces the fact that the 
narrative has an appearance of con- 
tinuity when they are omitted, and also 
that the instructions of Jesus to the 
women are a mere echo of those given 
by the angel. 

Vv. 11-15. The guards and the priests. 
—Ver. II. wopevopdévev Sé a., while the 
women go on their errand, the guards, 
crestfallen, play their poor part. Some 
of them (tives) go into the city and 
report in their own way to the priests all 
that has happened.—Ver. 12. apyvpia; 


22 


338 


KATA MATOAION 


XXVIII. 


II. Mopevopévay S€ adtav, iSod, Twes Tis KovsTwdias édOdvtes 


eis Thy wodkw dmhyyedavy Tois dpxrepedow awavta 1a yevdpeva. 


12. kal ouvay@évtes peta Tav mpecBuTépwy, cupPouUdudv Te KaBdvTes 


dpytpia ixkavad €Swxay Tois otpatidirats, 13. héyortes, 
“Ort of pabytat adtod vuxtds éhOdvtes Exdepav 


~~ 
“wlrarte, 


TOV ALOV KOLpLW- 


pévwv, 14. kat dav dxoucf toito éml! rod Hyepdvos, pets wetcopey 


c 1 Cor. vil. abtéy,? Kal Spas *dpepinvous toijooper.” 
“Apydpta éroincay a e8:8dxOncayv. 
mapa “louSaiors ply. THs onpepov.* 


32 (Wis 
dom vi. 
16; vii. 23). 


15. Ot 8€ AaBdvres Ta 
kat Srepyptoby ® 6 Adyos obTos 


16. Ot Sé EvSexa pabytal emopedOr,cav eis tiv TadtAatay, eis TO 


1 BD have vio instead of em (W.H. in margin), probably because nxove Oy was 


understood in the usual sense. 
2 SB omit avrov. 


Vide below. 
3 Soin ABCDL (W.H. brackets) ; epyp. in NA 33 (Tisch.). 


4 BDL vulg. add npepas (W.H. in brackets), which just because it is unusual is 
probably genuine (Tisch. omits after SATA, etc.). 


the holy men thoroughly understand the 
power of money; silver pieces, shekels 
are meant.—ixava probably means here 
a considerable number, not a number 
sufficient to bribe the soldiers (Meyer 
and Weiss). They gave with a free 
hand. This sense of ixavds is frequent 
inthe N. T. Vide, e.g., Mk. x. 46, of the 
crowd following Jesus at Jericho, and 
Acts xxvii. 9 (of time).—Ver. 13. etware, 
introducing the lie they put into the 
mouths of the soldiers. The report to 
be set abroad assumes that\there is a 
fact to be explained, the disappearance 
of the body. And it is implied that the 
statement to be given out as to that was 
known by the soldiers to be false: i.¢., 
they were perfectly aware that they had 
not fallen asleep at their post and that 
no theft had taken place. The lie for 
which the priests paid so much money 
is suicidal; one half destroys the other. 
Sleeping sentinels could not know what 
happened.—Ver. 14. éav axovcy, 
either: if this come to the ears of, etc., 
as inA. V., or: if this come to a hearing, 
a trial, before, etc., as in R. V. margin. 
The latter is preferred by many modern 
commentators. The reading éml r. 7. 
suits the second sense best. Cf. 1 Cor. 
vi. 1, 1 Tim. v. 19.—vpets, emphatic, 
implying a great idea of their influence, 
on their part.—teicopev, will persuade 
him; how not said, money conceivably 
in their minds, Kypke renders: will 
appease; so also Loesner (‘‘aliquem 
pacare vel precibus vel donis”’), citing 
examples from Philo. The ordinary 
punishment for falling asleep on the 
watch was death. Could soldiers be 


persuaded by any amount of money to 
run such arisk? Of course they might 
take the money and go away laughing 
at the donors, meaning to tell their 
general the truth. Could the priests 
expect anything else? If not, could 
they propose the project seriously? 
The story has its difficulties.—dpepip- 
vous, free from grounds of anxiety; 
guaranteed against all possible un- 
pleasant consequences. Bengel’s com- 
ment on this verseis: ‘Quam laboriosum 
bellum mendacii contra veritatem !’’— 
Ver. 15. This verse states that the 
soldiers did as instructed, so originating 
a theft theory, which, according to our 
evangelist, was current in his day in 
Jewish circles at the time he wrote. 
Vv. 16-20. The meeting in Galtlee, 
peculiar to Mt.—Ver. 16. of 82 évdexa 
p., the eleven, not merely to discount 
Judas, but to indicate that what follows 
concerns the well-known Twelve (minus 
one), the future Apostles of the faith._— 
els tO Gpos, to the mountain, a more 
specific indication of the locality than any 
previously reported. Conjectures have 
been made as to the mountain meant, 
é.g., that on which the hill teaching was 
communicated. An interesting suggestion 
but unverifiable.—ot, an adverb = ubi, 
used pregnantly so as to include quo: 
whither Jesus had bid them go, and 
where He wished them to remain.— 
érdfaro: if this points to an instruction 
given expressly by Jesus, it is strange 
that the evangelist has not recorded it. 
It rather seems to presuppose an under- 
standing based on experiences of the 
Galilean ministry as to the rendezvous 


1I—I9. 


a a A 
pos 08 érdéato abrois 6 “Ingois. 
vycav atta?: ot S€ edictacar. 


€dddyoev avtois, héywv, “*ES68n por waca éfougia 
19. wopeuOévres odv® palytedoate mdvta Ta E0vn, 


kat 4 émi? yis- 


1 SSBD 33 it. omit avrw. 
2 emt yns in WAAL al. (Tisch.). 
5 ovy in BANE, verss. (W.H.). 


The meeting place would be some 
familiar haunt, recalling many past asso- 
ciations and incidents, only imperfectly 
tecorded in the Gospels. If there was 
such a retreat among the mountains 
often resorted to, it would doubtless be 
the scene of the hill teaching, as well as 
of other unrecorded disciple experiences. 
The disciples would need no express 
direction to go there. Instinct would 
guide them.—Ver. 17. A very meagre 
statement, the whole interest of the 
evangelist being absorbed by the words 
spoken by Jesus.—mpocektvyoav as in 
ver. 9, but the men less demonstrative 
than the women; no mention of seizing 
Jesus by the feet.—oi 82 éSioracay: but 
some doubted (cf. xiv. 31, in reference to 
Peter). This clause seems to qualify 
and limit the previous statement as to 
the worshipping, giving this sense: they 
worshipped, i.¢., the most of them, for 
some were in doubt. So Meyer, who 
cites in support Klotz, Ad Devar, whose 
statement is to the effect that in passages 
of this kind containing a clause with 82 
without a pév preceding, a universal 
affirmation is first made and then a 
division follows, which shows that a uni- 
versal affirmation was not really in- 
tended (p. 358). Various methods have 
been adopted to get rid of the unwel- 
come conclusion that some of the eleven 
did not do homage, ¢.g., by taking 
éSicragavy as a pluperfect (Fritzsche, 
Grotius), or by finding the doubters 
among the 500 mentioned by St. Paul 
(x Cor. xv. 6), or even by altering the 
text of 82 into ovS€ (Beza). The whole 
narrative is so brief and vague as to lend 
support to the hypothesis that in the 
appearance of Jesus here recorded we 
have not one particular occurrence, 
but a general picture of the Christo- 
phanies, in which mingled conflicting 
feelings of reverent recognition and hesi- 
tation as to the identity of the person 
played their part. Such is the view 
of Keil, Steinmeyer, and Holtzmann 
(H. C.). 


EYATTEAION 


17. 
18. kai mpocehOav 6 “Ingois d Ch. vi. 10; 


S32 


\S 207 > 7 , 
kal iSdvres altdv, mpoceku- 


xvi. 19; 
xviil. 18 
(similar 
phrases). 


d»> > na 
€v oupava 


em. Tys yns in BD (W.H in brackets), 
$NA and other uncials omit (Tisch.). 


Vv. 18-20. The final commission.— 
Ver. 18. wpoweXOav, approaching; the 
speech of Jesus is majestic, but His bear- 
ing is friendly, meant to set them free 
from doubt and fear.—éAdAnge: this 
may seem a word not sufficiently digni- 
fied for the communication made. But 
it is often used, especially in Hebrews, 
in reference to divine revelations (vide, 
e.g., Chap, i. 1).—€560@y pow, there was 
given to me; the aorist as in xi. 27, the 
thought of which earlier text this utter- 
ance reiterates and amplifies. The refer- 
ence may be to the resurrection, and the 
meaning that that event ipso facto placed 
Jesus in a position of power. Cf. Rom. 
i. 4.—mwaca éfovoia, every form of 
authority ; command of all means neces- 
sary for the advancement of the King- 
dom of God.—év ovpav@: this points to 
session on His celestial throne at the 
right hand of God. Jesus speaks as one 
already in heaven. There is no account 
of the ascension in Mt. It is conceived 
as involved in the resurrection. —émi yj : 
upon earth, the whole earth. The two 
phrases together point to a universal 
cosmic dominion. But so far as earth 
is concerned, the dominion is only a 
matter of right or theory, a problem to 
be worked out. Hence what follows.— 
Ver. 19. ‘wopev0évres ovv: the ov 
omitted in many texts aptly expresses 
the connection. The commission to the 
Apostles arises out of the power claimed 
= all power has been given to me on 
earth, go ye therefore, and make the 
power a reality. padyrevoate wavta Ta 
€0vy: make disciples (act., cf. at xxvii. 
57) of all the nations (cf. x. 5, ‘‘go not 
into the way ofthe Gentiles ”’),—Barrio- 
avres: baptism the condition of disciple- 
ship = make disciples by baptising; the 
sole condition, circumcision, and every- 
thing particularistic or Judaistic tacitly 
negatived. Christian baptism referred 
to here only in this Gospel.—aitois 
refers to €0vn, a constr. ad sensum, as in 
Acts) XV. 17s) ROMwaI a. In’ the 
anabaptist controversy avtovs was taken 


340 


KATA MATOAION 


XXVIII. 20. 


e Acts vill, BawriLovres! adrods *eis 1d *Svopa tod Matpds Kal Tod Yiod Kai 


16; zix.5.  . ¢ 
Rom, vi. Tou 
<n 
1.13; 


i Ayiou Mvedparos, 20, Si8doxovtes adrods ‘rypety wévta Soa 
x.2. vere Adpny Spiv> Kat iSod, dy ped” Spay eipe wdcas tds hpepas 


Gal. iii. 27 nm a a 

(all with Ews THs * cuvtedelas To Faidvos. “Api.” ? 
¢ an 

accus.). _f vide at Ch. xix. 17. 


} Bawricavres in BD (W.H. margin). 


g vide at Ch. xiii. 39. 


Bawrifovres (T.R., W.H., text). The 


reading of T.R. (AZ) is probably a conformation to §:SacKowres in next clause. 
* The Apmy is not found in ABD 1, 33, and is left out by modern editors. 


by the opponents of infant baptism as 
referring to pa@yras in panrevoare, 
and the verb was held to mean “‘teach”’. 
For some references to this extinct con- 
troversy vide Wetstein, ad loc., and Her- 
mann’s Viger, p. 61.—els rd Svopa, into 
the name, i.e., as confessing the name 
which embodies the essence of the 
Christian creed.—rov warpés, etc.: it is 
the name not of one but of three, form- 
ing a baptismal Trinity—Father, Son, 
and Holy Ghost. It is not said into the 
names of, etc., nor into the name of the 
Father, and the name of the Son, and 
the name of the Holy Ghost.—Hence 
might be deduced the idea ofa Trinity 
constituting at the same time a Divine 
Unity. But this would probably be 
reading more into the words han was 
intended.—Ver. 20. &SdoKxovres a., 
teaching them, present participle, im- 
plying that Christian instruction is to be 
a continuous process, not subordinate to 
and preparing for baptism, but con- 
tinuing after baptism with a view to 
enabling disciples to walk worthily of 
their vocation.—rnpetv : the teaching is 
with a view not to gnosis but to practice ; 
the aim not orthodox opinion but right 
living.—mdvta 80a évererhdpny iptv: 
the materials of instruction are to be 
Christ’s own teaching. This points to 
the desirableness for the Church’s use of 
an oral or written tradition of Christ’s 
words: these to be the rule of faith and 
practice.—xal l§o0v, introducing an im- 
portant promise to the missionaries of 
the new universal religion to keep them 
in courage and good hope amid all diffi- 
culties.—¢y@ ped’ tpav, J the Risen, 
Exalted, All-powerful One, with you my 
apostles and representatives engaged in 
the heroic task of propagating the faith._— 
cipi, am, not will be, conveying the feel- 
ing of certainty, but also spoken from 
the eternal point of view, sub specie 
aeternitatis, for which distinctions of here 
and there, now and then, do not exist. 


Cf. John viii. 58, ‘‘ before Abraham was 
Iam”, In the Fourth Gospel the cate- 
gories of the Absolute and the Eternal 
dominate throughout. —mwdcas as 
jpépas, all the days, of which, it is 
implied, there may be many; the vista of 
the future is lengthening.—éws tis 
ovvtedclas Tov aidvos, until the close of 
the current age, when He is to come 
again; an event, however, not indispens- 
able for the comfort of men who are to 
enjoy an uninterrupted spiritual presence. 
This great final word of Jesus is 
worthy of the Speaker and of the 
situation. Perhaps it is not to be taken 
as an exact report of what Jesus said to 
His disciples at a certain time and place. 
In it the real and the ideal seem to be 
blended ; what Jesus said there and 
then with what the Church of the 
apostolic age had gradually come to 
regard as the will of their Risen Lord, 
with growing clearness as the years 
advanced, with perfect clearness after 
Israel’s crisis had come. We find here 
(x) a cosmic significance assigned to 
Christ (all power in heaven and on 
earth); (2) an absolutely universal 
destination of the Gospel; (3) baptism 
as the rite of admission to discipleship ; 
(4) a rudimentary baptismal Trinity; (5) 
a spiritual presence of Christ similar to 
that spoken of in the Fourth Gospel, 
To this measure of Christian enlighten- 
ment the Apostolic Church, as _ repre- 
sented by our evangelist, had attained 
when he wrote his Gospel, probably 
after the destruction of Jerusalem. 
Therein is summed up the Church’s 
confession of faith conceived as uttered 
by the lips of the Risen One. “ Ex- 
pressly not as words of Jesus walking 
on the earth, but as words of Him who 
appeared from heaven, the evangelist 
here presents in summary form what the 
Christian community had come to re- 
cognise as the will and the promise of 
their exalted Lord” (Weiss-Meyer). 


TOWKATA 


MAPKON 


ATION EYAITEAION. 


I. 1. "APXH tod edayyediou “Ingod Xpiotod, viod tod Ocod!- 
2. &s? yéypamrat év tors mpopyrais,® “"ISou, éya* droctéhhw 
rév dyyeddy pou mpd mpoodiou cou, &5 Katackeudcer thy dddv 


1 The title vov +. ©. is wanting in §¥ and omitted by Tisch. and W.H. (in text). 


Most uncials and many verss. have it. 
ing. BDL omit tov. 


2 xadws in BLA (Tisch., W.H.). 


Its omission is probably due to similar end- 


3 For ev ros @. in many uncials BDLA 33, Lat. and Syr. verss., have ev te 


loata Tw 7. 


The T.R. is a gram. cor. 


4 eyw is in NLAZ (Tisch.), but wanting in BD (W.H.). 


Cuapter I. THe Baptist. THE 
BAPTISM AND TEMPTATION OF JESUS. 
BEGINNINGS OF THE GALILEAN MINIS- 
TRY.—Vv. 1-8. The appearance and 
ministry of the Baptist (Mt. iii, 1-12, 
Lk. iii. 1-18).—Ver. 1. apy, etc.: This 
verse may best be taken as the super- 
scription of the whole Gospel, and as 
meaning: Here begins the Gospel con- 
cerning Jesus Christ the Son of God. 
So viewed it should be made to stand 
apart, ver. 2 beginning a new section 
as in the Greek Testament of W. and 
H. If we connect ver. 1 closely with 
vy. 2-4 it will contain the statement that 
the Gospel of Jesus Christ began with 
the ministry of the Baptist. On_ this 
view the connection of the sentences 
may be taken in two ways: either ver. 1 
may be joined closely to ver. 2, the 
resulting sense being: the beginning of 
the Gospel (was) as it is written = was 
in accordance with the prophetic oracle 
predicting the introduction of Messiah 
by a forerunner, the story of the Baptist 
then following as the fulfilment of the 
prophecy ; or vv. 2, 3 may be bracketed 
as a parenthesis, and ver. 1 connected 
with ver. 4, yielding this sense: the 
beginning of the Gospel was or became 
(¢yévero) John the Baptist. All three 


ways give a perfectly good meaning. 
In favour of the first view is the absence 
of the article before apy ; against it 
has been alleged (Holtzmann, H. C.) 
that xa@as in Matthew and Mark always 
connects with what goes before, never 
introduces a protasis as in Lk. vi, 31.— 
Tov evayyeAlov “I. X., the good news 
concerning, not preached by, ’l. X. being 
genitive objective; not quite the evangelic 
record, but on its way to that final mean- 
ing ofevayyéAvov. ‘‘ Christ” here appears 
as a proper name, as in Mt. i. 1.—viovd tT. 
cov: this title, even if omitted, is implicit 
in the title Christ, but it is every way 
likely to have formed a part of the 
original text, as indicating the point of 
view in which Jesus is to be presented 
to readers of the Gospel. Without 
assuming any acquaintance on the part 
of the evangelist with the Gospel of the 
Infancy in Matthew and Luke we may 
say that this title takes the place of the 
opening chaptersin these Gospels. It is 
all that Mark offers to gratify the curiosity 
to which these chapters owe their origin. 
Who is this remarkable Personage of 
whom you write? He is ‘the Son of 
God”’. How much that was meant to 
convey cannot be certainly determined. 
Vv. 2-4. KaQas introduces a prophetic 


gou €umpoabdv cou.! 


gate Tv 68dv Kuplou- edOelas moretre tas tpiBous abtod. 


KATA MAPKON I. 


3+ Pwr) Bodvtos év TH ephpw, ‘“Erowpd- 


a2» 


4. “Eyévero “lwdvyns? BawriLovy év rH epypw, Kat® xypicowr 


Bdwricpa petavoias eis adeow dpaptidv. 


5- Kal éferopeveto 


mpds attévy maca 1% “lovdaia xmpa, Kat ot ‘lepovodupitar: Kal 


éBamriLovro wavtes * év 1G “lopSdvy Twotapd bm’ adtod,5 efopodoyou- 


pevot Tas Gpaptias adTav. 


6. Hv S€° "lwdvyns ® evdedupévos tpixas 


KapyAou, kat Lovny Seppativyy wept thy dopdvy adtod, Kai éobiwr 7 


dxpidas Kal péAt dyprov. 
a John viii. , 


1 eumrpoobev cov omitted in BDL al. 


7- Kai éxypucce, héywv, ““Epyerar 6 
ioxupdétepds pou dtricw prov, ob od« eipi ixavds “Kupas doar Tov 


It is probably from Mt. xi. ro. 


* o before BawriLav in BLA (Tisch., Trg., W.H.). 
$ xat in NDL al. (Tisch.), but wanting in B 33 al. (W.H. omit). 


4 wavres before kat eBar. in SBDLA. 
6 kat qv in NBL 33, and e before I. in NBLZ. 


citation as protasis to the historical 
statement about John in ver. 4 =in 
accordance with, etc., John appeared. 
The prophetic reference and the historical 
statement are given in inverse order in 
Matthew.—év 7@ ’Hoalg, in Isaiah, the 
actual quotation being from Isaiah and 
Malachi (ver. 2) conjointly. An in- 
accuracy doubtless, but not through an 
error of memory (Meyer and Weiss), but 
through indifference to greater exact- 
ness, the quotation from Isaiah being 
what chiefly occupied the mind. It is 
something analogous to attraction in 
grammar. It is Mark’s only prophetic 
citation on his own account.—l8ov begins 
the quotation from Mal. iii. 1, given as in 
Mt. xi. 10, with pov, after mpoodov 
and 686v, changed into wov.—Ver. 3. 
Quotation from Is. xl. 3 as in Mt. iii. 
3.—Ver. 4. éyévero *Il.: in accordance 
with, and in fulfilment of, these prophetic 
anticipations, appeared Fohn.—é Barrt- 
{wv = the Baptist (substantive participle), 
that the function by which he was best 
known. —elg Gdheoiv Gpaptidv: this 
clause (in Luke, not in Matthew) may 
plausibly be represented as a Christianised 
version of John’s baptism (Weiss), but 
of course John’s preaching and baptism 
implied that if men really repented they 
would be forgiven (Holtz., H. C.). 

Vv. 5-8. Ver. 5 describes the wide- 
spread character of the movement much 
as in Mt., only that Judaea comes 
before Jerusalem, and the district of the 
Jordan is not mentioned.—Ver. 6 
describes John’s way of life as in Mt., 


5 vm avtov before ev tw I. in NBL 33, 
7 exOwv in HBLA 33. 


évdedupcvos standing for elyev TO EvSupa, 
and €08wv for 4 tpopy Hv.—Ver. 7. kal 
éxijpvgcev, introducing a special and 
very important part of his kerygma: 
inter alia he kept saying—anxious to 
prevent men from forming a wrong im- 
pression of his position. This is what 
makes mention of his ministry relevant 
in the evangelic record.—dtoat Tov 
ipdvra, to loose the latchet of, instead 
of ra tod. Bagtdcat; a stronger ex- 
pression of subordination, practically the 
same idea,—Ver. 8. ‘mvevpart ayle: 
kat wup{ omitted, whereby the view pre- 
sented of Messiah’s function becomes 
less judicial, more Christian. Mt.’s 
account here is truer to John’s con- 
ception of the Messiah. Mk.’s was pro- 
bably influenced by the destination of 
his Gospel for Gentile readers. 

Vv. g-11. The baptism of Fesus (Mt. 
iii. 13-17; Lk. iii. 21, 22).—Ver. 9. év 
éxe(vais tT. 4. = in those days; an in- 
definite note of time = while John was 
carrying on his ministry of preaching 
and baptising.—7nd@ev “Incots, came 
Jesus, with what feelings, as compared 
with Pharisees and Sadducees, vide notes 
on Mt.—4a7é Naf. 7. Fak., from Nazareth, 
presumably His home; of Galilee, to 
define the part of the country for out- 
siders; only Galilee mentioned in Mt.— 
els tov *I.: év with dative in ver. 5. The 
expression is pregnant, the idea of 
descending into the river being latent in 
eis.— 7rd “lwdv., by John; no hesitation 
indicated ; cf. remarks on three synoptical 
narratives on this pointin Mt. It does 


3—13- 


*ipdvta Tov SwoSnpdtwv adtod. 


SSatt* adtds S¢€ Bantice: spas év? Mvedpate “Ayiw.” 
éyéveto év éxeivats Tats tpepats, AAPev “Ingots dws NaLaper tijs 
Tadt\aias, Kat €Barricby bwd “lwdvvou eis Tov *lopSdavny.4 
e00gws > dvaBalvwy amd tod Udartos, cide cxiLopevous Tos obpavous, 


EYATTEAION 


S43 


8. eyo pev! eBdatica Spas év? bhere. Lk. 


iii. 16. 
John i. 27 
(Acts xxii. 
25 of 
thongs 

to bind 
prisoners) 


g. Kat 


10. kat 


kal To Mvetua doet® weprotepdy KataBatvoy én’? adrév- 11. Kat 


dwvy éyéveto éx Tay odpavav, “XO et 


o 8 edddxyoa.” 
‘ 


Eprj.ov. 


13. Kal hv éxer® év TH épypw hpépas tecoapdxorta,!” 


c 


6 ulds pou 6 dyamntos, év 


12. Kat eb0ds 7d Mvedpa adrév * éxBddder eis Thy ccf. in Mt. 


1x. 38. 
John x. 4. 


4 CHEESY ol a Veer a a , ‘ c 
Tetpalomevos UO TOU LaTava, Kal NY PETA TwY Onptwy> Kal ot 


dyyedor Sunxdvouy ada. 


1NQBL 33, 69 verss. omit pev, doubtless a gram. cor. to answer to Se. 
2 The first ev not in SBA cursives, the second not in BL (Tisch. omits first, W.H. 


both). 
* B omits nat (W.H., in margin). 


5 The best texts have ev@us uniformly in Mk. 


7 es avtov in BD 13, 69. 


4 es Tov |. uo lw. in BDL 33, 69 al. 
6 ws in SABDLA. 
8 got in BLA (Tisch., W.H.). 


9 SSABDL 33 omit exer, meant originally perhaps as a substitute for ev TH epnpw 


following. 
10 reoo. npepas in KBL 33. 


not even appear whether John had any 
suspicion that the visitor from Nazareth 
was 6 loxvpdtepos, of whom he had 
spoken. The manner in which the bap- 
tism of Jesus is reported is the first in- 
stance of the realism of this Gospel, 
facts about Jesus stated in a naked 
manner as compared, ¢.g., with Lk., 
who is influenced by religious decorum. 
—Ver. 10. ev0is, straightway, a 
favourite word of Mk.’s, to be taken 
with ete = as soon as He had ascended, 
etc., He saw. For similar usage in 
reference to eira vide Hermann, Viger, 
Pp. 772-—o x lopévous, being rentasunder, 
a sudden event; a stronger word than 
that used in Mt. and Lk. (avewx8noav 
—jvat). The subject of elSe is Jesus.— 
els aitév: this reading suggests the 
idea of a descent not merely upon (émt) 
but into Him, as if to take up its abode; 
henceforth the immanent spirit of Jesus. 

Vv. 12,13. The temptation (Mt. iv. 
1-11; Lk. iv. 1-13).—Ver. 12. éxBadAeu: 
historic present, much used in Mk. with 
lively effect ; introduces a new situation. 
The first thing the Spirit does (ev6%s) is 
to drive Jesus into the wilderness, the 
expression not implying reluctance of 
Jesus to go into so wild a place (Weiss), 
but intense preoccupation of mind. 
Allowing for the weakening of the sense 


in Hellenistic usage (H. C.), it is a very 
strong word, and a second instance of 
Mk.’s realism: Jesus thrust out into the 
inhospitable desert by force of thought. 
De Wette says that the ethical signifi- 
cance of the temptation is lost in Mk.’s 
meagre narrative, and that it becomes a 
mere marvellous adventure. I demur to 
this. The one word éxBadAe tells the 
whole story, speaks as far as may be the 
unspeakable. Mt. and Lk. have tried to 
tell us what happened, but have they 
given us more than a dim shadow of the 
truth ?—Ver. 13. etpaldpevos, being 
tempted, presumably the whole time ; 
doubtless the real truth. Two powers at 
work all through, the Spirit of God and 
the spirit of evil.—yv peta t. Onp.: not 
merely pictorial or intended to hint 
danger; meant rather to indicate the un- 
inhabited nature of the place ; no supplies 
obtainable there, hunger therefore a part 
of the experience.—ot GyyeAou: angels 
as opposed, not to devils (Schanz), but to 
human beings, of whom there were 
none.—8inkdvovy, ministered ; in what 
way not said, but implying exhaustion. 
These few touches of Mk. suggest a 
vivid picture of a spiritual crisis: intense 
preoccupation, instinctive retreat into 
congenial grim solitudes, temptation, 
struggle, fierce and protracted, issuing 


344 


KATA MAPKON ie 


14. META 8é! 13 wapadobijvar tiv “lwdvyny, AAVev & "Inaois eis 
Thy TadtXalav, knptoowy Td edayyé\ov tis Bacdelas? tod Ccod, 


15e Kal Adywy,® “"Ore twemAHpwrat 6 Katpds, Kal HyytKev 4 Baordela 


ee - a -~ 4 an 
+ lohniii. 15 ToD Geos petavoeite, Kat ‘ morevete “dv TH edayyedlw.” 


(with ev). 


16, Mepimarav 8€4 mapa thy Oddacoav tis FadiAatas, elde 


Yipova Kal ‘AvSpéay tov ddehpdy adtod,® Baddovtas dudiBAnotpov ° 


év TH Oatdoon: Hoay yap adtets* 17. Kal eimevy attois 6 Inaods, 


a , ~ a 
“Acite dmiow pou, Kal roujow buds yevéoOar ddets avOpdtuwv.” 


18. Kal ed0éws abévtes TA Sixtua adray 


T jKodov@ncav abté. 
t 


IQ. Kat mpoBas éxeidev® ddXiyov, eidev “ldkwRov tov Tod ZeBedatou 
Pp Y , 


kat lwdvyyny tov adedpov attod, Kai adtods év TO Tolw Kataprti- 


Lovtas Ta Sixtua. 


20. kal eUOdws éexddeoev aitols* Kal ahévtes 


tov watépa aitav ZeBedaiov éy tO TAolw peta Tov pioOwToy, 


drA Gov dtricw adtod. 


1 wera Se in NLAZX (Tisch.). 


kat pera in BD (W.H.). 


2 rns Bac. omit NBL 33; brought in by scribes as the usual phrase. 
5 kat Aeywv omitted in $¥ (Tisch., W.H., in brackets) ; found in BLA. 


4 kat Tapaywv in NBDL 133, 33, 69 al. 


> Zipwvos in NBL. 


T.R. assimilated to Mt. iv. 18. 


6 For BaAX. apdiBX. (from Mt. iv. 18) BL have apgiBaddovtas (Tisch., W.H.). 


7 avtwy omitted in BCL. 


in weakness, calling for preternatural 
aid. 

Vv. 14-20. The Galilean ministry 
hegins (Mt. iv. 12-22; Lk. iv. 14).—Ver. 
14. TO evayy. T. Geod: the Gospel of 
God, the good news sent by God to men 
through Jesus, a strong name for Christ’s 
message.—Ver. 15. % Bactdela r. 6.: 
this defines more precisely the gospel 
Jesus preaches. It is the gospel of the 
Kingdom of God. But even this is 
vague. The kingdom may be differently 
conceived: as an awful thing or as a 
beneficent thing. The summons follow- 
ing throws light on its nature.—perta- 
voeite kal miotevere: “repent ’’ echoes 
John’s preaching, and savours of awe, 
but ‘* believe” is a new word, and pre- 
sumably the watchword of the new 
ministry. And the name for the message 
to be believed settles the nature of the 


kingdom. Its coming is good news (év 
T@ evayyeAlw). For morevew év, vide 
Galky Ait. °26)) MEpia it. ig:——\ ere LO: 


&potBadAovras, just because different 
from Mt.’s expression, to which the T. R. 
assimilates Mk.’s, .s likely to be the true 
reading, and is very expressive: casting 
about (their nets understood, here only). 
—Ver. 17. yevéeo8ar: I will make you 


8 BDL omit exerOev. 


become, implying a gradual process of 
training ; therefore the disciples called 
as early as possible.—Ver. 20. era 
pio8wrov: they left their father with the 
hired assistants. ‘This is taken by some 
as a merely pictorial trait, but others 
justly regard it as a touch of humanity. 
It comforted Mk, and probably his 
voucher Peter that the two brothers did 
not need to leave their father alone. He 
could do without them. 

Vv. 21-28. First appearance in the 
synagogue; first impressions (Lk. iv. 
31-37).—Ver. 21. eiowopevovrar: Jesus 
and the four newly acquired disciples 
enter or arrive at.—Kam., Capernaum; 
first mention. From Mk.’s narrative alone 
we should gather that Jesus arrived at 
Capernaum on His way northwards from 
the south—from the Jordan to Galilee, 
then along the shore of the lake to 
Capernaum.—ev0éws: seems to imply 
arrival on Sabbath.—oafBaoww: dative 
plural as if from oaBBas; plural, after 
analogy of names for feast days (ra 
Gfupa, Ta yevéora, ta éyKaivia).— 
éSi8acKke: Mt. in his general summary 
of the Galilean ministry applies both this 
word and xynpvoow to Christ’s synagogue 
utterances. These, addressed to a 


14—27. 


EYATTEAION 


345 


21. Kat eioropetovrar eis Kamrepvaotp: Kai edbéws tois cd BBacw 


eiseh Ody eis Thy cuvaywyny, edidacke.! 


22. kal éferdnooorto émt 


Ti Sidaxq abtod- Fy yap SiSdeKwv adtods ds efouciay Exwv, Kai 


obx @s ol ypappatets. 


Kat gol, “Inood Nalapnve ; 


HdGes Grohéoar Huds ; 


23. Kal? Hv év TH cuvaywyh adtGv GvOpwrros 
°éy mvedpatt “dxabdptw, Kal dvéxpate, 24. héywv, “"Ea,® ti ftv 


e again in 
Ch. v. 12. 
f same exp. 


otda* ge Tis in John 


a a 5 = vi. 69 
et, 16 Gytos Tod Oeod.” 25. Kat éwetipnoey abt 6 “Inaods, Méywv, (W.H). 


“dipdOnt, Kal eeMOe €& adtod.” 


26. Kat *omapdéay attov 7d 


mveGpa TO axdOaprov, kal kpdgav> wv peyddy, ebqOev ef adTod. A 


g Ch. ix. 20. 
Lk. ix. 39. 
Ch. x. 24, 
32 (Wis- 


> d ii 
27. kat "@€apPyOnoav mdvtes,® ote oulntetv mpds aidtods,’ re 


1 eoedOwv . . . edtSacxe (T.R.) is the reading of BD (W.H. text). 


3). 


Some copies 


omit eicedOwv, and place eSi8acxe before evs tT. cuv.; sO SL (Tisch., W.H., in 


margin. Ws. retains, T.R.). 


2 kat evOus in NBL 33; evbus left out because not understood. 


3 ea not in NBD. 


It probably comes in from Lk. (iv. 34). 


4 oSapev in SLA (Tisch., W.H., in margin), ov8a in BCD; probably correct. 


5 dwvycav in NBL 33 (Tisch., W.H.). 


6 amavres in WBL; waves in CDA al. 


7$$CDAZ have pos cavtous (W.H. marg.). $§B have simply avrovs (Tisch., 


W.H., text. Ws.). 

popular audience, would come more pro- 
perly under the head of kerygma than of 
didache.—Ver. 22. é&ewhyooovro : they 
were amazed; a strong word, several 
times in Mk. (Mt. vii. 28).—dés éfovotav 
éxov, etc.: a similar remark in Mt. vii. 
29 (see notes there) appended to Sermon 
on Mount. Mk. gives no discourse, but 
only notes the impression made. “A 
poor substitute for the beautiful Sermon 
on the Mount” (Schanz). Doubtless, 
but let us be thankful for what we do 
get: a record of the impression made by 
Christ’s very first appearance in the 
synagogue, witnessing to a striking in- 
dividuality. Mk. omits much, and is in 
many ways a meagre Gospel, but it 
makes a distinctive contribution to the 
evangelic history im showing by a few 
realistic touches (this one of them) the 
remarkable personality of Fesus. 

Vv. 23-28. The demoniac.—Ver. 23. 
ev0ts: almost = i8o0v, Matthew’s word 
for introducing something important.— 
aitav, in they synagogue, i.e., the 
synagogue of the same men who had 
been surprised at Christ’s preaching. 
They are to get a new surprise, though 
one would have been enough for one 
day. Wealso get a surprise, tor nothing 
in Mark’s narrative thus far has prepared 
us to expect such an event as is reported. 
In his general sketch of the Galilean 


ministry (iv. 23-25) Matthew combines 
the three features: preaching, teaching, 
and healing.—év w. a. = with an unclean 
spirit (Maldonatus, Holtz., H.C.), in the 
power of, possessed by, Meyer, Weiss, 
Keil, etc. An unclean spirit is Mark’s 
standing name for what Matthew com- 
monly calls Saipwv or Saipoviov.— Ver. 
24. Tt piv kat oot, what to ws and to 
Thee. The diseased man speaks for the 
demon in him, and the demon speaks for 
the fraternity as all having one interest. 
For the phrase used in a similar sense 
vide 1 Kings xvii. 18.—Nalapnvé: first 
certain intimation (cf. ver. g) that Jesus 
belonged to Nazareth. The correspond- 
ing adjective in Matthew is Nalwpatos 
(ii. 23).—7AOes a. H. may be either a 
question or an assertion, the sense of the 
whole passage being: Thou art come to 
destroy us, for I know well who Thou art 
—the Holy One of God(Fritzsche). The 
epithet, G@y.os, applied to Jesus is in an- 
tithesis to dkadptw.—Ver. 25. dip dOnte: 
vide at Mt. xxil. 12.—Ver. 26. omapd- 
fav, convulsing, throwing into a spasm. 
This reveals a characteristic of the 
malady under which the man suffered. 
He appears to have been an epileptic. 
The Gadarene demoniac was a madman. 
This was the final fit before recovery.— 
Ver. 27. e@apByOnoav: another strony 
word peculiar to Mark = they were 


346 


Adyorras, “ Th gore Toit ; 


KATA MAPKON i 


tis  Si8axh 4 Kowwh atty, dtu! Kar’ 


, “~ “~ . 
éfougiay Kai Trois mvevpaot Tots dxaldptos émtdoce, Kai bta- 


Kovouow ata ;” 


28. "EERNOe SE? 4 ako adtod edOds® eis oAnv 
Thy wepixwpoy ths FadtAatas. 


29. Kai eb0éws ex Tis cuvaywyis eteAOdvtes, FAVov* eis Thy 


jhereand in Olkiay Eiwvos Kat "AvSpéou, peta “laxwBou Kai “lwdvvou. 


Mt. viii. 


14. mevOepd Lipwvos KaréKerto 


' wupégoouga. 


30. h Se 


Kat €U0éws Aéyouow 


1 The scribes have flattened the text here into commonplace, and left only one 


cause of wonder instead of two. 


The true reading, because realistic, true to life, is 


doubtless that of NBL: 8:5axy Katvy Kat efovoray Kat, in which car’ ef. may be 
joined either to what goes before or to what follows. 


2 kat efnASev in NBCDLAZX 33. 


5 BCL add travtaxov after evOus. It may have fallen out by similar ending (avtov). 


4 eEehOuy yAGev in BDZ old Latin verss. (W.H. marg.). 


by NACL (Tisch.). 


astonished, t.e., at the sudden and com- 
plete recovery. They saw at a glance 
that the attack had not run its usual 
course.—@ore with the infinitive here 
expressing result.—ov{nretv, to seek 
together; in N. T. tropical = to inquire 
of one another, to discuss. ‘The word 
occurs several times in Mark.—rt éore 
Touro ; The question refers to the whole 
appearance of Jesus in the synagogue 
that day. One surprise following close 
on another provoked wondering inquiry 
as to the whole phenomenon. The words 
following state the twofold ground of 
their astonishment: (1) SiSaxy Katwy 
kat éfovgiav, a style of teaching new 
as to authoritativeness (entirely different 
from the familiar type of the scribes) ; 
(2) Kai Tois mvevpact Tois axaddprots 
éemitagcoe, etc., also He commandeth 
the unclean spirits so that they obey 
Him. Both equally unlooked for: the 
former a moral miracle, the latter a 
physical; both revealing an imperial 
spirit exercising sway over the minds 
and bodies of men.—Ver. 28. 4 akon, 
the report, as in Mt. xiv. 1, xxiv. 
evGis, expressive of the lightning speed 
with which rumour travels = mavtaxov 
= mavtaxot, in every direction.—eis 
SAnv 1. mw. t VFak., a vague phrase 
suggestive of a wide range of circula- 
tion, even beyond the boundaries of 
Galilee. But that can hardly be meant. 
Recent interpreters take it as meaning 
that the fame spread into the Galilean 
environment of Capernaum, along the 
lake north and south, and back into the 
hill country. 

Similarity at certain points in this 
incident to the story of the Gadarene 


The T.R. is supported 


demoniac, especially in the deprecatory 
speech (ver. 24, Mt. viii. 29), has 
suggested the hypothesis of borrowing 
on one side or other. Keim thinks this 
not a real history but an acted pro- 
gramme, like the change of water into 
wine in John ii., and like the preaching 
programme in Lk. iv, (L. ¥., ii. 165, 
203), a mere duplicate of the Gadara 
story. Weiss thinks the words spoken 
by the demoniac (ver. 34) are borrowed 
from that story, and that Mark repro- 
duces the features with which Peter was 
wont to describe such cases. The life- 
like reflections of the spectators (ver. 27) 
powerfully witness for the reality of the 
occurrence. . 

Vv. 29-31. Cure of Peter’s mother-in- 
law (Mt. viii. 14, 15; Lk. iv. 38, 39).— 
eEeAOdvres HAPov: even if the reading of 
B (participle and verb singular) be the 
true one, as it probably is just because 
the more difficult, the implied fact is 
that Jesus left the synagogue accom- 
panied by His disciples, probably all 
four, Simon and Andrew as well as 
James and John. Jesus came from the 
synagogue to the house of Simon and 
Andrew, with them, and with James and 
John.—Ver. 30. wvpéccovga (same 
word in Matthew), fevered, or feverish, 
doubtless a common occurrence in the 
damp, marshy flats by the lake.—Aéyouvot 
auto 1. a., forthwith they tell Him about 
her, not necessarily as expecting Him to 
heal her, but to account for her absence, 
or as one naturally tells a friend of family 
troubles.—Ver. 31. yetpev, etc., He 
took hold of her hand and so raised her 
up, the cure taking place simultaneously. 
In Matthew the touch (mWato) is the 


28—36. 


atT@ Tept avrijs. 
XElpos attys!- 
adTots. 


EYATTEAION 


32. “Owias Sé yevoperns, Ste * €du® 6 Atos, Epepov mpds 


347 


31. kal mpocehOay Hyerpev adtHv, KpaTnoas Tis 
kat apikey adthy 6 ) mupetis ed0éus,? Kai Sunxdverd Paral. 


John iv. 
52. Acts 
XXViii. 8. 


autév mdvtas tods KaK®s Exovtas Kal ods SatporsLopdvous - k here and 


33- kal H mWédts SAN Emournypévyn Fv* mpds Thy Bdpay. 


in Lk. iv 
40 (Gen. 
XXViii. 11) 


34. kat 


€bepdmeuce moAdods KaKds Exovras TotkiAats vécors* Kat Saindvia 
moAda 退Bake, kat odx Hoe Aodeiv TA Satpdvia, St. WSercay adtdv. 
35- Kal mpwt évvuxov® diay dvacras éfjAOe, kal daAdOev eis 


Epynpov Tomov, KaKet mpoonuxeTo. 


1 NBL omit aurys. 


36. cai 'Katediwtay © adrov 


1 here only 
67 in N.T 


2 SBCL 33 al. omit evOews. 


3 BD have educe, which being used transitively by the Greeks was likely to be 


corrected into «8v by the ancient revisers. 
- « NV NBCDL 33 have ny ody yg TWodts eweovynypevy (Tisch, 


4 For 9 wodts . 


5 evvuxa in SBCDL (modern editions). 


6 xatedtwiev in SB, which revisers would readily change into the plural. 


7 SSBL omit o. 


means of cure. Holtz. (H. C.) thinks 
Jesus took hold of her hand simply by 
way of greeting, and that the result was 
unexpected, Jesus thus discovering an 
unsuspected power. 

Vv. 32-34. Cures on Sabbath evening 
(Mt. viii. 16, 17; Lk. iv. 40, 41).—Ver. 
32. drlas, etc.: exact indication of time 
by two phrases, on the arrival of evening 
when the sun set; evening a vague phrase 
= late afternoon. It was Sabbath, and 
the people would wait till sunset when 
Sabbath closed. Hence the double note 
of time. So most recent commentators, 
also Victor Ant. in Cramer’s Catenae 
(éredy évdpiloy py ekeival tive Oeparr- 
every oaBBaty, TovTov xdpiv Tov oaf- 
Barov ro wépas avépevov), Matthew and 
Luke divide Mark’s phrases between 
them. The first sufficed for Matthew 
because he says nothing of its being 
Sabbath. This instance of duality in 
expression in Mark has done service in 
connection with Griesbach’s hypothesis 
that Mark is made up from Matthew and 
Luke.—xaxés €xovtas, such as were 
ailing, peculiar to Mark.—rovs Satpov- 
Lopevous: them specially, because of what 
happened in the synagogue.—Ver. 33. 
SA 7 7SALs, a colloquial exaggeration.— 
mpos T. OUpav: the door of Peter’s house. 
Meyer thinks that in the interval Jesus 
had gone to His own house, and that it 
was there the people gathered. But 
does Mark’s gospel think of Jesus as 
having a residence in Capernaum? 
Weiss answers in the negative.—Ver. 


34. wodAots, many; not all? In 
Matthew many are brought and all are 
healed.—7j gre, allow, imperfect, as if from 
ao(w with augment on preposition, again 
in xi. 16; prorsus barbara (Fritzsche).— 
Srt ySeroav a., because they knew Him. 
On the insight of demoniacs cf. at Mt. 
viii. 28 ff. 

Vv. 35-39. Flight from Capernaum 
(Lk. iv. 42-44).—Ver. 35. mpwt, early, an 
elastic word, the last watch from three to 
six, defined more exactly by évvvyxa Atav 
= much in the night, at the beginning of 
the watch, or at the dark hour before 
dawn.—évvvya is the neuter plural of 
évvvxos, nocturnal, used as an adverb 
(here only).—avaoras, etc.: He rose 
up, went out of Capernaum, went away 
to a desert, solitary place, and there 
engaged in prayer. It was a kind of 
flight from Capernaum, the scene of 
those remarkable occurrences; “ flight 
from the unexpected reality into which 
His ideal conception of His calling had 
brought Him,” Holtz., H.C. The real 
reason of the flight was doubtless a 
desire to preach in as many synagogues 
as possible before the hostility of the 
scribes, instinctively dreaded, had time 
to act obstructively. Jesus had a plan 
of a preaching tour in Galilee (vide ver. 
38), and He felt He could not begin too 
soon. He left in the night, fearing 
opposition from the people.—Ver. 36. 
Katediwtev: followed Him up; almost 
pursued Him as a fugitive; verb sin- 
gular, though more than one followed, 


348 


KATA MAPKON 


I. 


Lipwv Kal ot pet adrod* 37. Kal edpdvres adtév,! Aéyouow adTa, 


Cy de 


On tdvtes Lntodat oe.” 
m here only Tas éxopévas 


<° éfehyuOa.” 3 39. Kal Hv 4 


™ kwpoTroders, iva Kdket Kypug * 


38. Kat déyer adrois, “"Aywpev” eis 
eis TodTo yap 


a a #5 lal 
Knpicowy év Tats cuvaywyats” autor, 


eis OAnv Thy Fadtiaiay, Kal Ta Sarpdvia ékBddduv. 


40. Kat €pxerat mpds adtov Aempds, trapakadav adrov Kat yovu- 


8 Kat? héyowr 


metTay altév, 


, >» 
nabapioar. 


o > ~Qg ‘ f 2 A “cc 
Hwato avtov,” Kai héyer adr, 


lol o , , 
abt, "Ori, édv Gdns, SUvacai pe 


41. ‘0 8€ “Inoods ® omhayxnobets, exteivas Thy xetpa, 


Oddw, KaOapicOnt.” 42. Kal 


eimdvtos alTod,!” edbéws, dm AVev dr adtod H hémpa, kal exaapicn. 


1S9BL have evpoy avrov Kat. 


2 SSBCL 33 add addayxov, a rare word (here only in Mk.), and apparently 
superfluous, therefore likely to be omitted. 


3 NQBCL 33 have e&ydOov, doubtless the true reading, changed into efehnAvba 
because the meaning was not understood and under the influence of Lk. Jesus is 


explaining why He left Capernaum so hastily. 
4 mAGev in NBL Cop. Aeth. verss. (Tisch., W.H.). 


Vide below. 
nv is from Lk. (iv. 44). 


5 us T. cuvaywyas in RABCDLAcurs. (Tisch., W.H.). 


5 BD omit kat yovumetwy avtov, possibly by homoeot. 


Out avTorv. 
7 SSB 69 omit Kat. 
S avrov nWato in NBL. 


Peter, the chief of them, being thought of 
mainly. A strong term like éxBaddeu, 
ver. 12, all allowance made for weakened 
force in Hellenistic usage.—Ver. 37. 
mavtes [nrovoi oe, all seek Thee, not 
merely all the people of Capernaum, but 
all the world: ‘‘nemo non te quaerit,” 
Fritzsche ; a colloquial exaggeration.— 
Ver. 38. Gywpev: let us go, intransitive ; 
not so used in Greek authors.—xewpormd- 
Aets, village towns; towns as to extent 
of population, villages as without walls 
Osypke) ; Oppidula (Beza) ; here only in 

found in Strabo. < nnptbes that 
mr I may preach, no word of healing; 
because no part of His vocation (Kloster- 
mann) ; because subordinate to the preach- 
ing (Schanz).—é—qA8ov: I came out (from 
Capernaum, ver. 35). This may seem 
trivial (Keil), but it appears to be the 
real meaning, and it is so understood by 
Meyer, Weiss, Holtz., and even Schanz. 
The Fathers understood the words as 
meaning: ‘*I am come from heaven’’. 
So Keil. In this clause Weiss finds evi- 
dence that in Mk.’s narrative Jesus has no 
home in Capernaum. He has visited it, 
done good in it, and now He wants to go 
elsewhere.—Ver. 39. n)Oev (vide critical 
notes).—eis T. vy. may be connected with 
mAGev, and the sentence will run thus: 
He came, preaching, to their synagogues, 


SL have kat yovv. with- 


8 For o 8€ |. SBD have simply kat (Tisch., W.H.). 
10 evar. avtov is a gloss, omitted in BDL. 


all over Galilee ; also casting out devils, 
the healing ministry being referred to as 
subordinate to the teaching. If we con- 
nect els tas ovv. with xynpicowv the 
word “ synagogues’’ will refer to the 
assemblies rather than to the places = 
preaching to their synagogues, as we 
might say ‘‘ preaching to their churches ”’ 
or “congregations”. For similar ex- 
pressions cf. xiii. 10, xiv. 9, John viii. 
26. This short verse contains the record 
of an extensive preaching tour, of which 
not a single discourse has been pre- 
served. Doubtless some of the parables 
were spoken on these occasions. Note 
the synagogue, not the market place, was 
the scene of Christ’s addresses; His 
work religious, not political (Schanz). 
Vv. 40-45. The leper (Mt. viii. I-43 
Lk. v. 12-16).—Ver. 40. «at épyerat, 
etc., and there cometh to Him, historic 
present as so often; where this happened 
not said, probably. an incident of the 
preaching tour; ‘in one of the cities,’ 
says Lk.—éav Ags Suv.: the leper has 
seen or heard enough of Christ’s healing 
ministry to be sure as to the power. He 
doubts the will, naturally from the nature 
of thé disease, especially if it be the first 
cure of the kind, or the first so far as the 
man knows.—Ver. 41. omAayxvicGeis, 
having compassion. Watch carefully 


37—45- 


EYAITTEAION 


349 


43- Kal éuBpiunodpevos atta, evbews eféBadey autdv, 44. kat Méyes 
auT@, ““Opa, pndevt pndev eins: GAN’ Uraye, ceautdv Setgov 1 
iepet, kal mpocéveyxe Tept Tod Kabaptopotd cou & mpocetate Mwojs, 


> , Fo Ase 
€lS ApPTUPLOV GuUTOLS. 


cis wéduv! eiceOeiv: GAN ew ev? epypots Témors Hy, Kal NpxovTo x3 


x 2s , 8 
Tpos avrTdy tmavtaxdbev. 


45. O 8 efeXOdv HpEaro knptocerv moda 
kat Siapnpilew tov Adyov, Gore pynere avrdv SivacGar ” pavepas n John vii 
10 


cle 


1 The order of the words varies in the MSS. 


2 ew in NBLA. 


8 wavrodev in many uncials (Tisch., W.H.). 


the portraiture of Christ’s personality in 
this Gospel, Mk.’s speciality.—Ver. 42. 
a@wjdOev, etc.: another instance of 
duality, the leprosy left him, and he or it 
was cleansed. Lk. has the former of the 
two phrases, Mt. the latter.—kxa@apifeww 
is Hellenistic for xa@atpeww.—Ver. 43. 
épBpipnodpevos, etc. : assuming a severe 
aspect, vide notes on the word at Mt. 
ix. 30, especially the quotation from 
Euthy. Zig.—éteBadev a., thrust him 
out of the synagogue or the crowd. It 
is not quite certain that the incident 
happened in a synagogue, though the in- 
ference is natural from the connection 
with ver. 39. Lepers were not inter- 
dicted from entering the synagogue. 
These particulars are peculiar to Mk., 
and belong to his character-sketching. 
He does not mean to impute real anger 
to Jesus, but only a masterful manner 
dictated by a desire that the benefit 
should be complete = away out of this, 
to the priest; do what the law requires, 
that you may be not only clean but re- 
cognised as such by the authorities, and 
so received by the people as a leper no 
longer.—Ver. 44. €is papTUptov avTots : 
for a testimony from priest to people, 
without which the leper would not be 
received as clean.—Ver. 45. What Jesus 
feared seems to have happened. The 
man went about telling of his cure, and 
neglecting the means necessary to obtain 
social recognition as cured.—rév Adyov : 
“the matter,’”? A. V. Perhaps we should 
translate strictly the word, t.e., the 
word Jesus spoke: “I will, be thou 
clean’. So Holtz. after Fritzsche. So 
also Euthy. Zig. (Stepnpile tov Adyov, 
bv eipnxev ait 6 xpiortds, Syrady 7d 
Oédw, KabaplobynTt, os pet éfovoias 
yevopevov).—eis médtv: the result was 
that Jesus could not enter openly into a 
sity, a populous place, but was obliged 
m remain in retired spots, This cure 


and the popularity it caused may have 
co-operated to bring Christ’s synagogue 
ministry to an abrupt termination by 
stirring up envy. Jesus was between 
two fires, and His order to the leper, “‘ Go, 
show thyself,” had a double reference: 
to the man’s good and to the conciliation 
of the scribes and synagogue rulers,—- 
Kal 7pxovro, etc. ; and (still) they kept 
coming from all quarters. Popularity at 
its height. There is nothing correspond- 
ing to ver. 45 in Mt. 

CHAPTER II. INcIPIENT CONFLICT. 
This chapter and the first six verses of 
the next report incidents which, though 
not represented as happening at the 
same time, have all one aim: to exhibit 
Jesus as becoming an object of disfavour 
to the religious classes, the scribes and 
Pharisees. Sooner or later, and soon 
rather than later, this was inevitable. 
Jesus and they were too entirely different 
in thought and ways for good will to 
prevail between them for any length of 
time. It would not be long before the 
new Prophet would attract their attention. 
The comments of the people in Caper- 
naum synagogue, doubtless often re- 
peated elsewhere, on the contrast between 
His style of teaching and that of the 
scribes, would soon reach their ears, and 
would not tend to promote a good under- 
standing. That was one definite ground 
of offence, and others were sure to arise. 

Vv. 1-12. The palsied man (Mt. ix. 
1-8; Lk. v.17-26).—Ver.1. Thereading of 
SSBL (W.H.) with eiceA Bay for cio dbev 
in T. R., and omitting xal before Kota bn, 
gives a ruggedly anacolouthistic con- 
struction (‘‘and entering again into 
Capernaum after days it was heard that 
He was at home’’), which the T. R. 
very neatly removes. The construction 
of the sentence, even as it stands in the 
critically approved text, may be made 
smoother by taking jxovo8q not im- 


350 
| OE e 


KATA MAPKON II. 


Kat wddw eiondOev! eis Kamepvaodp 80 tpepav: Kal? 


KovoOn Stu eis olkdév® e€otes 2. Kat evOdws ouvhiy@noavy moddoL 
y XY) ) 


a John ii.6; Sore pyxéte “wpe pydé Ta mpds thy Odpav: Kal >éAddew avrois 


xxi. 25. 
b Ch. iv. 33. TOV ° Adyov. 


o Su 2 
c Mt. iv.6. “alpdnevov b3d tecodpwr. 
d here only. 


3. Kal €pxovrat mpds aurév, tmapahuteKxdy éportes,* 


4- kal pi Suvdpevor mpoceyyioat > 


e Gal. iv. 15 AUTO Bid Tov Sxov, * dweotéyacay Thy otéyny Strou jv, Kai ° ébopu- 


(to dig out 


the eyes). $avTeS xahGor tov kpdBBartov,® eb’ J? 6 wapaduteKds KatéKeLTo. 


* eoeXOwv wadkty in BDL; probably correct just because of the halting const. 


which the T.R. rectifies, 


7 BL omit «at; for the connection of the words vide below. 


7 SBDLZE have ev otxw (Tisch., W.H. in text). 


preferred as the more difficult. 


But «is owxov (CA al) is to be 


“NBL have gepovres wpos avrov wapadvTiKome 
° wpooeveykat in NBL 33 (Tisch., W.H.). 


® Spelt kpaBarrov in most uncials. 
7 ewov in NBDL. 


personally, but as referring to Jesus. 
He entering, etc., was heard of as being 
at home (Schanz and Holtzmann alter- 
natively).—waAtv, again, a second time, 
i. 21 mentioning the first. He has not 
been there apparently since He left it 
(i. 35) on the preaching tour in Galilee. 
—8.’ npepdy, after days, cf. Gal. ii. 1; 
classical examples of this use of 81a in 
Wetstein and Elsner. The expression 
suggests a short period, a few days, 
which seems too short for the time re- 
quired for the preaching tour, even if it 
had been cut short by hostile influence, 
as is not improbable. The presence 
of scribes at this scene is very signifi- 
cant. They appear hostile in attitude 
on Christ’s return to Capernaum. They 
had probably been active before it. 
Fritzsche translates: interjectis pluribus 
diebus. For a considerable time 81a 
xpévov would be the appropriate phrase. 
We get rid of the difficulty by connect- 
ing 8’ jpep@v with qKovcby (Kloster.), 
the resulting meaning being that days 
elapsed after the arrival in Capernaum 
before people found out that Jesus was 
there. He had been absent possibly for 
months, and probably returned quietly.— 
év otkw or eis olxov (T. R.) = at home 
(in Peter’s house presumably) ; eis otxov 
suggests the idea of entrance.—Ver. 2. 
ovv7ynx@ncav moAdot: with the extra- 
ordinary incidents of some weeks or 
months ago fresh in their memory, a 
great gathering of the townspeople was 
inevitable.—dorte, etc.: the gathering 
was phenomenal; not only the house 
filled, but the space round about the 


«p w (T.R.) is explanatory. 


door crowded—no room for more people 
even there (u5é), not to speak of within. 
—rév Aéyov: the phrase has a secondary 
sound, as if an echo of the speech of the 
apostolic church, but the meaning is 
plain. Jesus was preaching the gospel 
of the kingdom when the following inci- 
dent happened. Preaching always first. 
—Ver. 3. €pxovrat: historic present 
with lively effect. The arrival creates a 
stir.—épovtes: this may mean more 
than the four who actually carried the 
sick man (t1é teoodpwv), friends accom- 
panying. The bearers might be servants 
(Schanz).—Ver. 4. The particulars in 
this verse not in Mt., who did not care ° 
how they found their way to Jesus; 
enough for him that they succeeded 
somehow.—mrpoceyyioat (T. R.): here 
only in N. T. to approach; mpooevéyxat 
(W.H.), to bring near (the sick man 
understood) to Him, Jesus.—ameoréya- 
oav T o., removed the roof, to which 
they would get access by an outside 
stair either from the street or from the 
court.—6mov mv, where He was; where 
was that? in an upper room (Lightfoot 
and Vitringa), or in a room in a one- 
storied house (Holtz., H. C.), or not ina 
room at all, but in the atrium or com- 
pluvium, the quadrangle of the house 
(Faber, Archdol., Jahn, Archdol.). In 
the last-mentioned case they would have 
to remove the parapet (battlement, 
Deut. xxii. 8) and let the man down into 
the open space.—ttopvéavres : not some- 
thing additional to but explanatory of 
amweotéyaoay = they unroofed by digging 
through the material—tiles, laths, and 


I—9. 


EYATTEAION 


oi 


5. av Sé! 6 *Inoods Thy wiotw adtav héyer TO TapaduTiKG, 


“Téxvov, db€wvrar? gor ai dpaptia: gov.” § 


6. "Hoav dé ties TOV 


ypapparéwy exer KaOhpevor, kal Siadoyilsuevor ev tats kapdiats 


aitav, 7. “Ti* obtos odtrw Aadet BrachHyptas >; 
dpiévar dpaptias, et pi eis, 6 Oeds;” 


tis Sévatae 
8. Kai eb0éws émryvots 


« at rey aa , > a @ 2 6 8 X i a Ve A 
0 IngouS TW TvEULaATL AUTOU, OTL OUTWS La, oytLovrar €v €QUTOLS, f Ch. viii. 14 


A ~ 4 “a A 
elev adtois,’ “Ti radta Siadoyilecbe ev tais Kapdiats spor; 
p pov ; 
. TL €ori edxoTrdTEpov, EiTTELY TH TWapaduTLKG, Adéwvrat ® gor? ai 
b ry ry 


' kat tdwv in RBCL 33. 
2 B 33 have advevrat. 


adewvras conforms to Lk, (v. 20), and is to be suspected. 


3 For cot at ap. gov (from Lk.) BDLA have gov at ap. 


or. in B (W.H. marg.). 


5 In the T.R., ovtos ovtw Aahe: BAaodypras, we detect the hand of harmonising 


and prosaic revisers once more. 


BrAaodype (NBDL). Vide below. 
6 B omits ovtws (W.H. in brackets). 


T Aeyet in WBL 33. 
8 advevrat in $QB. 


plaster.—xpaBarrov: a small portable 
couch, for the poor, for travellers, and 
for sick people; condemned by Phryn., 
p- 62; oxipaovs the correct word. Latin 
grabatus, which may have led Mk. to 
use the term in the text.—Ver. 5. Th 
ator a., their faith, that of the bearers, 
shown by their energetic action, the sick 
man not included (ob thy wiotw Tov 
mwapadeAupévov ahha TeV KopicdvTey, 
Victor Ant., Cramer, Cat.).—réxvoyv, 
child, without the cheering @dpoe: of Mt. 

Vv. 6-12. Thus far of the sick man, 
how he got to Jesus, and the sympathetic 
reception he met with. Now the scribes 
begin to play their part. They find their 
opportunity in the sympathetic word of 
Jesus: thy sins be forgiven thee; a word 
most suitable to the case, and which 
might have been spoken by any man.— 
ties tT. yp-: Lk. makes of this simple 
fact a great affair: an assembly of 
Pharisees and lawyers from all quarters— 
Galilee, Judaea, Jerusalem, hardly suit- 
able to the initial stage of conflict.— 
éxet xaOvypevor: sitting there. If the 
posture is to be pressed they must have 
been early on the spot, so as to get near 
to Jesus and hear and see Him dis- 
tinctly.—év rais kapSiats a.: they looked 
like men shocked and disapproving. The 
popularity of Jesus prevented free utter- 
ance of their thought. But any one 
could see they were displeased and why. 
It was that speech about forgiveness.— 
Ver. 7. rl otros otTw Adher; BAaohypet. 


The true reading is tt (B, ott) ovtos ovrws Aahe ; 


B omits avtog (W.H. in brackets), 
® gov in SBL al. 


This reading of $$BDL is far more life- 
like than that of the T. R., which 
exemplifies the tendency of copyists to 
smooth down into commonplace what- 
ever is striking and original = why does 
this person thus speak? He blasphemes. 
The words suggest a gradual intensifica- 
tion of the fault-finding mood: first a 
general sense of surprise, then a feeling 
of impropriety, then a final advance to 
the thought: why, this is blasphemy! 
It was nothing ofthe kind. What Jesus 
had said did not necessarily amount to 
more than a declaration of God’s willing- 
ness to forgive sin to the penitent. They 
read the blasphemy into it.—Ver. 8. 
evOus émuyvous : Jesus read their thoughts 
at once, and through and through (én). 
—16 mvevparti, by His spirit, as distinct 
from the ear, they having said nothing.— 
Vv. 9, 10, vide notes on Mt.—Ver. 11. 
gol Adyw, I say to thee, a part of Christ’s 
speech to the manin Mk., not likely to 
have been so really ; laconic speech, the 
fewest words possible, characteristic of 
Jesus.—éyetpe, means something more 
than age (Fritzsche) = come, take up 
thy bed. Jesus bids him do two things, 
each a conclusive proof of recovery: 
vise, then go to thy house on thine own 
feet, with thy sick-bed on thy shoulder. 
—Ver. 12 tells how the man did as 
bidden, to the astonishment of all spec- 
tators.—mdvras, all, without exception, 
scribes included? (Kloster.) It might 
have been so had the sentence stopped 


352 


KATA MAPKON IL 


djapriot, H €imetv, “Eyerpat,) kat? a&pdv cou tov xpdBBarov,® Ka’ 
Tepimdre; 10, iva Sé €idijre, Gre efouciay exer 6 vids Tod dvOpurro« 
Adiévar eri ris yijs* dpaprias, (Aéyer TO wapadutixd,) 11. Zot Adyw 
Eyerpat,® xal® dpoy tov xpd BBardy cou, kal Gmaye eis rdv olkdy gov.” 
12. Kat nyépOn edOéws, Kal? dpas tov KpdBBarov, é&fOev evavtior 
ndvtwv dote eictacbar wdvras, kat Sofdlew tay Gedy, Aéyovras,! 


““Or. obSérore obtws }9 eiSopev.” 
13. Kal é€&f\Oe mdduv mapa thy Oddaccav: Kal mas 6 Sydos 


HpxXeTO mpds adrdv, Kal €di8ackey adtous. 


14. Kal wapdywv ede 


Aeuiv tov rod “ANdatou, Kabijpevoy emt 1d Tehwviov, kal héyer adta, 


“© Axodouber por.” 


1 eyepe in SCD al, (Tisch.). 


Kai dvactas jKodovOnoev atta. 


15. Kai éyé. 


eyetpov in BL (W.H.). 


2 kat in SBA (Tisch.), omit CDL (W.H. in brackets). 


3 rov kpaB. cov in NBCDLE. 


4 exe THs yns adievar in NCDLAZ (Tisch.). ad. apap. emit. y. in B (W.H. text, 


5 eyetpe in most uncials. 
7 kat evdus in BCL. 


® B omits (W.H. in brackets), D has wat Aeyetv. 


there. For no doubt the scribes were as 
much astonished as their neighbours at 
what took place. But they would not 
join in the praise to God which followed. 
—ottws ovdémote cidopev: elliptical, 
but expressive, suited to the mental 
mood = so we never saw, i.é., we never 
saw the like. 

N.B.—The title “‘ Son of Man” occurs 
in this narrative for the first time in 
Mk.’s Gospel; vide on Mt. viil. 20, ix. 6. 

Vv. 13-17. Call of Levi, feast follow- 
ing (Mt. ix. 9-13; Lk. v. 27-32). This 
incident is not to be conceived as follow- 
ing immediately after that narrated in 
the foregoing section. —Ver. 13 interrupts 
the continuity of the history. It states 
that Jesus went out again (cf. i. 16) 
alongside (mapa) the sea, that the multi- 
tude followed Him, and that He taught 
them. A very vague general notice, 
serving little other purpose than to place 
an interval between the foregoing and 
following incidents.—Ver. 14. Aeviv. 
Levi, the son of Alphaeus, the name 
here and in Lk. different from that given 
in first gospel, but the incident mani- 
festly the same, and the man therefore 
also; Levi his original name, Matthew 
his apostle name. Mk. names Matthew 
in his apostle list (iii. 18), but he fails to 
identify the two, though what he states 
about Levi evidently points to a call to 
apostleship similar to that to the four 
fishermen (i. 16, 20). The compiler of 


® cat omit NBCDL, 
8 eumpoobey in NBL. 
10 outws ovderroTe NBDL. 


the first Gospel, having Mk. before him, 
and, noticing the omission, substituted 
the name Matthew for Levi, adding to it 
Aeydpevov (ix. 9) to hint that he had 
another name.—akodovGer por: acall to 
apostleship (in terms identical in all 
three Synoptics), and also to immediate 
service in connection with the mission to 
the publicans (vide on Mt.).—Ver. 15. 
év tq oixig atvrov: whose house? © Not 
perfectly clear, but. all things point to 
that of Levi. There is no mention of a 
return to Capernaum, where Jesus dwelt. 
The custom house may have been out- 
side the town, nearer the shore. Then if 
the house of Jesus (Peter’s) had been 
meant, the name of Jesus should have 
stood after olkia instead of at the close 
of the verse. The main point to note is 
that whatever house is meant, it must 
have been large enough to have a hall or 
court capable of accommodating a large 
number of people. Furrer assumes as a 
matter of course that the gathering was 
in the court. ‘“ Here in the court of one 
of these ruined houses sat the Saviour of 
the lost in the midst of publicans and 
sinners” (Wanderungen, p.  375).— 
wohdot, etc.: many to be taken in 
earnest, not slurred over, as we are apt 
to do when we think of this feast as a 
private entertainment given by Mt. to 
his quond m friends, Jesus being nothing 
more than a guest.—joav yap modXot 
kal yKokovGouv ait@: Mk, here takes 


1o—I7. EYATTEAION 

veto €v 7G! KataxeioOat abrov év TH oikia ato, Kal moot TeAGvan 
kal dpaptwdot cuvavéxewTo TO “Ingod Kal tots palyntais adtou: 
jjoav yap woNXoi, kai HKohovOnoav? adtd. 16. Kai of ypaypatets 
kal ot dapicator,® isdvres attov éo8iovta* perd tay Tehwvav Kab 
dpaptwdav,° €deyov trois padynrats adtod, “Ti% Sr pera TOV TeAwvav 
kal dpaptwhav éo@ie kat miver;”7 17. Kal dxovoas 6 “Inoods 
Adyet adrois, “Od xpetay Exoucw ot icxtovtes iatpod, GAN’ of Kakads 


éxovtes. 00k HAPov Kadéoat Sixatous, GANA dpapTwAods cis perd- 


353 


vovay. 8 


1 Instead of eyevero ev to NBL 33 have simply ytwerat (Tisch., W.H.). 
2 yxodovPouv in $BLA (modern editors). 
3 For kat ot &. BLA have tev Papicatwv, which doubtless the ancient scribes 


stumbled at as unusual. 


‘For avtov ecbiovra B 33 have ott 
(Tisch.). The T.R. follows ACAZ. 


evQie. (W.H., R.G.T.), SQDL ott nobre 


> apaptwdeov Kat TeAwvwy in BDL 33, to be preferred just because unusual. 


§ Omit tr BL 33 (W.H.). 


TNBD omit kat wiver, which the scribes would be ready to insert. 
5 SABDLAX al. verss. omit ets petavoray, which has been imported from Lk. 


pains to prevent us from overlooking the 
moot of the previous clause = for they, 
the publicans, and generally the people 
who passed for sinners, were many, and 
they had begun to follow Him. Some 
(Schanz, Weiss, etc.) think the reference 
is to the disciples (a@nrats), mentioned 
here for first time, therefore a statement 
that they were numerous (more, ¢.g., 
than four), quite apposite. But the 
stress of the story lies on the publicans, 
and Christ’s relations with them. (So 
Holtz., H.C.) It was an interesting 
fact to the evangelist that this class, of 
whom there was a large number in the 
neighbourhood, were beginning to show 
an interest in Jesus, and to follow Him 
about. To explain the number Elsner 
suggests that they may have gathered 
from various port towns along the shore. 
Jesus would not meet such people in 
the synagogue, as they seem to have 
been excluded from it (vide Lightfoot 
and Wiinsche, ad Mt. xviii. 17). Hence 
the necessity for a special mission.— 
Ver. 16. €eyov: the scribes advance from 
thinking (ii. 6) to speaking ; not yet, how- 
ever, to Jesus but about Him to His 
disciples. They note, with disapproval, 
His kindly relations with “ sinners”. 
The publicans and other disreputables 
had also noted the fact. The story of 
the palsied man and the “ blasphemous ”’ 
word, ‘‘thy sins be forgiven thee,” had 


2 


got abroad, making them prick up their 
ears, and awakening decided interest in 
these tabooed circles, in the ‘ Blas- 
phemer’’.—Ver. 17. Kadécat: to call, 
suggestive of invitations to a feast 
(Fritzsche, Meyer, Holtz.), and making 
for the hypothesis that Jesus, not 
Matthew, was the real host at the social 
gathering: the whole plan His, and 
Matthew only His agent ; vide notes on 
Mt. He called to that particular feast as 
to the feast of the kingdom, the one a 
means to the other as the end.— 8.xatous, 
Gpaptwdovs: Jesus preferred the com- 
pany of the sinful to that of the righteous, 
and sought disciples from among them 
by preference. The terms are not 
ironical. They simply describe two 
classes of society in current language, 
and indicate with which of the two His 
sympathies lay. 

Vv. 18-22. Fasting (Mt. ix. 14-17, 
Lk. v. 33-39).—Ver. 18. kal, and, con- 
nection purely topical, another case of 
conflict.—joav vyortevovtes, either: 
were wont to fast (Grotius, Fritzsche, 
Schanz, etc.), or, and this gives more 
point to the story: were fasting at that 
particular time (Meyer, Weiss, Holtz., 
H. C.).—€pxovra: kat A€éy., they come 
and say, quite generally ; they = people, 
or some representatives of John’s dis- 
ciples, and the Pharisees.—Ver. 19. py 
Suvavrat, etc.; the question answers 
5s 


J 


354 


KATA MAPKON Il, 


18. Kat jaar of padyrat “lwdvvou Kal of Tay baptoaiwy ! yyored- 
ovres* Kal épxovrat kal Aéyousw adrd, “ Atati ot pabytal “lwdvvou 
Kal of? Trav Gapicaiay vyotedoucw, of 8€ gol palytal od vyoTed- 
ovst;” 19. Kat elmey adrois 6 “Inoods, “Mh Sdvavrat oi viol Tod 
vuphavos, év d & vupdios pet adtdy gon, mnotedew; Scov xpdvor 
pel Exutav Exover Tov vupdioy,® ob Sivavrar ymotedew: 20. éhev- 
covrat 8é wpépar Sravy drapOy dm adtav 6 vuphios, Kal Tére 
yyotedcouow év éxelvats Tais hpépas.* 21. Kat oddeis ériBhqpa 
Adxous d&yvddou émippdamre: él ipariw mahag®- ef S€ py, atper 13 
mAijpopa adtod™ 73 Kady Tod wahatod, Kai xelpoy oxiopa yiverau. 
22. Kat oddels Bade olvoy véov eis doKods wadarods: et SE py, 
proce ® 6 olvos 6 véos® tods daoxods, Kal 6 olvos éxxetrar Kal oi 
&oxot drododvrat !9- &ANA otvoy véow els doKods Katvods BAnréov.” 


1 For rwv Papicatwy HABCD al. verss. 


27 SNBCL have paéyrar after on. 


have Papioacet. 


3 $9BCL arrange thus: exover Tov v. peT auTwv. 


4 ev exewwn TH NEpa in NABCDLAZX, etc. 


5 kat omit NABCLA 33. 


* crt tpatiov mahatov in $BCDL. The dat. conforms to Mt. 


‘am avtov in NBLZ 
*SSBCDL 13, 69 al. omit 0 veos. 


‘0 BL (D in part) read o otv. amrokAvrat Kat o1 ag. 


11 88B omit BAnrteov (from Lk.). D and 
itself, and is allowed to do so in Mt. 
and Lk. Mk. at the expense of style 
answers it formally in the negative.— 
dcov xpévoy, etc. For all this the 
Syriac Vulgate has a simple no.—Ver. 
20. Here also the style becomes bur- 
dened by the sense of the solemn 
character of the fact stated: there will 
come days when the Bridegroom shall 
be taken from them, and then shall they 
fast—in that day! This final expression, 
év éxetvy pep, singular, for plural in 
first clause, is very impressive, although 
Fritzsche calls it pvorsus intolerabile. 
There is no ground for the suggestion 
that the phrase is due to the evangelist, 
and refers to the Friday of the Passion 
Week (Holtz., H. C.). It might quite 
well have been used by Jesus.—Ver. 21. 
émtippamret, sews upon, for émPaddre 
in Mt. and Lk.; not in Greek authors, 
here only in N. T.; in Sept., Job xvi. 
15, the simple verb.—ei 8€ py: vide on 
ei 5 pyye in Mt. ix. 17.—aipet, etc.: 
that which filleth up taketh from it (a7 
avtTov)—the new, viz., from the old; 
the second clause explanatory of the 
first.—Kat x. o. y., and a worse rent 
takes place.— Ver. 22. pyger. Pricaeus 


8 pnte in NBCDL 33. 


T.R. conforms to Mt. 
old Lat. verss. omit the whole clause 


(ad Mt. ix. 17) quotes from Seneca (83 
Epist.): ‘‘musto dolia ipsa rumpuntur”’ 
—of course, a fortiori, old skins.—xai 6 
otvos, etc.: and the wine is lost, also 
the skins.—déAAa, etc.: this final clause, 
bracketed in W. and H., with the 
BAntéov, probably inserted from Lk., 
gives very pithy expression to the prin- 
ciple taught by the parable: but new 
wine into new skins! As to the bearing 
of both parables as justifying both John 
and Jesus, vide notes on Mt., ad loc. 
Vv. 23-28. The Sabbath question (Mt. 
xii, 1-8, Lk. vi. 1-5).—Ver. 23. kal éy.: 
connection with foregoing topical, not 
temporal; another case of conflict. — 
aitov mapatopeverOar: éyévero is fol- 
lowed here by the infinitive in first clause, 
then with cai and a finite verb in second 
clause. It is sometimes followed by in- 
dicative with kal, and also without Kai 
(vide Burton’s Syntax, § 360).—apatop. 
stands here instead of Staqop. in Lk., 
and the simple verb with 81a after it in 
Mt. It seems intended to combine the 
ideas of going through and alongside. 
Jesus went through a corn field on a 
footpath with grain on either side.— 
680v mwovetv is a puzzling phrase. In 


18—28, EYAITEAION 


Lb) 


23. Kat éyévero mapamopeveoOar aitov év tots odBBact! ba tov 


oTopipwy, Kal qpsavto ot palntat adrod? SSdv movetv? tiANovtes 


Tous oTdxuas. 24. Kat ol Papidator Edeyor adTa, “Ide, Ti ToLodatw 


év4 rois cdBBaow, & obx eeoT:;” 25. Kat adrés édeyer® adtois, 

“Oddémote dvéyvwre, ti éwoinoe AaBid, Ste xpeiav Ecyxe Kal émel- 
34 ‘ e > > A ~ 6 } lo) 2 ‘ oe 

vagev aUTOS Kal ol eT adTOU; 26. mas® eionOev Eis Tov otk 

Tod Ocod *émi ""ABidOap tod? dpyxrepéws, Kal tods dprous THs ¢ Lk. ili. 2; 

iv.a7 Acts 


GH 4 a > +3 “~ 2 a a « A 8 4 a 
TIPOVETEWS epayev, OUS OUK €CECTL payety eu py) TOLS LEPEVOL, KQL xi, 23, 


Edwke Kat Tots ody atT@ obot;” 27. Kat €Xeyev adtois, “TS 


odBBatov 81a tov GvOpwrov éyéveto, odx® 6 GvOpwros Bia 7d 


oaBBatov. 


oaBBdrov.” 


28. dote kipids éotiy 6 vids tod AvOpdmou kal tod 


1 BCD have S:amop. (Lk.). SSBCDLA place avrov ev rois cafBacr before the 


verb. 


2 oc pad. before npgavro in NNBCDL 33, 69 al, 


3 B has oSo7roverw (W.H. margin). 


5 SSBCL omit avtros (most modern editions. 


4 SABCDALZE it. vulg. omit ev. 


Ws. after Meyer dissents), For 


eXeyev NCL it. vulg. have Aeyet (Tisch., W.H., Ws.). 


6 BD omit wws (W.H. in brackets). 
5 tous tepets in NBL. 


classic Greek it means to make a road = 
viam sternere, GSdv wo.retoPat meaning 
to make way =iter facere. If we 
assume that Mk. was acquainted with 
and observed this distinction, then the 
meaning will be: the disciples began to 
make a path by pulling up the stalks 
(ri\Xovtes Tovs otTaxvas), or perhaps 
by trampling under foot the stalks after 
first plucking off the ears. The jp§avto 
in that case will mean that they began 
todo that when they saw the path was 
not clear, and wished to make it more 
comfortable for their Master to walk on. 
But it is doubtful whether in Hellenistic 
Greek the classic distinction was ob- 
served, and Judges xvii. 8 (Sept.) 
supplies an instance of 68dv movety = 
making way, ‘‘as he journeyed’. It 
would be natural to Mk. to use the 
phrase in the sense of iter facere. If we 
take the phrase in this sense, then we 
must, with Beza, find in the passage a 
abd verborum collocatio, and trans- 
ate as if it had run: 686v qo.odvtes 
tikkeww: “began, as they went, to 
pluck,” etc. (R. V.). The former view, 
however, is not to be summarily put 
aside because it ascribes to the disciples 
an apparently wanton proceeding. If 
there was a right of way by use and 
wont, they would be quite entitled to 


7TSSBL omit tov. 
9 kat ovx in NBCLAZX 33 verss. 


actso. The only difficulty is to under- 
stand how a customary path could have 
remained untrodden till the grain was 
Tipe, or even in the ear. On this view 
vide Meyer. Assuming that the disciples 
made a path for their Master by pulling 
up the grain, with which it was over- 
grown, or by trampling the straw after 
plucking the ears, what did they do with 
the latter? Mt. and Lk. both say or 
imply that the plucking was in order to 
eating by hungry men. Meyer holds 
that Mk. knows nothing of this hunger, 
and that the eating of the ears came into 
the tradition through the allusion to David 
eating the shewbread. But the stress 
Mk. lays on need and hunger (duality of 
expression, ver. 25) shows that in his 
idea hunger was an element in the case 
of the disciples also.—Ver. 24. Aeyov 
avt®. In this case they speak to Christ 
against His disciples; indirectly against 
Him.—6 ovx éfeoriv: the offence was 
not trampling the grain or straw, but 
plucking the ears—reaping on a small 
scale; rubbing = threshing, in Lk.— 
xpetay €oyxe Kal éweivaceyv: another 
example of Mk.’s duality, intelligible 
only if hunger was the point of the 
story. The verbs are singular, because 
David (avrés) is the hero, his followers 
in the background. — Ver. 26. é7i 


356 
1G @ eis gs 


KATA MAPKON 


Ill, 


KAI elond\Oe wadwy eis thy! cuvaywyhr, Kal Fy éxet 


aCh. ix. 18.dvOpwros “eEnpappérny exwv thy xelpa, 2. Kal ” waperypou ? 


b Lk. vi. 7 


xiv.1; xx. adTOv el Tots odBBaor Oepamedcer adrdy, iva KatTHyopyowow adtob. 


20. Acts 
ix. #4. 3- 


“"Eyetpar* eis Td péoov.” 


oéBBaow dyabororjoat,® 7 KaKotrorjoat ; 


kal dyer TO dvOpdrw 1O eénpappévny ExovTe Thy xetpa,® 


4. Kat dye adrois, “"Efeots Tots 
Wuxhy cGoa, h dto- 


1 SB omit tnv, which may have come in from Lk. (Tisch., W.H.). 
2Soin NBL. CDA have the middle (Lk.). 


3 rw THY xEtpa exovTt Enpay in BL (W.H.). 


(Tisch.). 

* eyecpe in most uncials. 

Sayafoy woinoat in SD (Tisch.). 
assimilated to kaxotroinoat, W.H.). 


“AB.idbap dp.: under A., a note of time, 
also implying his sanction: the sanction 
of a distinguished sacerdotal character = 
of Abiathar as priest. But Ahimelech 
was the priest then (1 Sam. xxi. 2 f.). 
Either a natural error arising from the 
close connection of David with Abiathar, 
the well-known high priest, or we must 
adopt one or other of the solutions pro- 
posed: father and son, Ahimelech and 
Abiathar, both bore both names (1 Sam. 
xxii. 20, 2 Sam. viii. 17, 1 Chron. xviii. 
16)—so the Fathers; Abiathar, the 
son, Ahimelech’s assistant at the time, 
and mentioned as the more notable as 
approving of the conduct of his own 
father and of David (Grotius) ; éwt taken 
in the sense it bears in Mk. xii. 26 (émt 
Barov)—in the passage about Abiathar— 
not a satisfactory suggestion.—Ver. 27. 
kal €Aeyev, etc., and He said to them ; this 
phrase is employed to introduce a saying 
of Jesus containing a great principle. 
The principle is that the Sabbath is only 
a means towards an end—man’s highest 
good. Strange that Mk. should have 
been allowed to have a monopoly of this 
great word! For this saying alone, 
and the parable of gradual growth (iv. 
26-29), his Gospel was worth preserving. 
—Ver. 28. ove: wherefore, so then, 
introducing a thesis of co-ordinate im- 
portance, while an inference from the 
previous statement.—6 vids tT. a.: the 
Son of Man, as representing the human 
interest, as opposed to the falsely con- 
ceived divine interest championed by the 
Pharisees.—xat +. o., even of the Sab- 
bath, so inviolable in your eyes. Lord, 
not to abolish but to interpret and keep 
in its own place, and give it a new name. 
No disparagement of Sabbath meant. 


NCA have thy Enpav xetpa exovTs 


BCLAZ have ayafom. as in T.R. (possibly 


CuapTer III. THe SABBATH QuzEs- 
TION CONTINUED. THE  DiscipLe- 
CircLe. Another Sabbatic conflict com- 
pletes the group of incidents (five in all) 
designed to illustrate the opposition of 
the scribes and Pharisees to Jesus. 
Then at v. 7 begins a new section of 
the history, extending to vi. 13, in which 
the disciples of Jesus are, speaking 
broadly, the centre of interest. First 
the people, then their religious heads, 
then the nucleus of the new society. 

Vv. 1-6. The withered hand(Mt. xii.g-14, 
Lk. vi. 6-11).—Ver. 1. «at: connection 
simply topical, another instance of colli- 
sion in re Sabbath observance.—dAuy: as 
was His wont on Sabbath days (i. 21, 39). 
—cvvaywyiv : without the article (N)B), 
into a synagogue, place not known.— 
éEnpappéevyy, dried up, the abiding re- 
sult of injury by accident or disease, not 
congenital—“‘ non ex utero, sed morbo 
aut vulnere; haec vis participii,” Beng.— 
Ver. 2. mapetrpovv, they were watch- 
ing Him; who, goes without saying: 
the same parties, z.e., men of the same 
class, as those who figure in the last 
section. This time bent on finding 
Jesus Himself at fault in ve the Sabbath, 
instinctively perceiving that His thoughts 
on the subject must be wholly diverse 
from theirs.—Ver. 3. €yetpe eis: preg- 
nant construction = arise and come forth 
into the midst. Then, the man standing 
up in presence of all, Jesus proceeds to 
catechise the would-be fault-finders.— 
Ver. 4. dyabov rotqoat F Kaxotoijcat, 
either: to do good or evil to one, or to 
do the morally good or evil. Recent 
commentators favour the latter as essen- 
tial to the cogency of Christ’s argument. 
But the former seems more consonant to 


EYAITEAION 357 


kteivat ;™ 5. Kai *mepiBhepdpevos abtods pet c Lk. vi. 10, 
am a and severa 

8pyis, ‘cudduTobpevos emt TH °Twpdoer THs kapdlas adTav, héyer times else- 
where; in 


1 avOodmw, “"Exrewov Thy yeipd cou. ! Kai é&érewe, kal dioka- Mk.always 
2 pote, THY XElp ’ Dar 
an in mid. 
teatd0n i XElp adtou bys os 7 GAAy.? 6. Kat e&eNOdvtes old here only 
a nA € aA > in N.T. 
@apicaio: edOdws peta Tav “Hpwdravaev oupBotduov émolouy® Kat e Rom. xi. 
25. Eph. 
iv. 18, 


1—8, 


Ot Be éovdtrwy. 


adTo0, Strws avTéy dmohdowot. 

7. KAl 6 "Inoods dvexdpyoe peta tay palytav abtot * mpds Thy 
Oddacoay: Kat wohd WAGs did THs FadtAalas jKohodOycav® abrG, 
kal émd THs “loudatas, 8. Kal dd “lepocohtpur, Kat did Tis 
*{Soupatas, kal wépay Tod ‘lopddvou - kat ol° mepl Tépoy kat ZSava, 


1 B omits cov (W.H. xetpa without cov in marg.). 


2 vyins ws n adn has little attestation ; 


comes from Mt. 


3 €S:80uv in BL; unusual and therefore altered into emotovy, or erroinoayv. 


$ pera T. pf. a. avexwpyoey in SBCDLA al. ; the true reading, vide below. 


® So in $CA (Tisch.); -noev in BL (W.H.). 


sentence varies. 


6 Omit or KBCLA. 


the situation. It was a question of per- 
forming an act of healing. Christ 
assumes that the ethically good coincides 
with the humane (Sabbath made for man). 
Therein essentially lay the difference 
between Him and the Pharisees, in whose 
theory and practice religious duty and 
benevolence, the divine and the human, 
were divorced. To do good or to do 
evil, these the only alternatives: to omit 
to do good in your power is to do evil ; 
not to save life when you can is to 
destroy it.—éo.dmwv, they were silent, 
sullenly, but also in sheer helplessness. 
What could they reply to a question 
which looked at the subject from a 
wholly different point of view, the ethical, 
from the legal one they were accustomed 
to? There was nothing in common 
between them and Jesus.—Ver. 5. ‘rept- 
Bredapevos, having made a swift, in- 
dignant (wer dpyijs) survey of His foes. 
—ovhhurovpevos: this present, the pre- 
vious participle aorist, implying habitual 
pity for men in such a condition of blind- 
ness. This is a true touch of Mk.’s in 
his portraiture of Christ.—rjjs nap8ias : 
singular, as if the whole class had but 
one heart, which was the fact so far as 
the type of heart (hardened) was con- 
cerned.—Ver. 6. é&eAOdvtes: the stretch- 
ing forth of the withered hand in 
obedience to Christ’s command, con- 
clusive evidence of cure, was the signal 
for an immediate exodus of the cham- 
pions of orthodox Sabbath-keeping ; full 
of wrath because the Sabbath was 


The position of the verb in the 


broken, and especially because it was 
broken by a miracle bringing fame to 
the transgressor—the result plots (cup- 
BovAvov édiSovv, here only) without 
delay (e¥@ts) against His life.—peta trav 
‘HpwSdtavey, with the Herodians, peculiar 
to Mk.; first mention of this party. A 
perfectly credible circumstance. The 
Pharisaic party really aimed at the life 
of Jesus, and they would naturally re- 
gard the assistance of people having 
influence at court as valuable. 

Vv. 7-12. The fame of Fesus spreads 
notwithstanding (vide Mt. iv. 25, xii. 
15 f.; Lk. vi. 17-19).—Ver. 7. peta TeV 
pabntav, with the disciples: note—they 
now come to the front. We are to hear 
something about them to which the 
notice of the great crowd is but the pre- 
lude. Hence the emphatic position 
before the verb.—mpds tijv 6ahaccayv : 
as ifto a place of retreat (vide ver. g). 
aot wAH005: wodkv, emphatic, a vast, 
exceptionally great crowd, in _ spite, 
possibly in consequence, of Pharisaic 
antagonism. Of course this crowd did 
not gather inan hour. The history is 
very fragmentary, and blanks must be 
filled up by the imagination. Two 
crowds meet—(r) woAd wmAbos from 
Galilee; (2) from more remote parts: 
Judaea, Jerusalem, Idumaea, Peraea, 
and the district of Tyre and Sidon— 
wh780s wokd (ver. 8): a considerable 
crowd, but not so great.—amo 7. 
*[Soupatas: Idumaea, mentioned here 
only, ‘(then practically the southern 


358 


fhere only WAO0s TOG, dkodcavtes! Soa emoler,) HAVov mpds adrdv. 


in sense of 


KATA MAPKON 


III, 


9. Kal 


crowding. €lire Tots pabyrais adrod, tva motdpoy mpockaptepy ald, Sid tov 


Cf. Mt. 
vii. 14. 
Elsewhere e 
meta- WOTE 
beeen 
g here only 
in same 
sense, 


dxdov, iva ph *OA(Bwow adtdv. 


mumrev? att, Kal Expale,? Aéyorvra, “ “Ori od ef 6 ulds Tod Ocod.” 


10. wodhods yap ebepdtreucer, 


ge , > lal * > aA o a > ad q 
miminrey aiTd, va adtod dywvTat, door elxov pdotyas 
II. kal Tad tvevpata Ta dxdlapra, Grav attov eBedper,? mpooé- 


hhereand I2. Kat moda émetipa abtots, tva abrov ® hbavepoy mrouowor.?® 
» pov mrouy 


in Mt. xii. 
16 (=to 
make one 


known), Kat &iyOor mpds adtéy. 


13. Kat dvaBaiver eis Td Spos, Kat mpookadetrat os 7iOehev adtds - 


14. kal émoinoe SdSexa,* tva dot per 


atrod, kat tva dwoortéAdy adrods knpiooew, 15. kal éxew éfougtay 


Bepameve tas vdcous, Kal® ékBaddew ra Satpdna- 


16. kat 


} axovoytes in NBA; CD have axovoavtes; mover in BL (W.H.). 
? Bewpovy, mpogeniTTov, expaloy in best MSS. The sing. a gram. cor, (neut. pl. 


nom.). 


5 rower in B°DL; as in T.R. in S$ BCAX (Tisch. former, W.H. latter). 
* SBCA add ovs kat arroatodovs wvopace, probably an importation from Lk, 


® Gepamrevety Tas vowous Kat Omitted in RBCLA. 


Shephelah, with the Negeb.’—G. A. 
Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy 
Land, p. 239. Mentioned by Josephus 
(B. J., iii. 3-5) as a division of Judaea.— 
Ver.9. tva wAotdpiov mpooKkaptepy: a 
boat to be always in readiness, to get 
away from the crowds. Whether used 
or not, not said; shows how great the 
crowd was.—Ver. 10. ote éwiniarew: 
so that they knocked against Him; one 
of Mk.’s vivid touches. They hoped to 
obtain a cure by contact anyhow brought 
about, even by rude collision. padortyas, 
from paorté, a scourge, hence tropically 
in Sept. and N. T., a _providential 
scourge, a disease ; again in v. 29, 34.— 
Ver. 11. Stav é6. In a relative clause 
like this, containing a past general 
supposition, classical Greek has the 
optative without adv. Here we have the 
imperfect indicative with adv (Ste Gy). 
Vide Klotz., ad Devar, p. 690, and Burton, 
M. and T., § 315. Other examples in 
chap. vi. 56, xi. 19.—mpogémurtov, 
fell before (émiminretv, above, to fall 
against).—2v eC 6 v. t. 62: again an in- 
stance of spiritual clairvoyance in 
demoniacs. Vide at Mt. viii. 29.—Ver. 
12, This sentence is reproduced in Mt. 
xii, 16, but without special reference to 
demoniacs, whereby it loses much of its 
point. 

Vv. 13-19a. Selection of the Twelve 
(cf. Mt. x. 2-4, Lk. vi. 12-16).—Ver. 13. 
eis TO Spos. He ascends fo the hill ; 
same expression as in Mt. v. 1; reference 
not to any particular hill, but to the hill 


country flanking the shore of the lake; 
might be used from whatever point 
below the ascent was made.—7pocka- 
Aeirar, etc., He calls to Him those 
whom He Himself (atrds after the verb, 
emphatic) wished, whether by personal 
communication with each individual, or 
through disciples, not indicated. It was 
an invitation to leave the vast crowd and 
follow Him up the hill; addressed to a 
larger number than twelve, from whom 
the Twelve were afterwards selected.— 
am7jAOov w. a.: they left the crowd and 
followed after Him.—Ver. 14. He is 
now on the hill top, surrounded by a 
body of disciples, perhaps some scores, 
picked out from the great mass of 
followers.— kat érro{yoe SH5exa: and He 
made, constituted as a compact body, 
Twelve, by a second selection. For use 
of qroveiv in this sense vide x Sam. xii. 
6, Acts ii, 36, Heb. iii. 2. God 
“made” Jesus as Jesus “made” the 
Twelve. What the process of ‘‘ making” 
in the case of the Twelve consisted in we 
do not know. It might take place after 
days of close intercourse on the hill.— 
tva. dow per’ avtov, that they might be 
(constantly) with Him; first and very 
important aim of the making, mentioned 
only by Mk—training contemplated.— 
tva arooréhy: to send them out ona 
preaching and healing mission, also in 
view, but only after a while. This verb 
frequent in Mk. Note the absence of 
row betore knpvoae and éxetv (ver. 15). 
—Ver. 16, kal éroincev t. 5., and He 


Q-—2!1. 


EYATTEAION 


oie 


‘eérdOyxe! 1G Eipwr. svopa? Mérpov: 17. Kal “IdxwBov téy Tod "here and in 


ZeBedalov, kal “Iwdvyny tov adeAddy Tod “laxdBou- Kal érdOqxev 
aitois dvépata Boavepyés,® 5 éotiv, Yiol Bpovrijs: 18. kai “Avdpéay, 
Kat ¢idurmoy, Kai BapSodopatoy, kat MarQaioy, nai Cwpay, Kal 


ver. 17 
only in 
sense of 
adding a 
name. 


"IdkwBov Tov Tod "ANdaiou, kai OadSatoy, kal Lipwva Tov Kavavitny,* 


1g. kal “lodSav "laxaordtyy,” 65 Kat Tapedwxey adtév. 
Kat épxovrar ® eis ofkov 20. kal ouvepxetar madw ? Sxhos, wore 
py Sivacba adtods pyte® dptovy ayeiv. 


j the phrase 
here only 
in N.T. 
(1 Mace, 
11. 17 ; xii, 


‘ , j c 
21. Kal Gkovgavtes ? Ol 52), 


1 To kat erednke NECA prefix kat erounce Tous 8. ; a probable reading, vide below. 


2 ovopa Tw Lipove in NBCLA. 
4 Kavavavoy in SBCDLA 33 it. vuilg. 


3 Boavapyes in RABCLA? 33. 
5 Ioxapiw9 in BBCLA 33. 


6 epxeratin SB. The plural (T.R.) is a correction. 
7 9 before oxXos in NBDA (W.H. bracketed). 
8 unre in CDE (Tisch.). pyd_e in BLA 33 (W.H.). 


appointed as the Twelve—the following 
persons, the twelve names mentioned 
being the object of éwroinae, and rods 8. 
being in apposition.—Mérpov is the first 
name, but it comes in very awkwardly as 
the object of the verb éwé@yxe. We 
must take the grammar as it stands, 
content that we know, in spite of crude 
construction, what is meant. Fritzsche 
(after Beza, Erasmus, etc.) seeks to 
rectify the construction by prefixing, on 
slender critical authority, rp@tov Xlpwva, 
then bracketing as a parenthesis kat 
éréOnxe . . . Meérpov = first Simon (and 
He gave to Simon the name Peter).— 


Ver. 17. Boavepyés = WI “JD as 


pronounced by Galileans; in Syrian = 
sons of thunder; of tumult, in Hebrew. 
Fact mentioned by Mk. only. Why the 
name was given not known. It does not 
seem to have stuck to the two disciples, 
therefore neglected by the other evan- 
gelists. It may have been an innocent 
pleasantry in a society of free, unre- 
strained fellowship, hitting off some 
peculiarity of the brothers. Mk. gives 
us here a momentary glimpse into the 
inner life of the Jesus-circle—Peter, 
whose new name did live, doubtless the 
voucher. The traditional interpretation 
makes the epithet a tribute to the 
eloquence of the two disciples (8a 76 
peya kal Starpvctoy HX AoaL TH OiKoULEVy 
Tis Seodoyias Ta Sdypara. Victor Ant.). 
—Ver.18. Mar@atov. One wonders why 
Mk. did not here say: Levi, to whom 
He gave the name Matthew. Or did 
this disciple get his new name inde- 
pendently of Jesus? ‘This list of names 
shows the importance of the act of 


selecting the Twelve. He gives the 
names, says Victor Ant., that you may 
not err as to the designations, lest any 
one should call himself an apostle ‘iva 
21) 6 TUXOV etry awdoroAos yeyovevat). 

Vv. 19b-21. The friends of Fesus 
think Him out of His senses ; peculiar to 
Mk. One of his realisms which Mt. and 
Lk. pass over in silence.—Ver. Igb. xat 
épxeTat ets olkov, and He cometh home 
(‘nach Haus,” Weizs.) to house-life as 
distinct from hill-life (ets +3 dpos, ver. 13). 
The formal manner in which this ts 
stated suggests a sojourn on the hill of 
appreciable length, say, for some days. 
How occupied there? Probably in 
giving a course of instruction to the 
disciple-circle ; say, that reproduced in 
the “Sermon on the Mount” = the 
“Teaching on the Hill,” vide intro- 
ductory notes on Mt. v.—Ver. 20. The 
traditional arrangement by which clause 
b forms part of ver. 1g is fatal to a true 
conception of the connection of events. 
The R. V., by making it begin a new 
section, though not a new verse, helps 
intelligence, but it would be better still 
if it formed a new verse with a blank 
space left between. Some think that 
in the original form of Mk. the Sermon 
on the Mount came in here. It is cer- 
tainly a suitable place for it. In accord- 
ance with the above suggestion the text 
would stand thus :— 

Ver.19. And Judas Iscariot, who also 
betrayed Him. 





Ver. 20. And He cometh home. 

Ver. 21. And the multitude cometh 
together again, etc. 

ovvépyerar: the crowd, partially dis 


360 


KATA MAPKON 


Ill, 


k 2 Cor. v. wap’ adtod ef Pov Kparioar adtév: heyor ydp, ““On * ékéory.” 


13. 


1 Ch. ix. 29; ¢¢@ 
Xvi. 17. 


persed, reassembles (implying lapse of 
an appreciable interval). Jesus had 
hoped they would go away to their 
homes in various parts of the country 
during His absence on the hill, but He 
was disappointed. They lingered on,— 
@ote, etc.: the crowding about the 
house and the demand for sight and 
succour of the Benefactor were so great 
that they (Jesus and His companions) 
could not find leisure, not even (pyde) to 
take food, not to speak of rest, or giv- 
ing instruction to disciples. Erasmus 
(Adnot.) thinks the reference is to the 
multitude, and the meaning that it was 
so large that there was not bread for all, 
not to speak of kitchen (obsonia).—Ver. 
21 introduces a new scene into the lively 
drama. The statement is obscure partly 
owing to its brevity (Fritzsche), and 
it is made obscurer by a piety which is 
not willing to accept the surface mean- 
ing (so Maldonatus—‘‘hune locum 
difficiliorem pietas facit”), which is 
that the friends of Jesus, having heard of 
what was going on—wonderful cures, 
great crowds, incessant activity—set out 
from where they were (ۤWA@ov) with 
the purpose of taking Him under their 
care (kpatyoot avtdy), their impression, 
not concealed (€Aeyov yap, they had 
begun to say), being that He was in an 
unhealthy state of excitement bordering 
on insanity (éfée7Ty). Recent com- 
mentators, German and English, are in 
the main agreed that this is the true 
sense.—ot map’ avTov means either 
specifically His relatives (‘‘sui’’ Vulg., 
ot oiketo. a@.—Theophy.), so Raphel, 
Wetstein, Kypke, Loesner, with citations 
from Greek authors, Meyer and Weiss, 
identifying the parties here spoken of 
with those referred to in ver. 31; or, 
more generally, persons well disposed 
towards Jesus, an outer circle of 
disciples (Schanz and Keil),—axov- 
wavres: not to be restricted to what is 
mentioned in ver. 20; refers to the 
whole Galilean ministry with its cures 
and crowds, and constant strain. There- 
fore the friends might have come from a 
distance, Nazareth, e.g., starting before 
Jesus descended from the hill. That 
their arrival happened just then was a 
coincidence.—é€heyoy yap: for they were 
saying, miy/it refer to others than those 


who came to iay hold of Jesus—to 


Ort BeedLeBovd exer,” Kal “Orn 


22. Kal of ypapparets of did ‘lepooohipwy KataBdvtes Eeyoy, 


év TO Gpxovte Tay Satpoviwy 


messengers who brought them news of 
what was going on (Bengel), or it might 
refer quite impersonallytoa report that had 
gone abroad (‘‘rumor exierat,’’ Grotius), 
or it might even refer to the Pharisees. 
But the reference is almost certainly to 
the friends. Observe the parallelism 
between ot wap’ avrov, éheyov yap, ort 
eféorn and ci ypapparecis, of... éAeyov, 
bt. BeeX. €xer in ver. 22 (Fritzsche points 
this out in a long and thorough dis- 
cussion of the whole passage).—eféory : 
various ways of evading the idea 
suggested by this word have been re- 
sorted to. It has been referred to the 
crowd = the crowd is mad, and won’t 
let Him alone. Viewed as referring to 
Jesus it has been taken = He is ex- 
hausted, or He has left the place = they 
came to detain Him, for they heard that 
He was going or had gone. Both these 
are suggested by Euthy. Zig. Doubtless 
the reference is to Jesus, and the mean- 
ing that in the opinion of His friends 
He was in a state of excitement border- 
ing on insanity (cf. ii. 12, v. 42, vi. 51). 
Safpova éxyer (Theophy.) is too strong, 
though the Jews apparently identified 
insanity with possession. Festus said 
of St. Paul: ‘‘ Much learning doth make 
thee mad”. The friends of Jesus thought 
that much benevolence had put Him into 
a state of enthusiasm dangerous to the 
health both of body and mind. Note: 
Christ’s healing ministry created a need 
for theories about it. Herod had his 
theory (Mt. xiv.), the friends of Jesus 
had theirs, and the Pharisees theirs: 
John vedivivus, disordered mind, Satanic 
possession. That which called forth so 
many theories must have been a great 
fact. 

Vv. 22-30. Pharisaic theory as to the 
cures of demoniacs wrought by Fesus 
(Mt. xii, 22-37, Lk. xi. 17-23).—Ver. 
22. ot ypap. ot ard ‘I., the scribes from 
Jerusalem. The local Pharisees who 
had taken the Herodians into their mur- 
derous counsels had probably also com- 
municated with the Jerusalem authorities, 
using all possible means to compass 
their end. The representatives of the 
southern scribes had probably arrived on 
the scene about the same time as the 
friends of Jesus, although it is not in- 
conceivable that Mk. introduces the 
narrative regarding them here because 


22—28. 


exBddder Ta Saipdvia.” 


EYATTEAION 


23. Kal mpookanecdpevos aitous, év 


tapaBohats EXeyev adtots, “Nas Suvatar Yatavas Latavav éxBdh- 


ew ; 


24. kat édvy Bagiteta eh Eouthy pepiobh, oF Stvara 


otabivor 4 Bacihela éxetyy: 25. kal édy otkia ép’ EauThy pepiobs, 


08 Sdvarar! ctabijvar H oikia éxeivn?- 26. kal ef 6 Latavas 


dveoTn ep EautTdv Kal pepepiotat,® ob Sdvarar orabijvat,* GAG 


téhos Exe. 


27. 00 © Suvatat obbels Ta © 


, a: A > ‘ 
okey TOU LoxuUpod, eivehOwv 


2 8 abe. 6 Sein 5 , 24 S A > N Sr 
els Try OlKLaV aQuTou, LapTTaGaL, EGY JL TPWTOV toXupoVv uate) 


‘ , . a4, Cea) 
KQL TOTE THY OLKLGaY GUTOU Stapirdcet. 


tdavra adeOyoetat TA “GpaptHpata Tots viots Tov dvOpdTwr,’ Kal § 


1 Suvyoerar in S$BCLA (Tisch., W.H.). 


28. dpiv A€yw Gutv, Stem Rom. iii 
25. 1 Cor 
vi. 18. 


Suvarat conforms to ver. 24. 


2 y ovina ekelwn oTyvar in BL (Trg., W.H.) ; orabyvar in SCD (Tisch.). 
uy yor 8 a 
® kaw epepioOy in BL (W.H.), epeptoOn kor in SCA (Tisch.). 


* orqvat in BCL (Tisch., W.H.). 
> ahd before ov in NBCLA 33 al. 


6 es THY OLKLAY TOU Lo-XUpoU eLoehOwv Ta okevN avTOV in SNYBCLA (Tisch., W.H.). 
77a apap. after avOpwrev in RABCDL 33 (Tisch., W.H.). 


Sat after kat in NABCEGLAS (Tisch., 


of the resemblances and _ contrasts 
between their theory and that of the 
friends. Mt. sets the incident in different 
relations, yielding a contrast between 
Pharisaic ideas and those of the people 
respecting the cure of demoniacs by 
Jesus (xii. 22 f.).—BeeAfeBodA Eyer, He 
hath Beelzebub, implying that Beelzebub 
hath Him, using Him as his agent. The 
expression points to something more 
than an alliance, as in Mt., to possession, 
and that on a grand scale; a divine 
possession by a base deity doubtless, 
god of flies (Beelzebub) or god of dung 
(Beelzebul), still a god, a sort of 
Satanic incarnation; an _ involuntary 
compliment to the exceptional power 
and greatness of Jesus.—év T@ Gpyxovtt 
7. §.: the assumption is that spirits are 
cast out by the aid of some other spirit 
stronger than those ejected.—Ver. 23. 
mpookareodpevos : Jesus, not overawed 
by the Jerusalem authorities, invites 
them to come within talking distance, 
that He may reason the matter with 
them.—év wapeBodats, in figures: king- 
dom, house, plundering the house of a 
strong man. Next chapter concerning 
the parabolic teaching of Jesus casts its 
shadow on the page here. The gist of 
what Jesus said to the scribes in refuta- 
tion of their theory is: granting that 
spirits are cast out by aid of another 
spirit, more is needed in the latter than 


W.H.). 


superior strength. There must be quali- 
tative difference—in nature and interest. 
The argument consists of a triple move- 
ment of thought. 1. The absurdity of 
the theory is broadly asserted. 2. The 
principle on which the theory is wrecked 
is set forth in concrete form. 3. The 
principle is applied to the case in hand. 
—m@s Svvarat, etc., how can Satan 
cast out Satan? It is not a question of 
power, but of motive, what interest can 
he have? A stronger spirit casting out 
a weaker one of the same kind ? (so 
Fritzsche).—Vv. 24, 25 set forth the 
principle or rationale embodied in two 
illustrations. The theory in question is 
futile because it involves suicidal action, 
which is not gratuitously to be imputed 
to any rational agents, to a kingdom 
(ver. 24), to a house (ver. 25), and there- 
fore not to Satan (ver. 26).—Ver. 27 by 
another figure shows the true state of 
the case. Jesus, not in league with 
Satan or Beelzebub, but overmastering 
him, and taking possession of his goods, 
human souls. ‘The saying is given by 
Mk. much the same as in Mt. 

Vv. 28, 29. Fesus now changes His 
tone. Thus far He has reasoned with 
the scribes, now He solemnly warns to 
this effect. ‘‘You do not believe your 
own theory ; you know as well as I how 
absurd it is, and that I must be casting 
out devils by a very different spirit from 


362 


KATA MAPKON 


Ill, 


Bracpypiat Scas! dv Brachypyowaw: 29. ds & av Baodypryon 


> a ~ ° 
cig TO Mvedpa Td “Aytov, odk exer Adeor eis Tov aidva, add’ évoxds 


éottv? 


> , ’ 8.» 
GQL@YLOU KPLOEwWs”* 
» »” 
€xet. 


éotates® dméotekav mpds 


30. OTe Eeyov, “Nveipa dxdbaprov 


31. “Epxovrat obv* ot ddeddol Kai 4 patyp adtod © Kat é&w 


aitév, wrodvtes? addy. kal 


32. 


éxdOnto dxhos wept adtév-® elwov S€% adra, “*Idou, H pijTHp cou 


loca in NBDA. ooasa gram. cor. 


2 erat in DLA (Tisch.), exrw in BC (W.H.). 


Fapaprnparos in NBLA 33 Lat. Codd. 


difficult word. 


Kpioews (T.R.) is explanatory of a 


* For epx, ovy ABCLA have kat epxovras (W.H.). S§D have Kat epxerat. 
5m pyTnp a. Kar ot aSeAhor in NBCDLA. The plural verb gave rise to the 


transposition in T.R. 
8 ornKovtes in BCA (Tisch., W.H.). 
8 rept avtov oxdos in ABCLAZ. 


Beelzebub. You are therefore not 
merely mistaken theorists, you are men 
in a very perilous moral condition. 
Beware!’’—Ver.28. aunv:solemn word, 
introducing a solemn speech uttered in a 
tone not to be forgotten.—mwdvra adeOy- 
gerat, all things shall be forgiven; 
magnificently broad proclamation of the 
wideness of God’s mercy. The saying 
as reproduced in Lk. xii. 10 limits the 
reference to sins of speech. The original 
form, Weiss thinks (in Meyer), but this 
is very doubtful. It seems fitting that 
when an exception is being made to the 
pardonableness of sin, a broad declara- 
tion of the extent of pardon should be 
uttered.—rois viois 7. a., to the sons of 
men; this expression not in Mt., but in 
its place a reference to blasphemy against 
the Son of Man. To suspect a literary 
connection between the two is natural. 
Which is the original form? Mk.’s? 
(Holtz., H. C., after Pfleiderer.) Mt.’s? 
(Weiss in Meyer.) The latter the more 
probable. Vide on ver. 30.—rad Gpap. 
kai ai BX.: either in apposition with and 
explicative of mavra, or Ta Gpap., the 
subject which wdvta qualifies. The 
former construction yields this sense : 
all things shall be forgiven to, etc., the 
sins and the blasphemies wherewith 
soever they shall blaspheme. The last 
clause qualifying BAaodnpiar (Soa éav 
BX.) which takes the place of wavra in 
relation to Gpapr. is in favour of the 
Jatter rendering = all sins shall be for- 
given, etc., and the blasphemies, etc.— 
Ver. 29. The great exception, blas- 
phemy against the Holy Ghost.—eis tov 
aig@va: hath not forgiveness for ever. 


7 kadovvres in SBCL. 
® xa Acyourww in BBCDLA, 


Cf. the fuller expression in Mt.—é& A)’ 
évoxds éoti, but is guilty of. The 
negative is followed by a positive state- 
ment of similar import in Hebrew 
fashion.—aiwviov apapryparos, of an 
eternal sin. As this is equivalent to 
‘‘hath never forgiveness,” we must con- 
ceive of the sin as eternal in its guilt, 
not in itselfasasin. The idea is that 
of an unpardonable sin, not of a sin 
eternally repeating itself. Yet this may 
be the ultimate ground of unpardonable- 
ness: unforgivable because never re- 
pented of. But this thought is not 
necessarily contained in the expression. 
—Ver. 30. tt Edeyov, etc., because 
they said: ‘‘ He hath an unclean spirit,” 
therefore He said this about blasphemy 
against the Holy Ghost—such is the 
connection. But what if they spoke 
under a misunderstanding like the friends, 
puzzled what to think about this strange 
man? That would be a sin against the 
Son of Man, and as such pardonable. 
The distinction between blasphemy 
against the Son of Man and blasphemy 
against the Holy Ghost, taken in Mt. 
xii. 31, is essential to the understanding 
of Christ’s thought. The mere saying, 
“He hath an unclean spirit,” does not 
amount to the unpardonable sin. It 
becomes such when it is said by men 
who know that it is not true; then it 
means calling the Holy Spirit an unclean 
spirit. Jesus believed that the scribes 
were in that position, or near it. 

Vv. 31-35. The relatives of Fesus 
(Mt. xii. 46-50, Lk. viii. 19-21).—Ver. 
31. €pyovrar, even without the ody 
following in T. R., naturally points back 


2035. 


Kal ot ddeAdot gou! é&w Lntotct ce”. 
héyov,? “Tis éotw % pytnp pou 7% ot adeAgoi pout ;” 


EYATTEAION 


363 


33. Kat daexpt0n adtots, 
34. Kat 


meptBhepdevos "KUKAw Tos Tepi adtov> KaOypevous, héyer, “Ide, n Ch. vi. 6. 


H pyTNpP pou Kat ot depot pov. 


Lk. ix. 12. 
Rom. xv. 


35- ds yap® ay woijon Td 
Rey. 


BAnpa™ rod Geod, oFros adeAdds pou Kal ddehhy pou® Kal prjtnp iv. 6; v. 


éoti.” 


II; Vil. II. 


1D adds kat at aSeAdat cov, which may have fallen out by similar ending in 


SBCLA (W.H. margin). 


2 ko. atroxpiBets a. Aeyer in S$BCLA (Tisch., W.H.). 


2 kat in SBCLA. 
5 rous Tept a. KUKAw in NBCLA. 
7 ra, OeAnpara in B (W.H. margin). 


to ver. 21. The evangelist resumes the 
story about Christ’s friends, interrupted 
by the encounter with the scribes (so 
Grotius, Bengel, Meyer, Weiss, Holtz. ; 
Schanz and Keil dissent).—or}xovres, 
from oryjkw, a late form used in present 
only, from éoryKa, perfect of tornpr.— 
Ver. 32. The crowd gathered around 
Jesus report the presence of His rela- 
tives. According to a reading in several 
MSS., these included sisters among those 
present. They might do so under a 
mistake, even though the sisters were 
not there. Ifthe friends came to with- 
draw Jesus from public life, the sisters 
were not likely to accompany the party, 
though there would be no impropriety in 
their going along with their mother. 
They are not mentioned in ver. 31. On 
the other hand, a8eAdy] comes in appro- 
priately in ver. 35 in recognition of 
female disciples, which may have 
suggested its introduction here.—Ver. 
33. tls éotiv, etc., who is my mother, 
and (who) my brothers? an apparently 
harsh question, but He knew what they 
had come for.—Ver. 34. meptBAeapevos, 
as in ver. 5, there in anger, here with a 
benign smile.—kxvixrkw: His eye swept 
the whole circle of His audience ; a good 
Greek expression.—Ver. 35. 6s Gy, etc.: 
whosoever shall do the will of God (‘ of 
my Father in heaven,” Mt.), definition 
of true discipleship.—aSeAdds, adeXox, 
pyTHp: without the article, because the 
nouns are used figuratively (Fritzsche). 
This saying and the mood it expressed 
would confirm the friends in the belief 
that Jesus was in a morbid state of mind. 

CHapTeR IV. PARABOLIC TEACHING. 
In common with Mt., Mk. recognises 
that teaching in parables became at a 
given date a special feature of Christ’s 


*BD omit this pov. 
6 yap omitted in B. 
8 pov omitted in NABDLA. 


didactic ministry. He gives, however, 
fewer samples of that type than the first 
evangelist. Two out of the seven in 
Mt., with one peculiar to himself, three in 
all; in this respect probably truer to the 
actual history of the particular day. 
Teaching in parables did not make an 
absolutely new beginning on the day on 
which the Parable of the Sower was 
spoken. Jesus doubtless used similitudes 
in all His synagogue discourses, ot 
which a few samples may have been 
preserved in the Mustard Seed, the 
Treasure, and the Pearl. 

Vv. 1-9. The Sower (Mt. xiii 1-9, 
Lk. viii. 4-8).—Ver. 1. madw apgaro. 
After spending some time in teaching 
disciples, Jesus resumes His wider 
ministry among the people in the open 
air; at various points along the shore ot 
the sea (wapa t. @.). Speaking to larger 
crowds than ever (dxAos mdetoros), 
which could be effectively addressed 
only by the Speaker getting into a boat 
(wAotov, +d mwAotov would point to the 
boat which Jesus had asked the disciples 
to have in readiness, iii. 9), and sailing 
out a little distance from the shore, the 
people standing on the land as close to 
the sea as possible (apos 7. @.).—Ver. 2. 
moAXG: a vague expression, but imply- 
ing that the staple of that day’s teaching 
consisted of parables, probably all more 
or less of the same drift as the parable of 
the Sower, indicating that in spite of the 
ever-growing crowds Jesus was dissatis- 
fied with the results of His popular 
ministry in street and synagogue = much 
seed-sowing, little fruit. The formation 
of the disciple-circle had revealed that 
dissatisfaction in another way. Pro- 
bably some of the parables spoken in the 
boat have not been preserved, the Sower 


364 


KATA MAPKON AY 


IV. 1. KAl wddwv apfaro S8doKxew mapa thy Oddacoav: rai 
ouvyxO! mpds adtév SxAog aodds,? Hote aitdvy éyBdvta eis 7d 
mrotov® KabiyjoOa ev tH Oatdoon: Kat was & SxAos mpds Thy 
Oddacoay emi Tis yijs v4. 2. Kat €{Sacker adtods év mapaPodais 
mwodhd, Kal EXeyev adtois év TH BiSaxq adrod, 3. “ AKoverte. 
efi Oey 6 oreipwv tob® omeipar: 4. Kal éyévero év TO owetpev, 3 


iSou, 


pev erece Tapa Thy dddv, kat AOe Ta ered Tod odpavod® Kai 
karépayey aité. 5. GANo Be” Eecev emt Td wetTpAdes, Sou odK 
eixe yay mwodhyy: Kat €06dws efavérerde, Std TO py Exerw BdOos 8 


yijs* 6. HAlou Sé dvare(havtos® Exaupariodn,!? nat Ba 7d py exew 


‘ euvayerat in $BCLA (modern editors). 


2 whevoros in SBCLA (Tisch., W.H., al.). 
Sets mAotoy es Bavra in BCL. DA have same order with to before t)otov. 


‘yoav in NBCLA 33. 
589B omit tov, found in CLA. 

6 Omit rov ovpavov NABCLAY. 

7 kat addo (adda D 33) in SBCLA., 


my is a gram. cor. 


8 BaBos yns in NACLAYX, but B has rys y., and perhaps this is the true read 


ing, though recent editors adopt the other. 


9 kat oTe averethev o NAtos in NBCLA. 


T.R. conforms to Mt. 


10 BD have exavpatio8noav (W.H. margin). 


serving as a sample.—év rq S8axq a. 
In the teaching of that day He said 
inter alia what follows.—Ver. 3. axcverte: 
bear! listen! a summons to attention 
natural for one addressing a great crowd 
from a boat, quite compatible with t8ov, 
which introduces the parable (against 
Weiss in Meyer). The parable is given 
here essentially as in Mt., with only 
slight variations: ovetpat (ver. 3) for 
oetpew ; 6 pey (ver. 4) for & prev, aXXo 
(vv. 5,7) for G\Aa. To the statement 
that the thorns choked the grain (ovvé- 
avitay atts), Mk. adds (ver. 7) «at 
kapTov ovx €dwkev, an addition not 
superfluous in this case, as it would have 
been in the two previous, because the 
grain in this case reaches the green ear. 
To be noted further is the expansion in 
ver. 8, in reference to the seed sown on 
good soil. Mt. says it yielded fruit 
(e3{S0v xapmov), Mk. adds avaBalvoyra 
Kat avfavdpeva, Kal edepev, all three 
phrases referring to G@AAa at the be- 
ginning of the verse. The participles 
taken along with é6{80uv Kkapmév dis- 
tinguish the result in the fourth case 
from those in the three preceding. The 
first did not spring up, being picked up 
by the birds, the second sprang up but 
did not grow, withered by the heat, the 


third sprouted and grew up but yielded 
no (ripe) fruit, choked by thorns (Grotius). 
—kal édepev introduces a statement as 
to the quantity of fruit, the degrees 
being arranged in a climax, 30, 60, roo, 
instead of in an anti-climax, as in Mt., 
100, 60, 30.—Ver. g. Kal €deyev: this 
phrase is wanting in Mt., and the 
summons to reflection is more pithily 
expressed there = who hath ears let him 
hear, The summons implies that under- 
standing is possible even for those with- 
out. 

Vv. 10-12. Disciples ask an explana- 
tion of the parable (Mt. xiii. 10-17, Lk, 
viii. 9-10). Ver. 10. Kata pdvas (680vs5 
or x@pas understood), alone—ot epi 
avrov, those about Him, not = of wap’ 
avtov (iii. 21), nor =the Twelve, who 
are separately mentioned (ctv +. 8w8.) ; 
an outer circle of disciples from which the 
Twelve were chosen.—tds tmapafodds, 
the parables, spoken that day. They 
asked Him about them, as to their mean- 
ing. The plural, well attested, implies 
that the parables of the day had a common 
drift. To explain one was to explain 
all. They were a complaint of the com- 
parative fruitlessness of past efforts.— 
Ver. 11. wtpiv, to you has been given, so 
as to be a permanent possession, the 


yr 15- 


pilay éénpdvOn. 


cm» A 
at dxavOat, kat ouvémvigav att, Kal Kapmov ox @dwxe. 


Go! éecev eis Thy yy THy Kady: 
kal ad§dvovta,? Kai epepev év§ 
a 8 ets 
ev® éxatdv. 


dkovétw.” 10. “Ore Sé® éyévero 


epi adtov adv Tots SdSexa THy mapaBodny.® 
“Yptv Sé8oTa. yvavat To puoTHptov 
éxeivors S€ Tots ew, év mapaPodats Ta wdvTa yiverat ° 
Kat dKovovtes dkovwot, kal py cuidate - 


tes Pdérwor, kal ph wor 


Ul > ‘ a 2 a ¢ , 2 
pryrote émcotpépwor, kat dpeO7 adtots Ta dpapTHpara. 
héyer adtots, “ Odx otdate Thy mapaBodiy tauTyy ; 
6 omeipwy tév Adyov omeiper. 


Tas TrapaBohas yrvwioerOe; 14. 


EYALTEAION 


7. kat GANo Eresev eis Tas dxdvOas - 


tpidkovta, Kai ev ® 
g. Kat édeyev adrois,* “‘O exwv 
“kaTapydvas, HpwTnoay 7 


365 


kat avéByoay 


8. Kat 


kat €di5ou kapmov dvaBatvovta 


e , ‘ 
éfjkovtTa, Kal 

@ta dKovew 

auTov ola here and 
\ > a in Lk. ix. 
II. kal €Xeyev aitots, 18, 

THs Bacthelas tod Ocod- 


12. tva Bhétrov- 


10 ns. Kab 
KQL TOS TaoaS 


15. obtor 8€ eicw ot mapa thy S8dv, Grou omeiperat 6 Adyos, Kai 


ladda in NBCL. 
2 avtavopevoy in ACDLA (Tisch.). 
ada. 
3 Most uncials have e thrice (= &). 


SCA have eas thrice (Tisch., Trg.). 


ado conforms to that in ver. 7. 
avgavopeva in SB (W.H.) agreeing with 


BL 


have es ev ev (W.H. text), out of which the other readings probably grew. 
* Most uncials and many verss. omit avtots. 


5 S&BCDA have os exet., o exwv is from parall. 


T npotav ABLA 33 (-ovy WC, Tisch.). 


8 kat ore in BBCDLA. 
8 ras wapaPodas in QBCLA. 


9 ro pvotyptov Sidorar (without yvwvar) in BL (Tisch., W.H.), 
10 K3BCL omit ta apaprnpara, which is an explanatory gloss. 


mystery of the Kingdom of God. They 
have been initiated into the secret, so 
that for them it is a secret no longer, 
not by explanation of the parable 
(Weiss), but independently. This true 
of them so far as disciples; disciple- 
ship means initiation into the mystery. 
In reality, it was only partially, and by 
comparison with the people, true of the 
disciples.—yvévat in T. R. is superfluous. 
—rots é£w refers to the common crowd. 
—év mapaBodais: all things take place as 
set forth in parables. This implies that 
the use of parables had been a standing 
feature of Christ’s popular kerygma, in 
synagogue and street.—Ver. 12 seems 
to state the aim of the parabolic method 
of teaching as being to keep the people 
in the dark, and prevent them from being 
converted and forgiven. This cannot 
really have been the aim of Jesus. Vide 
notes on the parable of the Sower in 
Mt., where the statement is softened 
somewhat. 

Vv. 13-20. Explanation of the Sower 
(Mt. xiii, 18-23, Lk. viii. 11-15), prefaced 


by a gentle reproach that explanation 
should be needed.—Ver. 13. ovx otSarte 

yvéoece: not one question = 
know ye not this parable, and how ye 
shall know all, etc. (so Meyer and 
Weiss), but two = know ye not this 
parable ? and how shall ye, etc. (so most), 
the meaning being, not: if ye know not 
the simpler how shall ye know the more 
difficult? but rather implying that to 
understand the Sower was to understand 
all the parables spoken that day (wacas 
Tas wap.). They had all really one 
burden: the disappointing result of 
Christ’s past ministry.—Ver. 14, in 
effect, states that the seed is the word.— 
Ver. 15. ot mapa rhv dddv: elliptical 
for, those in whose case the seed falls 
along the way = the ““way-side ” men, 
and so in the other cases.—6qov for eis 
ovs, Euthy. Zig.—Ver. 16. dpoiws would 
stand more naturally before otro: = on 
the same method of interpretation.— 
ometpopevor: this class are identified 
with the seed rather than with the soil. 
but the sense, though crudely expressed 


XN 


KATA MAPKON i 


Stray dxodowou, eiOéws Epxetar 6 Eatavas kai atper tov Adyov tov 


éomappévoy év tats KapSiats adtav.t 16, Kat odroi ciow dpoiws 
oi eri Ta TeTpwdy oTEtpdpevoL, OL, Stay dxodawor Tov Adyov, EUOEws 
4 a > ‘ > ” <<? ~ 
peta xapas Aap Bdvouow adtév, 17. Kal odk Exouar pilav év éautois, 
GANG trpdoKatpot eiow: elra yevouevys OAtpews H Siwypod Sa Tov 
Aéyov, €b0éws ckavSadiLovrat. 2 


‘ * , > « > Q 
18. KQL OUTOL” ELOLY OL ELS TAS 


, 

dxdvOas orerpdpevor, obTol eiow ot Tov Adyov dKovovtes,® 1g. Kal 
ai pépypvat tod ai@vos tovtou,* Kal 4 dwdry tod mAovToU, kal ai 

‘ > , > , , nN a AY 
mept Ta ord ErOupiar eiotropeudpevat cuptviyouat Tov Adyov, Kat 
° , ‘ e2 FBG Ls Cs es ‘ a ‘ x 
Gkaptros yiverat. 20. Kat obtot® eiow ot emt thy yay thy Kadi 
omapevTes, olTwes dkovouct Tov Aéyov Kal TapaddxovTat, Kal Kap- 
mopopotow, €v tpidkovta, Kat év éfjKovta, Kal e€v éxatoy.” 


21. Kat édeyev adtots, “Myte® & AUxvos Epxetat,” iva bad Tov 


' For ev t. x, a. (T.R.) B has es avrovs (Trg., W.H.), CLA & avrtois (Tisch.). 


2 addot in $BCDLA. 


3 akovravtes in $BCDLA (Tisch., W.H.). 
4 rovrov is an explanatory gloss not found in the best MSS, 


5 exevot in NBCLA. 


8 ort before pyre in BL (Tisch., W.H.). 


7 epxerat before o Avyvos in NBCDLA 33. 


is plain. They are the ‘‘ rocky ground” 
men.—vVer. 18. GAdAou eioiv, there are 
others; GAAot, well attested (otrol in 
T. R.), is significant. It fixes attention 
on the third type of hearers as calling 
for special notice. They are such as, 
lacking the thoughtlessness of the first 
and shallowness of the second class, and 
having some depth and earnestness, 
might be expected to be fruitful; a less 
common type and much more interesting. 
—vVer. 19 specifies the hindrances, the 
choking thorns-—pépipvar t. a., Cares of 
life, in the case of thoughtful devout 
poor (Mt. vi. 25 f.).—amdry t. wh., the 
deceitfulness of wealth in the case of the 
commercial class (Chorazin, Bethsaida, 
Capernaum: Mt. xi. 21-23. Vide notes 
there).—at a. 7. A. émiBupiar, the lusts 
for other things—sensual vices in the 
case of publicans and sinners (chap. ii. 
13-17). Jesus had met with such cases 
in His past ministry.—Ver. 20. mapa- 
Séxovrar, receive, answering to ovvieis 
in Mt. This does not adequately 
differentiate the fourth class from the 
third, who also take in the word, but not 
it alone. Lk. has supplied the defect.— 
ev might be either €v = this one 30, that 
one 60, etc., or év = in 30, and in 60, and 
in 100 = good, better, best, not inferior, 
respectable, admirable. The lowest 


degree is deemed satisfactory. On the 
originality of the interpretation and on 
the whole parable vide in Mt. 

Vv. 21-25. Responsibilities of disciples 
(Mt. v. 15, x. 26, vii. 2; Lk. viii. 16-18), 
True to His uniform teaching that privi- 
leges are to be used for the benefit of 
others, Jesus tells His disciples that if 
they have more insight than the multi- 
tude they must employ it for the common 
benefit. These sentences in Mk. re- 
present the first special instruction of the 
disciples. Two of them, vv. 21, 24, are 
found in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 
v. I5, vil. 2). The whole of them come 
in appositely here, and were probably 
spoken at this time. (Cf. Lk. viii. 16-18, 
where they are partially given in the 
same connection.) In any case, their 
introduction in connection with the 
parables is important as showing that Mk. 
can hardly have seriously believed, what 
hecertainly seems tosay, that Jesus spoke 
parables to blind the people.—Ver. 21. 
pyte Epxerat, does the light come, for is 
it brought, in accordance with classic 
usage in reference to things without life ; 
examples in Kypke, ¢.g.,o0K €pew’ éAOetv 
tpameLav vupdiav. Pindar, Pyth., iii., 
28 = ‘‘non exspectavit donec adferretur 
mensa sponsalis”.—t. +. KAtynv: not 
necessarily a table-couch (Meyer), might 


16—26, 


pobov reOq H bd Thy KAtvyp ; 


22. ob ydp éoti Te Kpumtdy, o 


2 D 22 
GKOUET®. 


EYATTEAION 


24. Kat édeyev adtois, “Bdéwete ti dxovere. 


367 


obx iva emt Thy Auxviay émreOf |; 
éav ph? havepw0f- obS€ éyévero 
&réxpudov, AdN’ iva eis havepdv ENOy >> 


23. el Tis Exer Gra dxoveuv, 
& @ 


pétpw petpeite, petpyOycerat Spiv, Kat mpooteOycerat Spiy tots 


dxovoucw.t 25. 85 yap ay éxn,° SoOjcerar adTG~ Kai ds od Exel, 


kal 5 éxeu dpOnoetar dm ato.” 


26. Kat édeyev, “Otrws éotiv  Baowdeia tod Gcod, ds cay? 


1 reOy in SBCDLA al. 


2 Instead of o eav py SBA have eav py wa (Tisch., W.H.). 


8 ehOn eis hav. in RCDLA. 
5 For av exyn SSBCLA have eyeu. 


be a bed, high enough to be in no danger 
of being set on fire. Vide on Mt. v. 15. 
The moral: let your light shine that 
others may know what ye know.—Ver. 
22. Double statement of the law that 
the hidden is to be revealed; 1st, pre- 
dictively ; there is nothing hidden which 
shall not be revealed; 2nd, interpreta- 
tively, with reference to the purpose of 
the hider: nor did anything become con- 
cealed with any other view than that it 
should eventually come to manifestation. 
—dméxpupov (amoxp¥mrw), here and in 
Lk. viii. 17, Col. ii. 3.—@AN’: in effect =f 
py nisi, but strictly éyévero &méxpudoyv is 
understood to be repeated after it = 
nothing becomes concealed absolutely, 
but it is concealed in order that, etc. 
This is universally true. Things are hid 
because they are precious, but precious 
things are meant to be used at some 
time and in some way. All depends on 
the time and the way, and it is there 
that diversity of action comes in. 
Christ’s rule for that was: show your 
light when it will glorify God and benefit 
men; the world’s ruie iss when safe and 
beneficial to self.—Ver. 23. In ver.ga 
summons to try to understand the 
parable ; here a summons to those who 
have understood, or shall understand, 
the parable, or the great theme of all the 
parables, to communicate their know- 
ledge. Fritzsche, after Theophy. and 
Grot., thinks that in vv. 21, 22, Jesus 
exhorts His disciples to the culture of 
piety or virtue, not to the diffusion of 
their light, giving, as a reason, that the 
latter would be inconsistent with the 
professed aim of the parables to prevent 
enlightenment !—Ver. 24. Bdérrere, etc., 
take heed what you hear or how (tas, 
Lk.), see that ye hear to purpose.—év 


4 ro.s akovovoevv is a gloss, omitted in BCDLA, 
® Mg BDLA 33 al. omit eayv. 


@ pétpw, etc. = careful hearing pays, the 
reward of attention is knowledge (év & 
PETPH PETPELTE THY TMpoToX AY ev TO AUTH 
petpyonoetar tpiv  yveous, Euthy, 
Zig.) In Mt. vii. 2 the apothegm is 
applied to judging. Such moral maxims 
admit of many applications. The idea 
of measuring does not seem very ap- 
propriate here. Holtz. (H. C.) thinks 
ver. 24 interrupts the connection.— 
mpooreOnoetat implies that the reward 
will be out of proportion to the virtue; 
the knowledge acquired to the study 
devoted to the subject. There shall be 
given over and above, not to those who 
hear (T. R., Tots dxovovctv), but to those 
who think on what they hear. This 
thought introduces ver. 25, which, in 
this connection, means: the more a man 
thinks the more he will understand, and 
the less a man thinks the less his power 
of understanding will become. ‘‘ Whoso 
hath attention, knowledge will be given 
to him, and from him who hath not, the 
seed of knowledge will be taken. For 
as diligence causes that seed to grow, 
negligence destroys it,’’ Euthy. 

Vv, 26-29. Parable of the Blade, the 
Ear, and the Full Corn.—Peculiar to Mark 
and beyond doubt a genuine utterance of 
Jesus, the doctrine taught being over the 
head of the reporter and the Apostolic 
Church generally.—Ver. 26. kat éAeyev, 
and He said, to whom? The disciples 
in private, or the crowd from the boat ? 
The absence of avtots after €Aeyev (cf. 
vv. 21, 24) is not conclusive against the 
former, as Weiss and Meyer think, On 
the latter view vv. 21-25 are a parenthesis. 
In any case this new parable refers to the 
disciples as representing the fertile soil, 
and is a pendant to the parable of the 
Sower, teaching that even in the case of 


368 


KATA MAPKON 


IV. 


GvOpwros Paddy Tdv omdpov emt Tis yijs, 27. Kai Kabeddy Kal eyeipyrar 
vixta Kal Hpépavy, Kat 6 omdpos Bhaordvy! Kal pykdvyntar® ds ovK 


bhereandin oldev at rds. 


Acts xii. 

10. etra* ordxuv, elra* mApy 
here only TapadSG® 6 Kaprds, evbéws 
in the 
sense of 
being pre- 
sent. 


is] 


otynkev 6 Bepiopos.” 


28. °avroudrn yap ® yi Kapmodopet, mparov xdpror, 


otrov® év tG ordyui. 29. Stay Se 


Grooté\Net TS Spémavov, Ste * wapé- 


30. Kat eye, “Tie? dpordowpevy thy Bactheiav tod Geos, 
év rola mapaBody mapaBddwpey adtyy$; 
‘ed HT » » 


31. aS KOKKW owd- 


Trews, Os, Stay oTaph emt THs yijs, pikpdtepos 9 wdvTwY TOY oOTEppd- 


! BXaora in BCDLA (Tisch., W.H.). 


2 unxuverat in BD, implying that BAaorra is also indicative. 


8 yap omit HABCL. 


* atrev in NBLA. 
5aAnpys otros in BD (Alford, Tisch., Trg., W.H.). 


CZ have wAnpys ctrov, 


which W.H. (appendix) regard as probably the true reading, w\ypys being an in- 


declinable adjective as in Acts vi. 5. 
ing of CE as a half correction. 


S wapadot in BDA. CL have rapade. 


7 wws in SBCLA (Tisch., W.H. al.). 


Weiss, on the other hand, regards this read- 


3 ey tTwt avtnvy mapaBodn Pwopev in NBCLA (Tisch., W.H.). 
9 urkpotepov ov in NBL(v)A 33, exte (in T.R. supplying the place of ov) being 


omitted (Tisch., W.H.). 


the fourth type of hearers the production 
of fruit is a gradual process demanding 
time. Put negatively it amounts to say- 
ing that Christ’s ministry has as yet 
produced no fruit properly speaking at 
all, but only in some cases met with a 
soil that gives promise of fruit (the 
disciples). The parable reveals at once 
the discrimination and the patience of 
Jesus. He knew the difference between 
the blade that would wither and that 
which would issue in ripe grain, and He 
did not expect this result in any case 
per saltum. A parable teaching this 
lesson was very seasonable after that 
of the Sower.—Ver. 27. xafevdq... 
fpépav, sleep and rise night and day, 
suggestive of the monotonous life of a 
man who has nothing particular to do 
beyond waiting patiently for the result 
of what he has already done (seed sown). 
The presents express a habit, while BaAq, 
ver. 26, expresses an act, done once for 
all._BAaordg (the reading in BDL, etc., 
as if from BAaordw) may be either in- 
dicative or subjunctive, the former if we 
adopt the reading pynkvvetar (BD., etc.) 
= and the seed sprouts and lengthens.— 
@S OUK otdev avtdéds, how knoweth not 
(nor careth) he, perfectly indifferent to 
the rationale of growth; the fact enough 
for him.—Ver. 28. avtopary (avtdés and 
péezaa from absolute pdw, to desire 


eagerly), self-moved, spontaneously, 
without external aid, and also beyond 
external control; with a way and will, 
so to speak, of its own that must be 
respected and waited for. Classical 
examples in Wetstein, Kypke, Raphel, 
etc.—Kaptodopei, beareth fruit, intran- 
sitive. The following nouns, xéprov, 
oraxuyv, are not the object of the verb, 
but in apposition with kapwéy (kapov 
déper) or governed by ¢épet, understood 
(pépet, quod ex Kaptoopet petendum, 
Fritzsche).—wAypys ciros, this change 
to the nominative (the reading of BD) 
is a tribute to the importance of the 
final stage towards which the stages of 
blade and ear are but preparatory steps 
= then is the full ear. Full = ripe, 
perfect, hence the combination of the 
two words in such phrases as wArjpy kai 
teheta, Taya0a quoted by Kypke from 
Philo. The specification of the three 
stages shows that gradual growth is the 
point of the parable (Schanz).—Ver. 29. 
mapadot (1rapuddw), when the fruit yields 
itself, or permits (by being ripe). The 
latter sense (for which classical usage 
can be cited) is preferred by most recent 
commentators. 

Vv. 30-32. The Mustard Seed (Mt. 
xiii. 31-32, Lk. xiii. 18, 19).—Ver. 30. was 
. .. OGpev (vide above). This introductory 
question, especially as given in the text 





27—35- 


EYATVEAION 


369 


> A ~ > A A lol 4 a ~ > , Qa 
TWVY EOTL TWY ETL THS yus° 32. KQL CTQV oTrapn, dvaBatver, KaL 


, ~ A 
yivetot tdvtwy Tov Aaxdvev pelfwy,) Kal tmovet KAddous peyddous, 


ov P) , 6 ¢ X \ \ > A BY x A 3 a 
WOTE OUVAGVAL UTTO THY OKLAY GAUTOU TA TETELVG TOU OUPAYOU KATAG- 


A 32 
K1)vouyv. 


33. Kal tovadtars mapaPodats qroAAats e€Adher adtots 


tov Adyor, Kabds WSUvaryTo dove’ 34. Xwpls S€ tapaBodis ovK 


€ddhet abtois* Kat idiay S€ Tots padnrats adTou 


35. KAI Adyet adtots ev exeivn TH Hpepa dSwias yevouevns, ‘* At- 


1 peLov mavtwy Tw Aax. in BCL 33. 


2 rows LBiois pad. in WBCLA. 


of W.H., is very graphic = how shall we 
liken the Kingdom of God, or in (under) 
what parable shall we place it? The 
form of expression implies that some- 
thing has been said before creating a 
need for figurative embodiment, some- 
thing pointing to the insignificance of 
the beginnings of the Kingdom. The 
two previous parables satisfy this re- 
quirement = the word fruitful only in a 
few, and even in them only after a time. 
What is the best emblem of this state 
of things?—Ver. 31. @s KéKkm: os 
stands for épotdcwpey = let us liken it 
to a grain, etc.; koxxoy would depend 
on @apev.—bs Stay owapy . . . Kal dra 
onapy: the construction of this passage 
as given in critical texts is very halting, 
offering a very tempting opportunity for 
emendation to the scribes who in the 
T. R. have given us a very smooth read- 
able text (vide A. V.). Literally it runs 
thus: ‘which when it is sown upon the 
earth, being the least of all the seeds 
upon the earth—and when it is sown,” 
etc. The R. V. improves this rugged 
sentence somewhat by substituting 
“yet” for “and” in last clause. It is 
hardly worth while attempting to con- 
strue the passage. Enough that we see 
what is meant. In the twice used Sray 
amap7, the emphasis in the first instance 
lies on Stay, in the second on omapq 
(Bengel, Meyer). By attending to this 
we get the sense: which being the least 
of all seeds when it is sown or at the 
time of sowing, yet when it is sown, 
after sowing, springs up, etc.— pLkpdotepov 
by is neuter by attraction of oweppartoy, 
though kéxkw going before is masculine. 
—Ver. 32. petlov m. tT. Aaxdvwy, the 
greatest of all the herbs, still only an herb; 
no word of a tree here as in Matthew and 
Luke, though comparatively tree-like in 
size, making great boughs (xAddous 


2 4 erékue Tavta.d cf. Acts 


xix. 39. 


D has the same order with pelov. 


peyddous), great relatively to its kind, 
not to forest trees. Mark’s version here 
is evidently the more original. 

Vv. 33, 34. Conclusion of the parable 
collection (Mt. xiii. 34, 35).—Ver. 33. 
TowavTals W. We, with such parables, 
many of them, He was speaking to 
them the word, implying that the three— 
sower ; blade, ear and full corn; mustard 
seed—are given as samples of the utter- 
ances from the boat, all of one type, 
about seed representing the word, and 
expressing Christ’s feelings of disappoint- 
ment yet of hope regarding His ministry. 
Many is to be taken cum grano.—xafas 
7Svvavto axoverw = as they were able to 
understand, as in 1 Cor. xiv. 2, implying 
that parables were employed to make 
truth plain (De Wette).—Ver. 34. ywpis 
mwapaPoAjs, etc., without a parable He 
was not wont to speak to the people, 
not merely that day, but at any time.— 
éréXve, etc., He was in the habit of 
interpreting allthings (viz., the parables in 
private to His own disciples, the Twelve, 
cf. érthvoews, 2 Peteri. 20). This does 
not necessarily imply that the multitude 
understood nothing, but only that Jesus, 
by further talk, made the disciples under- 
stand better, Yet onthe whole it must 
be admitted that in his account of 
Christ’s parabolic teaching Mark seems 
to vacillate between two opposite views 
of the function of parables, one that 
they were used to make spiritual truths 
plain to popular intelligence, the other 
that they were riddles, themselves very 
much needing explanation, and fitted, even 
intended, to hide truth. This second 
view might be suggested and fostered 
by the fact that some of the parables 
express recondite spiritual truths. 

Vv. 35-41. Crossing the lake (Mt. 
viii. 18, 23-27, Lk. viii. 22-25).—év éxeivy 
7. %-, on that day, the day of the parable 


24 


37° 


AQOwuev eis 7d wépay.” 


exaidein Bdvouow adrdév ds hy év TO Tol * 


Mt. x. 18. 


John vi. per adrou. 


rs ret eméBadhey eis Td WAotoy, Gore adtd HSyn yepiLecOar.® 


f here only 
in same 
sense 

g here only. 


Lk. : 
: (with ery). gow Ste drohAupeba ;” 


adtés® emi? 


Kai ele TH Paddoon, 
ihere. Mt.Kat éyévero yahnvyn peyddy. 


Vill. 26. 9 
Rev. xxi. €oTE OUTW; WHS OUK 
8. 


kal 6 dvenos Kal 7 Oddacca bmaKxovouow 


1 SSBCLA omit 8¢, found in D; no other instance of kat. . . 


2 whowa in NABCDAS. 
* kat ra for ta Se in RBCDLA. 


5 wore nd yeutLeo Par ro wotov in B*BCDLA: 


likely to be true. 
§ avros nv in NBCLA. 
8 eyepovow in WBCA. 
10 vraxovea in BL (W.H.). 


discourse, the more to be noted that 
Mark does not usually trouble himself 
about temporal connection.—8.éA@wpey, 
let us cross over, spoken to the Twelve, 
who are in the boat with Jesus.—Ver. 
36. This verse describes the manner in 
which Christ’s wish was carried out—it 
was in effect a flight along the only line 
of retreat, the shore being besieged by 
the crowd = leaving (adévres, not dis- 
missing) the crowd they carry Him off 
(avehunt, Grotius) as He was in the 
ship (@s hv = es elxev) sine apparatu 
(Bengel) and sine mord ; but there were 
also other boats with Him, ?.e., with His 
boat. This last fact, peculiar to Mark, 
is added to show that even seawards 
escape was difficult. Some of the people 
had got into boats to be nearer the 
Speaker. The 82 after adda, though 
doubtful, helps to bring out the sense. 
This is another of Mark’s realisms.— 
Ver. 37. ylverat Aatkaw: cf. Jonah i. 
4, €yévero KAVSwv péeyas.—éréBaddev, 
were dashing (intransitive) against and 
into (eis) the ship.—yeptfeo8at, so that 
already (748n) the ship was getting full. 
—Ver. 38. 71d mpooKepadatoy, the 
pillow, a part of the ship, as indicated 
by the article (Bengel); no soft luxurious 
pillow, probably of wood (Theophy., 
Euthy.); ‘‘the leathern cushion of the 
steersman’’ (Maclear, Camb. N. T.); 


KATA MAPKON 


37- Kal ylverat Latha dvénou peyddy * 


Sieyetpoutw® adrav, Kal A€yousw att, “AiSdoxade, of 
“Sidma, repipwoo.” 


éxete miotiw ;” 
Bor péyav, kal EXeyov mpds GAAn ous, “ 


So SCA, but with avr before verb. 


IV. 36—41. 


36. Kat ddévres tay Sxdov, mapadap- 


*xai Gdda *Sé! whoidpia * hv 
* Ta 8€4 KUpata 


38. Kal qv 


TH TpUpry emt 1d "mpockepddatov KabedSwyv- Kal 


» peder 


39. Kal Sreyepbeis eretinnoe 1H dvéne, 


Kai éxdmagev 6 dvepos, 
40. Kal etmev adtois, “TL ‘Sedo 

41. Kal époBybyoav 
Tis dpa odtdés éotiw, Stu 


10 ada ;” 
t 


Sein Mk. 


* peyody avenov in BDLA. 


rugged style, but none the less 


7 wv in NABCDLA. 
® ourw in NBDLA (W.H.). 
Vide below. 


the low bench at the stern on which the 
steersman sometimes sits, and the captain 
sometimes rests his head to sleep (Van 
Lennep, Bible Lands, p. 62).—Ver. 39. 
Observe the poetic parallelism in this 
verse: wind and sea separately addressed, 
and the corresponding effects separately 
specified: lulled wind, calmed sea. The 
evangelist realises the dramatic character 
of the situation. —o.w7a, medipwoo, 
silence! hush! laconic, majestic, pro- 
bably the very words. —éxéragev, ceased, 
as if tired blowing, from Kémos (vide at 
Mt. xiv. 32).—Ver. 40. tf Sedo, etc., 
duality of expression again. Matthew 
gives the second phrase, Luke the gist 
of both.—Ver. 41. époByOnoav >. p.: 
nearly the same phrase as in Jonah i. 
16.—tis Gpa otrdés, who then is this? 
One would have thought the disciples 
had been prepared by this time for any- 
thing. Matthew indeed has of Gv@pwrot, 
suggestive of other than disciples, as if 
such surprise in them were incongruous. 
But their emotional condition, arising 
out of the dangerous situation, must be 
taken into account. For the rest Jesus 
was always giving them surprises; His 
mind and character had so many sides. 
—wtmraxover, singular, the wind and the 
sea thought of separately, each a wild 
lawless element, not given to obeying: 
even the wind, even the sea, obeys Him! 


Vv. 1—6. 


EYATTEAION 


37! 


V. 1. KAI 7AOoy eis 73 wépay Tis Oaddaons, eis thy xdpar Tor 


PaSapyvav.) 


2. kat éfehOdvrTe adit? éx Tod mAolou, ews amiy- 


tyoev® abt éx Tav pyynpetwv GvOpwmos ev mvedpate dxabdpTw, 3. ds 


x a , 2 2 a s 4. ‘ ” aN 35 . 5 
Ti “KaToLKHOLY EtxeV Ev TOLS PYNPELOLS “* Kal OUTE GAUGEGLY OUdELS ” a here only 


in N.T. 


ASdvato adtév Sioa, 4. Sia Td adrdv mohAdKis Wedais Kal GAUdceot b here and 


SeSdo0ar, kal “Steomacbar bm adtod Tas aAUcets, Kal Tas médas 
cuvtetpipOat, Kal obdels adtov toxue® *Sapdoar’ 5. Kai diatarris 


in Acts 
Xxiii. 10. 

c Jas. iii. 7, 
8. 


d here only 


Q Are , > (23 »” N32 fa) , Te , 
VUKTOS KQL NEpas €v TOLG OPEOL KaL CV TOLS PYNMNACLY YY KpaLoy in N.T 


6. 


cat *xatakdémrwv éautov Bois. 


"18av Se8 tov “Incodv dro 


1 Tepaonvey in SBD zt. vg. (Tisch., W.H.). 
2 etehBovTos avrov in SBCLA (Tisch., W.H.). 


3 urqvTnoev in SBCDLA; B omits evOvs. 


+ uvnpace in SABCLAY. 


5 ovde aAdvoet ovKeTt ovders in BCL; for ovde and ovxett ovderg the consensus is 


greater (+ DA). 
8 iryvev avroy in many uncials. 


7 €y ToLs [Lv. Kat @ Tots op. in the best copies. 


CHarTeR V. THE GERASENE DE- 
MONIAC. THE DAUGHTER OF JAIRUS. 
tHE WoMAN WITH AN IssuE. This 
group of incidents is given in the same 
order in all three synoptists, but in 
Matthew not in immediate sequence. 
—Vy. 1-20. The Gerasene Demoniac 
(Mt. viii. 28-34, Lk. viii. 26-39).—Ver. tr. 
cis THY xOpav T. Tepagyver : on the pro- 
per name to the place vide at the parallel 
place in Mt.—Ver. 2. éfX. aitot.. . 
UriyvTjoev avT@ ; note the correction of 
style in Luke. Mark’s incorrectness is 
to be preferred as emphasising the fact 
that the meeting with the demoniac 
took place immediately after leaving the 
boat. Just on that account the ev@ts 
before tryvTqoev (omitted in B) is un- 
necessary.—éx T. pvypeiwv, from the 
tombs, as in Mt., éx tas wéAews in Lk. ; 
the former doubtless the fact. Luke’s 
phrase probably means that he belonged 
to the city, not necessarily implying that 
he came from it just then (vide Lk. 
Viii. 27, last clause).— VV. 3-5 elaborately 
describe the man’s condition, as if the 
evangelist or rather his informant (Peter) 
were fascinated by the subject; not a 
case of idle word-painting, but of realistic 
description from vivid, almost morbid, 
recollection. Holtzmann (H, C.) refers to 
Is. Ixv. 4, 5, as if to suggest that some 
elements of the picture—dwelling in 
tombs, eating swine’s flesh—were taken 
thence.—thv Kat., the, i.e. his dwell- 
ing, implying though not emphasising 
constant habit (perpetuum, Fritzsche), 
Lk., ‘for a long time ”.—ov8é, ovKén, 


8 kar ev in RBCLA. 


ovSeig: energetic accumulation of neg- 
atives, quite in the spirit of the Greek 
language. At this point the sentence 
breaks away from the relative construc- 
tion as if in sympathy with the untam- 
able wildness of the demoniac.—Ver. 4 
tells how they had often tried to bind 
the madman, feet (médats) and hands 
(aAvoeou, with chains, for the hands here, 
in contrast to wéSats, chains for the feet; 
usually it means chains in general),— 
ouvrerptpOar :; the use of a distinct verb 
in reference to the fetters suggests that 
they were of different material, either 
cords (Meyer) or wooden (Schanz), and 
that we should render ovvrter., not 
‘broken in pieces’? (A.V.), but rubbed 
through as if by incessant friction.—Ver. 
5. As the previous verse depicts the 
demoniac strength, so this the utter 
misery of the poor sufferer.—d.a mavros 
VUK. K. Hep. incessantly night time and 
day time, even during night when men 
gladly get under roof (Weiss, Mc.- 
Evang.) and when sleep makes trouble 
cease for most: no sleep for this wretch, 
or quiet resting-place.—év T. pyyjpact x. 
é. Tt. Speot, in tombs or on mountains, in 
cave or out in the open, there was but 
one occupation for him: not rest or 
sleep, but ceaseless outcry and self- 
laceration (kpalwv, kxataxdémtwy éavt. 
ALGots). 

Vv. 6-13. Meeting with fesus. This 
desperate case will test Christ’s power to 
heal. Madness, as wild and untamable 
as the wind or the sea. What is going 
to happen ?—Ver. 6. Grd paxpdOev, from 


372 KATA MAPKON v. 


peyady elwe,? “Ti enol kal ool, Inaod, ulé tod O€0d Tod SWiorou ; 
“épxilw oe tov Gedy, py pe Bacavicys.” 8. eheye yap adra, 
““EfedOe, TO Tretia 1d dxdOaptov ék tod dvOpumou.” 9g. Kal 

Kat drexpiOn, Aéywv, “ Aeyewv 4 
10. Kat mapexdde. adrdv modhd, 
Il. Hv S€ exet mpds Ta 


paxpdbey, ESpape Kat mpocextvynoey attd,) 7. Kal xpdéas puri 


e Acts xix. 
13 (same 
const.). 


exnpdta adtdy, “Ti cot Svopa?;” 
Svopd jror,® Sti modoi eopev.” 

iva ph adtods drooteihn ® fw Tis xdpas. 
Spy? dyn xXolpwr peyddyn Bookopévy: 12. Kal wapexddecay adrov 
mdvres ot Saipoves ® Aéyortes, “ Méppor pas els tods xolpous, tva 
eis adtovs civehOwpev.”’ 13. Kat émétpewer adtois edOws 6 Inaois.” 
kat éfeh@dvra ta mvedpata Ta dxdapta eiojOov eis Tods xolpous * 
Kal Spuyngev Hf dyéAy Kata Tod Kpypvod eis Thy Oddaccay: jaar Se !° 


l avrov in NBCLA instead of the more usual avrw of T.R. 


® Neyet in NABCLAZ. 
? ovopa oo. in most uncials, 


D has cot ov. (so in Lk.). 


4 kat Aeyer avTw Aeyiwy in NBCLA (Tisch., W.H.). 


5 BD add eorw. 
7 rw opet in all uncials. 
® SSBCLA omit evdews o I. 


afar, a relative expression, a favourite 
pleonasm in Mk. (xiv. 54, xv. 40).— 
ampogexvvyoev : worshipful attitude, as 
of one who feels already the charm or 
spell of Him before whom he kneels; 
already there is a presentiment and com- 
mencement of cure, though not yet wel- 
come.—Ver. 7. 1T. 8. Tov tWlorov; Mt. 
has tov Qceov only. Luke gives the full 
expression=the Son of God Most High. 
Which is the original? Weiss (Meyer) 
says Mt.’s, Mk. adding +. tp. to prepare 
for the appeal to One higher even than 
Jesus, in dépxifw following. But why 
should not the demoniac himself do that ? 
—épxi{w: in classics to make swear, in 
N. T. (here and in Acts xix. 13) to adjure 
with double accusative; not good Greek 
according to Phryn.; épkéw the right 
word.—py pe Bacavicgs: no po 
Katpov as in Mt., the reference ap- 
parently to the present torment of de- 
moniac or demon, or both; either shrink- 
ing from cure felt to be impending.— 
Ver. 8. Gdeyev yap, for He was about to 
say: not yet said, but evident from 
Christ’s manner and look that it was on 
His tongue ; the conative imperfect 
(Weiss).—Ver. 9. rl wot Svopa ; instead 
of saying at once what He had meant 
to say, Jesus adopts a roundabout 
method of dealing with the case, and 
asks the demoniac his name, as if to 


Savra atroog,in BCA. D has avrovs. 
8 ravres or Sap. omit ECLA (Tisch., W.H.). 
1 SBCDLA omit noayv Se. 


bring him into composure.—Aeytov : 
from the Roman legion not a rare sight 
in that region, emblem of irresistible 
power and of a multitude organised into 
unity ; the name already naturalised into 
Greek and Aramaean. The use of it by 
the demoniac, like the immediate recog- 
nition of Jesus as a.God-like person, 
reveals a sensitive, fine-strung mind 
wrecked by insanity.—Ver. 10. wapexa- 
Ae: he, Legion, in the name of the de- 
mons, beseeches earnestly (2roA\a) that 
He would not send them (aira) out of 
the region (x@pas). Decapolis, beloved 
by demons, suggests Grotius, because 
full of Hellenising apostate Jews, teste 
Joseph. (A. J., xvii., 11).—Ver. 11. éxet, 
there, near by. Cf. Mt. viii. 30.—wpds 
7T®@ Ope; on the mountain side.—Ver, 12. 
mépov: send us into the swine; no 
chance of permission to enter into men ; 
no expectation either of the ensuing 
catastrophe.—Ver. 13. Kat éwérpevev: 
permission, not command, to enter; in 
Mt. not even that, simply a peremptory : 
Depart! Vide notes there.—eioy Gov : 
an inference from the sequel ; neither 
exit nor entrance could be seen. There 
was doubtless a coincidence between the 
cure and the catastrophe.—as 81oxiAvor: 
about 2000, an estimate of the herds 
possibly exaggerated. —émviyovro (1viya, 
to choke), were drowned, used in this 





Cie EYATTEAION 


&s StoxitAtor> Kat émviyovto év TH Oakdooyn. 14. OF 8€ Pdoxortes 
Tods xolpous! epuyov, kal dvnyyerhav? eis Thy wéAw Kal els Tods 
Gypots. kal e&mOov? iSety ti ott Td yeyovds: 15. Kat epxovtas 
mpds Toy ‘Ingody, kat Pewpodor Tov Batporilsuevov KaOjpevov Kal? 
ipaticpevoy Kat cwpovoivta, Tov éoxynKkdta Tov eyeGva- Kat edo- 
ByOycav- 16. Kat Sinyyoavto adrots ot iddvtes, THs eyéveto TO 


373 


SatpoviLopevw, Kal wept Tay Xolpuwr. 


a lal 2 A 
autév dweNOety dd Tay Sptwy avTay. 


17. kal jHpgavto mapakaNeiy 


18. Kat éuBdvros* atrod eis 
p. 


TO Totoy, Tapexdder avtov 6 Saiporobets, tva 7 pet avtod.5 19. 6 

3é “Ingoiis® ok apikev autdv, dda eyes auTé, “ "Yraye eis Tov 
> , 4 ‘ , ‘\ Ul x 7 > a @ c , 8 
oikdv gou mpds Tods gous, Kal dvdyyethoy” avTots dca got 6 Kiptos 


1 kat or Boo. avrous in RBCDLA. 


2 amny. and nASov in NBL (CD have arny.). 


3 kat omitted in RBDLA. 
5 per avrov y in SABCLA. 
Tamay. in SBCA. 


sense in Joseph., A. J.,x., 7, 5, regarding 
Jeremiah in the dungeon. 

Vv. 14-20. Sequel of the story.—Ver. 
14. els tHv wéAwy, etc.: the herds of 
course ran in breathless panic-stricken 
haste to report the tragedy in the city 
and in the neighbouring farms (aypovs). 
—rxalt 7nAGoy, etc.: and the people in 
town and country as naturally went to 
see what had happened. Their road 
brings them straight to Jesus (ver. 15), 
and they see there a sight which 
astonishes them, the well-known and 
dreaded demoniac completely altered in 
manner and aspect: sitting (ka@rpevov) 
quiet, not restless ; clothed (ipatiopévoy 
here and in Lk. viii. 35), implying pre- 
vious nakedness, which is expressly 
noted by Lk. (viii. 27), sane (cwdpov- 
ovvTa), implying previous madness. For 
this sense of the verb vide 2 Cor. v. 13. 
Some take the second and third participle 
as subordinate to the first, but they 
may be viewed as co-ordinate, denoting 
three distinct, equally outstanding, 
characteristics: ‘‘sedentem, vestitum, 
sanae mentis, cum antea fuisset sine 
quiete, vestibus, rationis usu” (Bengel) 
—all this had happened to the man who 
had had the Legion! (rév éoy. 7. 
Neyt@va)—éoyynkdta, perfect in sense 
of pluperfect. Burton, § 156.—éoBy- 
Oyoav: they were afraid, of the sane 
man, as much as they had been of the 
insane, 7.e., of the power which had pro- 
duced the change.—Ver. 16. The eye- 
witnesses in further explanations to their 


4 euBawvovtos in SABCDLAE 33. 
§ For o 8¢ I. the same authorities have simply kau. 
8 9 Kuptos cot in BCA. 


employers now connect the two events 
together—the cure and the catastrophe— 
not representing the one as cause of the 
other, but simply as happening close to 
each other. The owners draw a natural 
inference: cure cause of catastrophe, 
and (ver. 17) request Jesus, as a dangerous 
person, to retire.—rptavto, began to 
request, pointing to transition from 
vague awe in presence of a great change 
to desire to be rid of Him whom they 
believed to be the cause both of it and of 
the loss of their swine. Fritzsche takes 
jpéavro as meaning that Jesus did not 
need much pressure, but withdrew on 
the first hint of their wish.—Ver. 18. 
epBatvovtos, embarking, the same day ? 
Jesus had probably intended to stay 
some days on the eastern shore as on 
the hill (iii. 13), to let the crowd dis- 
perse.—tva per aitrod : an cbject 
clause after verb of exhorting with tva, 
and subjunctive instead of infinitive as 
often in N. T., that he might be with 
Him (recalling iii. 14). The man desired 
to become a regular disciple. Victor of 
Ant., Theophy., Grotius, and partly 
Schanz think his motive was fear lest 
the demons might return.—Ver. 19. 
Jesus refuses, and, contrary to His usual 
practice, bids the healed one go and 
spread the news, as a kind of missionary 
to Decapolis, as the Twelve were to 
Galilee. The first apostle of the heathen 
(Holtz. (H. C.) after Volkmar). Jesus 
determined that those who would not 
have Himself should have His repre- 


éroinge,! Kal HrAeqod oe.” 


KATA MAPKON Vv 


20. Kal dwqdOe cat Hptaro kypiover 


év 1H Aexamddet, doa éroingey auta 6 Ingois - kai mdvres EOadpalov. 


21. KAI Stamepdoavtos Tod “Inood év TO Toiw wWaAw eis TO wWépay, 


ouvyx8y Sxdos todds én’ autév, Kal Fy mapa Thy Oddaccay. 


22. 


Kal idou,? Epxerat els Tav dpyiouvaydywy, dvdpate "Idetpos, kat iSdv 


> , lol 
auTév, Wire. mpds Tods modas avTod’ 23. Kal mapexdder® adrov 


f again 


vii. 25, 


emis auth tas xetpas,* Stas owhh Kai Lyoerar.” 5 


TodAd, éywv, “Ore 7d *Ouydtpidy pou eoxdtws Exer- tva é\Odv 


24. Kat 


GrAhOe pet adtod: Kal HKohovBer avTG Sxdos Todds, Kal cuvéO\i Boy 


g Lk. xv. 14. autor. 
Acts xxi. 
24. 2Cor. 
xii. 15. 


25. Kat yury tis° obca ev pice: aipatos ern Sudexa,’ 26. kal mod- 


Jas. iv. 3, AG TaBoGoa bd ToAAGY Latpay, Kal *SaTavyoaca TA Tap’ éauTAs® 


1 qretrotnkev in NABCLY. 


3 wapakader in SACL (Tisch., W.H., text). 


4 ras xelpas auvTy in NBCLA. 


2 Omit tdov NRBDLA. 
mapekader in BDA(W.H. margin). 


2 wwa cwby Kat non in NBCDLA (fyoerar is from Mt.). 


§ Omit tis RABCLA (found in DX). 


7 Swdexa ery in NBCLA. 


S autys in BLE (W.H. text), eavtys in CDA (Tisch., W.H., margin). 


sentative.—rretroinkev, perfect, the effect 
abiding: hath done for me, as you see.— 
mAenoev ce: pitied thee at the time of 
cure. 60a may be understood before 
yA. = and how, etc., or kat 7A. may be 
a Hebraising way of speaking for 
éheyjoas oe (Grotius).—Kvpids: the sub- 
ject to the two verbs = God, as in O. T. 
Sept.—Ver. 20. év rq Aexamdde: he 
took a wide range; implying probably 
that he was known throughout the ten 
cities as the famous madman of Gerasa. 
What was the effect of his mission in 
that Greek world? Momentary wonder 
at least (€@avpafov), perhaps not much 
more. 

Vv. 21-43. The daughter of Fairus 
and the woman with bloody issue (Mt. 
ix, 18-26, Lk. viii. 40-56).—Ver. 21. 
dxAos moAts: the inescapable crowd, in 
no hurry to disperse, gathers again about 
Jesus, on His return to the western 
shore.—énr’ attév: not merely to, but 
after Him, the great centre of attraction 
(cf. wpos a., ii. 13, iv. I).—awapa T. 6., 
by the sea (here and there); how soon 
after the arrival the incident happened 
not indicated (cf. Mt. ix. 18 for sequence 
and situation), nor is the motive of the 
narrative. Weiss suggests that the 
Jairus story is given as another instance 
of unreceptivity, ver. 40 (Meyer).—Ver. 
22. els T. G.: might imply a plurality 


of synagogues, each having its chief ruler. 
But in Acts xiii. 14, 15, one syn. has its 
apxytcwvaywlor.—Ver.23. Ovyatpidv p.: 
an instance of Mk.’s love of diminutives, 
again in vii, 25.—éoxdtws €yxet, is ex- 
tremely ill, at death’s door (in Mt. dead), 
stronger than Kaka@s get; a late Greek 
phrase (examples in Elsner, Wetstein, 
Kypke, etc.), disapproved by Phryn. 
(Lobeck, p. 38 9).—itva éd@av émiOqs: 
either used as an imperative (cf. 1 Tim. 
i. 3, tva twapayyeidys), or dependent on 
some verb understood, ¢.g., Sedpat wov 
(Palairet), Kw (Fritzsche); better 
mapakah® oe, the echo of wapexade 
going before (Grotius. Similarly Euthy. 
Zig.). 

Vv. 25-34. The woman with an issue. 
—Ver. 25. év pice a. = aipoppootca 
of Mt.: in or with a flux of blood. So 
in Lk. also.— Ver, 26. Details about the 
case, similarly in Lk., not in Mt.: 
either they expand or Mt. abbreviates.— 
mwoAAaG mafotca: no wonder, remarks 
Lightfoot, in view of the endless pre- 
scriptions for such a case, of which he 
gives samples (Hor. Heb.); physicians 
of the empiric or prescientific type.—ra 
map avtys, her means, cf. ot wap’ avrov, 
iii, 21.—pydev ped: nothing profited, 
the subjective negative, pydév, implies 
disappointed  expectation.—Ver. 27. 
axovgaca’ to simplify the construction 


Otte a 


EYATTEAION 


20-34. 


Wdvra, Kal pydev apheryPetoa, GAG pGAdov cis Td xeEtpov eAOovoa, 


27. akoucaca ! 


4 A > A > ~ > ~ = a” 
Tept Tod ‘Incot, éMotca év tH Sxhw Gmobev, 
a“ ~ ° A 
ijPato Tod tpatiou adtod-: 28. Edeye ydp, “Om Kav tay ipatioy 
atTod GWwpat,? cwOjoopar.” 29. Kat edOdws é&ypdvOn H wnyh Tod 
° 2A borer A , @ bh 
aiparos aUTHS, Kal Eyyw TH owpate Ste 
‘ 7A! ec 2 ~ > ‘ > fal A) 3 ) lo} , 
30. kat €UBdws 5 *Incots émyvods ev éauta thy €§ adtod Suvapuy 
eeMotaav, emotpadhels év TO Sxdw, Eeye, “Tis pou AWato Tay 
ipatiov;” 31. Kal éAeyoy adt@ of padytat attod, “ Beers Tov 
32. Kat 
33. 7 SE yur hoByVetoa 


\ , id a a , 39 '23 Shim AAO ‘ , 
KOL TPEM.ouca, €LOULa O yeyovev et aut), NAVE KGL TIPOGETIEGEV 


dxdov ouvOXiBovTd oe, Kat éyets, Tis pou mWarto;” 
mepteBheteTo idety THY TOUTS TonTacoy. 
att, Kat elwey ad7G waicay thy GdyOeav. 34. 6 Sé eiwev atrH, 


“cc , ty 3G , , , o > ae I \ » 
Ovyatep,* 1 Wiottg Dou cegTwWKE GE* UTAYE ELS ElpyYHY, Kat to Ot 


375 


tata. awd THs pdotiyos. h cf. Johni. 


évet). 


1 ca after ax. in SBCA 33 (Tisch., W.H. See below). 


2 ort cay awpar kay T. t. in SBCLA (Tisch., W.H.). 


a simplification. 
3 SBCDL omit ew (in AZ al.). 


of this long sentence (vv. 25, 26, 27) we 
may, with Fritzsche, connect this parti- 
ciple with yuvn, ver. 25, and treat all 
between as a parenthesis = a certain 
woman (whose case was, etc.) having 
heard, etc.—ta wept tr. |. The im- 
portance of the ta (S\X*BC*A. W.H.) 
here is that with it the expression means 
not merely that the woman had heard of 
the return of Jesus from the east side, 
but that she had for the first time heard 
of Christ’s healing ministry in general. 
She must have been a stranger from a 
distance, ¢.g., from Caesarea Philippi, 
her home, according to Eusebius (Hist. 
Eccl., vii., 18), her house identifiable with 
a statue reproducing the gospel incident 
before the door ; possibly a heathen, but 
more probably, from her behaviour, a 
Jewess—stealing a cure by touch when 
touch by one in her state was forbidden 
(Lev. xv. 19-27).—Ver. 29. é&ypavOn 7h 
™yyN: perhaps this means no more 
than Lk.’s statement that the flux was 
stopped, but the expression seems chosen 
to signify a complete permanent cure— 
not merely the stream but the fountain 
dried.—¢yvw +. o.: she was conscious 
that the flow had ceased (éyvw 81a tov 
THOLATOS PHKETL PaLvopevou ToIs OTAAay- 
pots, Euthy. Zig.).—Ver. 30. éaruyvovs 
Hv... Sivapiw eFeAPovoar, conscious 
of the going forth of the healing virtue; 
é&eXO. is the substantive participle as 
object of the verb tatyvovs. The state- 
ment as given by Mk. (and Lk.) implies 


A has ev. 


The reading in T.R. is 
4 @vyarnp in BD (W.H.). 


that the cure was not wrought by the 
will of Jesus. But it may nevertheless 
have been so. Jesus may have felt the 
touch, divined its meaning, and con- 
sented to the effect. Vide on Mt., ad loc, 
—tis pov qWato tev ipatiwv: who 
touched me on my clothes? This verb 
here, as usual, takes genitive both of 
person and thing (Buttmann’s Grammar, 
N. T., p. 167).—Ver. 31. Tov dy. cuvOAt- 
Bovra oe, the crowd squeezing Thee, as 
in ver. 24. The simple verb in iii. 9. 
The compound implies a greater crowd, 
or a more eager pressure around Jesus. 
How exciting and fatiguing that rude 
popularity for Him!—Ver. 32.  wepre- 
BAgweto: Jesus, knowing well the 
difference between touch and _ touch, 
regardless of what the disciples had 
plausibly said, kept looking around in 
quest of the person who had touched 
Him meaningfully.—thv Tt. worjcacav: 
feminine, a woman’s touch. Did Jesus 
know that, or is it the evangelist choosing 
the gender in accordance with the now 
known fact ? (Meyer and Weiss). The 
former possible, without preternatural 
knowledge, through extreme sensitive- 
ness.—Ver. 33. of. wal tpép., fearing 
and trembling, the two states closely 
connected and often combined (2 Cor. 
vii. 15, Eph. vi. 5, Phil. ii. 12).— 
eidvia, etc., explains her emotion: she 
knew what had happened to her, and 
thought what a dreadful thing it would 
be to have the surreptitiously obtained 


376 KATA MAPKON v. 


dys dws ris pdottyds cou.” 35. “Et abrod Nahodvros, Epxovrat 
dd tod dpxtouvaywyow, Aéyortes, ““Ore  Ouydtnp cou drdbave - 
36. ‘0 8€ “Inaois cil€ws! 
dxovcas* tov Aéyov Aahodpevoy Adyer TH dpxiouvaydyw, “Mi 
37: Kat odx aAdicer odSéva atta? 
guvakohouOjcar, ei pi) Nétpov* kal “IdkwBoy kal “lwdvyny tov 
&deApoy “laxwBou. 
J x Cor. xiii, ywyou, Kal Oewpel OdpuBor,® xdalovras kal ?d&daddLovtas odd. 


ti é€tt oxtddetg tov SiSdoKadoy ;” 


i Ch. xv.32; PoBod, pdévov ‘amioreue.” 
xvi. 16, 17 
(absol.). 


‘ A 
38. Kat Epxetar® eis tov otkov tod dpxicuva- 


k Mt. ix.23. 39. Kat etoedOdy dyer avtois, “Ti *OopuBetobe kai xdalete; 


Act8 xvil. , 
5; xx. 10, TO 


Bes 
auTou. 


twadiov oux dréBavev, &ANA Kabedder.” 


40. Kal kateyédwy 


& 8€7 ékBaday dravtas,® mapahapBdver tov watépa Tod 


, Ny f \ > aA in ee , o 
jatdiou KGL THY PHTEpA Kat Tous eT QUTOU, Kat ELOTTOPEVETAL O7TOU 


1 Omit evblews NBDLA. 


2 wapaKovoas in $$BLA, changed into axov~as because not understood, 


3 wer avrov in REBCLA. 


* rov before fl. in BCA, omitted to conform with lak. lway. 
5 epxovrat in SNABCDA, changed into epxerat to agree with Oewpe (LE al.), 


§ kat before kAatovras in many uncials. 
8 gavras in RRABCLAZ al. 


Tavros S¢ in RBCDLA 33. 


benefit recalled by an offended bene- 
factor disapproving her secrecy and her 
bold disregard of the ceremonial law.— 
magav tyHv adyPeay, the whole truth, 
which would include not only what she 
had just done, but her excuse for doing 
it—the pitiful tale of chronic misery. 
From that tale impressively told, heard 
by disciples, and not easily to be for- 
gotten, the particulars in ver. 26 were in 
all probability derived.—Ver. 34. The 
woman had already heard the fame of 
Jesus (ver. 27). From what Jesus said 
to her she would for the first time get 
some idea of His exquisite sympathy, 
delicately expressed in the very first 
word: @vyatep, daughter, to a mature 
woman, probably not much, if at all, 
younger than Himself! He speaks not 
as man to woman, but as father to child. 
Note how vivid is Mark’s story com- 
pared with the meagre colourless version 
of Mt.! A lively impressionable eye- 
witness, like Peter, evidently behind it. 
Vv. 35-43. The story of Fairus’ 
daughter resumed.—Ver. 35. amd 7. 
apxto., from the ruler of the synagogue, 
i.e., from his house, as in A.V. (a76 THs 
oixias tT. o-, Euthy.). The ruler is sup- 
posed to be with Jesus all the time.— 
Ver. 36. mwapakovoas: might mean to 
disregard, as in Mt. xviii. 17 (with 
genitive). So Meyer; but here probably 


D omits. 


it means overhearing a word not spoken 
directly to Him. The two senses are 
quite compatible. Jesus might overhear 
what was said and disregard its import, 
i.e., act contrary to the implied sugges- 
tion that nothing could now be done in 
the case. The latter He certainly did.— 
awioreve, present, continue in a believing 
mood, even in presence of death.—- 
Ver. 37. ovvakodovOjoat: here with 
pera, in xiv. 51, and Lk. xxiii. 49 with 
dative.—rév Mérpoyv, etc., Peter, James, 
and John; earliest trace of preference 
within the disciple-circle. Not in Mt., 
but followed by Lk. The three chosen 
to be witnesses of a specially remarkable 
event. Perhaps the number of disciples 
was restricted to three not to crowd the 
house.—Ver. 38. Q@ewpet: what was 
going on within the house appealed to 
both eye and ear; here the scene is 
described from the spectacular side—a 
multitude of people seen making a con- 
fused din (@épuBoyv), in which sounds of 
weeping and howling without restraint 
(wokAa) are distinguishable.—«ai after 
OdpuBoyv is epexegetic, and kAalovtas and 
adaddlovras special features under it as 
a general. Flute playing (Mt. ix. 23) not 
referred to.—Ver. 40. Kateyédwv: this 
the point of the story for the evangelist, 
thinks Weiss, hence related after the 
demoniac—common link, the unbelief of 


35—43. VI. 1—2. EYATTEAION 

41. kal Kpatyoas Tis xElpds TOU 
watSiov, Aéyer adrq, “TadtOd, Kodpr?” 
8 


fv 1d maSiov dvaxetpevoy.! 
5 éote peSeppnveudspervor, 
“TS Kopdotov, (cot Aéyw) eyetpor.”® 42. Kat evOdws dvéoty 1d 
xopdovoy Kal mepte@dter, Ry yap éray dddexa~ Kai eéotycay * 
éxotdoe peyddn. 43. Kal Steotethato avtots modAd, iva prdeis 
yva® rodto* Kal ete SoOfvar auth payetv. 

VI. 1. KAI e&fdOev exetBer, kal HOev® eis Thy watpida adrod- 
kat dkodovPodow adt@ of pabytat adtod: 2. Kal yevonévou oaf- 
Bdrou, ptato év TH ouvaywyf Si8donew!? Kai mwohdot® dxodovtes 
ééemdijooovto, Néyortes, “Md0ev TovTw tata; Kal Tis H copia } 
Sobetoa aita,® Ste xat Suvdpers Toradtar Sia toy Xeipdv adtod 


1$9BDLA omit avoxepevoy, an explanatory gloss. 


2 koup in SBCLE 33. 
Tisch., Trg., W.H. 


3 eyeipe in most uncials, 
5 yvo. in ABDL (Tisch., W.H.). 


koupt in DA, which Weiss thinks the true reading against 


4 Add evOus after deornorav SBCLA 33. 
yvo in NCA. 


6 epxerar in S$$BCLA, changed into nev to conform to &ndOev. 


7 §ibac, ev Ty ov. in SBCDLA. 


9 rourw in $BCLA, changed into avrw to improve the style. 


life-like, 


the people. But surely in this case in- 
credulity was very excusable!—réyv 
watépa, etc.: father, mother, and the 
three disciples taken into the sick 
chamber, the former as parents, the 
latter as witnesses.—Ver. 41. Tad.0a, 
kovp, maiden, rise! first instance in 
which the words of Jesus, as spoken in 
Aramaic, are given. Jesus may have 
been a bilingual, sometimes using Greek, 
sometimes Syriac. He would use the 
vernacular on a pathetic occasion like 
this. The word Tadt§a, feminine of 


Teli (4x9), is found in the Hebrew only 
in the plural (osu). —ver. 42. 


mepieraret, etc.: the diminutive kopdc.ov 
might suggest the idea of a mere child, 
therefore, after stating that she walked 
about, it is added that she was twelve 
he old. In Mk. only.—Ver. 43. 
teoret(X\atro: that the girl had recovered 
could not be hid, but that she had been 
brought back from death might be. 
Jesus wished this, not desiring that ex- 
pectations of such acts should be 
awakened.— 800fvat gayetv: she could 
walk and cat; not only alive, but well: 
“ graviter aegroti vix solent cibum 
sumere,” Grotius.—etmev here takes the 
infinitive after it, not, as often, tva with 
subjunctive. 


8 91 wodAot in BL (Tisch., W.H.). 
The two rovrw 


CHapTer VI. AT NAzareTH. MiIs- 
SION OF THE TWELVE. HEROD AND 
JouN. FEEDING OF THE THOUSANDS. 
SEA INcIDENT. The first two of the 
miscellaneous group of narratives con- 
tained in this chapter (vv. I-13) are re- 
garded by some (Weiss, Schanz, etc.) as 
forming the conclusion of a division of 
the Gospel beginning at iii. 7, having 
for its general heading: The disciple- 
circle versus the unreceptive multitude. 
Such analysis of the Gospels into distinct 
masses is useful provided it be not over- 
done. 

Vv. 1-6a. Fesus at Nazareth (Mt. 
xiii. 53-58, cf. Lk. iv. 16-30).—Ver. 1. 
e&qAOev exetOev. It is not said, but it is 
very probable, that this was another of 
Christ’s attempts to escape from the 
crowd into a scene of comparative quiet 
and rest (the Az, iii, 13, the eastern shore, 
v. 1, Nazareth, vi. 1). Mt. gives this 
incident at the close of the parable col- 
lection; Lk. at the beginning of the 
Galilean ministry. Mk.’s connection is 
the most historical, Lk.’s is obviously an 
anticipation. It is the same incident 
in all three Gospels.—arpi8a: vide 
notes on Mt., ad loc.—oi pafyrai a. Mt. 
omits this.—Ver. 2. qpfato S8dackevy, 
etc.: Jesus did not go to Nazareth fox 
the purpose of preaching, rather for rest; 
but that He should preach was inevit- 


378 


yivovrat ! ; 


85 "laxdBou kai “lwoy* Kal 


adedpai atrod de mpds hpas;” 


KATA MAPKON 


> 
lovSa Kal Etpwvos ; 


Vi. 


3. obx obtds eorw 5 TéxTwr, 5 vids Mapias,® &dedhds 


‘ > t c 
kal oUK elolv at 
. , ~ 
Kai éoxavdadiLovto év abté. 


4: Eheye S€° adtots 6 Inagods, ““Ort odk Eat. mpopijtys Atipos, ei 


~ 4 « co ‘ a , 
pa) év TH mwarptd: abtod, cai év rots ouyyevéot 
awn 4 “~ ~ 
adrod.”® 5. Kat odx 7Suvato éxet ob8epiay Suvapi mojoat, 


pe SAlyots dppdotos émBets tas xetpas, ebepdmevae. 6. 


§ xal ev TH otKia 
T 


‘ 
KQL 


2 Ch. iii. 34 @atvpale® Sia thy dmoriavy adrav- Kal mepifye Tas kdpas *KUKAw 


ret. 


SiddoKkor. 


1 For ots. . . ywowrat should stand kas at Suvapers ror. Sia 7, Xe yevopevar as in 


NB (W.H). 


The crude construction suits the mood of the speakers. 


2 \$BCLA before Map. have tys, omitted to assimilate to following names. 
5S 


3 kat aSe\. in NBCDLA. 


6 evyyevevoy avrov in BL (Tisch., W.H.). 


‘ lwonros in BDLA 33. 


5 kat eheyey in NBCDLA 33. 
7 groinoat ovd. Suv. in NBCLA. 


® @avpacey in $B (Tisch., W.H., text), T.R. asin CDL (W.H. margin). 


able; therefore, the Sabbath coming 
round, He appeared in the synagogue, 
and spoke.—60ev tout» Tavta: laconic ; 
comprehensive, vague question, covering 
the discourse just heard and all that had 
been reported to them about their towns- 
man, with the one word tavrta: such 
speech, such wisdom (ris } copia), such 
powers (Suvdpets, not wrought there), in 
such a well-known person (totTw).— 
Ver. 3. 6 téxrwv: avoided by Mt., who 
says the carpenter’s son: one of Mk.’s 
realisms. The ploughs and yokes of 
Justin M. (c. Trypho., 88) and the apocry- 
phal Gospels pass beyond realism into 
vulgarity.—éoxavdahilovro: what they 
had heard awakened admiration, but the 
external facts of the speaker’s connec- 
tions and early history stifled incipient 
faith ; vide notes on Mt.—Ver. 4. év Tots 

evetaw a., among his kinsmen. 
This omitted in Mt., év tq olkiq a. 
covering it.—Ver. 5. ox 4Svvaro, etc., 
He was not able to do any mighty work, 
which is qualified by the added clause, 
that He placed His hands on a few 
ailing persons (4ppéorots); quite minor 
cures, not to be compared with those 
reported in the previous chapter. For 
this statement Mt. substitutes: He did 
not there many mighty works.—Ver. 6. 
€Savpacev, etc. Jesus marvelled at the 
faith of the centurion. Nazareth sup- 
plied the opposite ground for astonish- 
ment. There Jesus found an amount of 
stupid unreceptivity for which His ex- 
perience in Decapolis and elsewhere had 
not prepared Him. It was the ne plus 
ultra in that line. This wonder Mt. 


omits, merely noting the unbelief as 
cause of the non-performance of miracles. 
We are to conceive of it as bringing 
about this result, not by frustrating 
attempts at healing, but by not giving 
Jesus an opportunity. The people of 
Nazareth were so consistently unbeliev- 
ing that they would not even bring their 
sick to Him to be healed (Klostermann), 
and, as Euthy. Zig. remarks, it was not 
fitting that Jesus should benefit them 
against their will (ovx é8er Bratwe vep- 
yeteiv avtovs). 

Vv. 6b-13. Mission of the Twelve 
(Mt. x. 1-15, Lk. ix. 1-6).—Ver. 6b 
may either be connected with the fore- 
going narrative, when it will mean that 
Jesus, rejected by the Nazareans, made 
a teaching tour among the villages 
around (Fritzsche, Meyer), or it may be 
taken as an introduction to the following 
narrative = Jesus resumes the réle of a 
wandering preacher in Galilee (i. 38, 39) 
and associates with Himself in the work 
His disciples (Schanz, Weiss, Kloster- 
mann, etc.). This brief statement in 
Mark: and He went round about the 
villages in a circle teaching, answers to 
Matt. ix. 35-38, where the motive of the 
mission of the Twelve is more fully ex- 
plained.—Ver. 7. 7pfaro, etc.: Jesus 
calling to Him (wpookaXeirar, vide iii. 
13) the Twelve began at length to do 
what He had intended from the first 
(Weiss), viz., to send them forth as 
missioners (&rooreAXety).—Svo duo, two 
(and) two, Hebraic for xara or ava Svo; 
two together, not one by one, a humane 
arrangement.—edidov, imperfect, as 





313: 


EYATTEAION 


Ck) 


7. KAI mpookadetrat Tols SwSexa, kat Aptate abtods dmoaréAhew 
*Sd0 Svo, kal edi8ou abtois efouciay Tay mveupdtwv tov dxaddpTwy, b here only 


in 


8. kal mapryyyethev avtois, tva pndev aipwory eis d30v, ci wy PABSov (Gen. vi 


IQ, 20). 


povov: eh whpav, ph Gptov,! pi els thy Lavny °xadkdv: g. GAN c Ch. xii.gt 


*§modedepevous Soavdddia- Kat “py evOdono0e? BU0 yiTAvas. 


o> d Acts xii. 8. 
Eph. vi. 15. 


= os a e Acts xii. 8 
10. Kai édeyev attots, ““Omou édy eioehOnrte eis oixiav, exet pevete © (1, 


éws Ov e&€AOnte exeibev. 


4 ‘ « ~ > , > a 
pydé dkovcwou suav, éxmopeuopevor éxetOev, 
Tov GmoKdTw Tay Today Guay, els papTupLoy 


piv, dvextotepoy €otar Loddpors % Foudppors 


TH woder exetvyn. * 


II. Kat dco? ay 


12. Kat éfeOovtes exrypuacor 5 


(is: xxei2: 
Judith x. 
4} Xvi. 9). 
2 , 7 at a 

exTiasate Tov © KOU f Rev. xviii. 
1g (=dust). 


ph dé&wvtar® spas, 
> es > ‘ , 

autots. dapyy héyw 

év tpepa Kpicews, 7 


iva peTOvoON- 


gwor® 13. Kat Satpdvea mwohkd éf€Baddov, Kai Aerhoy édatw 


To\\ovs Gppwatous Kat éGeparrevoy. 


1 uy aptov py wypav in $BCLA. The order of T.R. conforms to Lk. (so in D). 
2 eySucacQar is the reading of W.H. (text), on slight authority. LZ have 


evdeduc Bar. 
(text), Weiss (W.H. margin), 


The T.R. is supported by $$ACDA, and is adopted by Tisch., Trg. 


3 os av ToTos pn SeEnravin SQBLA (Tisch., W.H.). The T.R. is an adaptation 
to akoveworyv in next clause, which refers to the people in the place. 


4 From apnv Acyo vpwy to exewvy is an importation from Mt. not found in $BCDLA. 
5 exnputav in $$BCDLA. The imperfect (T.R.) is an assimilation to &eBadXoyv in 


ver. 13. 


6 peravowow in BDL (Tisch., W.H.). peravonrwo. (SCA) sympathises with 


exnpvtav. 


specifying an accompaniment of the 
mission, not pointing to separate em- 
powerment of each pair.—éfovotav Tt. 7. 
7. &, power over unclean spirits, alone 
mentioned by Mark, cf. Matthew and 
Luke.—Ver. 8. eb ph paBdSov pdvov: 
vide in Matthew, ad loc.—yadxév: no 
mention of gold and silver, brass the 
only money the poor missionaries were 
likely to handle.—Ver. 9. GAAa... 
gavddrra, but shod with sandals.— 
pnde trodypata, says Matthew, recon- 
cilable either by distinguishing between 
sandals and shoes (vide on Matthew), or 
by understanding pyde before trodedepé- 
vovs (Victor Ant.).—8vo yttavas: In 
Mark the prohibition is not to wear 
(évSvcnoGe) two tunics, in Matthew and 
Luke not to possess a spare one. The 
sentence in vv. 8, g presents a curious 
instance of varying construction: first tva 
with the subjunctive after mapyyyethev 
(ver. 8), then troScdepevous, implying an 
infinitive with accusative (wopever@ar 
understood), then finally there is a 
transition from indirect to direct narra- 
tion in py év8vonobe.—Ver. 10. éxet, 
txetOev, there, in the house; thence, 


from the village.—Ver. 11. Kat és dy rT. 
- . . Up@y; another instance of incon. 
sequent construction beginning with a 
relative clause and passing into a con- 
ditional one = and whatever place does 
not receive you, if (éa4v understood) they, 
its people, do not listen to you (so 
Schanz and Weiss in Meyer).—troxato, 
the dust that is under your feet, instead 
of éx and amo in Matthew and Luke. 
The dust of theiy roads adhering to your 
feet, shake it off and leave it behind you. 
Vv. 12, 13 report the carrying out of the 
mission by the Twelve through preach- 
ing and healing.—tva petavodow: the 
burden of their preaching was, Repent. 
Luke has the more evangelic term, 
evayyeAtlépevor. The other aspect of 
their ministry is summed up in the 
expulsion of many demons, and the cure 
of many suffering from minor ailments, 
appwotous (cf. ver. 5). In Mark’s account 
the powers of the Twelve appear much 
more restricted than in Matthew (cf. x. 
8). The use of oil in healing (€Xat) is 
to be noted. Some have regarded this 
as a mark of late date (Baur). Others 
(Weiss, Schanz) view it as a primitive 


380 


g « Cor. til, 


13; xiv 


KATA MAPKON 


VI. 


14. Kai ijKoucey & Baoiheds “Hpddns, (© pavepdy yap * éyevero rd 


25 Phil, Gvopa adtod,) Kal deyer,! “Ore “lwdyyns 6 BamtilLwy ex vexpar 

~ 13. “ ‘ a a « 

h vide Mt. iyyép0y,” Kal Std todTo *évepyodow ai Suvdpers evadtG.” 15.”ANAoL® 
Riv. 2. 


EXeyov, "Ore “HAtas éotiv:” 

éotiv, 4 ds els Tav mpopyTay.” 
‘lwdvyny, obtés™ got: adtis fyépOy 
17. Adtds ydp 6 “Hpwins daooteihas éxpdtyce Tov 


““Or.® dv eyh dmexedddioa 


éx vexpay.”7 


ddXou S€ Edeyov, ““Ore mpodrrns 
16. "Axodcas 8é 6 ‘HpdSns etrev,® 


‘lwdvyny, Kal ednoev adrdv év ri® gudakh, Sd “Hpwdidda hy 
yuvaika iAtrrou tod adehpod adrod, Ste adrhy eydunoey. 


! So in RACLAZ (Tisch., W.H., margin). 


* eyyyeptar ex vexpov in SBDLA 33. 
3 Many uncials add 8«. 
5 e\eyev in NBCLA 33. 
7 For ovros . 
8 ry is found only in minusc. 


practice (vide James v. 14). Many con- 
jectural opinions have been expressed 
as to the function or significance of 
the oil. According to Lightfoot and 
Schéttgen it was much used at the time 
by physicians. 

The instructions to the Twelve present 
an interesting problem in criticism and 
comparative exegesis. It is not im- 
probable that two versions of these 
existed and have been drawn upon by 
the synoptists, one in the Logia of 
Matthew, reproduced, Weiss thinks, sub- 
stantially in Lk. x. (mission of Seventy), 
the other in Mk. vi., used (Weiss) in 
Lk. ix. 1-6. Matthew, according to the 
same critic, mixes the two. Similarly 
Holtzmann, who, however, differs from 
Weiss in thinking the two versions 
entirely independent. Weiss recon- 
structs the original version of the Logia 
thus :— 

1. Mt. ix. 38 = Lk. x. 2, prayer for 
labourers. 

2. Lk. x. 3 = go forth, I send you as 
lambs among wolves. 

3. Mt. x. 5, 6, go not to Samaria, 
but to Israel only. 

4. Lk. x. 4-11, detailed instructions. 

Vv. 14-16. Herod and Fesus (Mt. xiv. 
I, 2, Lk. ix. 7-9).—Ver. 14. Kovcev: 
Herod heard, what? Christ’s name, To 
6. a. (pbavepoy yap éyév., a parenthesis) ? 
Or all that is stated in vv. 14, 15, court 
opinion about Jesus (from davepov to 
mpodyntey, a parenthesis)? Both views 
have been held, but the simplest view is 
that Herod heard of the doings of the 
Twelve, though it is difficult to believe 


Vide below. 


* SBCL omit eorw y (Tisch., W.H.). 
6 ort omit NBDL 33. 


. . «vex. NBLA have simply ovros nyep0n. 


that the report of their mission was the 
first tidings he had received of the great 


work of Jesus, especially in view of the 


understanding between the Pharisees 
and Herodians mentioned in iii. 6, In 
the reports which reached Herod the 
Twelve were merged in their Master. 
He was the hero of the whole Galilean 
movement. Such is the import of the 
statement that His name had become 
known.—Baotkets: strictly, Herod was 
only a tetrarch (Matthew and Luke), but 
it was natural for Mark writing for the 
Roman world to use this title, as it was 
applied freely in Rome to all eastern 
rulers.—éAeyev, he said, i.e., Herod. 
fteyov, the reading of BD, and adopted 
by W.H., puts the saying into the mouth 
of the court people. Matthew has taken 
it the former way, Luke the latter. The 
theory that Jesus was John risen looks 
more like the creation of a troubled 
conscience than the suggestion of light- 
minded courtiers, unless indeed it was 
thrown out by them as a jest, and yet it 
appears to be the aim of the evangelist 
first to report the opinions of others and 
then to give the king’s, emphatically 
endorsing one of the hypotheses.— 
éyjyeptat, is risen, and is now alive and 
active, the latter the point emphasised.— 
éveoyovow at &.: vide notes on Matthew. 
—Ver.15. “HAias, Elias redivivus, with 
extraordinary power and mission.—rpo- 
pyzys, etc., a prophet like one of the 
old prophets, not any of them redivivus. 
Luke understands it in the latter sense. 
—Ver. 16. “lwavynv: the accusative 
incorporated with the relative clause by 





i4—al. 


18. eye ydp 6 “ludvyns To “‘Hpddy, 
Ig. ‘H 8€ “Hpwdids 


Ty yuvaixa tod ddeApod gov.” 
att@, Kat WOedhey adtévy dwoxretvat: 


EYATTEAION 


> > ’ 
Kai ouK yoUvato. 


381 


“Ort odx eteoti cou exe 
évetyxev i Lk. xi. 53. 


u 20. 6 ydp 


x 


“Hpddys eoBetro tov “ludvyny, eidas adtévy dvopa Sikatoy Kal dyvov, 
kal guveTyper adtév: Kal dxovgas attol, woAdd éwoiter,! Kal 7Séws 


> am» 
QUTOU 7)KOUE. 


1 nmopea in BL. 
erove (‘T.R.) in ACDANZ®, etc. 


2 erounoev in NBCDLA. 


attraction both in position and in con- 
struction; vide Winer, § xxiv. 2, and 
Viger, p. 33. The king’s statement is 
very emphatic = the man whom I be- 
headed, John, he is risen (that is what it 
all means). 

Vv. 17-29. Story of Herod and the 
Baptist (Mt. xiv. 3-12). Herod’s en- 
dorsement of the theory that Jesus is 


John redivivus gives a convenient 
opportunity for reporting here post 
eventum the Baptist’s fate. The report 


is given in aorists which need not be 
translated as pluperfects (as in A. V. 
and R. V.).—Ver. 17. atrés yap 6‘H., 
for the same Herod, who made the 
speech just reported, etc.—thv yuvatka 
@iimov: some have supposed that 
the mistake is here made of taking 
Herodias for the wife of Philip the 
tetrarch, who in reality was husband of 
her daughter Salome (so Holtz. in H. C.). 
Herodias had previously been the wife of 
a rich man in Jerusalem, step-brother of 
Herod Antipas, referred to by Josephus 
(Ant. J., xvili., 5, 4) by the name of 
Herod, the family name. He may, of 
course, have borne another name, such 
as Philip. Even if there bea slip itisa 
matter of small moment compared to the 
moral interest of the gruesome story.— 
Ver.19. 7% 5é‘Hp.: the murderous mood 
is by Mark ascribed to Herodias; in her 
it would certainly be strongest and un- 
checked by any other feeling. In Herod, 
if the mood was there, it was accompanied 
by worthier impulses (vide on Matthew). 
—tveixev, had a grudge (xéAov under- 
stood, so Fritzsche al.) against him 
(att, dative of disadvantage); or, kept 
in mind what John had said, treasured 
up against him, with fixed hate and 
purpose of revenge.—xal ovx 7dvvaro, 
and was not able, to compass her end 
for a while.—Ver. 20 gives the reason.—- 
époBeiro, feared, a mixture of reverence 
and superstitious dread towards the 


21. nal yevouevns Hyépas edxaipou, Ste “Hpwdns Tois 

A cal A a aj 

everiois avtod Seimvov emotes? tots %peytoracw atrod nal Tors 
Ys 


Rev. vi. 15; 
XVili. 23. 


Memph. vers. (R.V., Tisch., Trg., marg., W.H., Ws5.). 
Lat. and Syr. verss. 


prophet and man of God.--cvveryjpe., 
not merely observed him (A. V.)—this, 
too neutral and colourless—kept him 
safe (R. V.) from her fixed malice often 
manifested but not likely to have its way 
with him in ordinary circumstances, — 
a&kovcas woddG implies frequent meet- 
ings between the Baptist and the king, 
either at Machaerus or at Tiberias.— 
ymwépe, the true reading, not only on 
critical grounds (attested by BL), but 
also on psychological, corresponding 
exactly to the character of the man— 
a Sipvxos avnp—drawn two ways, by 
respect for goodness on the one hand, 
by evil passions on the other. He was 
at a loss what to do in the matter of his 
wife’s well-known purpose, _ shiftless 
(atropetv, to be without resources) ; half 
sympathised with her wish, yet could 
not be brought to the point.—1S€ws a. 
Hkovey, ever heard him with pleasure; 
every mew hearing exorcising the 
vindictive demon, even the slightest 
sympathy with it, for a time. 

Vv. 21-29. The fatal day.—Ver. 21. 
eUkaipou, a day convenient for the long 
cherished purpose of MHerodias; so 
regarded by her as well as by the 
evangelist. She had a chance then, if 
ever, and might hope that by wine, love, 
and the assistance of obsequious guests, 
her irresolute husband would at last be 
brought to the point (Grotius). The 
word occurs again in the N. T., Heb. 
iv. 16, evKatpov PorJerav = seasonable 
SUCCOUT.—peytoTtaow (peytoTaves from 
péytotos), magnates. A word belonging 
to Macedonian Greek, condemned by 
Phryn. (p, 196: péya Suvaneévor the right 
expression), frequent in Sept. With 
these magnates, the civil authorities, are 
named the chief military men (ytAtdpxots) 
and the socially important persons of 
Galilee (pwro.s)—an imposing gather- 
ing on Herod’s birthday.—Ver. 22. 
Npecev, it, the dancing, pleased Herod 


382 KATA MAPKON VI. 
x'udpxorg Kal Tots mpwrors THs FadtAalas, 22. cal eicehOovons THs 
Buyarpds attijs Tis! “HpwdidSos, Kal dpynoapdrys, Kal dpecdons? 
7S “Hpddy Kal tots cuvavaxerpévors, etrev & Bacieds ® 7d Kopaclw, 
“ Atrmody pe & dav Oédns, Kal Sdow coi-” 
"Or 6 édv * 
24. “H Sé® éfeModoa elwe tH pyTpPl adrijs, 


23. Kal Gpooev ait, 
BE aiTions, Sdow col, Ews Huloous THs Bactheias pov.” 
“ Ti r UB 6.” 
t aitncopar ® ; 
25. Kai 
* oroudijs oe tov Baotéa, qTHcaTO, 


‘H_ 8é etwe, “Thy Kepadty “lwdvvou tod Bamriotoo.” 7 


k Rom. zi. eicehBodca ebbdws pera 
8. 
Wien mere ; Aé€youca, “dw iva ee Sas €& abras® éwi mivake a Kepadiy 


mn > 
fet lwdvyou Tod Bamtiotou.§ 26. Kat mepiiurros yevopevos 6 Baoiheds, 


vi 1 5. 9ta Tods Spkous Kal Tods ouvavakerpévous® odx HOéAnoEv adTiy 


Laut AOerHoa.1? 27. Kat edbdws dmootethas 6 Baoiheds orexouhdtwpa }! 
6 Se15 diwehOdv dare- 


kepddioey autov év tH gudakd, 28. Kal Hveyxe Thy Kepaddy aitoo 


énéragey évexOijvarl? thy Kepadiy adtod. 


r , \ oo” Feat ~ td ‘ BY » 
Et WLVGKL, KQL édwKev aQuT™y Tw KOpacL@ * KG@L TO kopdovoy €dwxKev 


1 For avrys THs NBDLA have avrov (omitting rys), adopted by W.H. contrary, 
Weiss thinks, to all history, all grammar, and the context (vide in Meyer). 


2 For kat apeo. BCL 33 have npeoev. 

30 Se Back. arev in SBCLA 33. 

4 BA have o tt eav, the most probable reading (W.H. text). 

5 For 7 8 NBLA 33 have Kat. § a:tycopar in NABCDGLA 33. 
7 Bawrifovtos in NBLA. 8 cEauTys Sws pot in $BCLA. 

° avaxetmevous in BCLA. 10 ager. auTny in $YBCLA. 

11 oqekovdatopa in NABL al, 12 eveyxat in SBCA (T.R. in DL). 


a a oe 


18 For o 8 BCLA have kau. 


and his guests.—r. xopaciy, to the girl, 
as in v. 41-2, not necessarily a child; 
the word was used familiarly like the 
Scotch word ‘‘lassie” ; disapproved by 
Phryn., p. 73. —atrnody p €... @pooev: 
promise first, followed = oath after a 
little interval, during which the girl 
naturally hesitated what to ask.—Ver. 
23. ‘ploous, genitive of jptovs, like 
jplon (ra, plural), a late form = the 
half, of my kingdom: maudlin amorous 
generosity.x—Ver. 24. She goes out to 
ask advice of her mother, implying that 
she had not previously got instructions 
as Matthew’s account suggests.—Ver. 
25. €v0ds pera orovdzs, without delay 
and with quick step, as of one whose 
heart was in the business, There had 
been no reluctance then on the girl’s 
part, no need for much educating to 
bring her to the point; vide remarks on 
wpoPiBacdeioa in Mt. xiv. 8 Her 
mother’s child.—étaurfs (supply Spas), 
on the spot, at once; request proffered 
with a cool pert impudence almost out- 


doing the mother.—Ver. 26. mep{Avios 
yevépevos: a concessive clause, kataep 
understood = and the king, though ex- 
ceedingly sorry, yet, etc.—6pKovs: there 
might be more oaths than one (vide on 
Matthew), but the plural was sometimes 
used for a single oath. Schanz cites 
instances from Aeschylus and Xenophon. 
—alerijcat a., to slight her, by treating 
the oath and promise as a joke; a late 
word, used, in reference to persons, in 
the sense of breaking faith with (here 
only). Kypke renders the word here: 
‘‘noluit fidem illi datam fallere,” citing 
instances from Diod., Polyb., and Sept. 
—Ver. 27. omexovAdtopa = speculator 
in Latin, literally a watcher, a military 
official of the empire who acted partly as 
courier, partly as a police officer, partly 
as an executioner; illustrative citations 
in Wetstein. The word found its way 
into the Jewish language (here only).— 
Ver. 29 relates how the disciples of John 
buried the carcase of their master.—éy 
pynpew, inatomb. The phrase recalls 


22-—33. 


aurhy TH pytpt adris. 


EYATTEAION 


29. Kat dkotvcavtes ot pabytai atroi 


nm ~ > a , 
ov, kal Hpay 7d WrOpa avrod, Kal €OyKxay avts év TH) pyypetw. 
‘ s ero = 0, Xx ‘ x ? “A ‘ é , 
30. Kat cuvdyovta ot adroorokot mpos Tov Ingouv, Kat amny- 


~ , ,e@ , 
yetkay auT@ mdvta, Kal? dca émoinoay Kat doa edidafar. 


31. kat 


* Rt a 2. A ee > yf > oe , \ 
E€L\TEv” QUTOLS, Acute UPLELS GQUTOL KAT LOLGY ELS EPH PLOY TOTTOY, Kat 


dvataverQe* diyor.” 
A , 
moddot, Kat oudé hayety quKalpour.® 


~ , > , 
TOmov TO thoiw® nat’ idtar. 


? e 2 , ‘ c € , 
Hoay yap ot épxopevor Kat ot UmdyorTes 


32. Kal dawndOor els Epnpov 


33- Kat etSov attots bmdyortas ot 


dxAot,”? Kal eméyvwoay avrav® wodhot- Kai mel awd wacdy Tayi Actsiii.1 


méhewv * TUVESPALOY EKEL, Kal 


1 Omit tw most uncials (D has it). 
3 Leyes in NBCLA 33. 

5 evxatpovuy in most uncials. 

7 Omit ot ox. NABDLAZ al. 


™ mpomAGov auTous, Kal cuvyhOov mpds 47. 


m Lk. xxii 


3 Omit nat SBCDLAZ, 
4 avaTravcagde in SBCA. 


S+w wh. ais ep. ToTov in KBLA. 


8 BD have eyvwoay and without an object (avrov or avrovs). 


to mind the burial of Jesus. Did the 
evangelist wish to suggest for the re- 
flection of his readers a parallel between 
the fate of the Baptist and that of Christ ? 
(So Klostermann). 

Vv. 30-33. Return of the Twelve (Mt. 
xiv. 13, Lk. ix. 10, 11).—Ver. 30 transfers 
us from the past date of the horrible 
deed just related to the time when the 
fame of Jesus and His disciples recalled 
the deed of guilt to Herod’s mind.— 
guvayovTat ot amdoTokot mpos Tov 
*Incovyv, the apostles (here only, and not 
in the technical sense of after days, 
but = the men sent out on the Galilean 
mission, the missioners) gather to Jesus. 
Where? after how long? and what has 
Jesus been doing the while? Noanswer 
is possible. These are gaps in the 
evangelic history.—wavra 60a ém.: sug- 
gests that they had great things to tell, 
though vv. 12, 13 create very moderate 
expectations. The repetition of éaa be- 
fore é3i8agav = how much they had 
taught (‘‘ quanta docuerant,” Fritzsche), 
may surprise. The teaching element 
could not be extensive in the range of 
topics. Yet, if it took the form of fer- 
sonal narrative concerning Fesus, it 
might be copious enough, and really the 
principal feature of the mission. Vide 
notes on Mt., chap. x.—Ver. 31. wpets 
avrol, eithen: you yourselves, vos zpsi, 
without the crowd (Meyer, Schanz), or, 
better: you the same men who have been 
hard at work and need rest (Weiss in 
Meyer, Holtz.,H.C.). This sympathy of 
Jesus with the Twelve reflects His own 
craving for rest which He often un- 


successfully strove to obtain.—davarav- 
gaoQe, aorist—only a breathing space in 
a life of toil.—ot ép. kat ot uray. Many 
coming and going: a constant stream of 
people on some errand; no sooner done 
with one party than another presented it- 
self—no leisure.—ovde hayeiv evxatpour: 
no leisure (cf. evxatpos, ver. 21), even to 
eat; imperfect, implying that it was not 
a solitary occurrence. What was the 
business on hand? Probably a political 
movement in Christ’s favour with which 
the Twelve sympathised. Vide John vi. 
15.—Ver. 32. t@ Wroly. The boat 
which stood ready for service (iii. 9).— 
kat’ tdfav, privately, i.e., with Jesus only 
in the boat, and without other boats 
accompanying. As to the reason for 
this withdrawal into privacy cf. Mk.’s 
account with Mt.’s (xiv. 13), who con- 
nects with the report of John’s death. 
Beyond doubt, Mk.’s is the correct ac- 
count. The excursion was an attempt 
to escape from the crowd and from 
dangerous illusions ; again without suc- 
cess.—Ver. 33 explains why.—et8oy, etc., 
they (the people) saw them departing.— 
éméyvwoay (or tyvwoay, BD) is better 
without an object (atrovs or avroy) = 

they knew, not who they were, but what 
they were after, where they were going, 
doubtless from the course they were 
steering.—welq (from eds, adjective, 
686, understood), on foot, by land 
round the end of the lake.—ovvéSpapov, 
they ran together, excited and exciting, 
each town on the way contributing its 
rill to the growing stream of eager 
human beings; what a picture! The 


384 


KATA MAPKON V1. 


auréy.! 34. wal efehOdy elder 5 “Ingots? mohdy dxdov, Kal éomhay- 
xviabn én’ avrots,® Sri joav ds mpdBara ph €xovta Trouneva* Kal 
Hpgaro SiSdonew avtods modkdd. 35. Kat Sn Spas woddfjs 
yevoueryns, tpoveNOdrres avTa* of pabytat avtod Aéyoucry,** "Orn 
Epypds cot 6 réros, Kat 78n dpa wordy: 36. drdducov avtous, 
iva darehOdvtes eis Tods KUKAw dypods Kal kwpas, dyopdowoww éauTois 
Gprous®+ ti yap pdywouw ovx exouow.”> 37. “O Sé daoxpibeis 
elev autots, ““Adte aurots dpets payely.” Kat déyousw aura, 
“Are Odvtes dyopdowpey Staxociwy Syvapiwy® dprous, kal Sapev7 
autois payetv.” 38. ‘O 8€ Adyet aurois, “Méaous aprous éxere ; 
imdyete xai® Sere.” Kai yvdvtes Aéyouar, “ Névte, kal Svo ix Ouas.” 
39. Kat éwératey avrots dvaxdivar® mdvtas cupmdéoia cupméota émi 
TO xdwpa xéptw. 40. kal dvémecov mpacial mpacrat, dva 1° éxardy 
kat aval? weytyKkovta. 41. kat AaBay Ttods mévte Gptous Kat Tods 
SUo ixOvas, dvaBdépas ets Tov ovpavdy, EUAdynoe* Kal Katéxhace 
Tods Gptous, kal €di8ou Tois pabytats adtod’ - iva rapabdary }? 
Kai tous So ixOvas euepice waor- 42. Kal Epayov mdytes, Kai 
éxoptdc@yncay: 43. Kal pay kdacpdtwv Sadexa Kopivous mAypers,}? 


atrois: 


1\9BLA omit rat ovvnA8ov wpos avtoy (Tisch., W.H.). 
4 In BA, omitted in ND. 
exougiy BLA have simply tt daywouy (Tisch., W.H.). 


3 ew avtTovs in NBD. 
5 For aprous ... 
§ Sv. Stax. in RABLA. 

8 kat omit NBDL 33. 

0 kara in KBD (Tisch., W.H.). 
12 gapaTiGwory in NBLA. 


ultimate result, a congregation of 5000. 
This the climax of popularity, and, from 
the fourth Gospel we learn, its crisis 
(chap. vi.).—po7AOov, “outran”’ (A. V.), 
anticipated = $@davewv in classics. 

Vv. 34-44. The feeding (Mt. xiv. 14-21, 
Lk. ix. 11-17).—Ver. 34. “pfaro 884- 
axe, He began to teach, constrained 
by pity (€omAayxviobn), though weary 
of toil and of popularity. To teach; 
Mt. says to heal. There could be few, 
if any, sick in a crowd that had come in 
such a hurry.—Ver. 35. pas woAdjs, 
it being late in the day.—roAvs was ex- 
tensively used by the Greeks in all sorts 
of connections, time included; examples 
in Kypke and Hermann’s Viger, p. 137 f. 
The phrase recurs in last clause of this 
verse (Spa todAx).—Ver. 37. Syvap. 
Stax. Gprovs, loaves of (purchasable 
for) 200 denarii ; the sum probably sug- 
gested by what the Twelve knew they 
were in possession of at the time = seven 
pounds in the purse of the Jesus-circle 


2 Omit ol. NAB ail. pl. 
4* eXeyov in BLA. 


7 Swowpevin NBD. -opey LA (W.H.). 
PavakhiGnvat in SB. avaxdc.was DLA. 
LD avtov omit KWBLA. 


3B has xAacpata §. Kodivwy wAnpwpara (W.H.). 


(Grotius, Holtz., H. C.).—Ver. 39. 
oupméoia cup. Hebraistic for ava cup. 
(cf. 800 Svo, ver. 7)=in dining com- 
panies.—émt +@ xAwp@ xdptw, on the 
green grass; a reedy, marshy place near 
the mouth of the Jordan at the north end 
of the lake. Vide Stanley’s description 
(Sinai and Palestine).—Ver. 40. wpactai 
mpactat= ava mpacias, in garden flower 
plots, or squares, picturesque in fact and in 
description, bespeaking an eye-witness 
of an impressionable nature like Peter.— 
Ver. 43. Kal 7pay, etc., and they took 
up, as fragments (kAdopara, BL), the 
fillings (wAnpopara) of twelve baskets.— 
Kal ama tav ly@vwv, and of the fishes, 
either over and above what was in the 
twelve baskets (Fritzsche), or some 
fragments of the fishes included in them 
(Meyer).—Ver. 44. -mwevtaxtoxiAtor av- 
Spes, 5000 men: one loaf for 1000! Mt. 
adds: ywpis yvvatka@v Kat adiwy, 
women and children not counted. Of 
these, in the circumstances, there would 


34-—51. EYATTEAION 


44. Kal joav ot aydvtes Tovs dptous dcet! 


mevTakioxidtot Gvdpes. 45. Kat e00éws AvdyKace Tods palytds 
adtod éuPijvat eis Td wotov, Kal mpodyew eis Td mépay mpds 
BynOcaiddy, Ews adrds dmohion? Tév Sxhov. 46. Kai 
pevos adtois, dmjhOev eis TO dpos mpocedgacbat. 


Kat dnd Tay ixOdwr. 


47. Kat dias 
yevonévns, jv TS wrotoy év péow Tis Oaddoons, Kai abtos pdvos 
émt ris yas. 48. Kal elSev® adtods BacanLoudvous ev 6 
Zatvew> Fv yap 6 dvepos évavrios aiitois. Kai® awepi terdpryy 
dudaxhy THs vuKTos Epxetat mpds adTous, wepiTatdy emi Tis 


385 


* dtrotagd- n Lk. ix. 61; 


Xiv. 33. 
Acts xviii 
18. 


Qaddoons: Kat 70ede mapedOetv adtous. 
wepimatoovta émt THs Bardoons,* edofav pdvracna ecivar,° 
dvéexpagav: 50. wdvtes yap auTdy eidor, Kal érapdyOnoav. 


49. ot Sé iSdvres adrov 
kal 

A 
kat 


etOéws® ehddnoe pet aurav, kat déyet autois, “ Oapceite: eyw 


cit, py poPeiobe.” 


51. Kat dvéBy mpds autos ets Td mAotov, Kal 


> an Lal , 
éxémagev 6 Gvepos* Kal Atay éx mweptoaod ” év gautois eEtcravto, Kai 


1 S8BDLA omit ce. 


2 amrodvet in KYBL. 


atro\von is from Mt, 


3.8ey in S$BDLA, which (D excepted) also omit was before wept tetaptny 


pudakny. 
4 em. T. 0. epi. in NBLA 33. 


evdey Kat is a simplification of the construction. 


5 ort havtacpa eotiy in BLA 33 (Tisch., W.H.). 


6 9 Se evdus in NBLA. 
TSEBLA omit ex wepiooouv (W.H.). 


It suits the situation and may have fallen 


out by oversight, or been omitted as superfluous, though really not so, 


be few, therefore probably not referred to 


by Mk. 
Vv. 45-52. Another sea-anecdote (Mt. 
xiv. 22-33). Luke drops out here and 


does not join his brother evangelists till 
we come to viii. 27.—Ver. 45. evs: no 
time to lose; it was getting late.— 
Wvayxace, vide on Mt.—eis To wépay : 
we are apt to take this as a matter of 
course as = to the other (western) side 
of the lake, and consequently to assume 
that wpos ByOaciSdy points to a Beth- 
saida there, distinct from Bethsaida 
Julias (John i. 44). But the expression 
eis T. 37. may mean from the south end 
of the plain El Batiha, on the eastern 
side, to the north end towards Bethsaida 
Julias, the rendezvous for the night. In 
that case the contrary wind which over- 
took the disciples would be the prevailing 
wind from the north-east, driving them 
in an opposite direction away from 
Bethsaida towards the western shore. 
This is the view advocated by Furrer. 
Vide Zeitschrift des Paldstina-Vereins, 
B. ii. (1879). Holtz., H. C., thinks that 
either this view must be adopted or the 
true reading in the clause referring to B. 


must be that represented in some Latin 
copies: ‘‘trans fretum a Bedsaida,” C. 
Veron. ; ‘‘a Bethsaida,” C. Monac.—Ver. 
46. adworagdpevos, having dismissed 
them, 1.¢e., the multitude; late Greek 
condemned by Phryn., p. 23 (&dvXov 
mavu).—Ver, 48. év t@ éAatvewv, in pro 
pelling (the ship with oars).—-ept ter. 
¢gv\., about the fourth watch, between 
three and six in the morning, towards 
dawn.—7@ede mapedOetv, He wished to 
pass them—“ praeterire eos,” Vul. ; it ap- 
peared so to them.—Ver. 50. Not quite 
an instance of Mark’s habit of iteration: 
explains how they came to think it was a 
phantasm. All saw what looked like 
Jesus, yet they could not believe it was 
He, areal man, walking on the water; 
therefore they took fright and rushed to 
the conclusion: a spectre!—Ver. 51. 
éxdwacey, asin iv. 39—Alav éx wepircov, 
very exceedingly, a double superlative, 
a most likely combination for Mark, 
though ék wep. is wanting in some im- 
portant MSS. and omitted in W.H. 
Cf. wrepexreptoeod in Eph. iii. 2u.-— 
Ver. 52 reflects on the astonishment of 
the Twelve as blameworthy in view of 


25 


386 KATA MAPKON VI. 52—56. 


€Oavpalov.! 52. ot ydp ouriKay éml rois dprois Hy yap 4 Kapdia 


o Ch. vil. aurav ? ° remwpwpevy. 
xi ig "53. KAl Starepdcavres FAOov ewl thy yav® Cernoupéer,* Kai 


Saree mpotwppicOncav. 54. Kal éfehOdvrwy adtav ex Tod mAoiou, evOews 
mT  emeyvévtes autév, 55. wepiSpapdvtes ® SAnv Thy wepixwpov ® exeivyy, 
2 Cor. iv Hpgavto emi rots KpaBBdrors tods Kakds Exovtas ” wepipépery, 
10. 


4 Ld ? , > 
56. Kat dwou Qv civemopeveto eis 


7 


‘Strou WKouoy Ste exer’ dott. 
xdpas 4% modes 48 dypous, ev Tats dyopats ériBouv ® tods doQevoir- 


iv. 14. 


. > J ~ nr ac , > a“ 
Tas, kal wapexddour aurdv, iva Kav Tod Kpagmedou Tod patiou auToU 
« 5. \e@ C4 10 ? a ’ 
GpwvTa.’ Kat door Gv nrTovto !° auto’, éowLorto. 


I SEBLA omit cat ePavpalov, which is superfluous. 

2 For nv yap . . . avtrwy BLA have aAA yy, etc., and ANBE avrwr n Kap, 
Fem. Tt. y. NAdov in NBLA 33. 

4 es before Fev. in NBLA 33. 

 wepreSpapov in BLA 33 (with «at before npfavro). 

§ ywpay in NBLA 33. T exe. omit NBLA. 

8 es before modes and aypovs in NBDA. 

9 eriOeray in NBLA.  yWavro in SBDLA 33 al. 


the recent feeding of the multitude. 
One might rather have expected a re- 
ference to the stilling of the storm in 
crossing to Decapolis. But that seems 
to have appeared a small matter com- 
pared with walking on the sea. The 
evangelist seems anxious to show how 
much the Twelve needed the instruction 
to which in the sequel Jesus gives Him- 
self more and more. 

Vv. 53-56. The landing (Mt. xiv. 34- 
36).—Ver. 53. mpotwpplabnaav (pos 
dpplfw from Spyos), they came to anchor, 
or landed on the beach; here only in 
N. T.—Ver. 55. éi rots «paBBdrots, 
upon their beds, vide ii. 4.—wepidépev, 
to carry about from place to place. If 
they did not find Jesus at one place, they 
were not discouraged, but carried their 
sick to another place where He was 
likely tobe. Their energy, not less than 
the word xpaBBarots, recalls the story 
in ii. I-12.—6arov 7Kovov Stu €or, not: 
wherever He was=6mov jv, but: wher- 
ever they were told He was; éotwy, 
present, from the point of view of those 
who gave the information in indirect 
discourse. Vide on this, Burton, M. and 
T., § 351-—Ver. 56. kopas, médets, 
a&ypovs : point probably to a wider sphere 
of activity than the plain of Gennesaret. 
This was practically the close of the 
healing ministry, in which the expecta- 
tion and faith of the people were wound 
up to the highest pitch. 


CHAPTER VII. WASHING oF Hanps. 
SYROPHENICIAN Woman. A_ DEArF- 
MuTE HEALED.—Vv. 1-23. Concerning 
ceremonial ablutions (Mt. xv. 1-20).— 
Ver. 1. «at connects what follows very 
loosely with what goes before: not tem- 
poral sequence but contrast between 
phenomenal popularity and hostility o1 
the religious leaders of the people, in the 
view of the evangelist.—tivés Tov ypap., 
etc., some of the scribes who had come 
from Jerusalem, cf. iii. 22, and remarks 
there.—Ver. 2. wat lSdévres: the sen- 
tence beginning with these words pro- 
perly runs on to the end of ver. 5, but 
the construction of so long a sentence 
overtaxes the grammatical skill of the 
writer, so it is broken off unfinished 
after the long explanatory clause about 
Jewish customs, vv. 3-4—a kind of 
parenthesis—and a new sentence begun 
at ver. 5=and seeing, etc. (for the 
Pharisees, etc.), and the Pharisees and 
scribes ask; instead of: they ask, etc. 
The sense plain enough, though gram- 
mar crude.—rtivas T. pad., some of the 
disciples, not all. When? On their 
evangelistic tour? (Weiss; Holtz., 
H. C.) We have here, as in i. 24, a 
case of attraction=seeing some that 
they eat (Stt éo8iovo1, W.H.), for seeing 
that some eat (St tivés éo.).—avirrots, 
unwashed, added to explain for Gentile 
readers the technical terrn kotvais = pro- 
fane (cf. Rom. xiv. 14).—Vv. 3-4. Ex- 








VII. 1—6. 


EYATTEAION 


387 


VII. 1. KAI cuvdéyovta: mpds autor ol Sapicator, Kat Ties TOY 


ypappatéwy, é\Odvres aad ‘lepovoAUpwv: 2. Kal iSdvtes Tivds Tov 


6 lol > 7 a ~ 1 , a? » , > la 

padytav adtod “Kowais! xepai, toit éotw dvimtos, éoPiovtas 
dptous ? énéppavto®: 3. (ot yap Papicator Kai mdvtes ot ‘lovdator, 
édv ph Pmuypi vipwvtat tas Xetpas, obK eoblouct, Kparoivres Thy 


1a ver. 5. 
Acts x. 14. 
Rom. xiv 
14. Heb. 
X. 29. 

b here only. 


rapdéSoaw tov mpecButépwr: 4. Kal dwd dyopas, édv ph * Bawri-¢ bk x 38. 


gwvrat,* obk éoOiougt* Kai GAdNa wokAd éorw & wapédaBov Kpateir, 
dad 4 , Q a ‘ , A ~. 56 
Barticpods wornpiwy Kal fteotdv Kai xadkiwy Kat KAwwoy °-) 


d Col. ii. 12. 
Heb. vi. 2; 


” 6 2 a >_A ¢ A ‘ « a 1x. 10. 
5. €meta® éwepwracw atTov of Papioaror Kat OL YPOPPaTEls, ¢ Acts xxi. 


“Acari of pabijtal cou od *mepiwatoiot™” Kata thy wapddoow tay 


21. Rom 


mpecBurépwv, ddd avimrots ® xepoly éxOiouc Tov dptov;” 6. ‘O Be 


drroxpileis® etrev aidtois, “Or: KadOs mpoepryteucer “Hoatas rept 


par Tay broKpitOv, ds yéypamrat, ‘OvTos 6 ads Tots Xelheot pe 


1 ott before Kowats with ecOrovor in BLA 33 (Tisch., W.H.). 


2 cous before aptovs in BDLNAZ. 


3 Omit epepavro NABLA. It was doubtless introduced to help the construction. 


489B have paytiowvrat (W.H. text). 


5 kat kAtvwy is omitted in BLA (W.H. marg.), but found in D, 


It might fall 


out by similar ending, and was hardly likely to be added as a gloss. 


6 kat in NBDL 33. 


7 ov wept. ot a0. gov in BLA (Tisch., W.H.). 
8 xowats in $BD for avewrots, which seems an explanatory substitute, 
® Omitted in BLA 33, also ott before nados. 


planatory statement about Jewish cus- 
toms, not in Mt.—wdvres ot “lovd.: the 
Pharisees, the thorough-going virtuosi 
in religion, were a limited number ; but 
in this and other respects the Jews 
generally followed ancient custom. The 
expression reminds us of the Fourth 
Gospel in its manner of referring to the 
people of Israel—the Jews—as foreigners. 
Mark speaks trom the Gentile point of 
view.—mvypq-, with the fist, the Vulgate 
has here crebro, answering to mvuxva, a 
reading found in $§. Most recent inter- 
preters interpret wvypq as meaning that 
they rubbed hard the palm of one hand 
with the other closed, so as to make sure 
that the part which touched food should 
be clean. (So Beza.) For other inter- 
pretations vide Lightfoot, Bengel, and 
Meyer.—Ver. 4. am’ dyopas, from mar- 
ket (coming understood=érav @@wor 
in D), a common ellipsis, examples in 
Raphel, Kypke, and Bos, Eli. Gr., p. 98. 
—pavrlowvrat (SQB), they sprinkle. The 
reading, Bawticwvrat (T.R.), may be in- 
terpreted either as= dipping of the hands 
(mersionem manuum, Lightfoot, Wet- 
stein), or, bathing of the whole body. 
(Meyer. ‘The statement proceeds by 


way of climax: before eating they wash 
the hands always. When they come 
from market they take a bath before 
eating.” )—trotnplov, ferrav, yadkiwv: 
the evangelist explains how the Jews not 
only cleansed their own persons, but also 
all sorts of household utensils—alto- 
gether a serious business, that of pre- 
serving ceremonial purity. The two 
first articles, cups and jugs, would be 
of wood; earthen vessels when defiled 
had to be broken (Lev. xv. 12). The 
second word, teotav, is a Latinism= 
sextus or sextarius, a Roman measure= 
14 English pints; here used without 
reference to contents=urceus in Vulg. 
— xadkiwy=vessels of brass. The kat 
wxAuvov, added in some MSS., will mean 
couches for meals on which diseased 
persons may have lain (lepers, etc.). 
—Ver.5. At last we come to the point, 
the complaint of the jealous guardians o! 
Jewish custom, as handed down fron 
the elders (kata thy wapadoaw Tt. 1.), 
against the disciples of Jesus, and in- 
directly against Jesus Himself —8.ar( 
ov wepitmatovct Kara: for this Mt. 
substitutes §. wapaBalvoucr. 

Vv. 6-13. The reply of Jesus. It con- 


388 


KATA MAPKON VII. 


Tid, 4 Sé Kapdia adray méppw dwdxer dm’ éuod. 7. pany Se 
oéBovtai pe, SiSdoxovtes SiSackadias, évrddpara dvOpdmwy.” 8. 
"Ahévres yap} thy evtohty Tod Geod, xpateite Tv twapddoow Tay 
dvOpdrwv, Barricpods feotdv Kal wornpiwy, Kal Gdda wapdpora 


{1 Cor.{.19, TOLAGTGa WoAAG trovette.” 2 g. Kal EXeyev abrois, “‘ Kahds ‘ dbereire 


Gal. ii. 21; 


iii. 15. 


Heb. x. 28. 


Ty évrod}y Tod cod, iva Thy wapddoow Spay mHpHonTE. 10. Mworjs 
yap elwe, ‘Tipa tov warépa cou Kal Thy pytépa gou-” Kat, ‘6 
Kaxohoy@vy mwatépa 4 pytépa Oavdtw teheutdtw-” II. ‘Ypeis Se 
héyete, "Edv elrn avOpwros TH watpl 4 TH pntpl, KopBav, (5 éor, 
Sapov,) 5 édv €& enod dhehnOfs- 12. Kal® odxers ddlete avrdv oudév 
moijoa TO watpi avTod* % TH pytpl adrod,* 13. dxupouvtes tov 
Adyor Tod Geod TH mapaddce: Sudv 4 wapeddxare- Kal mapdpora 
14. Kat mpooxaheodpevos mévta® tay 
re 


oudév éotiv Efwlev Tod dvOpdrrou etotropeudpevoy eis autdv, 6 Sdvarat 


A a bes 
To.adtTa wwoAAa 7rovecte. 


dxAov, EXeyev auTots, “’Axoveté® pou wdvtes, Kai cuviete.® 


1 yap omitted in NBLA. 
2? All after av@pexwy is omitted in \RBLA, and is obviously a gloss taken from 


ver. 4. 
3 Omit kat NBDA. 


* SBDL omit avrov in both places. 


5radty instead of wavra (substituted for a word not understood) in $BDLA, 


Vulg. Cop. 


6 axovoatein BDL and ovvetrein BLA, The presents in T.R. are from Mt. 


sists of a prophetic citation and a counter- 
charge, given by Mt. in an inverted 
order. Commentators, according to 
their bias, differ as to which of the two 
versions is secondary.—Ver. 6, Kalas: 
twice used in Mk. (ver. 9), here = appo- 
sitely, in ver. g ironically = bravely, 
finely. The citation from Isaiah is 
given in identical terms in the two 
accounts.—Ver. 8. At this point Mk.’s 
account seems secondary as compared 
with Mt.’s. This verse contains Christ’s 
comment on the prophetic oracle, then, 
ver. 9, He goes on to say the same 
thing over again.—Ver. 10. Mwojs, 
Moses ; God in Mt., the same thing in 
Jewish esteem.—Ver. 11. KopBav: Mk. 
gives first the Hebrew word, then its 
Greek equivalent.—Ver. 12. Here again 
the construction limps; it would have 
been in order if there had been no Aéyere 
after tpeis at beginning of ver. 11 = but 
ye, when a man says, etc., do not allow 
him, etc.—Ver. 13.  wapeddxare, 
which ye have delivered. The receivers 
are also transmitters of the tradition, 
adding their quota to the weight of 
authority.—7rapdépora totattTa oda: 
many such similar things, a rhetorically 


redundant phrase (such, similar) ex- 
pressive of contempt. Cf. Col. ii. 21. 
Heb. ix. ro. 

Vv. 14-16. The people taken into the 
discussion. — mpogKxaherdpevos: the 
people must have retired a little into the 
background, out of respect for the 
Jerusalem magnates.—dkotcaté pov, 
etc., hear me all ye, and understand; a 
more pointed appeal than Mt.’s: hear 
and understand.—Ver. 15. This saying 
is called a parable in ver. 17, and Weiss 
contends that it must be taken strictly as - 
such, i.¢., as meaning that it is not foods 
going into the body through the mouth 
that defile ceremonially, but corrupt 
matters issuing from the body (as in 
leprosy). Holtzmann, H. C., concurs. 
Schanz dissents on the ground that on 
this view the connection with unclean 
hands is done away with, and a quite 
foreign thought introduced. Mt., it is 
clear, has not so understood the saying 
(xv. 11), and while he also calls it a 
parable (ver. 15) he evidently means 
thereby an obscure, enigmatical saying, 
needing explanation. Why assume that 
Mk. means anything more? True, he 
makes Jesus say, not that which cometh 


7—23. EYATTEAION 


389 


autév Kow@oar!- adda Ta exopeudpeva dm adtod, éxeivd? gor 


A a 
Ta KoLVOUVTA Tov GvOpwmroy. 16. Et Tis Exet Gra dkovew, dkoueTw.® 
\o@ aA a 
17. Kat ore etonhGev eis otkov dard Tod dyxXou, © émnpwtwy adtdv ol g Ch. xi. 29. 
9 A ear R a aA k. xx. 40 
palyntat adtod mept tis mapaBodjs. 


QA ~ 
18. Kai Aé€yer avtots, (rivd 70). 
A ~ 
“OUTw Kal Guets “dodverol éote; 
3 


3 A @ A A ” 
oU voetTe OTL Tay TO EEwOeV bh Rom.i.21, 
31; X. 19. 


> , > a ™” > , SB. _ & ~ 
ELOTTOPEVOLLEVOY ELG TOV avOpwirov ou Suvatat QuTOV KOLYWOdL ; 


19. Ott oUK eiomopederat adTod eis Thy Kapdicv, aAN’ cis Thy 
kothiav: Kal eis Tov dpedpava exmopedetat, Kabapifoy® mdvta Ta 


Bpdpara.” 


€xelvo Kowvot Toy avOpwroy. 


20. “Eheye 86, ““Ott 73 ek Tod dvOpdmou éxropeudpevoy, 


21. €owbev ydp ex THs Kapdlas Tov 


dvOpdmwv ot Siahoyrcpol of Kakol éxmopevovTat, potyetal, Topvetat, 
$dvor, 22. komrat,© mheovegiar, movynpiar, Sddos, doeAyera, dpbadpds 


movnpds, Brachdnpia, smepyoavia, addppootry. 


23. wdvta Ta’ta 


A x, 4 > , ‘ ta) A ” » 
Ta Tovynpa éowbev EKTTOPEVETGL, KAL KOLVOL TOY dv@pwrroy. 


! kowwworat avtoy in NLA (B to Kowvovy a.), 
37a ex Tov av0. exirop. in SBDLA 33, and exewa omitted in BLA 


3 Omit whole verse BDL. 


It is probably a gloss, 


‘anv wapaBodny for wept THs. mw. in NBDLA 33. 
® kaapilwv in SABLA al., Orig. (modern editions). 
$ wopvetat, kAoTrat, dovol, poryetar in MBLA. 


out of the mouth, but the things which 
come out of the man. But if He had 
meant the impure matters issuing from 
the body, would He not have said éx rod 
TepatTos, so as to make His meaning 
unmistakable? On the whole, the most 
probable view is that even in ver. 15 the 
thought of Jesus moves in the moral 
sphere, and that the meaning is: the only 
defilement worth serious consideration is 
that caused by the evil which comes out 
of the heart (ver. 21). 

Vv. 17-23. Conversation with the 
disciples.—els_olkov amd tov SxAov = 
alone, apart from the crowd, at home, 
wherever the home, pro tem., might be. 
Whatever was said or done in public 
became habitually a subject of con- 
versation between Jesus and the Twelve, 
and therefore of course this remarkable 
saying.—Ver. 18. Here, as in vi. 52, 
Mk. takes pains to make prominent the 
stupidity and consequent need of in- 
struction of the Twelve.—otrtw Kal ., 
etc.; are ye, too, so unintelligent as not 
to understand what I have said: that 
that which goeth into the man from 
without cannot defile ?—Ver. 19. 6 
ovK ... els THY kapdiay: this negative 
Statement is not in Mt. The contrast 
makes the point clearer. The idea 


throughout is that ethical defilement is 
alone of importance, all other defilement, 
whether the subject of Mosaic cere- 
monial legislation or of scribe tradition, 
a trivial affair. Jesus here is a critic ot 
Moses as well as of the scribes, and in- 
troduces a religious revolution.—xaQa- 
piCwv (not -ov) is accepted generally as 
the true reading, but how is it to be con- 
strued? as the nominative absolute 
referring to ageSpava, giving the sense: 
evacuation purges the body from all 
matter it cannot assimilate? So most 
recent commentators. Or ought we not 
to terminate the words of Jesus at ék- 
mopeverat with a mark of interrogation, 
and take what follows as a comment of 
the evangelist ? = éxmopeverat ;—Ka0a- 
pilwv, etc.: this He said, purging all 
meats ; making all meats clean, abolish- 
ing the ceremonial distinctions of the 
Levitical law. This view was adopted 
by Origen and Chrysostom, and is 
vigorously defended by Field, Otium 
Nor., ad loc., and tavoured by the Spk., 
Commentary. Weizsacker adopts it in 
his translation: ‘‘So sprach er alle 
Speisen rein’’.—Ver. 20. édeyev 82: the 
use of this phrase here favours the view 
that xaSapifwy, etc., is an interpolated 
remark of the evangelist (Field),—Ver. 


39° 


KATA MAPKON 


VI. 


24. Kai éxeiOey’ dvactds dmmdOer eis Td peOdpia? TUpou Kai 


XuBdvos.8 


i Lk. viii. 47. 00K SuryOy © *AaGety. 
Acts xxvi. 


kai eicehOdy eis thy* oixiav, obSdva iOehe yrOvar, Kal 
25. dxovoaga ydp® yuvh mepl adtod, js 


26. 2 Pet. elxe Td Buydtpioy adtis mveipa dxdbaptov, éModca ! mpoodmece 


iii. 5, with 
part. Heb. 
xiii. 2. 8 
j with rpos Vlooa 
andaccus. 


here only. TS Ouyatpds adrijs. 


1 exetOev Se in BLA. 


27. 6 8€ “Inoois elmer? aidrq, 


mpds Tods WéSas abtod: 26. jy S€ y yur” “EXAnpls, Lupodoi- 
T@ yéver* kal Hpdta abtov tva Td Satpdvioy exBdddy ® ex 


“"Ades MpOTov 


? we8opia is an interpretative harmonising (Mt. xv. 22) substitute for opta in 


NBDLA (Tisch., W.H.). 


> DLA omit wat E. (Tisch.), found in $B (W.H. bracket), 


4 Omit thy NABLA, etc. 
5 nSvvac6y in KB (Tisch., W.H.). 


-9y DA (Trg., R.V.). 


8 aX’ evbus before axoveaca instead of yap in NBLA 33. 


7» Se yuvn nv in NBDLA 33. 


8 Yupadowikiooa in B and many other uncials = Lupa Powintoroe, 


® exBadn in RABDLAZ al. 


10 For o Se |. ecwev BLA 33 have Kat Acyev. 


21. An enumeration of the things which 
come out of the man, from the heart; 
first six plurals, wopvetat, etc.; then six 
singulars, 86Aos, etc. (ver. 22).—Ver. 23. 
Concluding reflection: all these bad 
things come out from within and defile 
the man. Commonplace now, what a 
startling originality then ! 

Vv. 24-30. The Syrophenician woman 
(Mt. xv. 21-28),—éxeiBev 8€ avacras 
points to a change from the comparatively 
stationary life by the shores of the lake 
to a period of wandering in unwonted 
scenes. Cf. x. 1, where advaoras is used 
in reference to the final departure from 
Galilee to the south. The 8é, instead of 
the more usual kal, emphasises this 
change.—els ra Spta T., not towards 
(Fritzsche), but into the borders of Tyre. 
There can be no doubt that in Mk.’s 
narrative Jesus crosses into heathen 
territory (cf. ver. 31). In view of the 
several unsuccessful attempts made by 
Jesus to escape from the crowd into quiet 
and leisure, so carefully indicated by 
Mk., this almost goes without saying. 
Failing within Jewish territory, He is 
forced to go without, in hope to get 
some uninterrupted leisure for confidential 
intercourse with the Twelve, rendered 
all the more urgent by scenes like that 
just considered, which too plainly show 
that His time will be short.—eis oix(av, 
into a house; considering Christ’s desire 
for privacy, more likely to be that of a 


heathen stranger (Weiss) than that of a 
friend (Meyer, Keil). — ovSéva 7Oere 
yvavat, He wished no one to know (He 
was there); to know no one (Fritzsche), 
comes to the same thing: desires to be 
private, not weary of well-doing, but 
anxious to do other work hitherto much 
hindered.—ovx 74SuvacOn Aabeiv, He was 
not able to escape notice ; not even here! 
—Ver. 25. €v6ts: does not imply that 
the woman heard of Christ’s arrival as 


‘soon as it happened, but that, after 


hearing, she lost no time in coming = as 
soon as she heard. Yet sorrow, like the 
demoniacs, was quick to learn of His 
presence.—@vydrpiov: another of Mk.’s 
diminutives.—Ver. 26. ‘EAAnvis, Zupa, 
Powlkuoe@a, a Greek in religion, a Syrian 
in tongue, a Phenician in race (Euthy. 
Zig.). The two last epithets combined 
into one (Zvpod.) would describe her as 
a Syrophenician as distinct from a 
Phenician of Carthage. Mk. is careful 
to define the nationality and religion of 
the woman to throw light on the sequel. 
—Ver. 27. ades wparoyv, etc.: a milder 
word than that in Mt. (ver. 26); it is 
here 2 mere question of order: first Jews, 
then Gentiles, St. Paul’s programme, 
Rom. i. 16. In Mt. we read, ovx éore 
Kahdov, it is not right, seemly, to take 
the children’s bread and to throw it to 
the dogs. Mk. also has this word, but 
in a subordinate place, and simply as a 
reason for the prior claim of the children. 





24—32. EYADLEAION 
yoprac@qvat ta tékvas ob yap Kaddv éott! aBetv tov dprov Tay 
réxvwy, kat Badeiy Tors Kuvaptots. 2 28. ‘H dé drexpiOy Kal héyer 
adt@, “Nai, KUpte> kal yap? Ta Kuvdpia bmoxdtw tis tpawélys 
coOier® rd Tay Yiylwy Tay wodiwy.” 29. Kai elev adti, “ Ard 
roOtov Tov Adyov, waye: efeAyAube TS Barudviov ex THs Ovyatpds 
gov. * 30. Kal dmedOoioa eis tov oikov adrijs, eGpe TO Satpdvrov 
efehndu0ds, kal Thy Ouyatépa BeBAnpevyy él tis KAtvys.° 

31. KAI wddw éehOdv ek tav dpiwy Tépou Kai® EBdvos, AAGe 
mpos® thy Oddacoay THs FadtAatas, dvd pégov Tay dpiwy Ackamdheus. 


32. Kal p€povow ait@ Kwhdy poyiAddor,” Kal wapakahodow adtov 


391 


1 egtt kadov in SBDLA and Badew after Tots uv. in NB. 


2 yap omitted in KBD 33. 


It comes from Mt. 


3 eg Qe. a grammatical correction for er@iovow in S$BDLA al. 


*S8BLA have ro Saup. after ex THs Buy. cov. 


°S9BLA invert the order of the facts, to Sap. efeA. at the end. The order in 
T.R. is due to the feeling that it was more natural; cure first, quiet resting in bed 


following. For 1. @vy. BeBAnpevgy NBLA 33 have ro mavdiov BeBAnpevov (Tisch., 


6 Ae Sta Li8wvos ers in NBDLA. 


We note also that Mk., usually so full in 
his narratives compared with Mt., omits 
the intercession ofthe T welve with Christ’s 
reply (Mt. vv. 23,24). Yet Mk.’s, “first 
the children,” is really equivalent to “I 
am not sent,” etc. The former implies: 
‘your turn will come”; the latter: “to 
minister to you is not my vocation”. 
This word, preserved in Mt., becomes 
less harsh when looked at in the light of 
Christ’s desire for quiet, not mentioned 
in Mt. Jesus made the most of the 
fact that His commission was to Jews. 
It has been thought that, in comparison 
with Mt., Mk.’s report of Christ’s words 
is secondary, adapted purposely to 
Gentile readers. Probably that is the 
case, but, on the other hand, he gives us 
a far clearer view of the extent and aim 
of the excursion to the North, concerning 
which Mt. has, and gives, no adequate 
conception.—Ver. 28. dmexpi6y, aorist, 
hitherto imperfect. Wecome now towhat 
Mk. deems the main point of the story, 
the woman’s striking word.—-tmwoKdte 7. 
tpan., the dogs under the table, waiting 
for morsels, a realistic touch.—rév 
Wixlwy Tt. #., not merely the crumbs 
which by chance fall from the table, but 
morsels surreptitiously dropt by the chil- 
dren(‘‘quipanem saepe prodigunt,” Beng.) 
to their pets. Household dogs, part of 
the family, loved by the children; hard 
and fast line of separation impossible.— 
Ver. 29. 81a 7. 7. Adyoy, for this word, 


7 SBDA have xat before poytAadov. 


which showed the quick wit of the faith 
which Mt. specifies as the reason of the 
exception made in her favour.—Ver. 30. 
BeBAnpévov: the emphasis lies on this 
word rather than on tra8lov (Bengel), as 
expressing the condition in which the 
mother found her daughter: lying quietly 
(‘in lecto molliter cubantem sine ulla 
jactatione,” Grotius). 

It is probable that this interesting in- 
cident cannot be fully understood without 
taking into consideration circumstances 
not mentioned in the narratives, and 
which, therefore, it does not fall to the 
expositor to refer to. On this vide my 
book, With Open Face, chap. vii. 

Vv. 31-37. Curve of a deaf-mute, 
peculiar to Mk. Mt. has, instead, a 
renewal of the healing ministry on an 
extensive scale, the thing Jesus desired 
to avoid (xv. 29-31).—Ver. 31. After the 
instructive episode Jesus continued His 
journey, going northwards through (8a, 
vide critical notes) Sidon, then making a 
circuit so as to arrive through Decapolis 
at the Sea of Galilee. The route is not 
more definitely indicated ; perhaps it was 
along the highway over the Lebanon 
range to Damascus; it may conceiy- 
ably have touched that ancient city, 
which, according to Pliny (H. N., v., 
16), was included in Decapolis (vide 
Holtz., H. C., and Schirer, Div., ii., 
vol. i., p. 95).—Ver. 32. poytdddoy, 
speaking with difficulty; but here for 


392 


wa émi6y) adtO Thy yxelpa. 
k Ch, viii. q 2 


KATA MAPKON 


VII. 33—37. 


33- Kat dmodkaBdpevos adroy dard Tod 


ee Teen dxdou Kat idiavy, EBake rods SaxtdAous adTou eis Ta Gta adtod, 
1x. O. 


1Lk. vii. 1. Kat * 
Acts xvii. 
20. 
v. 11 (pl. 
= organs 
of hearing). 
m cf. the 
verb in 


volxOnte.” 


35- Kat edOdws! SiqvolxOnaav? adtod ai 
€XUOyn 6 BSeopds THs yAdoons adtod, Kal éAdder dpbds. 


TrUgas Hato THS yAdoons adrod, 34. Kal dvaBddas eis 
Heb. Tov odpavdv, éotévage, kat héyer adtd, “’Eppabd,” 6 éom, “ Ara- 


, 
1Akoat* Kai 


36. Kai 


Rom. v.20 Sveotef(Aato aitois tva pydevi etxwow- Soov S€ adtdst adrois 


and UTEDEK- 


in 1 Thess. QLEOTEAAETO, LGAAOv Teptoddtepov Exnpucdoy: 37. Kal ™ UmepTeEpic- 


neonst. Ch, T@S efewAjaorto, héyortes, “Kaas mdvta mewoinxe’ Kal rods 


i.17. Acts 
iii. 12. 


Kwhods ™ over dxovew, Kat tods © ddddous Aadetv.” 


' evBews is omitted here in BDL 33 and inserted before eAvOy in SLA; wanting 


here also in BD it. (W.H. omit both). 


2 mvoryqoav in BDA. T.R. assimilates to ver. 34. 


*S8BLA omit avros and insert an avtot before paddov (Tisch., W.H.). 
T.R. is an attempt at improving the style. 


5 rous omit BLA 33. 


dumb. Cf. adddovs, ver. 37, used in 


Sept., Is. xxxv. 6, for pots, dumb, here 


only in N.T.—Ver. 33. dmohaBdpevos, 
etc., withdrawing him from the crowd 
apart. Many reasons have been assigned 
for this procedure. The true reason, 
doubtless, is that Jesus did not wish to 
be drawn into a new ministry of healing 
on a large scale (Weiss, Schanz).— 
éBade tous SaxrvAous, etc. : one finger of 
the right hand into one ear, another of 
the left hand into the other, on account 
of the narrowness and depth of the hear- 
ing faculty, that He might touch it 
(Sta 1a orevdv Kal Bald tHs axo7s tva 
Oi&q tavTns, Euthy. Zig.). Deafness is 
first dealt with; it was the primary evil. 
—rrTvoas, spitting; on what, the tongue 
of the dumb man as on the eyes of the 
blind (viii. 23)? So Meyer. Or on His 
own finger, with which He then touched 
the tongue? So Weiss, Schanz, 
Kloster., Holtz. (H. C.), Keil. Mk. 
leaves us here to our own conjectures, 
as also in reference to the import ot 
these singular acts of Jesus. Probably 
they were meant to rouse interest and 
aid faith in the dull soul of the sufferer. 
(Vide Trench, Notes on the Miracles.) 
Ver. 34. davaBdéWas, éordévate : Jesus 
looked up in prayer, and sighed or 
groaned in sympathy. In this case a 
number of acts, bodily and mental, are 
specified. Were these peculiar to it, or 
do we here get a glimpse into Christ’s 
modus operandi in many unrecorded 
cases? On the latter view one can 


2 Xeywouy in NBL 33. 
The 


understand the exhausting nature of the 
healing ministry. It meant a great 
mental strain.—épda0a, an Aramaic 
word = as Mk. explains, StavotyOyr ; 
doubtless the word actually spoken = Be 
opened, in reference to the ears, thoug] 
the loosing of the tongue was part of the 
result ensuing.—Ver. 35. at Gkoai, 
literally, the hearings, here the instru- 
ments of hearing, the ears. So often in 
classics.—éAdAe. dp@as, he began to 
speak in a proper or ordinary manner, 
implying that in his dumb condition he 
had been able only to make inarticulate 
sounds.—Ver. 36. paAdov weptaodtepor, 
a double comparative, forcibly rendered 
in A.V., ‘‘So much the more, a great 
deal”. Cf. 2 Cor. vii. 13. This use of 
paAAov to strengthen comparatives is 
found in classics, instances in Raphel, 
Annon., ad loc., and Hermann’s Viger, 
p. 719.—Ver. 37. twepiweptoods, super- 
abundantly, a double superlative; here 
only.—Kahés mw. wetoinxe, He hath 
done all things well. This looks like a 
reflection on past as well as present; the 
story of the demoniac, e.g. Observe the 
wo.et, present, in next clause, referring to 
the cure just effected. It happened in 
Decapolis, and we seem to see the in- 
habitants of that region exhibiting a 
nobler mood than in chap. v. 17. Oi 
course, there were no swine lost on this 
occasion. Their astonishment at the 
miracle may seem extravagant, but it 
must be remembered that they have had 
little experience of Christ’s healing work ; 
their own fault. 


VIII. 1—6. 


EYATTEAION 


393 


VIII. 1. °EN éxeivars tais Hpépats, mapadddou! 3yXou Svros, 
Kai pi) éxdvtw Ti pdywou, mpockaderdpevos 6 "Ingois 2 tods palntas 
adTod héyer adrois, 2. “XwAayxviLowar émi tov dxdov: Sr HSq 
Hpepas * tpets mpoopévouct por, Kat odx Exouot Ti ddywou- 3. Kal 
€dv GtrohkUcw adtods VjoTELS Eis OlKOV aUTaY, ExAUOAcorTaL év TH 650° 


A Q 2 A , 2 24 
Ties Yap GQuTwY pakpdbev Kao. 


‘ , >A ¢ 
4. Kat darexpiOyoay atta ot 


pabytat aurod, “ Md0ev® rodrous Suvjcetai tis GSe xoptdcat dptwy 


Jeet , » 
én’ épypstas ; 
Ot Bé ettrov, “ ‘Emrd.” 


5. Kai émnpwta® adrods, “ Mdcous éxete dptous ;” 
6. Kal wapyyyede’ TH Sydw dvatecetv 


Fras) lol ~ ‘ ‘A A £ x » ? , m” 

émt THS ys: Kal haBwy tods émTa Aptous, evxapioricas ExAace 
; omy 

Kai €3i30u Tots pabytais attod, iva mapabGor® cal mapébnkay To 


l@akty wodAov in WBDLAZ 33. 


wapmo\dov is a conjectural emendation 


suggested by the fact of a great crowd, and perplexity caused by waAvw here as in 


vil. 14. 


* NABDLAX 33 it. vulg. cop. omit o Inoovs, also S$DLAZ omit avrov after 


pabyras. 


$ nepas = a grammatical correction for npepas (NL, etc.), or npepats tprow in B. 


‘For tues yap... ynkaow read nar tives (NNBLA) avutov 


(SBDLA), evo. (BLA). 
5 ort before wofev in BLA. 
7 wapayyeAAe in NBDLA. 


CuHapterR VIII. Second FEEDING. 
SIGN FROM HEAVEN. CuRE AT BETH- 
SAIDA. CAESAREA PHILIPPI.—VvV. I-10. 
Second feeding (Mt. xv. 32-39).—Ver. 
I. év éxeivats Tais nuépats: a vague 
phrase, used only once again in this 
Gospel (i. 9, in reference to Jesus going 
from Nazareth to be baptised), indicating 
inability to assign to the following 
incident a precise historical place. Cf. 
Mt. iii. 1 for similar vague use of the 
expression.—mdAtv moAXov 6. 6. This 
well-attested reading is another indica- 
tion of the evangelist’s helplessness as 
to historical connection: there being 
again a great crowd. Why? where? 
not indicated, and we are not entitled to 
assert that the scene of the event was 
Decapolis, and the occasion the healing 
of the deaf-mute. The story is in the 
air, and this is one of the facts that have 
to be reckoned with by defenders of the 
reality of the second feeding against 
those who maintain that it is only a 
literary duplicate of the first, due to the 
circumstance that the Petrine version of 
it differed in some particulars from that 
in the Logia of Matthew. On this 
subject I do not dogmatise, but I cannot 
pretend to be insensible to the difficulties 
connected with it.—éy ov, a great crowd 


aro pakxpoley 


Sypwra in NBLA. 
8 mapatTiwow in SBCLA 33. 


again. How often the crowd figures in 
the evangelic story! It is the one 
monotonous feature in narratives of 
thrilling interest.—Ver. 2. Vide on 
Mt. xv. 32.—Ver. 3. éxAvOrjocovrat, 
they will faint. This verb is used in 
N. T. in middle or passive in the sense 
of being faint or weary in body or mind 
(Gal. vi. 9, Heb. xii. 3).—xKai tives . . 

eloiv, and some of them are from a 
distance, peculiar to Mark. The mean- 
ing is that such, even if in vigour at 
starting, would be exhausted before 
reaching their destination. But could 
they not get food by the way ?—Ver. 4. 
wé0ev, whence? This adverb was used 
by the Greeks, in speaking of food, in 
reference to the source of supply— 
wé0ey aynre = ‘unde cibum petituri 
sitis’”. Examples in Kypke, Raphel, 
Palairet.—ém’ épyplas, in a desert. The 
scene of the first feeding is a desert place 
also (chap. vi. 32). But in that case 
food was purchasable within a reason- 
able distance; not so here.—vVer. 6. 
Compare the meagre statement here 
with the picturesque description in vi. 
38-40, The evangelist seems to lack 
interest in the twice-told tale. Ver. 7. 
tx@v8ta: another of Mark’s diminutives, 
but Matthew has it also (xv. 34), copied 


394 


dxhw. 


\ > 7 23] 
Kal QuTa. 


pata kNaopdtwr, émra omupidas. 


KATA MAPKON 


VIII. 


‘ a 
7. kal elxov ixOv8ia dAiya: Kal edoyjoas ele Tapabetvar 


a] »” 9 \ » , , A 
8. epayor sé,” KQaL ExoptacOncay * KQL TN pav TEPLOGEU~ 


9. Hoav 8€ ot daydvtes® ds 


TeTpakioxiNiot* Kal dmédugev adTous. 
10. Kai evbéws épBds eis Td wotov peta Tdv pabyTdv adrod> 


AOev eis TA pépyn Aarpavouba. 


II. kal é&fOov of Paprcator, Kat 


tal 7 A ~ A a n 
Hpfavto culnteiv autd, Lytoivtes map’ attod onpetov amd tod 


> a > ¢ 
oupavov, twetpdlovtes aurTov. 
auto Aéyer, “Ti fh yeved atty onpetov éemhnret 4; 
ipiv,® ei SoOyjcerat tH yeved tadtTy onpetov.” 


12. kal dvactevdtas TH tvevpate 
épny A€yw 
13. Kal ddeis 


attous, éuBas wadw® eis td motov,® Gar hOev eis TO Wépav. 


14. Kai émeddBovto AaBeiv dprous, kal «i ph Eva dprov oux 


etxov pe” Eautav év TO Toiw. 


15. kal SveoréAdeTo avrois, A¢ywwr, 


1 Read xat evloynoas avta evmey kat TavTa wapartibevar as in W.H. 


2 kat epayov in NBCDLA. 
* {yree onpecoyv in NBCDLA 33. 


* Omit o day. NBLA 33. 
° BL omit vp (W.H. put in margin). 


§ Read wadw epBas, and omit ets To wA. (NNBCLA, Tisch., W.H.). 


probably from Mark. In these two 
places only.—Ver. 8.  ‘weprocevpara 
kXacpatwy, the remainders of the broken 
pieces. Matthew uses the singular neuter, 
7d teptocevoy, in both feedings.—omvot- 
Sas: in both accounts of second feeding, 
xodivous in both accounts of first (xé¢ivor 
in Luke), On the difference in meaning, 
vide notes on Mt. xv. 37.—Ver. Io. 
Here as in case of first feeding there is a 
crossing of the lake immediately after 
(ev8is, which has an obvious reason in 
first case). This time Jesus and the 
Twelve enter the boat together, at least 
in Mark’s narrative (peta tav pabyrov).— 
Aa)pavovéa, in Matthew MayaSav; both 
alike unknown: another of the features 
in this narrative which give a handle to 
critical doubt. Some place it on the 
western shore in the plain of Gennesaret 
(Furrer, ‘On the site of Khan Minyeh 
lay once Dalmanutha,” Wanderungen, 
p. 369); others to the south-east of the 
lake near the junction of the Yarmuk 
with the Jordan (Delhemiyeh, Robinson, 
B. R., iii. 264). Weiss (in Meyer) adopts 
this view. Holtzmann (H.C.), while 
leaning to the former alternative, leaves 
the matter doubtful. i 
Vv. 11-12. Pharisees seek a sign 
(Mt. xvi. 1-4).—Ver. 11. @&@Oov of &., 
the Pharisees went out, from their seat 
in the Holy Land into the heathen 
Decapolis, otherwise carefully shunned, 
in their zeal against Jesus. So Weiss 
(im Meyer).—Ver. 12. avagvrevatas, 


fetching a deep sigh, here only in N. T.; 
in Sept., Lament. i, 4, Sirach. xxv. 18, 
etc.—7T@ mvevpatta., in His spirit. The 
sigh physical, its cause spiritual—a sense 
of irreconcilable enmity, invincible un- 
belief, and coming doom.—ei 800yaerat, 
if there shall be given = there shall not 
(ov) be given’ a Hebraistic form o 
emphatic negative assertion. The sup- 
pressed apodosis is: may I die, or God 
punish me, Other instances in Heb. iii. 
II, iv.3,5. In Mark there is an absolute 
refusal of asign. In Matthew the refusal 
is qualified by offer of Jonah. But that 
was an absolute refusal of signs in their 
sense. 

Vv. 13-21. Warning against evil 
leavens (Mt. xvi. 4b-12).—Ver. 13. els Td 
awépav, to the other side; which, east or 
west? Here again opinion is divided. 
The reference to Bethsaida, ver. 22, 
might be expected to decide, but then 
there is the dispute about the two 
Bethsaidas; Bethsaida Julias, and 
Bethsaida on the western shore. These 
points are among the obscurities of the 
Synoptical narratives which we are 
reluctantly compelled to leave in twilight. 
—Ver. 14. el pi Eva prov: acuriously 
exact reminiscence where so much else 
that seems to us more important is left 
vague. But it shows that we have to do 
with reality, for the suggestion of the 
Tibingen critics that it isa mere bit of 
word painting is not credible. The one 
loaf seems to witness to a Christ-like 





i) EYAI'TEAION 

“‘Opate, Bdéwere Grd THs Lupns Tay Papicaiwv Kai ris Cdpns 
HpdSou.” 16. Kat S:edoyifovto mpds &AAious, héyortes,! “Ore 
Gptous obx €xopev. 2 17. Kai yvods 6 "Incods ® Aéyer abtois, “Ti 
BraroyiLeote, St. dprous ok ExeTe;  omw voeire, ode ouviete ; 
éru4 memopwpévny exete Thy Kapdiay Spay; 18. dpbarpods Exovres 
od Pdérete; Kai Sra exovres odk dkovere; Kal oU pynpovevete ; 
19. dre Tobs wévTE GpTOUS éxAaca €ig TOUS WevtaktoxtAious, TécoUs 
Kodivous TAYpers KAacpdtev® Hpate;” Adyouow adtG, “ Addeka.” 


cc, 


20. Ore S€ Tous 


395 


€ x > A hi 6 
€TTA ELS TOUS TETPAKLOX’ lous, Troowyv 


omupiSuv wAnpdpata Khacpdrwv jpare;” Ot Se eirrov,® ““Emra.” 


a = » 
21. Kal édeyer adtois, “Mads ob T cuviete ; 


22. KAI épxetat® eis ByOoaiddy: Kal pépouow adtd tupddy, cat 


lol > a o > a LA 
rapaxadodow adtovy iva avTod ayntat. 


23. kal émudaBopevos THs 


1 Omit Aeyovres (an explanatory word) ${BD. 
2B has exovow, adopted by Trg. (text), W.H. Ws., Tisch., and R.Y. retain 


EXOPEV. 
3 Omit o |. BA. 
5 chagpatwy wAnpes in NBCLA 33. 


7 B has trws ov voerre. 
(D), as expressive of vexation. 


8 epxovtat in BCDLA. 


easymindedness as to food in the 
disciple-circle. Let to-morrow look 
after itself1—Ver. 15. awd ris Cups, 
etc.: two leavens, one of Pharisees, 
another of Herod, yet placed together 
because morally akin and coincident in 
practical outcome. Vide notes on Mt. 
xvi, 1-6.—Ver. 16. mwpds GAdrjAovs. 
Mt. has év €avrots. The mind of Jesus 
was profoundly preoccupied with the 
ominous demand of the sign-seekers, and 
the disciples might talk quietly to each 
other unnoticed by Him.—Ver. 17. 
yvovs: He does notice, however, and 
administers a sharp rebuke for their pre- 
occupation with mere temporalities, as 
if there were nothing higher to be 
thought of than bread.—rerwpopévyy, 
in a hardened state; the word stands in 
an emphatic position. For the time the 
Twelve are wayside hearers, with hearts 
like a beaten path, into which the higher 
truths cannot sink so as to germinate.— 
Ver, 18 repeats in reference to the 
Twelve the hard saying uttered concern- 
ing the multitude on the day of the 
parables (iv. 12).° In vv. 19, 20 Jesus 
puts the Twelve through their catechism 
in reference to the recent feedings, and 
then in ver. 21 (according to reading in 
B) asks in the tone of a disappointed 


4 SSBCDLAZ omit ete. 
6 cat Acyovowy in NBCLA. 


arws ov is to be preferred to ovww (S¥CLA) or wes ovTw 
Tisch. and W.H. adopt ovre. 


The sing. (T.R.) is an adaptation to avtw. 


Master: How do you not understand? 
If we may emphasise the imperfect 
tense of @eyev, He said this over and 
over again, half speaking to them, half 
to Himself; another of. Mk.’s realistic 
features. All this shows how much the 
Twelve needed special instruction, and 
it is obviously Mk.’s aim to make this 
prominent. Desire for leisure to attend 
to their instruction is in his narrative the 
key to the excursions in the direction 
of Tyre and Sidon and to Caesarea 
Philippi. 

Vv. 22-26. A blind man cured at 
Bethsaida, peculiar to Mk.—Ver. 22. 
ByGoaidav. If there were two Beth- 
saidas, which of the two? If only one 
of course it was Bethsaida Julias, But 
against this has been cited the term 
kopy twice applied to the town (vv. 23, 
26), which, however, may be regarded 
as satisfactorily explained by the remark ; 
it had been a village, and was first made 
a town by Philip, who enlarged and 
beautified it and called it Julias in 
honour of the daughter of Augustus 
(Joseph., B. J., ii., 9, 1, etc.). So Meyer 
and others.—Ver. 23. é¢& ris Kopns, 
outside the village, for the same reason 
as in vii. 33, to avoid creating a run on 
Him for cures. Therefore Jesus becomes 


* 


KATA MAPKON VIII. 


396 


XEtpos TOU Tupdod, eEjyayer! abtdv Efw rhs kdpns* Kal wrdcas eis 
Ta Oppata adrod, émBeis tds yxeipas adrd, emnpdta abrév et Tt 
BXéres.? 


ds Sévdpa dp wepimatodvtas.” 


24. kal dvaBdépas Edeye, “Bw tods dvOpdrous, St 
25. Etra wadw éréOnxe® tas xeipas 
émt tods dpB0arpods adtod, kal émoinoey adtiv dvaBhépar*: Kai 
26. 


dméortei\ev adtév eis Tov? olkov adtod, Aéywr, ‘ Mnde eis Thy Kdpny 


dtroxateotddn,? Kai évéBrepe® tmdavyas? daavtas.® kat 
eivéhOns, nde elrps tevi év TH Kap.” 1° 

27. Kal é&f\Oev 6 “Ingots Kat ot pabytat adrod eis Tas Kopas 
Kacapeias THs SuAitrou: Kal év TH 686 emnpdta Tods pabytads 
attod, Aéywy adrtois, “ Tiva pe A€yousw of dvOowman elvar;” 


! eEnveyxey in NWBCL 33, replacedin T.R. by a more common word. 
* Brewers in BCDA (W.H. text) more expressive than Bdewe (SQL, Tisch.). 


3 Oyxev in BL (W.H.). 


* For the explanatory gloss kat ew. a. avaBAear SBCLA cop. have cat SteBAeWev. 


5 amexaterty in $BCLA (B amox.). 


5 eveBXewev (imp.) BLA. 


7 NCLA have SyAavyes (Tisch.). yA. in BD (W.H. text, 8A. margin). 


8 awavta in NBCDLA. 
10 All after ecoeAOns omit NBL. 


conductor of the blind man Himself, 
though he doubtless had one (Weiss- 
Meyer).—tvocas, spitting, in this case 
certainly on the diseased parts. Spittle 
was regarded as a means of cure by the 
ancients. Holtzmann (H. C.) cites the 
story of Vespasian in Alexandria narrated 
by Tacitus (Hist., iv., 81). The prince 
was asked to sprinkle the eyes of a blind 
man “ oris excremento ”.—et rt Bdérets, 
do you, possibly, see anything? ei witha 
direct question, vide Winer, lvii., 2.— Ver. 
24. avaBd¢eWas: the narrative contains 
three compounds of BAé7rw (ava, S14, év) ; 
the first denotes looking up in the 
tentative manner of blind men, the 
second looking through (a mist as it 
were) so as to see clearly, the third look- 
ing into so as to see distinctly, as one 
sees the exact outlines of a near object 
(cf. Mk. xiv. 67).—és S€vSpa, as trees, so 
indistinct was vision as yet; yet not 
trees, but men because moving (“non 
arbores, quia ambulent,” Bengel). He 
knew what a man is like, therefore he 
had once seen, not born blind. —Ver. 25. 
A second touch brings better vision, 
so that 8.eBAepev, and he was now 
restored to full use of his eyes; the 
result being permanent perfect vision— 
évéB\errev, imperfect.—8.eBAeev points 
to the first act of distinct seeing.— 
Tydavy@s (THA, avyy here only), shining 


® Omit toy many uncials. 


from afar. He saw distant objects 
distinctly as if they were near; did not 
need to go near them to see them.—Ver. 
26. els otxov, home.—pynse, etc., go 
not into the village ; to avoid creating a 
sensation. It has been suggested that 
the gradual restoration of sight in this 
case was meant to symbolise the slow- 
ness of the Twelve in attaining spiritual 
insight. They got their eyes opened 
very gradually like the blind man of 
Bethsaida. So Klostermann. 

Vv. 27-ix. 1. At Caesarea Philippi 
(Mt. xvi. 13-28, Lk. ix, 18-27).—Ver. 27. 
kal é&m\Gev: the xal connects very 
loosely with what goes before, but 
presumably é§#A9ev refers to Bethsaida. 
They leave it and go northwards towards 
Caesarea Philippi, up the Jordan valley, 
a distance of some twenty-five or thirty 
miles.—é “Inoots: that Jesus is here 
expressly named is a hint that some- 
thing very important is to be narrated, 
and the mention of the disciples along 
with Him indicates that it closely con- 
cerns them.—els tas xwpas K. 7. %., to 
the villages of Caesarea Philippi, not to 
Caesarea Philippi itself. Mt. has ra 
pépy. Apparently they did not enter 
the city itself. Jesus seems to have 
avoided the towns in which the Herodian 
passion for ambitious architecture was 
displayed. Besides at this time He 


24—332. 


EYATTEAION 


397 


28. Ot Sé dmexpiOnoay,! “"lwdvyny? tov Bawriomyy: Kat dddor 


‘HXtav- Gdor Sé Eva * tOy TpopyTay.” 
““"Yuets S€ tiva pe Aéyere etvar;” 
ave, “£0 et 6 Xpiotds.” 
héywou epi adtod. 


29. Kal aidtés héyet adrtois,* 


*"AmroxpiOets Se 5 6 Métpos Aéyer 
30. Kal éwetiunoev adtois, va prdevi 


31. KAI jpfato SiSdoKew adtous, St Set Tov vidy Tod dvOpucrou 


WoAAa mwaety, Kat dmrodoxtpacOjvar dwd® tov mpecBuTépwr Kat 


Gpxtepéwy Kat ypappatéwy, xai daoxtavOyjvat, Kat peta tpets 


ipépas dvactivat- 32. Kai wappyaia tov Adyor éAdde. 


Kat 


l euway avtw Acyov7es in $YBCLA (D has amex. avtw Aey.). 


2 ort before I. in NB. 
4 exnpwta avtous in NBCDLA. 


3 For eva S$BCL have om eg. 
® Omit Se BL (Tisch., W.H.). 


6 vwo in NBCDL ; with rev before apy. (NSBCD), and before ypap. (NSBCDL). 


desired solitude.—év rH 6856, on the way, 
probably when the city of Caesarea 
Philippi came into view. Vide on Mt. 
xvi. 13. But conversation leading up to 
the critical subject might begin as soon 
as they had got clear of Bethsaida. No 
time to be lost now that the Master had 
got the Twelve by themselves. Or was 
the Master, very silent on that journey, 
preparing His own mind for what was 
coming ?—émypwta, imperfect, because 
subordinate to the reply of the disciples, 
the main thing.—rlva pe, etc.: on the 
form of the question vide on Mt. xvi. 13. 
—Ver. 28. ot &é eimray a. Acyortes, they 
said, saying; tautology, somewhat like 
the vulgar English idiom: He said, says 
he; fixing attention on what is said.— 
*lwavyny tT. B.: the accusative depending 
on A€yover ot avOpwrol oe eivar under- 
stood. This infinitive construction 
passes into direct speech in the last 
clause: 6tt eis (et) tT. mpopynrav. The 
opinions reported are much the same as 
in vi. 14, 15.—Ver. 29. wpeis Se, etc.: a 
very pointed question given by all the 
Synoptists in the same terms. The 
reply, on the other hand, is different in 
each. Vide on Mt. xvi. 16.—a7roxpiGeis 
héyet: we have here an aorist participle 
of identical action with a finite verb in 
the present tense. It usually goes with 
the aorist (cf. Mt. xvi. 17, GmoxprGels 
elwev).—Ver. 30. éwetinnoev, He 
threatened them, spoke in a tone of 
menace, as if anticipating foolish talk— 
wept avtov—about Him, 1.e., about His 
being the Christ, as in Mt. The pro- 
hibition might have a double reference: 
to the people, to prevent the spread of 
crude ideas as to the Messiahship of 


Jesus; to the disciples, that they might 
keep the new faith to themselves till 
it took deep root in their own souls, 
Recall Carlyle’s counsel to young men: 
if thou hast an idea keep it to thyself, 
for as soon as thou hast spoken it it is 
dead to thee (Stump Orator,in Latter 
Day Pamphlets). 

Vv. 31-33. First announcement of the 
Passion.—Ver. 31. Kal: Mt. has the 
more emphatic &@wé rére, indicating that 
then began an entirely new way of 
speaking as to the coming fate of Jesus. 
—8.Sdonew, to teach, more appropriate 
is Mt.’s word, Serxvverv, to show. It 
was a solemn intimation rather than in- 
struction that was given.—ei, it must 
be; in all three evangelists. It points to 
the inevitableness of the event, not to 
the rationale of it. On that subject 
Jesus gave in the first place no in- 
struction.—moAAa maGeiv: where not 
indicated, as in Mt.—daoSoxtpacOjvat : 
an expressive word taken from Ps. cxviii. 
22, fitly indicating the precise share of 
the religious authorities in the coming 
tragedy. Their part was solemnly to 
disapprove of the claimant to Messiah- 
ship. All else was the natural sequel of 
their act of rejection.—rév mp., tev ap., 
TOV yp.: the article before each of the 
three classes named, saddling each with 
its separate responsibility.—Ver. 32. 
mappyoia: He spoke the word plainly, 
unmistakably. This remark wasrendered 
almost necessary by the choice of the 
word &8daoxKew in ver. 31. Mt.’s Secx- 
vue implies rappynoig. This word (from 
®Gs, pyous) in ordinary Greek usage 
means frank, unreserved speech, as 
opposed to partial or total silence. Here, 


398 


mpoohaBdpevos aitiv & Mérpos! Apkaro emitipav adrd. 


KATA MAPKON 


VIII. 33—38. 


33. 6 Se 


émotpaheis, kal Sav todls pabyntds adrod, émetinnoe TH? Métpw, 
Aéywv,5 “"Ymaye dricw pou, Latava: Ste ob ppoveis Ta Tod Geod, 


ada Ta tdv dvOpdmwr.” 


34. Kal mpoockadecdpevos tov Sxdov adv Tots palytats adrod, 
elwev adtots, ‘“Ootis* Oéder dmicw prov édOetv, dmaprycdobw 
€autév, kal dpdtw tiv oraupdy airod, Kat dkodouleitTw or. 
35. Ss ydp Gv On Thy Wuxiy adtod odcat, dmoddcer adtiy. 
ds 8 Gv drodéon® thy wuxty adtod Evexey €nod Kal rod eday- 


yediou, odtos ® adcer adtHy. 


36. th yap dpednoer’? advOpwror, 


day KxepSijon ® tov Kdopov Sdov, Kal LyprwbA® thy puxhy adrod ; 


37. H tl Soca avOpwros® dvTdéd\Naypa Tis Wuxis adtod ; 


38. bs 


oLk ix, 6 yop Gv *ératcxuvOA pe Kat Tods énods Adyous év TH yeved TaUry 


Rom. i. 16, _ ~ 
2 Tim. i. TT? 
8, 16. 
dyyédwy tay dylov.” 
191). avroy in BL, 
3 kat Aeyet in NBCLA. 


porxadi&. kal duaptwhd, Kat 6 
getat adtév, Stay ENOn ev TH SdH Tod watpds adtod peta Tor 


c 


vids Tod dvOpwrou emarcxuvOy- 


2 Omit ro NBDL. 
4 eu tts in NBCDLA (W.H.). 


5 aqoXewet in $$BCA al. ; a mechanical conformation to the preceding amodecet, 


thinks Weiss. 


(Tisch., W.H.), of course omitting eav. 


Tisch, and W.H. adopt it. 
6 ovtos (from Lk.) omit NABCDLA verss. 
8 xnpdynon, Cyprw8y come from Mt.; 


7 wdeder in KBL. 
read kynpSyoat, CnprwOyvar with NBL 


94 Tt Swoet av. is another conformation to Mt., read tt yap So. a. with NB 


(Tisch., W.H.). 


as in John xi, 14, xvi. 25, 29, it means 
plain speech as opposed to hints or 
veiled allusions, such as Jesus had pre- 
viously given; as in Mk. ii. 20 (bride- 
groom taken away). In this sense St. 
Paul (2 Cor. iii, 12) claims wappyota for 
the Christian ministry in contrast to the 
mystery connected with the legal dis- 
pensation as symbolised by the veil of 
Moses. The term was adopted into the 
Rabbinical vocabulary, and used to sig- 
nify unveiled speech as opposed to 
metaphorical or parabolic speech 
(Winsche, Beitradge, ad loc.).—mpooha- 
Bépevos 6 1.: what Peter said is not 
given, Mk’s aim being simply to show 
that Jesus had so spoken that misunder- 
standing of what He said was im- 
possible. That the news should be 
unwelcome is regarded as a matter of 
course.—Ver. 33. émiotpadels: the 
compound instead of the simple verb in 
Mt., which Mk. does not use.—t8eav r. 
pa@.: the rebuke is administered for the 
benefit of all, not merely to put down 
Peter. This resistance to the cross 


must be grappled with at once and 
decisively. What Peter said, all felt. 
In Mk.’s report of the rebuke the words 
oxdvSadov el éuod are omitted. On the 
saying vide in Mt. 

Vv. 34-38. First lesson on the cross.— 
Ver. 34. dv dxAov, the crowd. Even 
here! A surprise; is it not a mistake ? 
So appears to think Weiss, who (in 
Meyer) accounts for the reference to a 
crowd by supposing that the words of 
Mt. x. 38 are in his mind, which are 
given in Lk, xiv. 25 as spoken to a crowd, 
probably because they were so given in 
his source. Jesus certainly desired to be 
private at this time, and in the neigh- 
bourhood of Caesarea Philippi ought to 
have succeeded.—Ver. 35. Tov evayye- 
Afov: tor my sake and the Gospel’s, an 
addition of Mk.’s, possibly a gloss.— 
wooe, instead of the more enigmatical 
etpyoet of Mt.—Ver. 38 reproduces the 
logion in Mt. x. 33 concerning being 
ashamed of Jesus, which does not find a 
place here in Mt.’s version. In Mt.’s 
form it is the outward ostensible act of 





(kis. EYALLEAION 

IX. 1. Kai eXeyev atrots, ‘Api Aeyw duty, Ste eioi tives Tay 
O5é! éotykdtwy, oitiwes oF ph yevouvtar Savdrou, Ews Gy tSwor thy 
Baotheiay tod Ceod EXnAuButay év Suvde.” 

2. Kal yeO” pdpas <f wapadapBdver 6 ‘Ingots tov Nétpov Kat 
Tov “IdkwBov kal Tov ‘lwdvyny, Kai dvabéper attods eis Spos bnddy 
cat idiav pdyous: Kat peTepoppwOn eumpooev atta, 3. Kal Ta 
ipdtia adtoo éyéveto? otihBovra, NeuKd Alay ds xidv,® ofa yraheds 
€wt THS yas ob Stvarar* Neuxavas. 4. kal GhOy adtots “HNias ody 
Moet, Kal qoav auddadodvres TS "Inood. 5. Kal daoKpilels 6 
Mérpos Aéyer TH "Ingod, ‘“PaBBi, Katdv éotw Fads Ode civar: 
Kal Toijcwpey aKnvas Tpels,5 gol piay, kal Mwoet pay, kal “HAia 


399 


1 wSe twv in BD; twv wSe a correction of style. 


28BCA al. pl. have eyevero as in T.R., which nevertheless is probably a 
correction of eyevovro in DL to suit the neut. pl. nom. 


3 ws xwwov is a gloss (Mt. xxviii. 3); not in NBCLA. 
* ovrws follows in $$BCLA, omitted as superfluous in T.R, 


5 rpas oxnvas in NBCLA 33. 


denial that is animadverted on; here the 
feeling of shame, which is its cause— 
ix. 1.—kat éAeyev avtots: with this 
phrase Mk. makes a new start, and 
turns the close of the Caesarea Philippi 
conversation into an introduction to the 
following narrative concerning the trans- 
figuration, apparently suggesting that in 
the latter event the words found their 
fulfilment. This impression, if it existed, 
does not bind the interpreter.—apyy, 
introducing a solemn statement.—éws Gy 
(wow, etc.: the promised vision is 
differently described in the three accounts, 
as thus :— 

Till they see: the Son of Man coming 
in His Kingdom (Mt.). 

Till they see: the Kingdom of God 
come (éAnAv@viay) in power (Mk.). 

Till they see: the Kingdom of God 
(Lk.). 

CHAPTERIX. THE TRANSFIGURATION. 
THE EPILEPTIC. SECOND ANNOUNCE- 
MENT OF THE PassION. RETURN TO 
CAPERNAUM AND CONVERSATION THERE, 
—Vv. 2-13. The transfiguration (Mt. 
xvii. I-13, Lk. ix. 28-36).—Ver. 2. 
avadepet with accusative of person=to 
lead, a usage unknown to the Greeks. 
So in Mt.; Lk. avoids the expression. 
—kar’ iSfav pdvovs, apart alone, a pleo- 
nasm, yet pdvovs, in Mk. only, is not 
superfluous, It emphasises the kat’ 
iSiav, and expresses the passion for 
solitude. Strictly, it refers only to the 
three disciples as opposed to the nine, 


but it really reflects the feeling of Jesus, 
His desire to be alone with three 
select companions for a season.—Ver. 3. 
otitBovra, glittering ; here only in N.T., 
common in classics; in Sept. of bright 
brass (Ezra viii. 27) ; “‘ flashing sword” 
(R. V., Nahum iii. 3); sunshine on 
shields (1 Macc. vi. 39).—Aevka Alay, 
white very. All the evangelists become 
descriptive. Mk., as was to be expected, 
goes beyond the two others.—as xtdv 
(T.R.) isa tempting addition, especially 
if Hermon was the scene, but it so 
adequately expresses the highest degree 
of whiteness, that alongside of it Atav 
and the following words, ofa, etc., 
would have been superfluous.—yvadets, 
a fuller, here only in N. T. (@yvadov in 
ii. 21).—éwl rs ys, suggesting a con- 
trast between what fullers on this earth 
can do in the way of whitening cloth, 
and the heaven-wrought brightness of 
Christ’s garments (Schanz).—Ver. 4. 
‘Has avy M.: Elijah first, not as the 
more important, but because of his 
special significance in connection with 
Messiah’s advent, which was the subject 
of subsequent conversation (ver. 9 ff.).— 
Ver. 5. ‘PaB8i, Rabbi: each evangelist 
has a different word here.—xaddy, etc. 
On this vide notes in Mt.—roijowpev : 
let us make, not let me make as in Mt. 
(vide notes there).—gol piav cai Mucet, 
etc.; Moses now comes before Elijah.— 
Ver. 6, tt a@awoxp.8g, what he should 
answer—to the vision ; he did not know 


400 


pia.” 


KATA MAPKON 


6. OU ydp wder ri Aadyjon!- FRoav yap ExpoBor.? 7. 


IX. 


‘ 
Kat 


aLkicgs. @yévero veb&An “emoxidLouga attois: Kai 7AAOe® wv ex Tis 


Acts v.15. 


dxovere.” 5 


GAAG Tov "Incodv pdvov ped” éauTar. 


vepédns, A€youga,* ‘Odrds éorw 6 vids pou 6 dyamntés: aurod 
8. Kat éfdmva meprBrepdpevor, otxére oddéva etSoy, 


9. KataBawvdvrav S¢° adrav 


dard? Tod Spous, Sieotetharo atrois tva pydevi Sinyjowrrat & elSov,® 


et pi) Stay 6 vids Tod dvOpdwou éx vexpav dvacr#. 


IO. Kal Tor 


Adyor éxpdrycay mpds éautods, culntoivtes ti éote 76, ex vexpay 


dvacryvat. 


ypapparets, Ste “HAlav Set €\Gety mpdrov ; ” 


1 awoxptOy in NBCLA 33. 


II. Kal éryputwv autév, déyovres, ‘ “OT. Aéyouow ot 


12. ‘O 8€ daoKpileis, 


2 For noay yap ex. NBCDLA have exdoBor yap eyevovre, 
3 eyevero again in NBCLA; AO a correction of style. 


* SSBC al. omit Aeyovea (from parall.). 
> axovete avtov in RBCDL 33. 
7 BD 33 have ex. 


what else to make of it than that Moses 
and Elijah had come to stay. This is 
probably an apologetic remark added by 
the evangelist to the original narrative. 
Lk. reproduces it in a somewhat altered 
form.—é€xgoBor: they were frightened 
out of their wits (again in Heb. xii. 21) ; 
explains the stupidity of Peter. The 
fear created by the sudden preternatural 
sight made him talk nonsense. Mt. 
makes the fear follow the Divine voice. 
—Ver. 7. Kat éyévero, before vedéAn, 
and again before ¢wvh, in each place 
instead of Mt.’s i8o¥; in both cases 
pointing to something remarkable: an 
overshadowing cloud, and a mysterious 
voice from the cloud.—Ver. 8. éfar.va, 
suddenly, a form belonging to late Greek 
=étarivns=étaldvns : here only in 
N. T.; several times in Sept. Kypke 
cites examples from the Psalms of 
Solomon and Jamblichus. The word 
here qualifies not weptBAeapevor, but 
the change in the state of things which 
they discovered (etSov) on looking around. 
—ovKért ovdeva add, etc.; no longer 
any one except (aA\a=el py after a 
negative).—tév “Incotv, etc.: Jesus 
alone with themselves: the whole ce- 
lestial vision gone as quickly as it came. 

Vv. 9-13. Conversation during the 
descent, not given in Lk.—Ver. 10. ‘Tov 
Adyov éxpatnoay, they kept the word ; 
i.¢., if the verb be taken in the sense of 
vii. 3, 4, 8, gave heed to the Master’s 
prohibition of speech concerning what 
had just happened, at least till after the 


6 ka, kataB. in SBCDLA 33. 
8a «doy before Siny. in SBCDLA. 


resurrection—strictly complied with His 
wish. If we connect mpds éavrovs with 
éxpat., the meaning will be: they kept 
the saying to (with) themselves (A. V.), 
or rather, taking Adyov in the sense of 
“thing,” they kept the matter—what 
had happened—to themselves: did not 
speak about it. The sense is the same 
in effect, but the latter is perhaps the 
better connection of words, as if awpés é. 
were intended to go with ov{nrotvres 
it would more naturally have come after 
it.—rl éore 7d, etc.: the reference to the 
resurrection in the prohibition of the 
Master puzzled and troubled the three 
disciples : resurrection—His own, and 
soon, in our time; but that implies 
death ; whereof, indeed, He lately spoke 
to us, but how hard to receive! Peter’s 
resistance, sympathised with by his 
brethren, not yet overcome. They speak 
of it to one another, though not again to 
the Master.—Ver. 11. rt Adyoucvy, etc. : 
this may be taken as an indirect or 
suggested rather than expressed ques- 
tion, ST. being recitative, as in ii. 16 = 
the Pharisees and scribes say, etc.,— 
how about that? (Weiss in Meyer), or, 
writing not STs but 6, Te (neuter of 
Sorts), as an instance of the use of this 
pronoun as an interrogative in a direct 
question (Meyer, Schanz, vide also Bur- 
ton, M.and T. ,§ 349). De Wette takes ért 
=t( ért after Beza and Grotius (who 
calls it one of Mk.’s Hebraisms).—Ver. 
12. The construction of this sentence 
alsois somewhat puzzling. After “HAias 








6—16, 


EYAITEAION 


401 


etmev! autots, ‘‘“HAtas pev eMOay mp@tov, dmoxabiorg ? mdvta- 


kal TOs yéypanra: éml tov uvidv Tod dvOpdirou, tva mokka 7a0y 


kat efouderw07.§ 


13. GANG Adyw Gptv, ct. Kat “HAias eArdube, 


kal émolnoay atT@ baa nOedycav,* Kabas yeypamtor éw autdv.” 
14. Kat é€X@av> mpds rods palytds, eidev® Syxdov wodby Tepl 


atrous, Kal ypappatets oulntodvtas avrois.® 


15. kal ev0éws mas 


6 dxAog idav? adrov, efeOapPyOn,’ Kal mpootpexovTes HowdLovto 


ies, 
QuUTOV. 


16. kal émnpatyce Tods ypapparets,® “Ti oulytette mpds 


1 For arox. evrey S$BCLA have simply edn. 
2 amokatio-raver in ALA (-rio- in B, W.H., -rag- in D). 


3 Vide below. 
5 eMBovres, evdoy in SBLA. 


4 mQehov in KBCDL. 
6 arpos autos in KYBCILA.. 


7 ovres, e&eOapBndqoay in QBCILA (cBapByoav in D). 8 SBDLA have avtovs. 


comes pév in the best MSS., raising 
expectation of a 8 in the apodosis, 
instead of which we have kat (mds 
yéypamrat), Examples of such sub- 
stitution occur in classic authors; con- 
cerning ‘which Klotz, Devar., p. 659, re- 
marks: when kal, ré, or the like are 
put for 8é after pév, it is not properly 
a case of construction, but rather: 
“‘quaedam quasi legitima orationis ava- 
KoAov0ia”’. Perhaps we are at a loss 
from merely reading the words instead 
of hearing them spoken with a pause 
between first and second half of sen- 
tence, thus: Elias, indeed, coming first, 
restoreth all things (so teach the scribes) 
—and how stands it written about the 
Son of Man?—that He should suffer 
many things and be set at nought! The 
aim is to awaken thought in the mind of 
the disciples by putting together things 
incongruous. All things to be restored 
in preparation for Messiah; Messiah 
Himself to suffer and be set at nought: 
what then can the real function and fate 
of Elijah the restorer be ?. Whois Elijah? 
—étovSevn0q: this form, found in BD 
and adopted by W.H., is rare. The 
verb occurs in three forms—éefovdevéw, 
eEovdevdw (T.R.), EovBevew ; the latter 
two in more common use. The word in 
any form is late Greek. Vide Grimm’s 
Lexicon, and Lobeck, Phryn., p. 181 (from 
2, ovSdv or ov0év=to treat as nought).— 
Ver. 13 contains Christ’s own view of 
Elijah’s coming, which differs both from 
that of the scribes and from that of the 
disciples, who found it realised in the 
vision on the hill.—xaOas yéypamrat én’ 
avrdév: the reference is to the persecu- 
tion of Elijah by Jezebel, the obvious 
intention being to suggest the identifica- 


tion of the expected prophet with the 
Baptist. All pointing to one conclusion 
—suffering the appointed lot of the 
faithful servants of God in this evil 
world: Elijah, John, Jesus. That, the 
lesson Jesus wished by all means to in- 
culcate : the Set wodAa aeiv, now, 
and henceforth, to the end. 

Vv. 14-29. The epileptic boy (Mt. 
xvii. 14-21, Lk. ix. 37-43). The story is 
told in Mark with much greater fulness 
than in the parallels.—Ver. 14. 6xAov 
mohkvv: the great crowd and the fact 
that the disciples at the foot of the hill, 
the nine, had been asked to heal the 
sufferer, are in favour of the view that 
the scene of the transfiguration was less 
remote than Hermon from the familiar 
theatre of the healing ministry of Jesus 
and His disciples.—ypappatets ovlytovv- 
Tag m.a., scribes wrangling with them, 
the nine. This is peculiar to Mark, but 
the situation is easily conceivable: the 
disciples have tried to heal the boy and 
failed (ver. 18); the scribes, delighted 
with the failure, taunt them with it, and 
suggest by way of explanation the 
waning power of the Master, whose 
name they had vainly attempted to 
conjure with. The baffled nine make 
the best defence they can, or perhaps 
listen in silence.—Ver. 15. é&e8apB70- 
noav, were utterly amazed, used by 
Mark only in N. T., here, and in xiv. 33 
and xvi. 5 in connections which demand 
a very strong sense. What was there in 
common in the three situations: the 
returned Master, the agony in the 
garden, and the appearance of the angel 
at the resurrection ? A surprise ; which, 
whether sorrowful or joyful, always gives 
a certain emotional shock. The Master 


26 


402 KATA MAPKON 1x, 

adtols;" 17. Kat daoxpibels ! efs &x Tod 5xdou, elrre,! ‘! AiSdoxade, 
b Ch. vii. Tveyka Tov uidy pou mpds oe, Exovtra mvedua “Gdadov. 18. kal 
chereand Sou Gv adrdv KatahdBy, pyoce aitdv: Kal °ddpiler, at * pile 


ver. 20. a a a 
dhere only, TOUS O8dvtas adtod,? Kal *Enpatverar: Kal elmov tots padyntats cou 


CCH ts tg adtd exBddwor, Kal odx toxucay.” 19. 0 8é Garoxpibeis abra,® 
Epona, | Aéyew **O yeved Gmiotos, Ews wéte mpds Spds Eoopar; ‘ws wéte 
Rev. vi. Gvégopar bpav; pépere adtov mpds pe. 20. Kal qveykay adrov 
pa Ag Tpos adtév: Kal iS8av adrtdv, edOéws Td mvedpa éomdpater 4 adtdv - 


kal tweowy éml THs ys, éxudleto dppilwy. 21. Kal émnpdrnce tov 
matépa ato’, ‘‘Mécos xpdvos éotiv, ws TodTo yéyovey adTa ;” 
“O Sé elwe, ‘‘ Mardidbev.® 


éBare kai eis Gata, twa dwodéoyn autov: GAN et te SUvacan,? 


22. Kal todAdkis atTov Kal els mop ° 


! aarexptOy avtw without eure in RBDLA 33. 


2 Omit avrov NBCDLA 33. 


4 +o mv. evbus cvveorapatey in NBCLA 33. 


6 avrov after kat as wup in MBCLA. 


reappears, when He is not looked for, 
when He is needed, and when His name 
is being taken in vain, perhaps not with- 
out a certain sympathy on the part of the 
volatile crowd not accustomed hitherto 
to miscarriage of attempts at healing 
when the name of Jesus was invoked. 
In that case their feeling would be a 
compound of confusion and gladness— 
ashamed and yet delighted to see Him, 
both betrayed in their manner.—Ver. 16. 
érnpotycev a’tovs, He asked them, #.e., 
the people who in numbers ran to meet 
Him. Jesus had noticed, as He drew 
near, that there was a dispute going on 
in which the disciples were concerned, 
and not knowing the composition of the 
crowd, He proceeds on the assumption 
that they had all a share in it = the 
crowd as a whole versus the nine.—Ver. 
17. The father of the sick boy answers 
for the company, explaining the situation, 
laying the main stress of course on the 
deplorable condition of his child.—mpés 
oc, to thee, not aware that Jesus was 
absent.—avedpa GAadov, a dumb spirit ; 
the boy dumb, and therefore by inference 
the spirit.—Ver. 18. Sov Gv a. xata- 
AaBy, wherever it happens to seize him. 
The possession (€xovta, ver. 17) is con- 
ceived of as intermittent; ‘‘the way of 
the spirit inferred from the characteristic 
phenomena of the disease” (The Mira- 
culous Element in the Gospels, p. 181). 
Then follows a graphic description of the 
ensuing symptoms: spasms (fpjoce, a 
late form of pyyvupt), foaming (adpifer 


3 avrots in $ABDLA 33. 
5 ex macd. in NBCILA 33. 
7 Suvy in SBDILA. 


from agpds: he, the boy, foameth), 
grinding of the teeth (. pier t. 68.), then 
the final stage of motionless stupor 
graphically described as withering (&%- 
paiverat), for which Euthy. gives as an 
equivalent avatoOyret, and Weizsacker 
‘und wird starr”’. 

Ver. 19. The complaint of Fesus, 
vide on Matthew.—Observe the mpds 
tpas instead of Matthew’s pe® tpov. = 
how long shall I be in relations with you, 
have to do with yow?—Ver. 20. idav 
may be taken as referring to the boy 
(Schanz), in which case we should have 
an anacolouthistic nominative for the 
accusative, the writer having in view to 
express his meaning in passives (éxvA- 
tero) ; or to the spirit (wvetpa) by a con- 
struction ad sensum = the spirit seeing 
Jesus made a last attack (Weiss in Meyer, 
et al.). This is most in keeping with the 
mode of conceiving the matter natural to 
the evangelist. The visible fact was a 
fresh fit, and the explanation, from the 
possession point of view, that the spirit, 
seeing Jesus, and knowing that his power 
was at an end, made a final assault.— 
Ver. 21. os: a particle of time, here as 
frequently in Luke and John = since, or 
when.—ék a.didfev, éx redundant, 
similar to awd paxpdbev (v. 6).—Ver. 
22. et rt Sivy, if Thou canst do any- 
thing (A. and R. Vv.), or better, if any- 
how Thou canst help. The father speaks 
under the impression that the case, as he 
has just described it, is one of peculiar 
difficulty ; therefore while the leper said 





Pe , EYAITEAION 


BorOnoov piv, omdayxvicbels eb Hpas.” 
1 


23. ‘O 8€ “Ingods elmer 
aurT@, ‘Td, et Sivacar mortedoa,! mévta Suvata TH mMoTEdorTL.” 
24. Kat? ed0éws xpdtas 6 mathp Tod madiou, peta SaxpUwy ® Edeye, 
“Thotedw, Kupte,* BonPer pou tH aGmotia.” 25. “ISav Sé 6 "Incods 
te emuouvtpexet Sxdos, eweTipnoe TH Trvevpatt TO dxabdptw, héywv 
avT@, “Td mvedpa TS GAadov kat Kwpdv,° éyd cor émitdcow,” eee 
e€ autod, Kal pyKeéte eicéhOns eis actéy.” 26. Kat xpdgav, cai 
To\AG omrapdgav aurév,® e&fOe- Kat éyévero doel vexpds, dote 
mohdods” Aéyew Gtr dreOavey. 27. & S€ “Ingods Kparjcas avrov 
THs xetpds,® Hyetpev adrov: Kal dvéory. 
28. Kal eicehOdvta attév® eis ofkov, of pabytal avrod érnputwy 
. 


autév kat idiay,® "Or. Hpets odk ASuvyOnpev exBadetv avrd ;” 
29. Kai eimev attots, ““Todto Td yévos év obdevl Suvatar efeOeiv, 


403 


= al eet a ‘ 7 710 
El py EV TPOTEVUYXT KQL vHOTELG. 


1 e. Suvy without morevoat (a gloss) in BDA (CL Buvacat without mo.). 


2 Omit kat BLA. 
4 Omit Kupre SBCDL. 


3 Omit pera Sax. SBCLA (Tisch., W.H.). 


5 ro wveupa after kwoov, and oor after erttacow in $BCLA 33. 


6 S8BCDL have xpatas, orapagtas, and omit avrov. 


7 tous Tod. in NABLA 33. 


8 rns xetpos avTov in NBDLA. 


® eoehGovtos avtov in SBCDLA, also nar t8rav before ewnpwrtov. 
10 $8B omit kat vqoreta, which comes from Mt, (T.R.). 


“if Thou wilt,” he says “if Thou canst”. 
With reference to the form Svvy, Phryn. 
says that it is right after éav, but that at 
the beginning of a sentence 8vvacar must 
be used (p. 359).—Ver. 23. 7d el Suv, 
nominative absolute: as to the “if Thou 
canst’’.—mdvra Svuv., all, in antithesis 
to the tt of the father.—Ver. 24. kpdgas: 
eager, fear-stricken cry ; making the most 
of his little faith, to ensure the benefit, 
and adding a prayer for increase of faith 
(BonGet, etc.) with the idea that it would 
help to make the cure complete. The 
father’s Jove at least was above suspicion. 
Meyer and Weiss render ‘‘ help me even 
if unbelieving,” arguing that the other, 
more cOmmon rendering is at variance 
with the meaning of BonPyoov in ver. 22. 

Vv. 25-29. The cure.—émirvvtpéxer 
(Gm. Aey.) indicates that the crowd was 
constantly increasing, so becoming a new 
crowd (6xAos without art.); natural in the 
circumstances. Jesus seeing this proceeds 
to cure without further delay. The spirit 
is now described as unclean and, with re- 
ference to the boy’s symptoms, both dumb 
and deaf.—pykét. eioéAOys, enter not 
again. ‘This was the essential point in a 
case of intermittent possession. Thespirit 


went out at the end of each attack, but re- 
turned again.—Ver. 26 describes a final 
fit, apparently worse than the preceding. 
It was evidently an aggravated type of 
epilepsy, fit following on fit and pro- 
ducing utter exhaustion. Mark’s ela- 
borate description seems to embody the 
recollections of one on whom the case 
had made a great impression.—Ver. 28. 
eis otkov: into a house, when or whose 
not indicated, the one point of interest 
to the evangelist is that Jesus is now 
alone with His disciples.—6rt, recitative, 
here as in ver. 11, introduces a suggested 
question: we were not able to cast it 
out—why ?—Ver. 29. tovto 7d yévos, 
etc.: This is one of the texts which very 
soon became misunderstood, the ascetic 
addition, kal vnotelqg, being at once a 
proof and a cause of misunderstanding. 
The traditional idea has been that Jesus 
here prescribes a certain discipline by 
which the exorcist could gain power to 
cope successfully with the most obstinate 
cases of possession, a course of prayer 
and fasting. This idea continues to 
dominate the mind even when the 
ascetic addition to the text has come to 
be regarded as doubtful; witness this 


404 


KATA MAPKON 


IX. 


30. KAI éxetOer e&ehOdvres maperopetovto! Sid ths FadiAalas- 


kal ox 70edev tva Tis yrd.? 


31. €didacke yap Tods pabytas adrod, 


Kal Eheyev adrois, “Ort 8 vids rod dvOpdirou mapadiSora: eis xeipas 


évOpdtrwv, Kal droKxtevodow adtéy: Kal doxtavOeis, tH TpiTy 


Hepa ® dvacrjicera.” 
adtév érepwrfcat. 


32. Ot Be hyvdour 7d Aipa, Kai epoBodvro 


33- Kat AdOev* eis Katepvaodp- Kai dy tH oikia yevdpevos, 
&mpata adtods, “Ti dv rH 630 mpds Eautods® Siehoyilecbe ;” 


1 BD have emopevovro (W.H., text), wapem. in CLA (Tisch.). 


2 yvo. in NBCDL. 


«So in CLA, nA8ov in $B (Tisch., W.H.). 


remark: ‘* The authorisation, however 
(for omitting kal vyo.), is not sufficient. 
But even if it were overwhelming, fast- 
ing would, in its essence, be implied” 
(Morison on Mark). What Jesus said 
doubtless was: ‘‘ This kind can go out 
in (on the ground of) nothing except 
prayer,’ and His meaning that there was 
no hope of success except through a 
believing (of course faith is implied) 
appeal to the almighty power of God. 
It was a thought of the same kind as 
that in Mt. xix. 26 (Mk. x. 27): the 
impossible for man is possible for God. 
Of course in the view of Christ, prayer, 
faith (vide Mt. xvii. 20), both in healer 
and in healed, was needful in all cases, 
but He recognised that there were certain 
aggravated types of disease (the present, 
one of them) in which the sense of 
dependence and trust was very specially 
required. In the case of the epileptic 
boy this had been lacking both in the 
father and in the disciples. Neither he 
nor they were hopeful of cure. 

Vv. 30-32. Second announcement of 
the Passion (Mt. xvii. 22, 23, Lk. ix. 
43-45).—Ver. 30. Kal éxetOev éEedOdvres, 
going forth from thence, i.e., from the 
scene of the last cure, wherever that was: 
it might be north or south of their des- 
tination (Capernaum)—Caesarea Philippi 
or Tabor.—wrapemopevovro, they passed 
along without tarrying anywhere. Some 
take the wapa in the compound verb 
to mean, went along by-ways, to avoid 
publicity: ‘‘diverticulo ibant, non via 
regia,’’ Grotius. It is certainly true that 
Jesus had become so well known in 
Galilee that it would be difficult for Him 
on the thoroughfares to escape recogni- 
tion as He wished (otc 7Oedcv tva tis 
yvot).—Ver. 31. é8i8acKxe yap, etc.: 
gives the reason for this wish. It was 


* pera tTpers nHepas in SBCDLA. 
5 Omit wpos eav. NBCDL. 


the reason for the whole of the recent 
wandering outside Galilee: the desire 
to instruct the Twelve, and especially to 
prepare them for the approaching crisis. 
—«al éeyev introduces the gist or main 
theme of these instructions. The words 
following: Stt 6 vids, etc., are more than 
an announcement made in so many words 
once for all: they are rather the text of 
Christ’s whole talk with His disciples as 
they went along. He was so saying 
(€Xeyev, imperfect) all the time, in effect. 
—wapadiSorat, is betrayed, present; it 
is as good as done. The betrayal is the 
new feature in the second announcement, 
—Ver. 32. wyvoouv: they had heard the 
statement before, and had not forgotten 
the fact, and their Master had spoken too 
explicitly for them to be in any doubt 
as to His meaning. What they were 
ignorant of was the why, the Set. With 
all He had said, Jesus had not yet been 
able to make that plain. They will 
never know till the Passion has become 
a fact accomplished.—fjjpa, a solemn 
name for the utterance (vide Mt. iv. 4)= 
the oracular, prophetic, and withal 
weird, mysterious word of doom.—é¢o- 
Botvro, they feared to ask, they did not 
wish to understand, they would live on 
in hope that their Master was under a 
hallucination ; true to human nature. 
Vv. 33-50. The Twelve at school (Mt. 
xviii. 1-10, Lk. ix. 46-50, etc.).—Ver. 33. 
Kazrepvaotp: home? This statement, 
more than anything eise in Mk., gives 
the impression that Capernaum was a 
kind of home for Jesus.—év rq oixiq, in 
the house, opposed to év rq 68, but pro- 
bably pointing to a particular house in 
which Jesus was wont to stay.—ti . . . 
StedoyileoGe, what were ye discussing ? 
Jesus did not always walk beside His 
disciples (vide x. 32). He went before, 





a ie 


EYATTEAION 


40—40. 


405 


34. OL Be eorwdmwv- mpds GAAHAoUs ydp *dreh€xOnoav ev TH 484, g here in 


Gospels. 
Tis peiLwv. 35. Kat Kalioas “ébdvnce Tods Sddexa, Kat Aéyet Several 
eta! “ce A 2 ” > , times in 
autois, “Et tus OéXer mp@tos elvar, Eorar mdvtTwy Eoxatos, Kal Acts and 
in Heb. 
mdvtwv SidKovos.” 36. Kal AaBav mardiov, Eotycev adté év péow xii. 5. 
ps A vide at 
auT@V: Kat * €vaykahiodpevos autd, etmev adtois” 37. “*Os dav) Ev Mt.xx.32 
. j. Ch.x. 16, 


Tov ToLovTwv Tradiwy SéEjtar emt TO dvdpari pou, ewe Séxerar* Kal 


ds édv! ene Sééqrar,? odm eye SéxeTar, GAA Tov dootethavTd jue.” 
38. "AmexpiOy S¢% atte 6 “lwdvyys, Aéyov,® “ Avddoxade, eidSouev 


Twa TH dvdpati* cou ekBdddovta Saipdvia, Ss odk dkoouder Hpiv >> 


kal éxwdtcaper © adtdv, Ste obK dKohouder ® Huiv.” 


39 “O 8é "Inaots 


4 
etme, “Mi KwAvete adtov: ovdels ydp éotw Ss woijcer SUvapuy emt 


es Tee , ‘ , A ol , 
TO dvopati pou, Kal Suvyjcetat Tax KaKohoyioal pe. 


40. os yap 


1 BDLA have av in both places, S§C in the first place. 


2So in CDAZ al. 


NBL have Sexnrat (Tisch., W.H.). 


3 For amex. 5e SBA have ey and omit Aeyev. 


4 With ey prefixed in RBCDLAY. 


5 This clause os . 
modern editors. 
OTL OVK, etc.). 


. . Npiv is omitted in NBCLA, and treated as doubtful by 
It may have been omitted to avoid redundancy (vide last clause, 
But such redundancy is characteristic of Mk. 


8 exwAvopev in SBDLA, and nxodovée in BBCLA. 


thinking His deep thoughts, they followed 
thinking their vain thoughts. The 
Master had noticed that something 
unusual was going on, divined what 
it was, and now asks.—Ver. 34. éoww- 
aev, they kept silent, ashamed to tell.— 
Ver. 35. Kal xafioas, etc.: every word 
here betokens a deliberate attempt to 
school the disciples in humility. The 
Master takes His seat (ka@l(oas), calls His 
scholars with a magisterial tone (ée- 
vyoev, for various senses in which used, 
vide references, Mt. xx. 32)-—the Twelve 
(rovs §.), called to an important vocation, 
and needing thorough discipline to be of 
service in it.—et tts OéAeu, etc.; the direct 
answer to the question under discussion— 
who the greatest ? = greatness comes by 
humility (é¢o0,a7os), and service (8tdKovos). 
—Ver. 36. The child, produced at the 
outset in Mt., is now brought on the 
scene (AaBov), not, however, as a model 
(that in x. 15), but as an object of kind 
treatment.—évaykahiodpevos: in Mk. 
only = taking it into His arms, to sym- 
bolise how all that the child represents 
should be treated.—Ver. 37. 8é&nrat in 
the first member of the sentence, S€xnTat 
in the second; the former (aorist sub- 
junctive with Gy),.the more regular in a 
clause expressing future possibility. 
Winer, xlii. 3b (a). The second member 


of the sentence is not in the correspond- 
ing place in Mt., but is given in Mt. x. 4o. 

Vv. 38-41. A reminiscence (Lk. ix. 
49-50). Probably an incident of the 
Galilean mission, introduced without 
connecting particle, therefore (Weiss) 
connection purely topical; suggested 
(Holtz., H. C.) to the evangelist by the 
expression émi +. dvépari pov in ver. 37, 
answering to év tT. 6. o in ver. 38.— 
éxBaddovra 8. : exorcists usually conjured 
with some name, Abraham, Solomon; 
this one used the name of Jesus, im- 
plying some measure of faith in His 
worth and power.—éxwdvopey, imperfect, 
taken by most as implying repeated in- 
terdicts, but it may be the conative 
imperfect = we tried to prevent him.— 
otk jkoAovGet, he did not follow us; the 
reason for the prohibition, The aloof- 
ness of the exorcist is represented as still 
continuing in the words 8 ovK akoNov0et 
(T. R.).—Ver. 39. Jesus disallows the 
interdict for a reason that goes deeper 
than the purely external one of the 
disciples = not of our company? well, 
but with us at heart.—8vuvyjoerar taxd: 
points to moral impossibility: use of 
Christ’s name in exorcism incompatible 
with hostile or inappreciative thought 
and speech of Him.—rayv softens the 
assertion: not soon; he may do it, but 


406 KATA MAPKON IX. 


od €or Kad’ Spdv,! imép Spay! gor. 41. 5 yap av worion bpas 
woryptoy Wartos év tO dvdépari pou,? Sr Xprotod ote, duty Aéyw 
Opiv, of ph dwoddon 8 rdv pcOdv adtod. 42. Kai ds dv cxavSahioy 
éva Tay piKpav 4 trav moreudvtwy eis end,” Kaddv éorw adtd paddoy, 
i Lk. xvil.2. " ‘ wepixecras AiBos pudtkds © wept rdv tpdxndov abtod, kal BEBAnTar 
Le Heb. els THY Oddacoav. 43. Kal édv oxavdahily’ oe H Xelp cou, dmd- 
Kooy adtyvy> Kaddv go éori® xuddédv eis Tiv Lwiy eicedOeiv,? 4 
Tas S00 xeElpas €xovta dareOeiv eis Thy yéevvav, eis Td wip Td 
GoBeorov, 44. Smou 6 oKodn§ adtav of tedeurG, Kat rd Tp ov 
oBévvutat.2° 45. nat édv dé mods cou cxavdahiLyn ce, dardKoov 
adrév Kaddv ori cor! cicehOeiv eis Thy Lwhy Xohdv, H Tods Bu0 
mé8as Exovta BAnOijvat eis Thy yéevvav, eis 7d wip To doBeortov,}? 
46. dou 6 oxddné adrav of teheuTG, kal 1d mip ob cPévvutat.!0 
47- kai édv 6 d0adpds cou oxavdahifn oe, éxBade adrév: Kaddy 
gor éoti!® povdpbadpov eiceOetv eis Tiv Bacielay tod Geod, 4 Sido 
SpPadpods Exovra Bry Oijvar eis Thy yéevvay Tob aupos,!4 48. Saou 6 


} npey in both places in $BCD. 


* ev ovopatt simply in BCLE (W.H.), ev ov. pov in SDA (Tisch.). 


? ott before ov py in $BCDLA. 


‘ rout after pixpwov in SBCDLA. 


* ets ewe may come from Mt., though it is in NBL; wanting in S§A (Tisch., 


W.H.) 


° pvAos ovexos in $BCDLA may be a conforming to Mt., but T.R. more probably 


conforms to Lk. 
7 oxavSadton in SWBLA. 
9 ecoed Oey before evs in NECDLA. 


8 ear oe in NBCLA. 


1® Ver. 44 is wanting in BCLA, some minusc. and verss., also ver. 46 (Tisch., 
44 g 4 


W.H. om.). 
U ge in BABCLA. 


13 ge eoTw in WB. 


it will mean a change of mind, and dis- 
use of my name.—Ver. 40. The counter- 
part truth to that in Mt. x. 30. Both 
truths, and easily harmonised. _ It is in 
both cases a question of tendency; a 
little sympathy inclines to grow to more, 
so also with a lack of sympathy. Vide 
on Mt. xii. 30.—Ver. 41 = Mt. x. 42, but 
a later secondary form of the saying : 
jTotyptoy Udatos for m. Yuxpov, and ott 
Xpiorov éore instead of eis Ov. pabyrov. 

Vv. 42-48. After the episode of the 
exorcist the narrative returns to the dis- 
course broken off at ver. 38. From 
receiving little children and all they re- 
present, Jesus passes to speak of the sin 
of causing them to stumble.—Ver. 42. 
xaNdy, etc.: well for him; rather = better. 
Each evangelist has his own word here: 
Mt. oupopeper, Lk. (xvii. 2) Avowredet; 
but Mk., according to the best attested 


12 Omit erg To . 


4 rou Tupos Omit MBDLA (BL omit tyv before yeevvay). 


- » agBeotov NBCLA. 


reading, has the strong phrase pvdos 
évixds in common with Mt. He is con- 
tent, however, with the expression “in 
the sea,” instead of Mt.’s ‘‘in the deep 
part of thesea,” the faithful reproduction, 
probably, of what Jesus actually said.— 
Ver. 43. The offender of the little ones 
is still more an offender against himself, 
hence the discourse by an easy transition 
passes to counsels against such folly. In 
Mk.’s version these are given in a most par- 
ticular way, hand, foot and eye being each 
used separately to illustrate the common 
admonition, In Mt. hand and foot are 
combined. In the third illustration eis 
tHV Cwrv is replaced by cig t. Bactdciav 
7.0. The refrain: ‘‘ where the worm, 
etc.,” is repeated in T. R. with solemn 
effect after each example, but the best 
MSS. have it only after the third, vw 
44, 46 being thus omitted (R. V.). 


4 I—50. 


oxddné adrav ob TedeuTa, Kal T6 Tip oF oBévvuTat. 


mupt GdusOjoerat, kal Taca Ouoia GAL dhioOjceTar. 


EYATTEAION 


407 


49. Nas yap 


1 50. kahdv To 


s . 
Gdas: édv S€ TS Gas Gvadovy yevyntot, év tive adtd ™ dptucere ; k Lk. xiv. 


éxere év Eautois Gas,” kat eipnvedete ev ANAHots.” 


34. Col. 
iv. 6. 


1 This last clause is omitted in BLA, many minusc. (Tisch., W.H., vide below). 


2 aka in SABDLA. 


Salting inevitable and 
indispensable. ‘These verses appear only 
in Mk. as part of this discourse. The 
logion in ver. 50 corresponds to Mt. v. 
13, Lk. xiv. 34-35.—Ver. 49 is a crux 
interpretum, and has given rise to great 
diversity of interpretation (vide Meyer, 
ad loc.). Three questions may be asked. 
(1) What is the correct form of the say- 
ing? (2) Was it spoken at this time by 
Jesus? (3) If it was, how is it to be 
connected with the previous context? 
As to (1) some important MSS. (NBLA 
and the new Syr. Sin.) omit the second 
half of the sentence, retaining only 
‘every one shall be salted with fire”. 
D and some copies of the old Lat. omit 
the first part and retain the second. W. 
and H, retain only part1. Weiss and 
Schanz think that the text must be taken 
in its entirety, and that part 2 fell out by 
homoeoteleuton, or was omitted because of 
its difficulty. Holtzmann, H. C., is in- 
clined to favour the reading of D. It is 
difficult to decide between these alterna- 
tives, though I personally lean to the 
first of the three, not only because of 
the weighty textual testimony, but, as 
against D, on account of the startling 
character of the thought, salted with 
fire, its very boldness witnessing for its 
authenticity. As to (2) I think it highly 
probable that such thoughts as vv. 49-50 
contain were spoken at this time by 
Jesus. The two thoughts, salting in- 
evitable and salting indispensable, were 
thoroughly apposite to the situation: a 
master teaching men in danger of moral 
shipwreck through evil passion, and 
unless reformed sure to prove unfit for 
the work to which they were destined. 
I cannot therefore agree with Holtzmann 
(H. C.) that Mk., misled by the word 
mvp in ver. 48, has brought in here a 
logion spoken at some other time. As 
to (3) I see no necessity to regard yap, 
ver. 49, as binding us down to a close 
exclusive connection with ver. 48, re- 
quiring us to interpret ver. 49a thus: 
every one that does not cut off the 
offending member shall be salted by the 
fire of hell; itself quenchless, and not 


Vv. 49-50. 


destroying its victim, as it is the nature 
of ordinary fire to do, but rather pre- 
serving him for eternal torment, like 
salt. Thus viewed, ver. 49a is a mere 
comment on the words ov ofévvurat. 
The saying should rather be taken in 
connection with the whole course of 
thought in vv. 43-48, in which case it 
will bear this sense: ‘‘ every one must be 
salted somehow, either with the un- 
quenchable fire of gehenna, or with the 
fire of severe self-discipline. Wise is he 
who chooses the latter alternative.” If 
we ignore the connection with ver. 48, 
and restrict was to the disciple-circle, 
this alternative rendering willbe avoided, 
and the idea will be: every man who is 
to come to any good, will, must, be 
salted with fire. In that case, however, 
it is difficult to account for the unusual 
combination of salt and fire, whose 
functions are so opposed. gb is of 
quite subordinate importance, merely at 
best a parabolic aid to thought. Grotius 
and others divide the sacrifices into two 
classes answering to the two forms of 
salting: burnt otferings typifying those 
consumed in hell, peace offerings those 
preserved by self-discipline.—Ver. 50 
sets forth the other great truth: salting 
in the form of self-discipline indispen- 
sable.—nahov TO GAas, an excellent 
thing is salt; a most seasonable truth 
just then. What follows seems less so, 
as it stands in Mk.’s text. As spoken by 
Jesus, if we may assume that it was 
spoken on this occasion, it might come 
in quite naturally. The three thoughts 
in this verse: salt good, care must be 
taken that it lose not its virtue, have 
salt in yourselves, may be merely themes 
packed together in a single sentence, on 
which Jesus discoursed at length.— 
avadov, aw. Aey. in N. T., used in later 
Greek; pwpav0f in Mt. and Lk.— 
éxete év Eautots ada, have salt in your- 
selves, Inthe two former clauses dis- 
ciples are thought of, as in Mt. v. 13, as 
themselves salt for the world. Here 
they are viewed as the subject of the 
salting process. They must be salted in 
order to be salt to the world, their 


408 


X. 1. KAKEIOEN! dvactds Epxerar eig Ta Spia tis “lovdalas, 
81a tod ? wépay rod “lopSdvou~ Kal cupmopevovtar mé&duv dxdou mpds 
adtov: Kal ds eidOer, wdduv €didackev adtous. 
oi § dapicator ernpdtygar® adrdy, ci ESeotw avdpt yuvaika dmodioa, 


meipdlovtes adtév. 
évete(Aato Mworjs ;” 


, ~ 
Gmootagiou ypapat, Kal dmoddoat.” 


ettrey > 


1 kat exerOev in NBCDA. 


2 kat instead of Sta Tov in NBCL; wepav without karin DA. The «at caused 
trouble to scribes, some omitted it after Mt., some substituted 81a tov as in T.R. 


3 BLA omit ot (added here as usual), and $BCDLA have the imperfect 
exnpwtwy instead of the aorist so often substituted for it in T.R. (again in ver. 10). 


4 ewetpewev M. in NBDLA. 
5 For nat... 


ulterior vocation. Meantime a more 
immediate effect of their being salted is 
pointed out in the closing words.— 
cipynvevere é&v aAdAyjAois: be at peace 
with one another; which they were not. 
The cause of dispeace was ambition. 
The salting would consist in getting rid 
of that evil spirit at whatever cost.— 
eipnvevere: a Pauline word, remarks 
Holtz. (H.C.). | True, but why not also 
a word of Jesus? certainly very apposite 
to the occasion. 

Note.—Salting of disciples imports 
suffering pain, but is not to be con- 
founded with the cross-bearing of faith- 
ful disciples (viii. 34). The former is the 
discipline of self-denial necessary to 
make a mana follower of Christ worthy 
of the name. The latter is the tribulation 
that comes on all who follow closely in 
the footsteps of Christ. The one is 
needful to make us holy, the other over- 
takes us when and because we are holy. 

CHAPTER X. MARRIAGE QUESTION. 
LiItTLE CHILDREN. QUEST AFTER 
ETERNAL Lire. Two Sons OF 
ZEBEDEE. BARTIMAEUS.—Ver. 1. The 
departure from Galilee (Mt. xix. 1).— 
éxei@ev AvagTas, asin vii. 24, g.v.; there, 
of a departure from Galilee which was 
followed by a return (ix. 33), here, of a 
final departure, so far as we know. 
Beza finds in the expression a Hebraism 
—to sit is to remain in a place, to rise is 
to depart from it. Kypke renders, et inde 
discedens, and gives classic examples of 
the usage.—els Ta. p10 7. |. nal mépay, etc., 
into the borders of Judaea and of Peraea; 
how reached not indicated. The read- 
ing of T. R. 81a row wépay .’l. gives the 
route. Vide on Mt., ad loc., where the 


KATA MAPKON 


3- & S€ diroxpibeis elev adtots, “Ti piv 
4. Ol 8é elmov, “ Mwors émérpepe * BiBdiov 


attots, ““Mpds thy oxdnpoxapdiay Spay eypawey Spiv thy 


evrev read with SBCLA o Be I. evzrev. 


















x. 


2. Kai mpooehOdvtes 


5. Kat daroxpiBels 6 “Incods 


kat (of BCL) is omitted.—ovprropev- 
ovrat madw, crowds again gather.— 
6xAot, plural; here only, with reference 
to the different places passed through.— 
@s ciabe., as He was wont; remarked 
on, because the habit had been suspended 
for a season during which the whole 
attention of Jesus had been devoted to 
the Twelve. That continues to be the 
case mainly still. In every incident the 
Master has an eye to the lesson for the 
disciples. And the evangelist takes 
pains to make the lesson prominent. 
Possibly his incidents are selected and 
grouped with that in view: marriage, 
children, money, etc. (so Weiss in 
Meyer).—éS5i8acxev, He continued teach- 
ing, so also in vi. 34. In both places 
Mt. (xiv. 14, xix. 2) speaks of heal- 
ing. Yet Mk.’s Gospel is a gospel of. 
acts, Mt.’s of words. Each is careful 
to make prominent, in general notices, 
what he comparatively neglects in 
detail. 

Vv. 2-12. The question of divorce (Mt. 
xix. 3-12).—amoAvoat: the question is 
put absolutely, the qualifying clause 
Kata jwacay aitiav in Mt. being omitted. 
Thus put the question presupposes 
knowledge of Christ’s high doctrine as 
to marriage, and is an attempt to bring 
Him into collision with the Mosaic law, 
as absolutely interdicting what it allowed. 
—Ver. 3. tl tpiv evereiAato M.: here 
Jesus has in view not what Moses 
allowed in Deut. xxiv. 1, but what he in 
Genesis enjoined as the ideal state of 
things (Moses from the Jewish point of 
view author of the Pentateuch and ali its 
legislation). They naturally supposed He 
had in view the tormer (ver. 4).—Ver. 5 


I—14. KYAITEAION 
évrohiyy tadtyy: 6. dard 8€ dpxijs Kticews, dpoev Kat OFAu éroinoer 
autos 6 Ocds.! 7, ‘ €vexev ToUTou kaTaheiper dvOpwros Tov TaTEépa 
adToU Kal Thy pytépa> Kal mpookoAnPyceTaL Tpds Thy yuvaixa 
autod,? 8. kat écovra of SUo0 eis odpka pilav. Gore ovdxért eict 
duo, GAAA pla odpé. 
2 
xwpiléto. 


abtTod émnpatyncay * adtdv. 


9. 8 obv 6 Gcds ouvéLeugev, avOpwros ph 


10. Kat év rH oikia ® médw ot pantal adtod mepl Tob 
II. kat Méyer adtots, “Os éav atrohton 
Thy yuvatka adtod Kal yapnon GAAnv, porxGTar éw adtHy: 12. Kal 
éav yu) > darodvon Tov dvBpa adtis Kai> yapnOA GAA,” poixarar. 

13. Kat mpocépepoy adt@ mardia, iva adpntar adtay- ot Se 
pabytat emetipwy tois mpoopepouow.® 14. idmy 8€ 6 “Ingots 
nyavdetynge, Kat elev adtois, ““Apete Ta matdia Epxecdar mds 


‘ A A n 
f j 5 ‘ j ZoTlvy % Bactheta Tob 
€, kai’ pi Kodvete adtd: TOY yap ToLoUTwY éoTiv h 


409 


1Qmit o @eog SBCLA. D has o @., and omits avrouvs (W.H. omit o 6. and 


bracket avrovs),. 


2 kal TpooK... .« 


Sept. 
3 eis THY orkcav in NBDLA. 


avrov, omitted in ${B, is probably an addition from Mt. or 


4 ov pad. wept TovTOU ewynpwrev in & (rovtwv) BCLA (Tisch., W.H.). 


5 For yuvn amr. SBCLA have avty arolvoaca without Kat, and for yapnOy 
adAw, yapnon addoyv (so also D: Tisch., W.H.). 


6 S8BCLA have avtwy before anrat, eretipnooy for ewitipwv, and avrois for 


ToLs mpoadepovar (W.H.). 


7 BAX omit nat, which comes from parall., and weakens the force of the words. 


Vide below. 


Both evangelists, while varying consider- 
ably in their reports, carefully preserve 
this important logion as to legislation 
conditioned by the sklerokardia.— 
mavTny: at the end, with emphasis ; 
this particular command in contradiction 
to the great original one.—Ver. 6: ‘* But 
from the beginning of the creation (it 
runs) ‘male and female made He them,’” 
apoev kal, etc., being a quotation from 
Sept. (Gen. i. 27), vv. 7,8 being another 
(vide Gen, ii. 24), with Christ’s comment 
in the last clause of ver. 8 and in ver. 9 
appended. On the import of the words 
vide in Mt., ad loc.—Vv. 10-12 report as 
spoken to the Twelve in the house (as 
opposed to the way in which the 
Pharisees are supposed to have en- 
countered Jesus) what in Mt.’s version 
appears as the last word to the in- 
terrogants (ver. 9). Two variations are 
noticeable: (1) the absence of the 
qualifying clause et py émi qopveig, and 
(2) the addition of a clause (ver. 12) 
stating the law in its bearing on the 
woman = if she put away her husband 
and marry another, she is an adulteress. 


In the former case Mk. probably reports 
correctly what Christ said; in the latter 
he has added a gloss so as to make 
Christ’s teaching a guide for his Gentile 
readers. Jewish women could not divorce 
their husbands. The em’ avriv at the 
end of ver, 11 may mean either against, 
to the prejudice of, her (the first wife), 
or with her (the second). The former 
view is taken by the leading modern 
exegetes, the latter by Victor Ant., 
Euthy., Theophy., and, among moderns, 
Ewald and Bleek. 

Vv. 13-16. Suffer the children (Mt. 
xix, 13-15, Lk. xviii. 15-17).—Ver. 13. 
mardia as in Mt. Lk. has Bpépyn = 
infants carried in arms. Note the use of 
the compound wpocédepoy; elsewhere 
the simple verb. The word is commonly 
used of sacrifices, and suggests here the 
idea of dedication.—&yrat, touch, 
merely, as if that alone were enough to 
bless; prayer mentioned in Mt.—vrois 
apoodépovoy (T. R.), probably interprets 
the avrois (W.H.) after émeripqoav.— 
Ver. 14. yavaxtynoe, “was moved 
with indignation” (R. V.) is too strong, 


410 


KATA MAPKON X. 


@cod 15. dphy Aéyw Spiv, bs €dv ph Senta thy Baordelay tod 


Gcod ds tadiov, ob ph etoAAOy Cis adrijy.” 


16. Kat évayxahiod- 


pevos atta, Tels Tas Xxelpas ew adtd, niddyer add.) 


17. Kal €kwopevopévou attod eis 686v, mpoodpapdv els Kat 


yovuTerjoas attov érnpita adrdy, “Arddoxahe dyabd, ti romjow 


iva Cwiv aidvov KAnpovopyow ;” 


“Ti pe Méyers dyabdr ; 


obdeis dyads, ei ph els, 6 Ceds. 


18. “O 8€ “Incods elwev adta, 
IQ. TAS 


évrohas olSas, Mi) poixedons* ph ovedons?> pi Keys: pi) 
WeuSopaptupyons* ph) dtrootepyons: Tina tov watépa cou Kal Ti 


pnTépa.” 


acf.Ch. xiv, wavta épudagduny éx vedtyTds pou.” 


67. Lk. xx. 
17; xxii. 61. 


< “ 
20. “O S€ droxpileis eitev® adtG, “ AiSdoxahe, Tadta 


21. ‘O 8€ “Inaois * éuBréipas 


nA 2 pan ‘ ~ ° a 
“ait jydwncev adtdv, kal elev aitd, “"Ev cou+ botepet: imaye, 


doa Exets THANGOY, Kal Sds Tois® wrwxois, Kal fers Onoaupdy év 


1 Instead of riBets . 
ew. avta (Tisch., W.H.). 


. . NuAoyet auta NBCLA have xatevAoyet Tiers Tas xeLrpas 


2 ny povevons before pn potxevons in BCA (W.H. text), 
3 For o Se azrox. etmev NBCA have o Se edn. 


4 oe in NBCA. 


‘‘was much displeased” (A. V.) is better, 
‘*was annoyed ” is better still (‘‘ ward un- 
willig,”’ Weizsacker).—py xwdvete, Kai 
of T. R. before py is much better left 
out: suffer them to come; donot hinder 
them; an expressive asyndeton. This 
saying is the main point in the story for 
the evangelist, hence the imperfects in 
ver. 13. It is another lesson for the 
still spiritually crude disciples.—Ver. 
I5 answers to Mt. xviii. 3. As Jesus 
gave several lessons on humility and 
kindred virtues, in Capernaum, here, and 
on the way to Jericho (x. 35 f.), it is not 
to be wondered at if the sayings spoken 
in the several lessons got somewhat 
mixed in the tradition. It does not 
greatly matter when they were uttered. 
The thing to be thankful for is their pre- 
servation.—Ver. 16. évayxaktodpevos, as 
in ix. 36. Jesus took each child in His 
arms, one by one, and blessed it: 
katevAdyet, imperfect. The process 
would last a while, but Jesus would not 
soon weary in such work. The com- 
pound verb xarevAdyet (NBCL, etc.), 
here only, has intensive force like 
katadtdéw in Mt. xxvi. 49 (vide notes 
there and Maclear in C. G. T.). 

Vv. 17-27. Quest after eternal life 
(Mt. xix. 16-30, Lk. xviii. 18-30).—Ver. 
17. éxtropevopévov a. els S8ov: the 
incident to be related happens as Jesus 
is coming out from some house into the 
highway, at what precise point on the 


5 BA al. omit rots (W.H. in brackets). 


journey Mk. neither knows nor cares. 
The didactic significance of the story 
alone concerns him.—8.8donare ayaée : 
that the epithet aya@és was really used 
by the man is highly probable. Vide on 
Mt.—Ver. 18. tl pe A€yets Ayaddv: on 
the import of this question vide notes on 
Mt.—Ver. 19. The commandments of 
the second table enumerated are ex- 
pressed by subjunctives with py, instead 
of future indicatives with ob. While Mt. 
has the supernumerary, “love thy neigh- 
bour,” Mk. has pn amoetepyoys, which 
probably has in view the humane law in 
Deut. xxiv. 14, 15, against oppressing or 
withholding wages from a hired servant ; 
a more specific form of the precept: 
love thy neighbour as thyself, and a 
most apposite reminder of duty as ad- 
dressed to a wealthy man, doubtless an 
extensive employer of labour. It should 
be rung in the ears of all would-be 
Christians, in similar socia! position, 
in our time: defraud not, underpay 
not.—Ver. 21. yamnoev a.: on the 
import of the statement in reference to 
the man vide on Mt. Jesus loved this 
man. Grotius remarks: Jesus loved not 
virtues only, but seeds of virtues (‘et 
semina virtutum”’). Field (Otium Nor.) 
renders ‘caressed’. Bengel takes 
epBrepas Hyawnoev as a ev Sa Svoiv, 
and renders, amanter aspexit = lovingly 
regarded him—év oe torepet. In Mk. 
Jesus, not the inquirer, remarks on the 





15—27. EYAITEALON 


odpava- Kai SeGpo, dxohovBer por, Gpas tov otaupdv.”' 22. ‘O dé 
otuyvdoas émt TO Aéyw GwAACe AuTroUevos- Fy yap Exwv KTHpaTa 
wokAd. 23. Kat ameprBNedpevos 6 “Ingots Aéyer tots palntais 
autou, “Mas Suckddws ot TA xpHpata Exovtes cis Thy Bacthelav 
Tod Geos eiveNevoovrar.” 24. Ot Sé pabytat eBapBodvto emi Tots 
‘O 8€ “Incois wadw daroxpiBeis héyer adtots, “ Téxva, 


c 


° 


Néyots adtod. 


411 


ms "Sdckoddv got Tous wemolBdtas emi Tos xpiypaciv? eis Thy b here only 


Baotelavy tod Oeod cicehMeiv. 25. edkomutepdy éort Kdpydov Sad 
THS® tpupahtas THs? fadidos eiceOetv,4 % mAovorov cis Thy 
Baoelay tod Geo eicehOeiv.” 26. OL B€ meproaads efewdijo- 
govto, héyovtes mpds éauTous,® “Kal tis Sivatar ocwOfvar;” 
27. “EpBdépas 8€° adtois 6 “Inaods Aéyer, “Mapa advOpdmos 
&Suvatov, GAN’ oF mapa TH? OG Tdvta yap Suvatd éort® Tapa 


1 apas t. a. is a gloss from Ch. viii. 34, omitted in §$BCDA. 


3 rous Tem. . 


- » Xpnpacty is a gloss wanting in NBA; vide below. 


Omission 


by similar ending (Alford) is abstractly possible. 
3 rms is found in B in both places (W.H. margin), but omitted in many uncials. 


4 SteAOewv in some copies (W.H.). 
5 avtov in WBCA, 


5 Omit S SBCA. 


7 Omit tw SBCA. B omits the second tw at end of sentence (W.H. in brackets). 
8 egtt omitted in NBC al.; more expressive without. 


lack; in Mt. the reverse is the fact: the ~ 


man is conscious of his defect, an im- 
portant point in his spiritual condition. 
—Sedpo, etc.: from the invitation to join 
the disciple band Weiss (Meyer) infers 
that the incident must have happened be- 
fore the circle of the Twelve was com- 
plete. He may have been meant to take 
the place of the traitor. The last clause 
in T. R. about the cross is an obvious 
gloss by a scribe dominated by religious 
commonplaces.—Ver. 22. oTvyvacas : 
in Mt. xvi. 3, of the sky, here, of the face, 
Avtovpevos, following, referring to the 
mind: with sad face and heavy heart. 
Vv. 23-27. Themoralof the story given 
for the benefit of the disciples, weptBXe- 
Wapevos (iii. 5, 34), looking around, to see 
what impression the incident had made 
on the Twelve.—m@s = An O@s, Euthy. 
—més $ve., with what difficulty!—ra 
Xpjpata, wealth collectively held by the 
rich class (Meyer).—Ver. 24. €0apBodtv- 
To, were confounded.—rdAw amoxpibels 
preparesus for repetition with unmitigated 
severity, rather than toning down, which 
is what we have in T. R., through the 
added words, tovs mwemo.Odtas emt Tots 
Xpjpaci, suggesting an idea more 
worthy of a scribe than of Jesus; for it 
is not merely difficult but impossible for 


one trusting in riches to enter the King- 
dom. Yet this is one of the places 
where the Sin. Syriac agrees with the 
T. R.—Ver. 25. In this proverbial saying 
the evangelists vary in expression in 
reference to the needle and the needle- 
eye, though one might have looked for 
stereotyped phraseology in a proverb. 
The fact points to different Greek render- 
ings of a saying originally given in a 
Semitic tongue.—rpvpadtas, from tpvw, 
to rub through, so as to make a hole. 
According to Furrer, proverbs about the 
camel and the needle-eye, to express the 
impossible, are still current among the 
Arabs. E.g., “hypocrites go into paradise 
as easily as a camel through a needle- 
eye”; ‘ Heasks of people that they con- 
duct a camel through a needle-eye” 
(Wanderungen, p. 339).—Ver. 26. The 
disciples, amazed, ask: nat tls Suvarat 
cwlfjvar; tls Gpa, etc.,in Mt. The «ai 
resumes what has been said, and draws 
from it an inference meant to call its 
truth in question (Hoitz., H. C.) = who, 
in that case, can be saved ?—Ver. 27. 
This saying is given diversely in the 
three parallels; most pithily in Mt., and 
perhaps nearest to the original. For 
the meaning vide on Mt. 

Vv. 28-31. Peter's question (Mt. xix. 


x. 


28. Kai ypgaro 5 Mérpos Adyew! adtd, “180, Apes 


29. "Awoxpilels S€ 6 


Tob edayyedtou, 30. édv ph Ad By 


412 KATA MAPKON 
TO G6." 
dprjkamey mdvra, Kal KoouOjcapev? cor.” 
"Incods elirev,® “"Aphy A€yw Syiv, odSeis gotiv, ds ddiKev oikiay, H 
GSehpous, 4 adeAGds, H Tatdpa, 4 pytépa,* H yuvaixa,’ h téxva, 
% dypous, evexev epod Kat 

c Rom, Ul, éxatovtamA\aciova viv év TO *Katp@ TodTw, oikias Kal addedpods 


Kat év TO ala. Ta épxopévw Lwiy aidvioy 
‘ ry PX B ry a | 2 


kal ddeApas Kal pntépas™ Kal téxva Kal dypods, peta Siwypédr, 


31. moddol Sێ Evovrat 


WpOrTor Ecxator, Kal ol Exxaror WpdTow.” 


32. “HEAN 8 év tH 686 dvaBalvoyres eis ‘lepooddupa: Kal Fv 


A ‘ A ~ 
Tpodywy adtodls 6 “Ingods, Kat €BapBoivto, Kai® dxodoubodvtes 


€poBourrto. 


Kat tapahaBov mddww tods Sddexa, Apgato adtois 


héyery Ta pEANovTA adT@ oupBaivew: 33. “"On, iSou, dvaBaivoper 


> « la ‘4 c en A > , , Lad 
€is ‘lepocddupa, Kat 6 ulds Tod dvOpdrou TapadoOjcerar Tots 


dpxtepedor kat Tots ypappatedor, Kal katakpiouow adtov Savdrtw, 


1 Keyeww before o M. and without wat before npg in BCA. 


2 yxodovOyjKkapev in BCD. 
3 For awox.... 
4 pntepa 7 watepa in BCA. 


evrmev NBA cop. have edn o |. 


> SBDA omit y yuvatxa, which probably comes from Lk, 

6 xa evexey in S¥CDA (W.H. in brackets). 

7 So in BA, but }y2CD have prepa, a correction (W.H. margin). 

8 o. Se in SBCLA; not understood, therefore cat substituted in late uncials, 


27-30, Lk. xviii. 28-30).—Ver. 28 in- 
troduces the episode without any con- 
necting word such as téte in Mt. lov 
betrays self-consciousness, also the fol- 
lowing jpets. Yet, with all his self- 
consciousness, Peter, in Mk.’s account, 
has not courage to finish his question, 
stopping short with the statement ot fact 
on which it is based = behold! we have 
left all and followed Thee ?—a¢gyxaper, 
aorist, refers to an act done once for all, 
HxokovOjKapev, to an abiding condition. 
—Ver. 29. Jesus, seeing Peter’s mean- 
ing, proceeds to give, first, a generous 
answer, then a word of warning. In the 
enumeration of persons and things for- 
saken, ‘wife’? is omitted in important 
MSS. (W.H.). The omission is true to 
the delicate feeling of Jesus. It may have 
to be done, but He would rather not say 
it.—rot evayyeAlov: a gloss to suit 
apostolic times and circumstances.— 
Ver. 30. viv: the present time the 
sphere of compensation; éxatovratha- 
ctova (Lk. viii. 8): the measure character- 
istically liberal; pera Siwypav: the 
natural qualification, seeing it is in this 


world that the moral compensation takes 
place, yet not diminishing the value of the 
compensation, rather enhancing it, as a 
relish ; a foreshadowing this, perhaps a 
transcript, of apostolic experience.—-Ver. 
31. On this apothegm vide on Mt. 

Vv. 32-34. Third prediction of the 
Passion (Mt. xx. 17-19, Lk. xviii. 31-34).— 
Ver. 32. eis ‘lepoodAvpa, to Jerusalem! 
The fact that they were at last on the 
march for the Holy City is mentioned to 
explain the mood and manner of Jesus.— 
™poaywy: Jesus in advance, all the rest 
following at a respectful distance.— 
€0apBotvro: the astonishment of the 
Twelve and the fear of others (of axod. 
éhoBotvro) were not due to the fact that 
Jesus had, against their wish, chosen to 
go to Jerusalem in spite of apprehended 
danger (Weiss). These feelings must 
have been awakened by the manner of 
Jesus, as of one labouring under strong 
emotion. Only so can we account for 
the fear of the crowd, who were not, like 
the Twelve, acquainted with Christ’s 
forebodings of death. Memory and ex- 
pectation were both active at that 





28—41. EYATTEAION 413 
Kai tapaddcoucw adtov Tots eOveot, 34. Kal epmalfougw abTd, 
Kal paottydaoucw adtdv, Kal eumticouow atTd,! Kal droKxtevodaw 
attév: Kal TH TpiTH Hepa? dvactyoeTar. 

35. Kat *ipoomopevovrar att@ “IdkwBos Kat “lwdvyns of viol d here only 
ZeBeSatov, héyovtes,? “ ArSdoxade, Vdopey tva & édv aitjiowper,* 
rowjons hpi. 36. ‘O Sé eiwev adtots, “Ti Oddete morfoal pe 
Spiv;” 37. Ot 8é elmov adtG, “Ads tpiv, iva eis ex Seftav cou ® 
kai eis €€ edwvdpwv cou” Kabiowpey ev TH Sd cov. 38. ‘O de 
‘Ingois etmev adtois, “Odx oldate Ti aitetode. Stvacbe meiv 7d 
motypiov & éym wivw, Kal® 7d Bdatiopa 6 éyw PamriLopar, Bar- 
tuOqvar;” 39. Oi S€ elwov atta, “Auvdpeda.” *O BE “Incois 
elmev adtois, “TS pev® morjpioy & éyd mivw, mlecbe- Kal 1d 
Bdrricpa béyo PamriLopar, BamticOjcecbe- 40. Td 5€ Kabioa ex 
Begiav pou Kat é§ edwvdpwv pou, odx €or épdy Soovat, GN ois 


rs i i a ee Ee 


c , » 
HTOLLACTaL. 


41. Kal dxovcavtes of Séxa yptavto dyavaxtelv 


1 euartucovevy in first place, paotty. second, in BCLA. 


2 wera Tpets nuepas in NBCDLA. 
3 &8BCDLA add auto. 
5 For wounoat pe B has pe rounow. 


4 RSABCLA add oe. 
CD correct by omitting pe, ALAZ by 


changing into infinitive with accusative as in T.R. 


8 gov ex SeEwv in SBCLA. 
7 e& apistepwy (without gov) in BLA. 


8m in SBCDLA, 


9 wev wanting in NBCLA. T.R. is a grammatical correction, 
10 4 for kat, and pov after evwv. omitted, in BDLA. Besides these ACE al. 


omit second pov. 


moment, producing together a_ high- 
strung state of mind: Peraea, John, 
baptism in the Jordan, at the beginning ; 
Jerusalem, the priests, the cross, at the 
end! Filled with the varied feelings 
excited by these sacred recollections and 
tragic anticipations, He walks alone by 
preference, step and gesture revealing 
what is working within and inspiring 
awe —‘‘muthig und_ entschlossen,” 
Schanz; with “‘ majesty and heroism,” 
Morison; ‘tanto animo- tantaque 
alacritate,”’ Elsner; ‘more  intrepidi 
ducis,’”’ Grotius. This picture of Jesus 
in advance on the way to Jerusalem is 
one of Mk.’s realisms.—Ver. 33. 6tt 
tov, etc.: the third prediction has for 
its specialties delivery to the Gentiles 
(trois %veo.). and an exact specification 
of the indignities to be endured: mock- 
ing, spitting, scourging. Jesus had been 
thinking of these things before He spoke 
of them; hence the excitement of His 
manner. 


Vv. 35-45. The sons of Zebedee (Mt. 


XX. 20-28), shuwing the comic side of the 
drama.—Ver. 35. In Mk., James and 
John speak for themselves: AtSdoxade 
Gédopev, etc. In Mt. the mother speaks 
for them.—Ver. 36. rl OéXerd pe troijow: 
this reading of B is accredited by its very 
grammatical peculiarity, two construc 
tions being confused together; an 
accusative (pe) followed, not as we expect 
by the infinitive, roufjjoat (T. R ), but by 
the subj. delib., wouyow.—Ver. 38. oO 
Barricpa;: in Mk. there is a double 
symbolism for the Passion, a cup and a 
baptism; in Mt.’s true text only the 
former. Thecup isan Old Testament 
emblem; the baptism not so obviously, 
yet it may rest on Ps. xlii. 7, lxix. 2, 
exxiv. 4-5. The conception of Curistian 
baptism as baptism into death is Pauline 
(Rom. vi.).— Ver. 40, rotpacrar 
stands alone in Mk. without the reference 
to the Father, which is in Mt.—Ver. 42. 
oi Soxotvtes Gpxewv, those who pass for, 
are esteemed as, rulers: ‘‘quos gentes 
habent et agnoscunt”’ (Beza); ‘“ qui 


KATA MAPKON x. 


414 


wept ‘laxdBou Kat ‘lwdvvov. 42. 6 8€ "Incois mpooxadeodpevos 
adrods! héyer adrois, “OiSare Ste ot SoKodvres apxew tOv evar 
Katakuptevouoww alt@v: Kal ot peyddor adtay KxatefoucrdLouow 
43. obx obrw S€ Eorar? év dpiv> AdN’ ds dav Oy yeréoOar 
péyas® év dpiv, Eorar Sidxovos Spdv8+ 44. Kal 85 dv Oy Spadv 


autar. 


yevéoOar* mpGtos, Eorat wdvrwy Soddos: 45. Kal ydp 6 vids Tod 
dvOpdmou obk FOe StaxovnOAvar, GANA Braxovijat, Kal Sodvar Thy 
Wux}y adtod Avtpov dvr woAhGv.” 

46. Kat €pxovrar els ‘lepixd kal éxmopevopévou adtod dard ‘lepuxd, 
kal TOv pabyt&v adtod, Kal dxAou tkavod, utds 5 Tipatou Baptipatos 
6 tuphds €xdOyTo wapd thy 6ddv mpooatav.5 47. Kat dxovaas Ste 
"Ingots 6 NaLwpaids® gow, Hpfato kpdlew Kai Aéyew, “‘O vids? 
AaBid, *Inood, éXénodv pe.” 
owmyjon: & S€ woANG paddov Expalev, “Vie AaBid, éhénodv pe.” 


48. Kai émetipwy ait@ wodkol, iva 


49. Kat otds 6 “Inoods etwev aitév puvnbivar®> Kat pwvodcr tov 
50. “O Se 


ipdtiov adtod dvactas!” HdOe mpds tov “Inooor- 


tupddv, Aéyovtes atta, “Odpaer> Eyerpat,® gwvet ce.” 
d&moBahav to 


2 eorw in NBCDLA Lat. vet. Vulg 
{ ev uptv evar in SSBCLA. 


! kat mpookah. avrous o I. in SBCDLA. 
3 weyas yev. in SBCLA, also upov Stax. 


5 For vios .. 
mapa Thy odov (Tisch., W.H.). 


. Tpocaitwvy NBLA have o wos T. B. tupdos mpocaitys exal. 


6 Nafapnvos in BLA. B places eortwy after Incovs. 


7 wie (for o v.) in BCL. 


8 dwyvyoate avtov in S{BCLA changed in T.R. into the more commonplace 


avtov dwvnPnvat. 


9 eye_pe in NABCDLAZ. 


10 A tame substitute for avamrndyoas in $$BDLA, so characteristic of Mk. 


honorem habent imperandi” (Grotius). 
Some, ¢.g., Palairet, regard Soxotvres as 
redundant, and take the phrase in Mk. 
as = Mt.’s of Gpyovres. Kypke resolves 
it into of éx Sdypatdés Tivos GpxovTes = 
“qui constituti sunt ut imperent ”.— 
Ver. 43. éotw (W.H.), is; the “is” 
not of actual fact, but of the ideal state 
of things.—Ver. 45. Vide on Mt. 

Vv. 46-52. Bartimaeus (Mt. xx. 29-34, 
Lk. xviii. 35-43).—Ver. 46. épxovrat, 
historical present for effect. ericho an 
important place, and of more interest to 
the narrator; the last stage on the 
journey before arriving at Ferusalem 
(Weiss in Meyer).—@kxtropevopévov a. : 
Jesus mentioned apart as the principal 
person, or as still going before, the 
disciples and the crowd mentioned also, 
as they have their part to play in the 
sequel, topevopevwy understood.—6x. 
ixavov : not implying that the erowd was 


of very moderate dimensions, but = a 
large crowd, as we say colloquially 
‘‘pretty good’? when we mean ‘ very 
good”, This use of tkavés probably 
belonged to the colloquial Greek of the 
period. Vide Kennedy, Sources of N. T. 
Greek, p. 79.—0 vids T. B. Mk. knows 
the name, and gives both name, Barti- 
maeus, and interpretation, son _ of 
Timaeus.—Ver. 47. vie AaBi8: this in 
all three narratives, the popular name for 
Messiah.—Ver. 49. wvyjcate, wvotot, 
g@wveit: no attempt to avoid monotony 
out of regard to style. It is the appro- 
priate word all through, to call in a loud 
voice, audible at a distance, in the open 
air (vide ix. 35).—@apoe, tyerpe, pwvei, 
courage, rise, He calls you; pithy, no 
superfluous words, just how they would 
speak.—Ver. 50. Graphic description 
of the beggar’s eager response—mantle 
thrown off, jumping to his feet, he 





42 —52. XI. 1—3. EYATTEAION 

51. kat dwoxpbets A€yer adTa 6 “Incods,! “Ti Pers worjow cot 2 ;” 
‘O 8€ tupdds eiwey atta, ““PaBBovi, iva dvaBdepw.” 52. ‘O Se 
‘Ingots elev atte, ““Yaaye: 4 wiotts cou sécwké ce.” 
4 


kal 
ed9ews avéBeWe, kai AKohoUbe TH ‘Ingod * év TH 630. 

XI. 1. KAI éte éyyifouow eis ‘lepoucadjp,® eis BnOpayh kat 

, A n a ~ 

ByPaviay® mpds td Spos tev “EXatav, darootéhAer B00 TOV pabytay 

> ~ ‘ ’ > oS ccf , ? ‘ UA ‘ , 
adTod, 2. kai héyer adtots, ““Ymdyete cig Thy kopyy Thy katévaryte 
c ~ ‘ > , > , > > ‘ c , A , 
budv: Kat ed0ews eioropeudpevor els adTHY ebprjaete TAOV Sedeucvov, 
8. 


ep dv odSeis? dvOpumuv KexdOrke 


3+ Kal édv tis Guty ety, Th movette TodTO ; 


Lautw o I. evmev in SBCDLA. 


Adcavtes adtov dydyere.? 


etmate, Ort !° 6 Kuptos 


2 +t cot GeXets mrornow in SBCLA, obviously preferable to the smooth reading in 


Wale 
% «ato l. in BLA cop. (W.H.). 


4 autw for tw |. in SABCDLA al. Lat. vet. Vulg. 
5 lepovcadnp is not used in Mk. The true form here is lepoooAvpa as in 


NBCD AZ. 


6D vet. Lat. Vulg. have simply kat evs Bnbavn 


which Tisch. adopts. The 


reading in T.R. is supported by RABCLAX al. 
7 Add ova, following ovSers in BLA; after av@pwrey in SC, before ovdersin KNE 


(W.H. order 1, Tisch. 2). 
8 exabioev in NBCLA. 


9 \voate a. kat pepete in SBCLA. The T.R. conforms to Lk. 


10 Omit ore with BA vet. Lat. 


comes, runs, to Jesus. Though blind 
he needs no guide (Lk. provides him 
with one); led by his ear.—Ver. 51. tf 
ao. Oéders, etc.: what do you want: 
alms or sight ?—paBBovi: more respect- 
ful than Rabbi (here and in John xx. 16). 
—tva avaBdéw: sight, of course, who 
would think of asking an alms of One 
who could open blind eyes! 

CHAPTER XI. EntTrRY INTO JERUSA- 
LEM. OTHER INCIDENTS. Vv. I-II. 
The solemn entry (Mt. xxis I-11; Lk. 
xix. 29-44).—Ver. 1. It is first. stated 
generally that they approach Jerusalem, 
then Bethphage and Bethany are named 
to define more exactly the whereabouts, 
Both villages named; partly because 
close together, partly because, while 
Bethphage was the larger and better 
known place, and therefore might have 
stood alone as an indication of locality, 
Bethany was the place where the colt 
was to be got.—Ver. 2. xatévavtt v., 
opposite you. This adverb (from xara 
évavtt) is not found in Greek authors, but 
occurs frequently in Sept.—颒 bv ovdeis 
_ ovm. av. éxadioerv: this point, that the colt 


had never been used, would seem of 
vital importance afterhand, from the 
Christian point of view, and one cannot 
wonder that it took a sure place in the 
tradition, as evinced by the narrative 
in Mk. followed by Lk. But it is per- 
missible to regard this as an expansion 
of what Jesus actually said. The idea 
underlying is that for sacred purposes 
only unused animals may be employed 
(vide Numb. xix. 2, 1 Sam. vi. 7).— 
AUvoate, pépere: aorist and present; the 
former denoting a momentary act, the 
latter a process.—Ver. 3. 6 kUptos a. x. 
éxet, the Master hathneed of him. Vide 
on this at Mt. xxi. 3.— Kal etOds, etc., and 
straightway He returneth him (the colt) 
again.—mahwv, a well-attested reading, 
clearly implies this meaning, i.¢., that 
Jesus bids His disciples promise the 
owner that He will return the colt with- 
out delay, after He has had His use of 
it. So without hesitation Weiss (in 
Meyer) and Holtzmann (H.C.). Meyer 
thinks this a paltry thing for Christ to 
say, and rejects waXw as an addition 
due to misunderstanding. Biassed by 


adrod xpeiav €xer+ Kal eb0éws adtdv dwooredei! Sbe.” 


KATA MAPKON 


XI. 


4. "Ami Oov 


8¢,? kai eSpor rov® wddov Sedepdvov mpds Thy® Odpay éfw emt tod 


dupddou, kat Adouow adrdv. 
€Xeyov adtois, “Ti movetre Adovres Tov mov ;” 
adtots nabs evetetXato* 6 “Ingois: Kai ddijKav adtous. 7. 


5+ kal twes tav exer éotnkdtwv 
6. Ot dé elo 
kat 


Hyayor © rdv wOdov mpds Tov "Inoody, Kal éréBadov © aita Ta ipdria 
adrav, Kal éxdicey ew attd.’ 8. moddol 8€8 ta ipdria adrav 
Eotpwoav eis tiv 68dv- Gddor 8€ ororBddas® Exorrov 9 éx ray 


Sév8pwv, Kal éotpdvvuov eis Thy d8dv.)° 


Asie , ‘ 
Q- Kat OL TPOGAYyOVTES KAL 


ot dkodouBoivtes ExpaLov, Aéyovtes,!! “‘Qaavvd: eddoynpévos 6 


lamooreAXet in very many uncials. 


The most important various reading is 


maXwy after arrooreAAer in SYBC*DLA al, Orig.; doubtless a true reading, though 


omitted for harmonistic reasons in many copies. 


madty a. (W.H. marg.). 
2 kat amnASov in WBLA. 


B places avtov last, awogc. 


3 BDL omit tov before mwdov (NVCA have it, Tisch.), and BLA omit ryyv before 


Gupav (in SCD, Tisch.). 
4 evrrev in NBCLA. 


5 depovowy instead of nyayov (from parall.) in BLA. 
6 ewiBaddAover in SBCDLA for eweBadov, which conforms to nyayov, 


7 ex avtov in NBCDLA. 


8 kat modAor in NBCLA. 


® griBadas in most uncials (REBDLA, etc.). 


10 For exomtov .. . 
1 Omit Aeyovres NBCLA. 


the same sense of decorum—‘“ below 
the dignity of the occasion and of 
the Speaker”—the Speaker’s Comm. 
cherishes doubt as to waAuy, sheltering 
itself behind the facts that, while the 
MSS. which insert ‘‘again”’ are gener- 
ally more remarkable for omissions than 
additions, yet in this instance they lack 
the support of ancient versions and early 
Fathers. I do not feel the force of the 
argument from decorum. It judges 
Christ’s action by a conventional stand- 
ard. Why should not Jesus instruct 
His disciples to say ‘‘ it will be returned 
without delay” as an inducement to 
lend it? Dignity! How much will have 
to go if that is to be the test of histori- 
city! There was not only dignity but 
humiliation in the manner of entering 
Jerusalem: the need for the colt, the use 
of it, the fact that it had to be borrowed 
all enter as elements in the lowly state 
of the Son of Man. On the whole sub- 
ject vide noteson Mt. This is another 
of Mk.’s realisms, which Mt.’s version 
obliterates. Field (Otium WNor.), often 
bold in his interpretations, here succumbs 


odov (cf. Mt.) $BLA have simply xowavres ex twv aypov. 


to the decorum argument, and is biassed 
by it against the reading wda\w contained 
in so many important MSS. (vide above). 
—Ver. 4. apuddSou (apdoSov and -os 
from api and 68ds, here only in N. T.), 
the road round the farmyard. In Jer. 
xvii. 27, Sept., it seems to denote some 
part of a town: “ the palaces of Jerusa- 
lem” (R. V.).—Vv. 5-6. Mk. tells the 
story very circumstantially: how the 
people of the place challenged their 
action ; how they repeated the message 
of Jesus ; and the satisfactory result. Mt. 
(xxi. 6) is much more summary.—Ver. 8. 
aottBadas (ottBds from oreiBa, to tread, 
hence anything trodden, such as straw, 
reeds, leaves, etc.; here only in N. T.); 
“layers of leaves,” R. V., margin ; or 
layers of branches («cAd8ovs, Mt.) ob- 
tained, as Mk. explains, by cutting from 
the fields (xéavtes é« tT. GypGv).—oror 
Bas (cro.Bd8as, T. R.) is probably a cor- 
rupt form of ortBds. Hesychius defines 
o7.Bds as a bed of rods and green grass 
and leaves (amd AdBSav kal xAwpav 
Xoptwv otpaois, kal dvAwv).—Ver. g, 
ot moodvevres, those going before; pro- 





EYATTEAION 


4-14. 


10. edhoynpevn 1 epxopevn Bacr- 
hela év dvdpate Kupiou! rod matpds fuady AaBid ‘Qoavva év tots 


Epxouevos év dvéuart Kupiou. 
bwicrous.” 11. Kai eloqdOev cis ‘lepoodAupa 6 “Inaods, Kai? eis 
TO tepdv- Kat meptBAcdpevos wavra, dpias? 78y odons Tis Spas, 
efqOev cis BnOaviay peta Tay Sddexa. 

12. Kat rH emavpiov efeOdvtwy adtav dad BynOavias, emeivace - 
13. Kat iSov cuchy paxpd0ev,* Exougay pudha, AAVev ei dpa edpycer 


417 


m1? 


BY 2 .. 6 , 
yap yy KaLpos CUKWY. 


ce M re 2 ~ > a 74 8 8 ‘ Ka a , » 
NKETL EK TOU ELS TOV ALWYG ” [LNOELS pTov dayor. 


! Omit this second ev ov. K. with NBCDLA. 


14. Kal dtoxpiels 6 “Incots 


év auth: Kal éhOavy em adtyy, obSev eSpev ei ph duddAa- ov ® 


7 elev adta, 


Kat }Kouvov 


2 Omit o I. kat with RBCDLA. 


SSSCLA, Orig., have oWe (Tisch., W.H., text, brackets), but BD and other 


uncials have oes. B omits Tys weas. 


+ amo pax. in many uncials (BD, etc.). 


5 + evpynoet in WBCLA. 


8 9 yap katpos ovk ny in SBCLA cop. syr. 


701. omit SBCDLA; also in ver. 15. 


8 evs tov atwva before ex gov in NBCDLA. 


bably people who had gone out from the 
city to meet the procession.—Ver. II. 
etonAGev, etc.: the procession now 
drops out of view and attention is fixed 
on the movements of Jesus. He enters 
Jerusalem, and especially the temple, 
and surveys all (wepiBAeWapevos ravra) 
with keenly observant eye, on the out- 
look, like St. Paul at Athens, not for the 
picturesque, but for the moral and re- 
ligious element. He noted the traffic 
going on within the sacred precincts, 
though He postponed action till the 
morrow. Holtzmann (H. C.) thinks that 
the mweptBAeapevos mavra implies that 
Jesus was a stranger to Jerusalem. But, 
as Weiss remarks (in Meyer), Mk. can- 
not have meant to suggest that, even 
if Jesus had never visited Jerusalem 
since the beginning -of the public 
ministry. 

Vv. 12-14. The fig tree on the way 
(Mt. xxi. 18-19).—Ver. 12 tells how 
Jesus coming frora Bethany, where He 
had passed the night with the Twelve, 
felt hunger. This is surprising, con- 
sidering that He probably spent the 
night in the house of hospitable friends. 
Had the sights in the temple killed sleep 
and appetite, so that He left Bethany 
without taking any food ?—Ver. 13. «i 
dpa, if in the circumstances ; leaves there, 
creating expectation.—eipyjoe: future 
indicative; subjunctive, more regular.— 
6 yap katpds, etc., for it was not the 
season of figs. This in Mk. only. The 


proper season was June for the first-ripe 
figs. One may wonder, then, how Jesus 
could have any expectations. But had 
He? Victor Ant. and Euthy. viewed 
the hunger as feigned. It is more reason- 
able to suppose that the hope of finding 
figs on the tree was, if not feigned, at 
least extremely faint. He might havea 
shrewd guess how the fact was, and yet 
go up to the tree as one who had a right 
to expect figs where there was a rich 
foliage, with intent to utilise it for a par- 
able, if He could not find fruit on it. In 
those last days the prophetic mood was 
on Jesus in a high degree, and His action 
would be only very partially understood 
by the Twelve.—Ver.14. ¢ayou: the op- 
tative of wishing with py (pykétt), as in 
classic Greek (Burton, M. T., § 476). 
The optative is comparatively rare in the 
N. T.—Wkxovov: the disciples heard 
(what He said); they were not inob- 
servant. His manner would arrest atten- 
tion. The remark prepares for what is 
reported in ver. 20; hence the imperfect. 

Vv. 15-19. Cleansing of the temple 
(Mt. xxi. 12-17, Lk. xix. 45-48). The 
state of things Jesus saw in the temple 
yesterday has been in His mind ever 
since: through the night watches in 
Bethany; inthe morning, killing appetite ; 
on the way, the key to His enigmatical 
behaviour towards the fig tree.—Ver. 15. 
cig 70 tepdy, into the temple, that is, the 
forecourt, the court of the Gentiles.— 
Tovs 1. Kal Tovs a., the sellers and the 


27 


XI. 


15. Kal épxovrat eis ‘lepooddupa: nal eicehOdv 


418 KATA MAPKON 
ot pabyral adroi. 
5 “Ingods eis <d tepdy Hpgatro exBdddXew Tods mwAodvtas Kai diyo- 
palovtas! év r@ tepd+ Kal tas tpaméLas Tay KodduBioTay, Kal tds 
xabedpags ‘rv mwoUvtTwy Tas TWepitoTepas KaTéaTpepe* 16. Kal odK 
Horev iva tis Srevéyxyn oxetos S1d Tod tepod. 17. kal ediSacke, 
Adywr? adtois, “Od yéypamrat, ‘Or. 6 otkds pou otkos mpoceux as 


KAnOjoeTa waar Tois EOveow’ ; 
18. Kat jKoucay ot ypapparets Kal ot dpxiepeis,* 


Aatov Anoray.” 


Spets S€ Eroijoate ® adrév omy- 


kal éLyrouy mas aitév darokécoucw>- epoRodvto ydp adtdév, or 
was ° 6 dydos eSemAjovero éwl TH Si8ayH adtod. 

19. Kal Gre? dé éyévero, ebewopedeto® Efw ris médews. 20. 
Kal mput rapamopeudpevor,® elSov thy ouxiy efnpauperny ex pilav. 
21. kat dvauyynadels 6 Mérpos héyer at7G, ““PaBBi, ide, } ouKy Hv 


1 rous before ayop. in BCL al. 

2 For Aeywy NBCLA have rau eAeye. 
3 werroinkate in BLA (Tisch., W.H.). 
5 awokecwou in NABCDL, ete. 
7 orav in SBCLA 33. 

9 rapamr. mow in $SBCDLA 33. 


buyers: article before both (not so in 
Mt.), both put in the pillory as alike 
evil in their practice.—Ver. 16. dvev: 
vide i. 34. The statement that Jesus 
did not allow any one to carry anything 
(oxetos, Lk. vili. 16) through the temple 
court is peculiar to Mk. It does not 
point to any attempt at violent pro- 
hibition, but simply to His feeling as to 
the sacredness of the place. He could 
not bear to see the temple court made a 
bypath or short cut, not to speak of the 
graver abominations of the mercenary 
traffic He had sternly interrupted. In this 
feeling Jesus was at one with the Rabbis, 
at least in their theory. ‘‘ What reverence 
is due to the temple? That no one go 
into the mountain of the house (the 
court of the Gentiles) with his staff, 
shoes, purse, or dust on his feet. Let no 
one make a crossing through it, or 
degrade it into a place of spitting” 
(Babyl. Jevamoth, in Lightfoot, ad loc.). 
—Ver. 17. é3fSacKxe covers more than 
what He said just then, pointing to a 
course of teaching (cf. ver. 18 and Lk. 
xix. 47). Here again we note that while 
Mt. speaks of a healing ministry in the 
temple (xxi. 14) Mk. gives prominence to 
teaching. Yet Mt. gives a far fuller 
report of the words spoken by Jesus 
during the last week.—waou Tots 
“veouv, to all the Gentiles, as in Is. lvi. 


B omits avrotge 


* apy. before ypap. in SBCDLA al, 
Smras yap in $WEBCA. 


8 BA have efewopevovto (W.H., text, brackets). 


7, omitted in the parallels; very suitable 
in view of the fact that the traffic went 
on in the court of the Gentiles. A fore- 
shadowing of Christian universalism.— 
meTro.nkate, ye have made it and it now 
is.—Ver. 18. mas, the purpose to get 
tid of Jesus fixed, but the how puzzling 
because of the esteem in which He was 
held.—Ver. 19. 8rav (Ste, T.R.) implies 
repetition of the action. We have here av 
with the indicative instead of the optative 
without ay as in the classics. Field 
(Ot. Nor.) regards Stav de éyévero asa 
solecism due probably to Mk. himself 
(as in ili, 11, érav éBedpovv), and holds 
that the connection in Mk,’s narrative is 
decidedly in favour of a single action 
instead of, as in Lk., a daily practice. 
Vv. 20-25. The withered fig tree and 
relative conversation (Mk. xxi. 20-22).— 
Ver, 20. ‘tapatropevépevor, passing by 
the fig tree (on the way to Jerusalem 
next morning),—mpwt: the position of 
this word after mapar., instead of before 
as in T.R., is important. It gives it 
emphasis as suggesting that it was in 
the clear morning light that they noticed 
the state of the tree. It might have 
been in the same condition the previous 
evening, but it would be dark when they 
passed the spot.— Ver. 21. dvapvycGels, 
remembering (what the Master had said 
the previous morning).—é [lérpog: 





15—28. EYATTEAION 


419 


katypdow éfjpavtar.” 22. Kal drroxpidels ‘Inaods Adyer adrois, 


““Exete wiotty Geos. 23. duhv yap! Acyw pty, Ste dg av etry 7H 
Spee ToUTw, “ApOytt, kal BAyOnte eis Thy Pddagcay, kat ph Sraxpil7q 
év TH Kapdia adrod, dkAd mortedon Str & Aéyer? yiverar: éoras 
ait@ 6 édv eiy2 24. 8a TodTo Aéyw Spiv, Ndvtra baa ay 
mpoceuydpevor* aitetoOe, moretete Stt AapPdvete,° Kai Eorar spiv. 
25. Kat drav orjkynre ® mpoceuxdpevor, apiete et TL ExeTE KaTG TLVOS - 
tva xal 6 TaThip Sway 6 év Tois ovpavois aby buiv Ta Tapantepata 


Gpav. 


> = > , iA < a 
ovpavots ddyjoe Ta TapartTopata spay. 


26. et S€ Gpets odx ddiere, oF5E 6 warhp Spay 6 


< > ~ 
€v TOLS 
+4 7 


27. KA! €pxovrar wdduy eis ‘lepoodAupa- kat év 7 tepd mept- 


A” ~ ” “~ a 
TWaTodvTos auvToU, EpyovTa: Tpds adTdv ot dpyvepets Kal ot ypappatets 


kat ot mpecButepo, 28. Kat Aéyouow 


n~ 3 , 
8 aité, “Ev Tolga éfoucia 


A ~ , A 
radTa movets; Kal? tis cor Thy éfougtav TabTHy edwxey,!° iva tadTa 


1 yap omitted in NBD. 


2 For mistevon ott a Aeyer BLA have meorevy om: o Aadet (Tisch., W.H.). 


* Omit o eay evrq SYBCDLA. 


4 For ova av mpocevyopevor S$BCDLA have ova mpocevyeoGe cat (Tisch., W.H.) 
5 eXaBere in NBCLA. T.R. is a correction. 
8 ornxete in CDL (Tisch., W.H.), but B has ornxnre. 


7 Ver. 26 is omitted in BLA (Tisch., W.H.). 


similar ending. 
8 SSBCLA have eAeyoy. 
94 in NBLA. 


spokesman as usual; the disciples 
generally in Mt.—Ver. 22. €xere mio, 
have faith. The thoughts of Jesus here 
take a turn in a different direction to 
what we should have expected. We 
look for explanations as to the real 
meaning of an apparently unreasonable 
action, the cursing of a fig tree. Instead, 
He turns aside to the subject of the faith 
necessary to perform miraculous actions. 
Can it be that the tradition is at fault 
here, connecting genuine words of the 
Master about faith and prayer with a 
comparatively unsuitable occasion ? 
Certainly much of what is given here is 
found in other connections—ver. 23 in 
Mt. xvii. 20, Lk. xvii. 6; ver. 24 in Mt. 
vii. 7, Lk. xi. 9; ver. 25 in Mt. xvili. 35; 
of course in somewhat altered form. 
Mk. seems here to make room for some 
important words of our Lord, as if to 
compensate for neglect of the didache 
which he knew to be an important 
feature in His ministry, doing this, how- 


ever, as Meyer remarks, by way of 


thoughtful redaction, not ,by mere 





Weiss thinks it has fallen out by 


Aeyovor conforms to epyovrat in ver, 27. 
0 eSwxev before thy ef. tT. in NBCLA. 


random insertion.—rio7. Oecoi, faith in 
God, genitive objective as in Rom. iii. 22 
and Heb. vi. 2 (Bawticpayv S18ayxhv).— 
Ver. 24. éAdBere: this reading (NEBCLA) 
Fritzsche pronounces absurd. But its 
very difficulty as compared with hapBa- 
vere (T.R.) guarantees its genuineness, 
And it igs not unintelligible if, with 
Meyer, we take the aorist as referring to 
the divine purpose, or even as the aorist 
of immediate consequence, as in John 
xv. 6 (€BA6n). So De Wette, vide 
Winer, sec. xl. 5 b. 

Vv. 27-33. By what authority ? (Mt. 
xxi, 23-27, Lk. xx. 1-8).—Ver. 27. wad, 
again, for the third time: on the day of 
arrival, on the day of the temple cleans- 
ing, and on this day, the event of which 
is the questioning as to authority.— 
mepiTatovvTos avtov, while He is walk- 
ing about, genitive absolute, instead of 
accusative governed by mpés; probably 
simply descriptive (Schanz) and not im- 
plying anything offensive in manner— 
walking as if He were Lord of tbe place 
(Kloster.); nor, on the other hand, meant 


420 


mors 5” 


KATA MAPKON 


XI. 29—33. XII. 


29. ‘O 8é "Ingods dioxp:Bels! elmer adtois, “’Emepwrijow 


buds xdyd? Eva Adyor, Kal drroKxpiOnré por, Kal épd dpuiv év mola 


, - ~ 
éougia Tadta tow. 
ۤ dvOpadrrwr ; 


drroxplOnré jor.” 


30. TS Bdrricpa “lwdvvou ® éf odpavod iy, H 


31. Kal édoyiLovto* mpds éau- 


tous, éyortes, “Edy eimwpev, "EE odpavod, épei, Atati odv obk 


émotevcate adté ; 
Botvro rév adv,° 
mpopyms jv. 33. 


oldaner.” Kal 6 


32. GAN’ édv® 
Gmavtes yap elxov tov 
kal dtoxpibévres Aéyouor TO *Inaod,® “ OdK 


ettwpev, "EE dvOpdmwv,” épo- 
‘lwdvyny, OTe dytws 7 


"Ingots dtroxpibeis® A€yer adtois, “ OdSE éya 


Kéyw Suiv év toia éfougia taita tow.” 

XII. 1. KA! jpgato abrois év wapaBohais Aéyewv,)° “ Aurehava 
Eputeucey GvOpwros, Kal wepidOyxe ppaypdv, Kal dpugev dodijvov, 
Kai @xoddunoe mupyor, Kal €§édoro |! adrév yewpyois, kal dwedipynoe. 
2. kal dwéoteihke pds Tods yewpyolds TG Kaip@ Soidov, iva Tapa 


1 Omit amoxpi0ers NBCLA 33. 
3 ro before |. in SBCDLA 33. 
* Omit eay NABCLA,. Vide below. 
7 ovtws ort in BCL. 

® Omit amoxpiIets SMBCLA 33. 


2 kay (from parall.) omitted in BCLA. 
* StekoyiLovro in BCDLA. 


5 oyAov in SBC (W.H.). 
8 rw |. Aeyouor in $BCLA 33. 
10 XKadeww in WBLA. 


1 efeSeto in SABCL, changed into the more correct efeSoro (T.R.). 


to convey the idea that Jesus was giving 
no fresh cause of offence, simply walking 
about (Weiss).—Ver. 28. tva tavra 
mows: tva with subjunctive after 
éfovciay instead of infinitive found in 
ii. 10, iii, 15.—Ver: 29. The grammatical 
structure of this sentence, compared 
with that in Mt. xxi. 24, is crude—kxat 
GrroxpiOyré pot instead of bv éav einré 
po. It is colloquial grammar, the 
easy-going grammar of popular con- 
versation.—éva Adyov, vide at Mt. xxi. 
24.—Ver. 30. Gmoxpi0nTé por, answer 
me; spoken in the confident tone of one 
who knows they cannot and will not try. 
—Vv. 31-32 give their inward thoughts 
as divined by Jesus. Their spoken 
answer was a simple ov« oidapev (ver. 
33).—-Ver. 32. adda etrwperv, é& avOpe- 
arev ; = but suppose we say, from men? 
—époBotvto tov dyAov. Here Mk. 
thinks for them instead of letting them 
think for themselves as in Mt. (ver. 26, 
dofovpefa) = —they were afraid of the 
multitude.—Gmavres yap, etc.: here 
again the construction is somewhat 
crude—'lwavvny by attraction, object of 
the verb etxov instead of the subject of 
Wv, and dvtws by trajection separated 
from the verb it qualifies, qv, giving this 
sense: for all held John truly that he 


was a prophet = for all held that John 
was indeed a prophet. 

CHAPTER XII. A PARABLE AND 
Sunpry CaprTious QUuESTIONS.—Vv. 
1-12. Parable of the wicked vinedressers - 
(Mt. xxi. 33-46, Lk. xx. g-19).—Ver. 1. 
év wapaBodais: the plural may be used 
simply because there are more parables 
than one even in Mk., the main one and 
that of the Rejected Stone (vv. 10, r1), 
but it is more probably generic = in 
reread style (Meyer, Schanz, Holtz., 

H. C.). Jesus resumed (qpfaro) this 
style because the circumstances called 
forth the parabolic mood, that of one 
‘“‘ whose heart is chilled, and whose 
spirit is saddened by a sense of loneli- 
ness, and who, retiring within himself, 
by a process of reflection, frames for his 
thoughts forms which half conceal, half 
reveal them "—The Parabolic Teaching 
of Christ, p. 20.—Gptmeh@va. : a vineyard, 
the theme suitably named first.—apredos 
is the usual word in Greek authors, but 
Kypke cites some instances of apaehov 
in late authors.—dmoArviov (here only), 
the under vat of a wine press, into which 
the juices trampled out in the Anvos 
flowed.—eédSero (W.H.), a defective 
form, as if from 8{8w. Cf. amedero, 
Heb. xii. 16.—Ver. 2. Te Katp@: at 





ea EYAITEAION 

TGv yewpyav AdBy awd tod Kaprod! Tod dpmedGvos- 3. ot Se? 
4. 
Kaketvor AvQoBodjoartes 3 
5. kat mah * &ddov 
Giéoteuke* KaKElvoy GréKTeway> Kat tohAovs GAAous, Tods ° pev 
6. 6 


> x a U 
ayamntov adtobd, dréotete Kal adtév mpds aitods Eoxartov,° héywr, 


, 
haBdvtes attov ESerpav, kal dméotehav Kevor. kal wdahu 
Gméoteke pds attols GANoy So0dov- 
, 
€xepahaiwoay, Kal dméoreiav ATyepévor.? 
4 
ett 


‘ 
Sépovres, tols® Be doxtelvortes. oly é€va uidv éxuv 


bad 3 s ¢ A 

Ot Evtpamjoovtar Tov uidy pou. 7. €xctvor S€ ot yewpyol eimoy 
7 c , 9 @ 7 

mpds Eautous,’ “Ort cités éotw 6 k\ynpovopos~ Seite, droKTeivwpev 


, n 
adtéy, Kai av €otrar  KAnpovopia. 8. Kal AaBdytTes adtdv 


421 


éméxtewav, kal é&éBadov® é&w Tod dumehGvos. 


6 KUptos TOU Gume@vos ; 
kal Sdcer tov dumehGva &Aors. 
dvéyvwrte ; 
eis kedahty yovias. 


1 tev Kaptrev in NBCLA 33. 


9 


Dy a , 
9- TL OUV” TOLYGEL 


éhevcerar Kal drohécer Tos yewpyous, 
10. OdSe thy ypadhy tadTyhy 
“AiBoy, dv dredoxipacay of oixodouodvtes, obTos éyeviOy 
II. tapd Kupiou éyéveto attn, kat €ott 


2 kat for ot Se in SBDLA 33. 


3 NBDLA 33 omit ABoBoAnoavtres; NBL have exehadtwoav; and for Kar 
areorethay nTiswpevov, MBL have cat qttpacay (so also DA, but with varying 


spelling of verb). 
4 Omit makty NBCDLA 33. 


ALGoBoAnaavtes comes from Mt. 


5 ous in both places S$BLA. D has ovs in first, adAous in second place. 


5 For ert ow... 
ETXaTOV mpos avTovs with BLA. 
7 arpos eau. evtray in NBCLA 33. 


. exxaroy read ett eva etyev vioy aya. ameorethev auto 


8 SSBC place avrov after awexretvay and insert another avroy after efeBadov. 


° Omit ovy BL cop. 


the season of fruit, or at the time agreed 
on; the two practically coincident.— 
SovAov: a servant, one at a time, three 
in succession, then many grouped 
together, and finally the son. In Mt. 
first one set of servants are sent, then a 
larger number, then the son.—amé tev 
kaptéy : a part of the fruits, rent paid in 
kind, a share of the crop.—Ver. 4. 
éxepaXt (al, T.R.) wxav: ought to mean, 
summed up (kepddaov, Heb. viii. 1 = 
the crown of what has been spoken), 
but generally taken to mean ‘‘smote on 
the head” (‘‘in capite vulneraverunt,” 
Vulg.). A ‘veritable solecism,” Meyer 
(“*Mk. confounded xeadaidw with 
kehad(Lw”). Field says: ‘‘ We can only 
conjecture that the evangelist adopted 
éxedadatwoayv, a known word in an un- 
known sense, in preference to éxepdd- 
woay, of which both sound and sense 
were unknown”.—Ver. 5. ‘moddovs 
GAXovs, many others. The construction 
is very loose. We naturally think of 


wok. GA. as depending on améoretke = 
he sent many others, and possibly that 
was really what the evangelist had in his 
mind, though the following participles, 
Sépovtes aroxtévvovtes, suggest a verb, 
having for its subject the agents these 
participles refer to = they maltreated 
many others, beating some and killing 
some. So most recent writers. Vide 
Buttmann, N. T. G., p. 293. Elsner sug- 
gests ameoradpévous after wodA. GAA. = 
and many others, sent, they either beat 
or slew.—Ver. 8. Mk. says: the son and 
heir they killed and cast out of the vine- 
yard. Mt. and Lk. more naturally, as 
it seems: they cast outand killed. We 
must understand Mk. to mean cast out 
dead (Meyer, Weiss, Schanz), or with 
Grotius we must take cal é{€Badov as = 
éxPdyOévtra.—Ver. 11. mapa xvuptov, 
etc., from or through the Lord it (the 
rejected stone) became this very thing 
{atrn), viz., the head of the corner— 
kepadt ywvlas.—Ver. 12. Kal edo 


422 KATA MAPKON XII. 
Oaupact? ev dpOadpots Hpav.”” 12. Kal éLyjrouv adrdv xparijoa, 
Kal é€poByOnoary tov Sxhov: Eyvwoay yap St mpds adtods Thy 
mapaPohiy elre* Kal ddpévres aitov amqdOov. 

13. Kat drooré\Xovor mpds aitéy twas Tay Papicaiwy Kal Tov 
‘Hpwdiavdv, iva attév dypedowor Adyw. 14. of BE! edOdvTeEs 
héyouow aitd, “ Addoxade, oiSapev Ste GAnOijs ef, Kat od péder 
co TeEpi obdevds~ ob yap BAéreis cis mpdcwmov dvOpdtwv, GAN’ ex” 
Gdnfelas thy 68dv Tod Ocod SSdoxers. 
Sodvar? 4 ov; 





éfeott Kijvoov Kaicape 
15. ddpev, 7 py Sdpev;” “O S€ e€idas adtay 
Thy Swoxpiow elev adtois, “Ti pe weipdlete ; pépeté por Syvdprov, 
iva i8w.” 16, Ot 8€ Hveyxav. Kat déyer adtois, “ Tivos # etka 
adty kal 4 émypady ;” 17. Kat 
GmoxpiBeis 6 “Inoots eimev aitois,® “’AmddSote Ta Kaicapos 4 


Ot S€ ettroy atta, “Kaicapos.” 


, a A n a A 
Kaicap, Kol td Tod Geod TH OcG.” Kai batpacav® én’ aitd. 


18. Kat €pxovtat ZadSouxato. mpds aidtdy, oitwes Adyouow 


1 kat for o. Se in NBCDLA 33. 


2 Sovvat before knvoov in NBCLA. For xynvoow D has emixaipadatove 
3 For kat amok. . . . avtots B has simply o Se |. evzreve 


‘7a K. amodote K. in $BCLA. T.R. conforms to Mt. 


5 efeBavpafov in QB. T.R. = Mt. 


@nocav: xatis to all intents adversative 
here, though grammarians deny that it 
is ever so used (vide Winer, sec. liii. 3 b) 
= they sought to lay hold of Him, but 
they feared the people.—éyvweay refers 
tothe Sanhedrists (Weiss, Holtz.), not to 
the dxAos {Meyer). It gives a reason at 
once for their desire to lay hold of Jesus, 
and for their fear of the people. They 
must be careful so to act as not to appear 
to take the parable to themselves, while 
they really did so. 

Vv. 13-17. Tribute to Caesar (Mt. 
xxii. 15-22, Lk. xx. 20-26).—Ver. 13. 
Tivas: according to Mt. the representa- 
tives of the Pharisees were disciples, not 
masters; a cunning device in itself. 
Vide on Mt. xxii. 16.—aypevowor (here 
only in N.T.), that they might hunt or 
catch Him, like a wild animal. Mt.’s ex- 
pression, waytSevowor, equaliy graphic. 
Lk. avoids both.—Aéy@: either, their 
question, or His reply ; the one involves 
the other.—Ver. 14. The flattering 
speech is differently and more logically 
(Schanz) given in Mt. Vide notes there 
on the virtues specif.ed.—éfeorttv, etc. : 
the question now put, and in two forms 
in Mk. First, as in Mt., is it lawful, 
etc. ; second, in the added words, Sapev 
4 ph Sepev; These have been dis- 


tinguished as the theoretical and the 
practical form of the question respectively 
(Meyer, Weiss, Schanz), but there is no 
real difference. Yet it is not idle re- 
petition. The second question gives 
urgency tothe matter. They speak as 
men who press for an answer for their 
guidance (Holtz., H. C.).—Ver. 15. 
Syvaptov: instead of Mt.’s vépropa Tov 
Kyjvoov ; as a matter of fact the denarius 
was the coin of the tribute.—itva tdw, 
that I may see: as if He needed to study 
the matter, a touch of humour. The 
question was already settled by the 
existence of a coin with Caesar’s image 
onit. This verb and the next, qveyKay, 
are without object; laconic style.— 
Ver. 17. Christ’s reply is given here 
very tersely =the things of Caesar 
render to Caesar, and those of God to 
God.—2feBatpalov: the compound, in 
place of Mt.’s simple verb, suggests the 
idea of excessive astonishment, though 
we must always allow for the tendency 
in late Greek to use compounds. Here 
only in N. T., occasionally in Sept. 

Vv. 18-27. The resurrection question 
(Mt. xxii. 23-33, Lk. xx. 27-30).—Ver. 19. 
The case is awkwardly stated here as 
compared with Mt., though Lk. retains 
the awkwardness = if the brother of any 





12—26, EYATTEAION 

dvdotaow ph etvar: xat érnpdtnooy! adrdév, déyortes, 19. “ Aiddo- 
Kahe, Mworjs eypaev tpiv, Srv édv twos a8eXpds adwoldvy, Kal 
Katahiny yuvatka, kat Tékva ph apy,” va AdBy 6 AdeAhds adtod 
THY yuvatka atrod,® Kat éavaction oméppa TS AdcAHd adTod- 
20. éwtad dSehhot Hoav: Kai 6 mp@tos EXaBe yuvaika, kal dzrod- 
vyokwy ooK aie oméppa: 21. Kai 6 Sevtepos EXaPev attHy, Kal 
anébave, at ob8€ adtds dpijxe omeppat: Kal 6 tpitos dcadtws- 
22. kat® EkaBov adrhy ot énrd, Kal odx ddiKar oméppa.? 
wdvtwv arébave Kai y yuvy.® 
8 


eoxdrn ® 
23. év TH ouv’ dvactdcer, Stay 
avacTact, 


, SEI, »” , < a A ” CE ' 
Tivos aUTGy EoTat yuyh; ol yap éEmTa EoXoy avTiy 


yuvaixa. 24. Kal dmoxpilets 6 “Incods eimev adtois,® “Ob Sid 
ToUTo WAavGobe, pt Eiddtes Tas ypadds, pnd Thy Suva Tod C€cod ; 
25. GtTay yap éx vexpav dvactaow, ote yapovow, ore yaptoxovrat,!? 
GAN eEtaty ds dyyehou ol ev Tots odpavois. 26. wepi dé Tay veKxpar, 
tt éyetpovtat, obK dvéyvwre év TH BIBAw Mwodws, emt THs 


Barou, ds!" etmev atta 6 Ocds, Néywv, ‘Eya 6 Geds “ABpadp, kal 


423 


1 exnpwrev in SBCDLA 33. 
2 un ady Texvov in BLA. 

* For cat ovde . 
5 For kat ehaBov . . 


T.R. = parall. 


3 Omit avtov NBCLA. 


. . oTeppa SBCLA 33 have py Katahurey o- 
. omeppo NBCLA 33 have kat ot ewra ovk adykay omreppa. 


8 For ecxaty . . . yuvy read with SBCLA 33 eoyarov kas ny yuvy ameOavev. 


7 Omit ovy S&BCLA, 


8 The oldest uncials omit otavy avagotwo., which may, as Weiss suggests, have 
fallen out by similar ending (avaotacet) (Tisch. inserts, W.H. omit). 


9 For eat... 


1 tov in NABCLA al. 


1 ws in NBCLA. as in D, al. 


one die, and leave a wife, and leave not 
children, let his (the brother’s) brother 
take his wife and raise up seed to his 
brother. Mk. avoids the word éwvyap- 
Bpetoes (in Mt.).— Ver. 20: abrupt 
statement of the case, without connect- 
ing particle, and émra placed first for 
emphasis = seven brothers there were (in 
“a case supposed, or pretendedly real, 
wap ‘piv, Mt.).—Ver. 23. tivos aitéy, 
etc., of which of them shall she be the 
wife ? (yuv7, without the article, vide notes 
on Mt.).—Ver. 24. ov wAavagde, do ye 
not err? not weaker but stronger than a 
positive assertion: ‘‘ pro vehementi affir- 
matione,’”’ Grotius.—8.a totro usually 
tefers to something going before, and it 
may do so here, pointing to their question 
as involving ignorant presuppositions 
tegarding the future state, an ignorance 


avtots read epy avtots o |. with BCLA 33. 
10 yaptlovrar in $BCLA (yapifovor D), 
ays in D (= Lk.), 


due, in turn, to ignorance of Scripture 
teaching and the power of God. But it 
is more natural to connect it with the 
following clause, as in cases when the 
expression precedes 671, tva, Srav, etc., 
for pi etSdtes is = Sri ov ofSare. So De 
Wette and others, vide Winer, sec. xxiii. 5. 
—Ver. 26. év tq BiBAw M.: a general 
reference to the Pentateuch, the follow- 
ing phrase, éwi tot Barov, supplying a 
more definite reference to the exact place 
in the book, the section relating to the 
bush. | “Ati 'the) bush. ?)j2.¢.,) x. iil. 
similarly reference might be made to 
Ex. xv., by the title: ‘at the song of 
Moses’’.—Bdvos is masculine here ac- 
cording to the best reading ; feminine in 
Lk. xx. 37. The feminine is Hellenistic, 
the masculine Attic. Vide Thayer’s 
Grimm. The word occurs in Aristo- 


424 KATA MAPKON x, 
8} Ged "load, kat 8! Geds "laxdP’; 27. Odx ~otw 5% Ceds veKpOv, 
GANA eds * Ldvtwv: Sets odv* odd wAavaoe.”’ 

28. Kat mpoceh Baw els Tay ypapparéwy, dxovcas adtay cuLyrouv- 
Twv, elSds Ste Kaas adrois drekpidy,® emnpdtnoer adtdv, “ Nota 
éori mpérm macdv évtohh®;"’ 29. ‘O S€ “Incods dmexpiby adTd,” 
““Ort mpdty tacdy tov evrohGy,® ‘"Axoue, lopard+ Kuptos 6 Geds 
Hav Kupros els eoti. 30. Kat dyamycets Kiptov tov Oedv cou ef 
SAns THS Kapdias gou Kal €& SAns THs WuxAs cou, Kai €f SAns THs 
Siavotas cou, kai €§ ddns THs toxdos cou.” aiity mpdty evrody.? 31. 
kal Seutépa Spota adty,!? ‘’Ayamyoets tov mANoiov cou ds ceauTév.” 


1 BD omit the article in these two places. 
? BDLA omit o, which has been introduced through @eog being taken as subject. 


3 Omit Jeos NABCDAS. 
*SSBCLA K cop. omit vpets ovv. 
5 amexptOn avtois in NBCLA 33. 


Vide below. 


8 eyrohyn TpwTH TavTwy in $WBCLA. T.R. is a grammatical correction. 


7 amexp.0y o |. in BLA 33. 
SFor om... 


evtohwv read with BLA ort rpwty eote 


* Omit avty m- ev. (a gloss from ver. 28) with KBLA. 


10 For kau . 


phanes and in the N. T.; possibly collo- 
quial (Kennedy, Sources of N.T.G., p.78). 
—Ver. 27. wodt whavacbe, much ye 
err. This new and final assertion of 
ignorance is very impressive; severe, 
but kindly; much weakened by adding 
Upets ody. 

Vv. 28-34. The great commandment 
(Mt. xxii. 34-40). The permanent value 
of this section lies in the answer of Jesus 
to the question put to Him, which is 
substantially the same in both Mt. and 
Mk. The accounts vary in regard to 
the motive of the questioner. In Mt. he 
comes to tempt, in Mk. in hope of getting 
confirmation in a new way of thinking 
on the subject, similar to that of the man 
in quest of eternal life—that which put 
the ethical above the ritual. No anxious 
attempt should be made to remove the 
discrepancy. — Ver. 28. mpooedOav, 
&xovcas, ei8as: the second and third of 
these three participles may be viewedasthe 
ground of the first = one of the scribes, 
having heard them disputing, and being 
conscious that He (Jesus) answered them 
well, approached and asked Him, etc.— 
moto, what sort of; it is a question, not 
of an individual commandment, but of 
characteristic quality. The questioner, 
as conceived by Mk., probably had in 
view the distinction between ritual and 


. - avty BLA have simply Sevrepa avty (Tisch., W.H.), 


ethical, or positive and moral. The 
prevalent tendency was to attach special 
importance to the positive, and to find 
the great matters of the law in circumci- 
sion, Sabbath-keeping, the rules respect- 
ing phylacteries, etc. (Lightfoot). The 
opposite tendency, to emphasise the 
ethical, was not unrepresented, especially 
in the school of Hillel, which taught that 
the love of our neighbour is the kernel 
of the law. The questioner, as he 
appears in Mk., leant to this side.—Ver. 
29. Gove, “lopayr, etc.: this mono- 
theistic preface to the great command- 
ment is not given by Mt. Possibly Mk. 
has added it by way of making the 
quotation complete, but more probably 
Jesus Himself quoted it to suggest that 
duty, like God, was one, in opposition to 
the prevailing habit of viewing duty as 
consisting in isolated precepts. Mt. 
compensates for the omission by preserv- 
ing the reflection: ‘‘On these two com- 
mandments hangeth the whole law and 
the prophets”. In Mk. the bond of 
unity is God; in Mt. love.—Ver. 30. 
Heart, soul, mind, strength (toyxvos) ; in 
Mt.: heart, soul, mind; in Lk. (x. 27): 
heart, soul, strength, mind; in Deut. 
(vi. 4): heart, soul, strength (Suvépews) ; 
all varied ways of saying ‘‘ to the utter- 
most degree” = “all that is within”; 





87—37. 


MeiLoy todtwy GAAn évToA} odK gor.” 


EYATTEAION 


425 


32. Kat eiwev aita & 


ypappareds, “Kah@s, SiSdoxahe, ew AdyOeias ettras, dt els eons 


Ocds,! Kal odx éorw GAdos TA}y adtod. 


€€ SAns Tis Kapdlas, Kal €& ddns 
puxijs,? Kat €€ Sdns Tis ioxdos, 
é€autév, tAetév > gots wévtTwy Ta 


c 


34. Kal 6 


éréhpa adtoy érepwrijcat. 


a ALES: a 3) == 
33- KQ@l TO GyaTay auTov 


Tis guvécews, Kat é§ SdAns Tis 
‘ HS ~ x , « 
Kal TO Gyandy Tov mAnolov ds 
« , .Y Lal a %? 
ddoKauTwpdTwv Kal Tov Buctdy. 
‘Inaods iSav adtév, St. vouvex@s dmexpily, etrev adra, 
“Ob paxpdv et dd THs Bactheias Tod Oeod.” 


A 
Kai od8els odKérs 


35+ Kat droxpileis 6 “Inaods eheye, SiSdonwr ev 7 tepd, “Nas 


héyouow of ypappateis, Ste 6 Xpiotds vids éott Aafid!; 


36. 


abtés yap® AaBid ciwey €v TO Mvetpat: TO “Aylw, ‘ Etirev & Kiptos 
7 Kkupiw pou, Kdédou® éx Seéiav pou, ws dv 04 Tods €xO8pous 


gou Stromdd.oy? TOy Today cou.’ 


avtod 75éws. 


1 SABLAS al. omit Qeos. 


37. Adtds obv® AaBid éyer adtdy 
kUptov- Kat 1wé0ev vids attod éom?;” 


Kai 6 odds oxXos iKkouey 


? Omit this clause imported from ver. 30, and found in ADE al, 


3 wreptogorepoy in SYBLA 33. 

4 AaB. before eori in BDL. 

§ xa@icov in B (Trg., W.H., marg.). 
8 &BLA omit ov, 


‘and with the full potency of that 
‘“‘all’’.—Ver. 32. Kah@s, ém’ adnfelas: 
to be taken together = well indeed |—els 
éotiv: He is one (God understood, 
supplied in T.R.),—Ver. 33: the manner 
of loving God is stated by the scribe in 
yet another form of language: heart, 
understanding (ovvécews), might.— 
mepioodtepdv éoriv, etc., is more, far, 
than all the burnt offerings and the 
sacrifices (meat offerings) = the whole 
Levitical ritual. There is a ring of con- 
viction in the words. The varied expres- 
sion of the law of love to God (cvvécews) 
also bears witness to sincerity and in- 
dependent thought. — 6Aoxavtwpdrey 
(6AoxavrTéw, from Gdos, xatw), here and 


in Heb. x. 6, from Sept., for 7} D2). —Ver. 


we 
34. vouvexas, intelligently, as one who 
had a mind (of his own), and really 
thought what he said, a refreshing thing 
to meet with at any time, and especially 
there and then. Here only in N.T, = 
vouvexdvTws in classics.—ovd paxpav, not 
far ; near by insight into its nature (the 
ethical supreme), and in spirit—a sincere 
thinker.—otSeis obxért, etc.: question- 
ing given up because seen to be vain, 


5 $3 BLA omit yap. 
7 yroxatw in BD sah. cop, 
® avTov eotiv uios in BL. 


always ending either in the confusion or 
in the acquiescence of questioners (cf, 
Lk. xx. 40). 

Vv. 35-37. David’s Son and David's 
Lord (Mt. xxii. 41-46, Lk. xx. 41-44). 
On the aim and import of this counter- 
question vide notes on Mt.—Ver. 35. 
amoxpileis, Si8deKwv é.7. t.: these two 
participles describe the circumstances 
under which the question was asked— 
addressed to silenced and disheartened 
opponents, and forming a part of the 
public instruction Jesus had been giving 
in the temple; a large body of people 
present.—Ver. 36. avtos A. Over 
against the dogma of the scribes, stated 
in ver. 35 as something well known (in 
Mt. Jesus asks for their opinion on the 
topic), is set the declaration of David 
himself, introduced without connecting 
particle. David, who ought to know 
better than the scribes,—év 76 w. 1. G.: 
especially when speaking, as they would 
all admit, by inspiration.—elrev, etc.: 
the quotation as given in T.R. exactly 
reproduces the Sept. The omission of 6 
before Kuptos in BD turns the latter into 
a proper name of God.—xdOov (xd 0ico» 
in B) is a late or “ popular ”’ form of the 


426 


KATA MAPKON 


XIl. 


38. Kal heyev adrots ev rH Sidayx7 adroo,! “Bdéwere Awd tov 
ypapparéwy, Tay Bedérvtwv év orodais wepiwateiv, Kal dotragpods év 


Taig Gyopais, 39. Kai mpwroxabedpias év tais cuvaywyais, Kal 
mpwtokdigias év tois Seimvors: 40. of Kkatec@lovtes? Tas oikias 


TOY xnpGy, Kal mpopdcer paxpad mpogeuxdpevors obtor At Wovrar 


Tepioodtepoy Kpija.” 


41. Kai kaBioas 6 "Ingois® karévavte* tod yalodudakiou eediper 


mas 6 dxdos Bader xadkdv eis Td yaLodpuddxtoy. 


1 ey Ty 8:5. avrov eheyey in BLA 33. 
2 B has xarecOovres. 


present imperative of xa@npot.—Ver. 37. 
cal 6 wots Sxdos, etc.: this remark 
about the large crowd which had been 
witness to these encounters, as it stands 
in our N. T. at end of ver. 37, seems to 
refer merely to the closing scene of the 
conflict. Probably the evangelist meant 
the reflection to apply to the whole = 
the masses enjoyed Christ’s victory 
over the classes, who one after the 
other measured their wits against His. 
The remark is true to the life. The 
people gladly hear one who speaks 
felicitously, refutes easily, and escapes 
dexterously from the hands of designing 
men. (@§ *5éws Stadcyopévov, Kat 
edyep@s avTovs avatpemovTos, Kal as 
aitos aGanddaypévos THs BaoKkavias— 
Euthy. Zig.) 

Vv. 38-40. Warning against the in- 
uence of the scribes (Lk. xx. 45-47). As 
if encouraged by the manifest sympathy 
of the crowd, Jesus proceeds to warn 
them against the baleful influence of 
their religious guides.—Ver. 38. év TH 
§.8ax7q a. : this expression alone suffices to 
show that what Mk. here gives is but a 
fragment of a larger discourse of the same 
type—an anti-scribal manifesto. Here 
again the evangelist bears faithful 
witness to a great body of 88ayx% he 
does not record. Mt. xxiii. shows how 
much he omits at this point.—é\eyev: 
the imperfect here may be taken as 
suggesting that what follows is but a 
sample = He was saying things like this. 
—Pdérere ard as in viii. 15.—Oeddvrov, 
desiring, not so much claiming as their 
privilege (Meyer) as taking a childish 
pleasure in = dtdotvTwv, Lk. xx. 46.—év 
orohais, in long robes, worn by persons 
of rank and distinction (‘ gravitatis 
index,” Grotius), possibly worn specially 
Jong by the scribes that the tassels 
attached might trail on the ground. 


Kat rod\ot 


> NBLA cop. omit o |. 
* So in NADAZX (Tisch., W.H., text, brackets). 


atrevavtt in B (W.H. marg.). 


So Wiinsche, ad loc. Vide picture 
of Pharisee in his robes in Lund, 
Heiligthiimer, — wep-wareiy: infinitive, 
depending on @e\dvtwy followed by 
accusatives, dowacpots, etc., depending 
on same word: oratio variata, vide Mt, 
xxili. 6,—Ver. 40. ot xareoOlovres: 
this verse is probably still to be regarded 
as a continuation of the description ot 
the scribes commencing with -tév 
Oehévtwv, only the writer has lost the 
sense of the original construction, and 
instead of the genitive puts the nomina- 
tive, so giving to what follows the force 
of an independent sentence (so Weiss). 
Grotius, Meyer, and Schanz take ver. 
40 as a really independent sentence. 
Lk. set the precedent for this; for, 
apparently having Mk.’s text before him, 
he turns of xateoQlovtes into of katec@- 
ovat. Holtzmann, H.C., is undecided 
between the two views. As to the sense, 
two facts are stated about the scribes: 
they devoured the houses, the property 
of widows, and they made long (paxpa, 
vide on Lk. xx. 47) prayers in the homes 
of, and presumably for, these widows.— 
mpodage: the real aim to get money, 
the long seemingly fervent prayers a 
blind to hide this aim. It is not 
necessary to suppose that the money- 
getting and the praying were connected 
by regular contract (so apparently 
Fritzsche, and Weiss in Meyer). For 
mpodacts cf. Phil. i. 18 and especially 
1 Thess. it. 5.—otrot AywWovrar, etc. : 
this remark applies specially to the 
conduct just described : catching widows’ 
substance with the bait of prayer, which 
Jesus characteristically pronounces ex- 
ceptionally damnable in view of its sleek 
hypocrisy and low greed. The append- 
ing of this reflection favours the view 
that ver. 4o is after all an independent 
sentence. In it and the two preceding 





—- <> map =o 


Ss oe 


ee =. FF =a 


38—44. 


EYATTEAION 


427 


mAovavor EBaddov woAAA* 42. Kal €hOodoa pla xnpa TTwy} EBade 


hemra S00, 5 gore Kodpdvtys. 


. KQL TWpogkakeodmevos Tovs 
Pp p 


pabytas adrod, Adyer! adrots, “’Apiy A€yw piv, ote H Xipa atTy 
4] TTwX}) Whelov wavtov BEBAnke TOv Baddvrwv 2 eis TO yaLopuddktoy. 
44. Tdvtes yap €x Tou Tepiagevorvtos adTots EBahov: aiity dé ek Tis 


Sotepyoews abtis mdvta Soa etxev EBadev, Sov tov Blov aitis.” 


1 eurev in HABDLAY. 


2 For BeBAnxe, ABDLAZ 33 have eBadev, and for Bakovrwy NABDLAX have 


BadAovrav. 


we have a very slight yet vivid picture of 
Pharisaic piety in its vanity, avarice, 
and hypocrisy. 

Vv. 41-44. The widow’s offering (Lk. 
xxi. I-4). This charming story comes in 
with dramatic effect, after the repulsive 
picture of the greedy praying scribe. 
The reference to the widows victimised 
by the hypocrites may have suggested it 
to the evangelist’s mind. It bears the 
unmistakable stamp of an authentic re- 
miniscence, and one can imagine what 
comfort it would bring to the poor, who 
constituted the bulk of the early Gentile 
Church (Schanz).—Ver. 41. «alicas: 
Jesus, a close and keen observer of all 
that went on (xi. 11), sits down at a spot 
convenient for noticing the people casting 
their contributions into the temple 
treasury.—yalogvAaktov (yafa, Persian, 
oviaky =OnoavpopvAdkiov, Hesychius). 
Commentators are agreed in thinking 
that the reference is to the treasury in 
the court of the women, consisting of 
thirteen brazen trumpet-shaped recep- 
tacles, each destined for its distinctive 
gifts, indicated by an inscription, so 
many for the temple tribute, and money 
gifts for sacrifice ; others for incense, 
wood, etc. ; all the gifts having reference 
to the service carried on. The gifts were 
people’s offerings, generally moderate in 
amount: ‘the Peter’s pence of the 
Jews” (Holtzmann, H.C.).—yadkov may 
be meant for money in general, copper 
representing all sorts (Fritzsche, Grotius, 
etc.); but there seems to be no good 
reason why we should not take it strictly 
as denoting contributions in copper, the 
ordinary, if not exclusive, money gifts 
(Meyer ; Holtzmann, H. C.).—oAAot 
mAovowot, etc., many rich were casting 
in much: Jesus was near enough to see 
that, also to notice exactly what the 
widow gave. Among the rich givers 
might be some of the praying scribes 
who had imposed on widows by their 
show of piety, suggesting reflections on 


Tisch. reads BeBAnkev +. Badd., W.H. eBadev 7. Badd. 


where wealthy givers get the money 
they bestow for pious purposes. That 
is not a matter of indifference to the 
Kingdom of God, whatever it may be to 
beneficiaries.—Ver. 42. pla x. 7, one 
poverty-stricken widow. With what in- 
tense interest Jesus would watch her 
movements, after His eye fell on her! 
How much will she give ?—\erra Sto, 
“two mites”; minute, of course, but 
two: she might have kept one of them 
(Bengel).—Aewrdv, so called from its 
smallness ; smallest of brass coins—sig- 
nificant of deep poverty ; two given, of 
a willing mind.—Ver. 43. 7 mwrw x7, em- 
phatic—the poverty-stricken; manifest 
from her dress and wasted look.—Ver. 
44.—€x Tis torepyoews, from her state 
of want, cf. on Lk.—wtorépyors, here 
and in Phil. iv. 11.—ndvta 600: this 
not visible to the eye; divined by the 
mind, but firmly believed to be true, as 
appears from the repetition of the state- 
ment in another form.—é6Xov rdy Biov, 
her whole means of life. For the use of 
Btos in this sense vide Lk. viii. 43, xv. 
12, 30; similarly in classics. 

Though it has nothing to do with 
strict exegesis, I am tempted to give here 
a prayer by that felicitous interpreter and 
devout monk, Euthymius Zigabenus, 
based on this beautiful Gospel story : 
“‘May my soul become a widow casting 
out the devil to which it is joined and 
subject, and casting into the treasury of 
God two lepia, the body and the mind; 
the one made light (Aewruv@dvta) by 
temperance, the other by humility ’’. 

CHAPTER XIII. THE APOCALYPTIC 
Discourse. This is the solitary in- 
stance in which the second evangelist 
has given at length a discourse of Jesus. 
The fulness with which the apocalyptic 
discourse is recorded is all the more 
striking, when contrasted with the very 
meagre reproduction of the anti-pharisaic 
discourse (xii. 38-40). The exception 
made in its favour was doubtless due to 


428 


KATA MAPKON 


XIII. 


XIII. 1. KAI éxopevopévou adtod ek tod tepod, héyer adr efs 


tav pabytav attod, “ AiSdoxade, (Se, totamol iGo. Kal woramal 


> oe 
oikodopat. 


TauTas Tas peyddas oikodopeds ; 


8s od ph katadu0y.”” 


2. Kai & "Ingots diroxpiBels! cimev adtad, ‘“ BNéres 


od ph ddeO? AiBos emi ALOw,® 


3. Kai xaOnpévou attod eis Td Spos Tar 


> a a ¢ lol 
Edatdv xarévavte Tod iepod, émnpdtwv4 addy Kat’ iSiavy Mérpos 


kai “IdkwBos Kat “lwdvyns kai "AvSpéas, 4. “ Eime> ipiv, mére tadTa 


» 
€oTat ; 


‘ , “ an “ 
Kal TLTO onpetov Stay pEAAH mdvTa Tata guvTeheicOar ® ;” 


5. ‘O S€ “Incods dwoxpibe’s adtots nptato Adyew,’ “ Bhémete py Ts 


Spas mAavyoy. 


1 Omit arroxpiGers with NBL 33. 
3 AvOov in BLA 33 (Tisch., W.H.). 
5 evrov in NBDL 33. 


6. wohdot yap ® ehedcovrar éwi 1H dvdparTi pou, 


2 Add we with RBDLAZ (W.H.). 
* exnpwrta in WHEL 33 (Tisch., W.H.). 


8 ravra ouvTeX. TavTa in MBL, 


TNBL 33 have ynptaro Aeyerv avTors without amoxpiOers (Tisch., W.H.). 


8 Omit yap NBL. 


Mk.’s estimate of its interest and value 
for his first readers. Perhaps he was in- 
fluenced in part by the fascinations of 
prediction. The real interest of the dis- 
course and the key to its interpretation 
are to be found, as pointed out in the 
notes on the corresponding chapter in 
Mt., in its ethical aim—“ to forewarn and 
forearm the representatives of a new 
faith, so that they might not lose their 
heads or their hearts in an evil perplexing 
time”: notes on Mt. For a full exposi- 
tion of the discourse in the light of this 
aim readers are referred to these notes. 
Vv. 1-4. The introduction (Mt. xxiv. 
1-3; Lk. xxi. 5-7)—Ver. 1. dls 7. 
palntay, one of the disciples; the dis- 
ciples generally in Mt.; who, not said, 
nor for what motive; probably to divert 
the Master from gloomy thoughts.— 
motatrot AiGor, etc.: what stones and 
what buildings! the former remarkable 
for size, as described by Josephus (Antiq., 
xv., II, 3); the latter for beauty. On 
motamés vide at Mt. viii. 27.—Ver. 2. 
Bdérerg: a question, do you see? to fix 
attention on an object concerning which 
a startling statement is to be made.— 
peyadas, great buildings, acknowledging 
the justness of the admiration and point- 
ing to a feature which might seem in- 
compatible with the statement following : 
that vast strong pile surely proof against 
destruction !—Ver. 3. els 1d dpos: im- 
plying previous motion towards, before 
sitting down on the Mount of Olives.— 
xatévayvtt tT. t., opposite the temple, 
with the admired buildings in full 
view; this graphic touch in Mk, only. 


—trypora (SYBL), singular: Peter in 
view as the chief speaker, though ac- 
companied by other three; imperfect, 
as subordinate to jp§aro in ver. 5 ex- 
plaining the occasion of the discourse 
Jesus then began to deliver.—é Nérpos, 
etc.: the well-known three, and a fourth 
—Andrew; a selection found only here. 
Were these all the disciples with Jesus, 
all who went with Him to Bethany in 
the evenings, the rest remaining in 
Jerusalem? The two pairs of brothers 
were the first called to discipleship (Mk. 
i, 16-20). This reminiscence points to 
internal relations in the disciple-circle 
imperfectly known to us.—kat’ i8{ev, 
apart, i.e., from the rest of the disciples. 
Mt. has the same phrase, though he 
assumes all the disciples to be present, 
which is suggestive of literary depend- 
ence.—Ver. 4. The question of the four 
has exclusive reference to the predicted 
destruction of the sacred buildings. In 
Mt. three questions are mixed together: 
vide notes there. 

Vv. 5-8. Signs prelusive of the end 
(Mt. xxiv. 4-8, Lk. xxi. 8-11). Jerusalem’s 
judgment-day not to come till certain 
things have happened: advent of false 
Messiahs, rise of wars.—B\émere, take 
heed that no one deceive you; the 
ethical key-note struck at once; the aim 
of the whole discourse to help disciples 
to keep heads cool, and hearts brave in a 
perilous evil time (vide on Mt.).—Ver. 6. 
éyo eipt, I am (He, the Christ). In what 
sense to be understood vide on Mt. The 
Messianic hope misconceived was the 
ruin of the Jewish people.—Ver. 7 





EYATTEAION 429 


I—Iz. 


héyovtes, “Ore eye cipu Kat wohhods whavycouow. 7. dray dé 
dkovonte modépous Kat dkods mokéuwv, py Opoctcbe- Set yap! 
yevéoOor: GAN olmw Td Téhos. 8. “EyepOiyjcetat ydp eOvos émi 


vos, Kat Bacthela éwi Baothelay: Kat? 
8 


EoovTat GELcpol KaTd 
i! 42 » ‘ ‘ , \4 207 A 
Tomous, Kal? égovTat Aipol Kat Tapaxal.? dpxat* @divwr tadTa. 
g. Bhémere Sé Gpets Eautods. mapaddcouar yap° dpas cis ouvedpra, 
‘ > A , ‘ 2% € , ‘ , 
kal €ig cuvaywyds Sapycecbe, Kal emt yyepovwy kat Baordéwv 
atabijceoOe Evexev e008, eis paptupiov autos: IO. kat els mdyTa 
Ta €Ovn Set mpGtov® KypuxOfvar 1d edayyédvov. 11. Gray d¢ 
dydyoow™ Spas wapadiddvtes, ph mpopepipvate ti Nadjonte, pyde 
pedetate® GAN’ 6 edv S004 Spiv ev éxetvy TH dpa, TodTo haheite- 
ou ydp éore Gyets ot Aadourtes, GANG TS Mvedpa 6 “Ayroy. 12. 


rapaddce: B€9 adehpds adeddy cig Odvatov, Kai maThp Téxvov- 


1 §3B sah. cop. omit yap. Vide below. 


2 \8BDL omit the first kat and BL the second. Vide below. 


3 BDL vet. Lat. vulg. cop. omit kat tapayar (so Trg., Tisch., W.H.), but these 
words may have fallen out by similar ending (apxat, so Weiss). 


* apxn in NBDLA (Trg., Tisch., W.H.), which may be an assimilation to Mt. 


apxat in AEFGXTI®S al, (Weiss). 
5 Omit yap BL cop. 
7 nar orav aywouy in SBDL. 
» kat rapadwoe in BDL. 


mwoh¢nous: first pseudo-Messiahs preach- 
ing national independence; then, natur- 
ally, as a second onpetov, wars, actual 
or threatened (axoas woh.).—p.7 Opoeiobe : 
good counsel, cheerful in tone, laconic 
in expression= be not scared; they 
must happen; but the end not yet. The 
disconnected style, no yap after Set 
(S$B), suits the emotional prophetic 
mood.—+ré téAos, the crisis of Jerusalem. 
—Ver. 8. écovrar cetopol, etc., there 
will be earthquakes in places; there will 
be famines. Here again the briefest 
reading without connecting particles 
(kal, kal) is to be preferred, as suiting 
the abrupt style congenial to the pro- 
phetic mood. The kai rapayai after 
Atpot may have fallen out of BDL 
by homoeoteleuton (apxat following im- 
mediately after), but after earthquakes 
and famines disturbances seems an anti- 
climax. 

Ver. 9-13. Third sign, drawn from 
apostolic experiences (Mt. xxiv. 9-13, Lk. 
xxi. 12-19). On the hypothesis that this 
is an interpolation into the discourse, 
having no organic connection with it, 
videon Mt. The contents of this section, 
especially in Mk.’s version, correspond 
closely to Mt. x. 17-22. But the ques- 


8 rpwrov Ser in NBD. LA=T.R. 
®SSBDL omit pnd peActare. 


tion, in which of the two discourses the 
logion has the more historical setting, is 
not thereby settled. Some utterance of 
the sort was certainly germane to the 
present situation.—Ver. Brétrere, 
etc.: not meant to strike a depressing 
note, but to suggest that the most in- 
teresting omens should be found in their 
own experiences as the Apostles of the 
faith, which, however full of tribulation, 
would yet be, on the whole, victorious.— 
mapadwoovor, etc.: the tribulations are 
not disguised, but the blunt statement 
only lends emphasis to the declaration 
in ver. 10 that, notwithstanding, the 
Gospel must (8et) and shall be proclaimed 
on a wide scale.—eis cuvaywyas Sap7- 
oeobe: the eis here is pregnant = you, 
delivered to the synagogues, shall be 
maltreated. Bengel renders: ‘in syna- 
gogas inter verbera agemini’’ = ye shall 
be driven into the synagogues with clubs. 
So Noésgen.—Ver. 11 gives counsel for 
Apostles placed at the bar of kings and 
rulers. They are not to be anxious before- 
hand (wpopepupvare, here only in N.T.) 
even as to what they shall say, not to 
speak of what shall happen to them as 
the result of the trial. Their apologia will 
be given tothem. They will not be the 


KATA MAPKON XI. 


430 

Kai éravactigovrat téxva emi yoveis, Kai Oavatdaovew abrods - 

13. Kal EveoOe prcodpevor brd mdvtwy Bid Td Gvoud pou: 6 Be 
dtropetvas eis TéA0S, OFTOS owOjeTaL. 

14. ““Oray 8 Wyte Td PSdAvypa THs epypdoews, 7d pyOev bd 

Aavihd Tod mpodrjtou,! Eords * Srrov of Bet- (6 dvaywdoKwy voettw *) 

Tote of é€v TH “loudaia euyérwoay eis Ta Spy: 15. 6 Se 3 emt tod 

Séparos pi) kataBdtw eis Thy oixiay,* pyde eivehOdrw dpai T° ex 

Tis oixias adtod: 16. Kal 6 eis tov dypdv Gy® ph emortpepdtw 

eis Ta Srricw, dpar Td tpdriov adtod. 17. ovai 8€ tals év 

yaotpt éxotoats Kat tais OndaLodcas év exelvats tails Hpépars. 

a ph yévntar uy) Gudv? yetpavos. 

19. Egovrat yap at Hpépar éxetvar OAtus, ota ob yéyove TovadTH 


18. «mpogedyerbe Be 


259 A , «8.2 c , a a lol ‘ 2 x 
dar APXNS KTLOEWS HS EKTLOEV O Ocos, €WS TOU VUY, K&L OU BY) 


1s9BDL omit vo pndev . . 
2 exrnkora in $KBL (vide below). 
3 B sah. cop. omit 8e. 
*S3BL omit ets thy ovxeay, a gloss. 
5s. aparcin BL. 


TSBDL omit n dvyn vpoy. 
Vide below. 


8 ny in BCL. 


real speakers (od ydp tore tpets of 
Aadotvres), but the Holy Spirit. Lk. 
has ‘‘I” here: Christ = the Holy Ghost. 
This comforting word is wanting in Mt., 
and whether it was really spoken at this 
time must remain uncertain. Mt. de- 
scribes with more detail the internal 
troubles of the Christian community— 
mutual treachery, false prophets (within, 
not without, like the false Messiahs of 
ver. 5), lawlessness, chilling of early 
enthusiasm—all implying the lapse of a 
considerable time, and all to happen 
before the end of Jerusalem. (Vv. 10-12.) 
For all this Mk. gives only the brief 
statement in ver. 12.—Ver. 13 answers 
in its first part to Mt. xxiv. gb, and in its 
second to Mt. xxiv. 13. 

Vv. 14-23. The FYewish catastrophe 
(Mt. xxiv. 15-25, Lk. xxi. 20-24).—Ver. 
14. 7d BSéAvypa tr. é. The horror is the 
Roman army, and it is a horror because 
of the desolation it brings. Vide on Mt. 
The reference to Daniel in T.R. is im- 
ported from Mt.—éornxdra, the reading 
in the best texts, masculine, though re- 
ferring to BdéAvypa, because the horror 
consists of soldiers (Schanz) or their 
general. (Cf. 6 xatéxwv, 2 Thess. ii. 7.) 
—émov ov Sei, where it ought not, in- 
stead of év ré7w Gyiw in Mt.—a graceful 


. mpodytov, which comes from Mt, 
More expressive without. 


6 S&S BDLA omit wv. 
More impressive without. 


What meant obvious. 


circumlocution betraying the Jewish 
Christian writing for heathen Christians, 
abstaining from making claims that 
might be misunderstood for his native 
country by calling it the “holy land” 
(Schanz).—6 dvaywooKnwv v. The re- 
ference here cannot be to Daniel, which 
is not mentioned in Mk., but either to 
the Gospel itself or to a separate docu- 
ment which it embodies—a Jewish or 
Jewish-Christian Apocalypse (vide on 
Mt.). The words may be taken as a 
direction to the reader in synagogue or 
church to explain further the meaning to 
hearers, it being a matter of vital prac- 
tical concern. Vide Weizsacker, Das 
Apos. Zeit., p. 362.—Ver. 15. Sdparos, 
he who is on the roof. Vide at Mt. x. 27. 
The main point to be noted in Mk.’s 
version of the directions for the crisis as 
compared with Mt.’s (q.v.) is the omis- 
sion of the words pydé caBBdre, prob- 
ably out of regard to Gentile readers.— 
Ver. 18. iva py yévnrat, that it may 
not be; what not said, @vyy (T.R.) 
being omitted in best texts = the name- 
less horror which makes flight impera- 
tive, the awful crisis of Israel.—Ver. 19. 
EvovTat yap at Apépar, etc., for (not in 
those days, but) those days (themselves) 
shall be a tribulation. So we speak of 





EYATTEAION 


[3=-27¢ 
yevyTar. 20. kai et py Kuptos éxohdBwoe! ras tuépas, obx av 
éod0n maou adp&- &AAG Bua Tods exNekTods ols efehd~aTo, exohd- 
Buse tas Hpépas. 
Xptotés, H idov,? ekel, ph motedonre. 


21. Kat tote édv tis Gpiv etary, “Sou,” dde 6 
3 22. éyepOjcovta, yap 
Peuvddx proton kal WeudsormpopArat, Kat Sacouor * onpeta Kai tépara, 
23. Gpets 
24. “ANN év éxetvats 
Tats Hpepats, peta Thy OAKpuv exetvyv, 6 Atos cKoticOyoeTar, Kat 


mpos To dwothavay, et Suvardv, Kat Tods éxeKTous. 


6€ Bémete> iS0U,° mpoeipnka spiv mdvto.. 


HW cedkyvn oF Bde. TO Heyyos attis, 25. Kal of dotépes Tod 
odjpavod Eoovra: éexwimtovtes,’ Kal at Suvdpers at ev Tots ovpavois 


431 


gaheu8iyjcovTat. 


€pxdpevov ev vehéhats peta Suvdpews odds Kat Sdéns. 
kat TOTe Gmootehket Tods dyyédous adtod,® 


€xXeKToUs avtou ® 


d&kpou odpavol. 


lexod. K. in BL. 


26. Kal tére Sipovrar tov uidy Tod dvAodrrou 


2 


Kat émiuvdger tovs 


> a , , Per) a o 
€k Tov Tecodpwy avénwy, Gr Gakpou ys ews 


2 SSBL have 18e both times; for yn before second ude B has kar, which has been 
changed into » (as in Mt.) in DAZ al. ; omitted in NL (Tisch., W.H.). 


° aorevetre in HABCDLA. 
4 Saqover in NABCLE al. 
5 Omit cat SBD (from Mt.). 


motngwovar in D (Tisch.). 


§ Omit u8ov BL cop. aeth. (Tisch., W.H.). 
7 exovTat ex T- OVD. TLTTOVTES SYBC (Tisch., W.H.). 


8 Omit first avrov BDL (Tisch., W.H.), DL second, which is found in SBCA. 
Tisch. omits both. W.H. have second in brackets, omitting first. 


‘evil days,” and in Scotland of the 
“killing times”.—ota ob yéyovev, etc.; 
a strong statement claiming for the crisis 
of Israel a unique place of tragic distinc- 
tion in the whole calamitous experience 
of the human race, past and to come,— 
ota Toravtn, pleonastic, cf, 1 Cor. xv. 48, 
2 Cor. x. 11.—Ver. 20. The merciful 
shortening of the days, out of regard to 
the elect, is here directly ascribed to 
God. Mt. uses the passive construction, 
where vide as to the idea of shortening 
and the reason.—tovs ékXextovs ovs 
éfeheEaro, the elect whom He elected, 
recalling ‘‘the creation which God 
created”’ in ver. 19; but more than a 
mere literary idiosyncrasy, emphasising 
the fact that the elect are God’s elect, 
whom He loves and will care for, and 
whose intercessions for others He will 
hear.—Ver. 22. wevddypioror, evdo- 
mpodytat, false Christs, and false 
prophets; again, as in ver. 6, here as 
there without, not within, the Church; 
political Messiahs, in ver. 6 spoken of as 


the prime cause of all the calamities, here 
as at the last hour promising deliverance 
therefrom.—mpos. Td daomAavgy, with a 
view to mislead; the compound verb 
occurs again in 1 Tim. vi. 10, in passive. 
—Ver. 23. tpets 82, etc., now you look 
out! Ihave told you all things before- 
hand; forewarned, forearmed. 

Vv. 24-31. The coming of the Son of 
Man (Mt. xxiv. 29-35, Lk. xxi. 25-33). 
—Ver. 24. Ada, opposes to the false 
Christs who are not to be believed in, 
the coming of the true Christ.—éy 
éxelvats T. Tepats, in those days, for 
Mt.’s ev@éws, a vaguer phrase, yet making 
the parusia synchronise with the thlipsis. 
—Ver. 25. ot aGorépes, etc., the stars 
shall be in process of falling (one after 
the other)—éovovrat with wimtovtes in- 
stead of wevovvrat in Mt.—ai Svuvapers, 
etc. ; the powers in heaven = the powers 
of heaven (Mt.) = the host of heaven 
(Is. xxxiv. 4), a synonym for the stars. — 
Ver. 26, Tov tov +. a.: the Son of 
Man, not the sign of, etc., as in Mt.: 


432 KATA MAPKON 

28. “ "Awd 8é ris cunts pdbere Thy wapaBodny: Stray adris HSy 
& xdddos! dwahds yévntat, nal expuy ta pdAAa, yivdoxete Sti 
éyyis 13 Oépos éoriv: 29. oftw kal duels, Stray tadta tSyTe 2 yive- 
peva, yivdoxete Ott €yyUs €or el Bdpats. 30. ‘Apiy héyw dpiv, 
Ste od pi) wapéAOy ¥ yeved adty, péxpts oF wdvta tadta® yévynTa. 
31. 6 obpavds kai H yy mapehedoorrart: of S€ Aoyor pou ob pH 
trapehQwor.* 

32. “Pepi 8€ ths Hyépas exeivns xat> rig Spas, oddeis older, 
ob5e of Gyyedor ot © v odpavH, odBE 6 utds, et ph 6 marhp. 

33. “ BXéwere, dyputrveite kai mpocevxeube,’ odx oidate yap more 
6 katpds €otw. 34. @s avOpwios aiddynpos adets Thy oikiay adTou, 

kat Sods tots BSovNorg adtod Thy éfouciav, xa ® ExdoTw TO Epyor 

1 The order of the words varies in MSS. P¥ABCDL have nSq o KA. avtys 
(W.H.; Tisch., as in T.R.). 

2 .8ynTe TavTa in NABCL. 3 ravta jwavTa in SWBCLA. 


4 wapeAevoovTat in \8BD; sing. in LAZ (from Mt.); for mapeA@wou in second 
clause (ACD = Mt.) S$BL have wapeAevoovrar; BD omit pn, which does not else- 
where occur in Mk. with ov and fut. indic. (Tisch., W.H. = B in both clauses). 


5 yin NBCLAZ. ND have cat. 

® S$DL omit o1 after ay. CA have it. 
7 BD omit nat rpocevyerbe ; a gloss. 
® SBCDL omit cat, a connecting particle added by scribes. 


B reads ayyeAos (W.H. marg.), 


XIII. 


Christ His own sign, vide on Mt.—Ver. 
27. Gam’ Gkpov yjjs, etc. (cf. expression 
in Mt.), from the extremity of the earth 
to the extremity of heaven. The earth 
is conceived as a flat surface, and the 
idea is—from one end of the earth to the 
other, where it touches the heavens. 
But they touch at both ends, so that 
Mt.’s expression is the more accurate. 
Either from one end of the earth to the 
other end of the earth, or from one end 
of the heaven to, etc.—Ver. 28. Parable 
of the fig tree, as in Mt.—éxgvyq: this 
verb without accent might either be 
present subjunctive active of ék@ve = 
éxovy = it putteth forth its leaves; or 
2nd aorist subjunctive intransitive = 
éxouy, from é£eduny, later form of 2nd 
aorist indicative instead of éépuv = the 
leaves shoot out. The former is pre- 
ferred by most commentators. 

Vv. 32-37. Concluding exhortation 
(Mt. xxiv. 36).—Ver. 32. The words 6 
vidos are an undoubted reading in Mk., 
and there can be little doubt they form a 
part of the true text in Mt. also. As to 
the import of the solemn declaration of 
nescience Jesus here makes, I need only 
refer to what has been said on the cor- 
responding textin Mt. It is not a dis- 


claimer of knowledge as to the precise 
day, month, or year of what it is cer‘ain 
will happen within the then present 
generation, but rather an intimation that 
all statements (that regarding the genera- 
tion included) as to the time of the 
parusia must be taken in a qualified 
sense. Jesus had, I still feel, two ways 
of speaking on the subject, one for com- 
fort (it will be soon), aid one for caution 
(it may not be so soon as even I think or 
you expect).—Ver. 33. dypumveite: 
watch, be sleepless (a pr.v. and tvos).— 
ovK oiSate, etc., ye kn w not the time or 
season (xatpds) of the parusia. If even 
the Son knows not, stid less His disciples; 
therefore let them watch.—Ver. 24. 
Enforcement of the xhortation to watch 
by a brief parable. At this point each 
of the synoptical evangelists goes his 
own way. In Mt. Jesus presses home 
the lesson by historical and prophetical 
pictures of the surprises brought by un- 
expected crises; i1 Lk. by general state- 
ments; in Mk. ya comparison which 
seems to be the germ of the parable in 
Mt. xxv. 14-3 .—Gv@pwaos arddynpos 
(here only), a travelling man, cf. av@. 
€utropos, a m rchant man, in Mt. xiii. 
45-—Ggels, ots: these participles 





‘ 


@o 2S" 2 SSS eS ES 


Ew ek oF 


28—37. 


adto0, Kal TO OupwpO évete(hato iva ypnyop#. 


¢ 


> oy ‘ f 
ok oldate yap mote 6 
1 


> 
oly: 
HegovuKTiou, 
eu c A 6 53 

Upy Spas Kabeddovras. 
pete.” 


EYATTEAION 


433 


35- yenyopetre 


KUptos TiS OiKias EpxeTar, oe, F 
7 GNextopopwvias, 7 mpwt: 36. pi eAOdy efaldyns 
37- &? Sé Spiy Aéyw, wact Adyw, Ppnyo- 


1 nexovurtrioy in SBCLA. T.R. (-ov) conforms to the following genitive 


2 9 in $BCLA. 


specify the circumstances under which 
the command to the porter, the main 
point, was given; it was when the 
master was leaving, and when he gave 
to all his servants his parting instructions. 
—thvy eéfovctav, his (the master’s) 
authority, distributed among the servants 
when he could no longer exercise it him- 
self.—rd epyov a., to each one his work, 
in apposition with éfovctav. In the 
master’s absence each man became his 
own master; put upon his honour, the 
seat of the éfouoia, and prescribing care- 
ful performance of the épyoyv entrusted to 
each.—xal 7. Ovpwpd, also, among the 
rest, and very specially, to the porter (he 
gave instructions). The kat here is em- 
phatic, as if it had been kai 87 xal.—tva 
yenyopy, that he should watch: note 
that in this parable the function of 
watching becomes the business of one— 
the porter. Each servant has his appro- 
priate task; the porter’s is to watch. 
Yet in the moral sphere watching is the 
common duty of all, the temper in which 
all are to discharge their functions. All 
have to be porters, waiting at the gate, 
ready to open it to the returning master. 
Hence the closing exhortation in ver. 37. 
What I say to you, the four disciples 
(ver. 3), I say to all: watch. This had 
to be added, because it was not said or 
suggested by the parable; a defect 
which makes it doubtful whether we 
have here a logion of Jesus in authentic 
form, and which may account for its 
omission by Lk.—Ver. 35. éwé %, etc. : 
the night divided, Roman fashion, into 
four watches: 6-9, g-12, 12-3, 3-6. 
Before the exile the Jews divided the 
night into three parts.—peoovv«rtov: 
vide at Lk. xi. 5 on this word, found also 
in Acts xvi. 25, xx. 7.—a\extopopavia 
is a Gat ey. in N. T.—Ver. 36. 
étaipyns, suddenly, here in Lk. ii. 13, 
and four times in Acts.—xa@evSovras : 
this applies to all the servants, not 
merely to the porter ; therefore all must 
watch as well as work. In the case of a 
master absent on a journey, the servants 


cannot know even the day, not to speak 
of the hour or watch of the night, as 
they could in the cases supposed in Lk. 
xii. 36, Mt. xxv. 1. Therefore they must 
keep awake not merely one night, but 
many nights, an incongruity which again 
suggests that we have not here an 
original utterance of Jesus, but a com- 
posite logion with elements borrowed 
from several parables. 

CHAPTER XIV. THE  PAassIOoN 
History.—Vv. 1-2. Introduction (Mt. 
XXVi. I-5, Lk. xxii. 1-2).—Ver. 1. fv 8e 
76 w.: the first hint that the visit of 
Jesus to Jerusalem took place at passover 
season.—rd wacya cal ta afupa;: full 
name of the feast, which consisted of the 
passover proper beginning on the 14th 
Nisan, and the seven days of unleavened 
bread. Mt. and Lk. give each only one 
of the designations; Mt. the former, Lk. 
the latter. Mk.’s dual designation a 
manifest combination of Mt. and Lk., 
say the followers of Griesbach.—pera 
Svo npepas, indicates the point of time at 
which the Sanhedrists began seriously to 
consider how they could safely get rid of 
Jesus. Mt. turns this into an announce- 
ment by Jesus. Lk. generalises the 
precise note of time into a statement 
that the feast was approaching (jyytfev). 
éy = 5 in 
Heb. Mt. has simply 36Aq, the dative 
instr.—Ver. 2. @Aeyov ydp is a more 
difficult reading than €\. 8€ of Mt., 
hence the correction in T.R. The ydp 
presupposes that the murder of Jesus 
during the feast was from the first 
regarded as out of the question, and the 
clause following partly makes that fact 
explicit, partly assigns a reason for it. 
They wanted to compass His death, but 
they were in a difficulty, for they felt and 
said to one another; it may not be on 
the feast, lest there be a popular dis- 
turbance.—pymote €otar: the fut. ind. 
instead of the more usual subjunctive 
after wrote (cf. Col. ii. 8, Heb. iii. 12), 
implying the almost certain occurrence 


—év 8dAq, in or with craft. 


28 


434 


KATA MAPKON 


XIV. 1. "HN 8€ 7d wdoxa Kal rd Lupa perd Blo Apépas* Kal 


élyjrouv of Apxtepets Kal ot ypapiparels, was adrdv év dd Kpary- 


gavtes Grokteivwow* 2. éheyor S5é,1 “Mh ev TH éoprh, prwore 


OdpuBos Eotat? tod aod.” 


, » > Pel Le , ~ 
3- Kat ovros adtod év ByBavia, év TH 


, fol ~ lol 
oikia Zivwvos Tod Nempod, Kataxerpévov adtod, ie yuri) éxovea 


&XciBactpov pupou vdpdSou mortiKi}s wokutehods: Kal? cuvtpipaca 


16 * dddBaorpov, katéxeev attod Kata® rijs Kehadijs. 


4. joav 


Ties dyavaktodvtes mpds EauTous, kal NéyorTes,® “* Eis ri } Ardea 


1 yap in NBCDL; 8e in T.R. is from Mt. 


3 Omit kat NBL cop. 


2 exrat BopuBos in SBCDL. 


* The article is found in all the genders; ro in GM cursives; tov in ADE and 
many other uncials (Tisch.); tnv in BCLA (Trg., W.H.). 


5 SBCLA omit Kara (introduced because usual). 
® SSBCL omit kat Aeyovres, which may come from Mt. 


of a OdpuBos if an attempt were made on 
the life of Jesus during the feast. This 
shows how highly the Sanhedrists esti- 
mated the influence of Jesus. 

Vv. 3-9. The anointing in Bethany 
(Mt. xxvi. 6-13).—Ver. 3. Svros avrod, 
KaTaketnévou avTov: two genitive 
absolute clauses whereof Weiss makes 
critical use (Marcus-Evang.); in which 
Schanz sees simply an instance of Mk,’s 
helplessness in style. The first indicates 
generally the time and place, the second 
the position of Jesus (at table) when the 
woman approached Him (HAGev).— 
GXdBactpoy. Vide in Mt.—morixis: 
a puzzling word recurring in the fourth 
Gospel (xii. 3). It has been variously 
explained. (1) As one of Mk.’s Latinisms 
= spicatus, turned into miortids like 
Sextarius into §éorns (Mk. vii. 4). In 
favour of this view is the Vulgate nardi 
spicati reproduced in ‘“spikenard” 
(spiked-nard), A. V., and it has been 
adopted by Wetstein, Grotius, Rosen- 
miller, etc. (2) As meaning liquid, 
potable, from iw, mumioKxw, Fritzsche and 
others. (3) As derived from the name of 
a place whence the ointment was ob- 
tained, Augustine; also Bengel: ‘ Pista 
urbs Indorum in regione Cabul; qua ex 
regione pleraque aromata jam tum 
petebantur”. But he adds: ‘“‘ Ex nomine 
proprio potius formaretur mioratos”’. 
(4) As = mods, trusty, genuine, to dis- 
tinguish it from spurious imitations 
which abounded (Pliny, H. N., xii., 26). 
Instances of the use of the word in this 
sense are cited from Greek authors, e.g., 
from Artemidorus, ii., 32: muoTuKt) yuvy| 
Kat otkoupos (vide Beza and Kypke). 
The choice lies between (1) and (4); 


most modern commentators (following 
Theophy. and Euthy.) adopt the latter. 
The following account of nard from 
Tristram’s Natural History of the Bible 
is interesting: “An Indian product pro- 
cured from the Nardostachys Jatamansi, 
growing on the Himalaya Mountains in 
Nepaul and Bhotan. 
to the Greeks and Romans, and is 
mentioned by classic authors as derived 
from the hills on the banks of the 
Ganges, 
which is mentioned by old writers aids in 
its identification, viz., that it has many 


hairy spikes shooting from one root. — 


These shaggy stems-are caused by the 


root leaves shooting up from the ground — 
It is from — 
this part of the plant that the perfume is — 
procured and prepared simply by drying 
it.”"—arodvreAods (1 Tim. ii. 9, 1 Pet. iii, — 
4), dear, hence the temptation to produce ~ 
cheap counterfeits.—ovyvtpijaca: she 
broke the arrow-necked vase that the — 


and surrounding the stalk. 


contents might be poured out quickly, 


not drop by drop, and perhaps that the 
vessel used for so sacred a purpose 

might never be employed again (Kloster., 
Ties, 
certain persons ; who, not indicated; Mt. — 
says the disciples, John singles out © 
Judas.—rod pupov yéyovev: these words © 


Weiss, Schanz, etc.).—Ver. 4. 


omitted in Mt. Observe the repetition 
in ver. 5, TovUTo TO pvpov (BCL, etc.). 
Mt. simply has totro (so here in T.R.), 
Mt. more elegant in style, but Mk. truer 
to life = “‘To what purpose this waste 
of the myrrh? For this myrrh might, 
etc.”—the style of men speaking under 
emotion.—Ver. 5. émdvw, etc., for above 
three hundred pence. 


XIV. 


It was well known _ 


One peculiarity of the plant 





The cardinal 


SN fer ed ee a 


BS aS 


EYATTEAION 


1I—1, 

airy Tod pupou yéyovey; 5. idUvato ydp ToiTo! mpobyvar éewdvw 
Tptaxociwy Syvaplwy,” kal So07jvat tots mrwxots-’’ Kal éveBpiwdvto 
aity. 6. “O 8€ “Ingots etiey, “"Adbete aityy: ti atta KdmToUs 
wapéyete; Kaddv epyoy eipydoato eis éue.® 7. wdvtote yap tods 
wTwxous éxete pel EautGv, Kal Stay OéAnte, BivacVe attods* eb 
eTrolnge * 
g. dphy? 


OAov TOY 


Toujoar: éue S€ od wdvrote ExeTe. 8. 6 eixev atty,° 


MpoekaBe pupica pou ro cdpa® eis Tov évradiacpdy. 
héyw Spiv, dou ay Knpux0A Td edayyéAtoy Toito® eis 


, sie Sac) , y , > , E patol ” 
Kéopoy, Kal & émoinoey aitn AadynOyoetar ets pynpdouroy adtis. 
10. Kat 6 “lov8as 6 “loxapiirns, ets? Tay Sddexa, dmynhOe mpds tods 


10 


dpytepets, tva mapada adtdv? adrots. 11. Ot S€ dxodoartes 


va = \ 
exdpyoay, kal éewnyyethavto adt@ dpyuptov Sodvar’ Kal eLijrer 


435 


a , a fol 
TOS edKaipws “adtov Tapadd.!! 


1 rouvto To pupov ABCLA al. 


Vide below. 


2 Syv. tpiak. in \8CDL (Tisch.). T.R. as in ABA al. (W.H. marg.). 
3 ev enor in KRABCDLAY al. (Tisch., W.H.). 
4 avtois with wavtore following in BL sah. cop. (W.H. with way. in brackets). 


$$ omits both (Tisch.). 


avtrovs in AX al, 


5 eoyev in NABCDLAZ al. ; omit avty S3BL cursives. 


6 TO THLA jLoV in SBDLZ (W.H.). 
7 Se after apynvy in RBDLA al. 


8 S8BDL omit tovro, inserted, as Se is omitted, after Mt. 

® Foro |. 0 lo. evs SEBCD have i. Io., and $$ BCL o ets. 

0 auroy mapaSor in B (D awpoSo). S$BCLA also place avrov first. 
1 wrapado. in BD; avrov before evrarpws in SABCLA. 


number is here in the genitive of price 
after mpa0jver. In 1 Cor. xv. 6 émdve 
is followed by a dative depending on 
ShOn.—Ver. 6. év éyot, in me (cf. Mt. 
xvii. 12), for the more usual eis épeé (in Mt., 
and imported into Mk. in T.R.).—Ver. 
7. Kal Srav OéAnre, etc., and when ye 
wish ye can do thema kindness; a 
thought implied in the previous clause 
(the poor ye have always), and probably 
an expansion by Mk. (cf. Mt.), yet not 
superfluous: suggesting the thought 
that expenditure in one direction does 
not disqualify for beneficent acts in 
another. The  willing-minded will 
always have enough for all purposes.— 
Ver. 8. 6 éoyev (suppl. movetv), what 
she had to do she did; the reference 
being not to the measure of her power 
(wealth) but to her opportunity: she did 
what lay to her hand, and could only 
be done then.—mwpoddaBe pupioa, she 
anticipated the anointing; the latter 
verb here only, the former in 1 Cor. xi. 
21, Gal. vi. 1.—évragvacpéy: the noun 


answering to the verb in Mt., here and 
in John and in one place in the classics, 
—Ver. 9. ets ddov tT. x. for év o., etc., in 
Mt. ; aconstr. praeg., the idea of going to 
all parts of the world with the gospel 
being understood. 

Vv. 10-11. $¥udas offers to betray his 
Master (Mt. xxvi. 14-16, Lk. xxii. 3-6).— 
Ver. Il. éxdpyoay, they rejoiced ; when 
one of the twelve companions of Jesus 
unexpectedly turned up ready to deliver 
his Master into their hands. A most 
vivid feature omitted by Mt. in his 
summarising way. Well might they 
rejoice, as but for this windfall they 
might have been totally at a loss how to 
compass their end.—émnyyetAavro, they 
promised to pay, did not actually pay on 
the spot, as Mt.’s statement implies 
(€éornoav, ver. 15).—éfyrer, cf. éLjrouy, 
ver. I, in reference to the Sanhedrists. 
They were seeking means of getting rid 
of Jesus; Judas was nowon the outlook for 
achanceof betraying Himintotheirhands. 
—evxaipws here and in 2 Tim. iv. 1, the 


KATA MAPKON XIV. 


436 
12. KAl rH mwpdty fpépa tay aldpwr, Sre 1d maoxa Buoy, 

héyouow adtd of pabytat adrod, “Mod Oéders dredObvtes éroupd- 

cupev tva pdyys Th wéoxa ;” 


auto, Kal Ayer adtots, ““Yadyere eis thy modu: Kal dravrjce 


13. Kat drooré\Xer 800 Tay pabyTar 


Spiv dvOpwwos Kepdpioy USatos BactdLwv: dKxohovOjoare ard, 
14. kal Srrou édy eiaéAOy, eltrare TO oikodeomdry, “Ore 5 SiSdoKados 
héyet, Mod gore 7d Katddupa,! Saou Td wdoxa peta Tov pabyTay 
pou }dyw ; 
a > “'s é 4 c “ ” 
Erounov: exet® éroisdoate Hpiv. 
aidtod,* kai iAOov eis Thy wWodty, Kal eSpov Kabds elmev attois, Kal 


15. Kat adrds duty Seliger dvdyeov? péya eotpwpévor 
16. Kat é&jOov of pabnrai 


Hroipacay T6 TdoXa. 


17. Kat dpias yevouérns Epxetar pera Tay SdSexa- 18. Kal 
dvaxeievwr attav Kal éoOidvrwy, etev 5 “Ingois,® “Api héyw 


piv, Stu ets ۤ Sav wapaddce pe, 6 


6 éoOiwy ® per’ épo0. 19. OF 


Sé7 Hpgavro AuTetoar, Kal Adyew adtd els xa’ eis, “My te eyd ;”” 


1 nov after karakupa in SBCDLAX. Vide below. 


2 avayatoy in ABCDL al. 
‘Omit avrov NBLA. 
®° B has tov eoOtovrwy (W.H. marg.). 


adjective and verb in Mk, vi. 21, 31, the 
noun in Mt. xxvi. 16. 

Vv. 12-16. Arrangements for paschal 
feast (Mt. xxvi. 17-19, Lk. xxii. 7-13). 
Mk. is much more circumstantial in this 
section than Mt., his apparent aim being 
to explain how Judas did not find his 
opportunity at the paschal supper, the 
place of celebration being carefully con- 
cealed beforehand.—Ver. 12. TH T. 
Hepa T. a. STE T. WaoXxa COvov: again a 
double note of time, the second clause 
indicating precisely that by the first day 
is meant the r4th Nisan. Schanz, 
following the Greek Fathers, takes 
mpaty in the first clause as = rpotépq, 
yielding the same sense as po T. éop. T. 
mwaoxa in John xiii. 1.—7od 6édets;: 
the disciples would ask this question in 
good time, say in the forenoon of the 
14th.—Ver. 13. 8vo: more exact than 
Mt.; of course all the disciples would 
not be sent on such an errand. Lk. 
names the two.—tmdayere, etc.: the in- 
structions in Mk. are sufficient to guide 
the messengers. Mt.’s pos Tov Setva is 
manifestly too vague, and could not have 
been spoken by Jesus.—av@pwrros: water- 
carrying was generally the occupation 
of women; hence a man performing the 
office would be more _ noticeable.— 
Kepdpioy (neuter of adjective xepdptos, 
earthen), an earthen pitcher, here and in 


3 kav before exes in KBCDL. 
5 o |. evmev in $BCL. 
7 ot Se omitted in BBL cop. 


Lk. xxii. 10.—Ver. 14. 7d karddupa 
pov, my guest chamber. This pov of 
the best texts is interesting as suggesting 
a previous understanding between Jesus 
and the householder. It is not necessary 
to import the miraculous into the 
narrative.—Ver. 15.  dvdyatoy (ava, 
yata = yy), a room above the earth, an 
upper room.—peéya, large, enough for the 
company.—éorpwpévoy, furnished with 
table-cushions. — érousov, perhaps a 
synonym for éorpwpévov = furnished, all 
ready ; possibly pointing to the removal 
of leaven (C.G.T.). 

Vv. 17-21. The presence of a traitor 
announced (Mt. xxvi. 20-25, Lk. xxii. 21- 
23).—Ver. 17. €pyerat: after sunset He 
cometh to the place appointed for the 
feast, presumably after the two who had 
been sent to make arrangements had 
rejoined the company.—Ver. 18. 6 
éoOiwv per’ énod: this clause, omitted in 
Mt., is designed to indicate, not the 
culprit, but the gravity of his offence = 
one of you, one who eais bread with me, 
a table companion.—Ver. 19. els kata 
els, one by one = els Exacros in Mt.; 
kata is used adverbially, and hence is 
followed by els instead of éva, For 
other instances of this usage of late 
Greek vide John viii. g, Rom. xii. 5, and 
cf. Winer, § xxxvii. 3.—Ver. 20. To the 
anxious questioning of the disciples Mk 





EYATTEAION 


12—25. 

Kat addos, “My te éyo!;” 20. “O B€ daoxpibeis? elev attois, 
“Eis €k® trav Sédexa, 6 euPamtopevos pet epod cis Td tTpuPdiov.4 
21. 6 pev uids Tod dvOpdirou Smdyel, KaQds yéypamtat mepi adtod >- 
ovai 8€ TO dvOpdrw exeiva, 81 ob 6 ulds Tod dvOpdrrou Tapadidorar ° 
kahov Hv ® adt@, et obk eyevwyGn 6 dvOpwrios éxelvos.” 

22. Kat éobidyrwy aitay, AaBay 6 “Ingois’ aptov eddhoyjoas 
Exage, Kal edwkey adTots, Kat elae, ““AdBete, pdyete.® todtd éomr 
23. Kal AaBdv 1O° worjpiov edxapiotyoas ESwxer 
autois’ Kal émov é& avtou mdavtes: 24. Kal elnev adtois, “ TodTéd 


Ny ra ” 
TO CONG Lou. 


ott TS aipd pou, Td THs KatvAS SiabyKns,!° 7d wept moAAGv exxuvd- 


ll 


pevov.l 25. duty héyw Sutv, Ste odkére ob ph Wlw ex TOG yevyyatos 


Tis dumédou, Ews THs tpepas exetyns, Stay adtd mivw Kawvov év TH 


437 


aA a. 
Baoudeia Tod Gcod. 


1 kat addos py TL eyo (ADZ al.) omitted in RCLPA, possibly by similar ending 


(omit Tisch., W.H.). 


2 Omitted in NBCDL; a mere mechanical expletive. 
8 KSBCL sah. cop. omit ex (it comes from ver. 18). 


4 BC have ro ev tpuB. (W.H. brackets: 


év). 


5 ort introduces this clause (o pey vtos, etc.) in BL sah. cop. 


6 BL sah. omit qv. 


7 BD omit o |. (from Mt.). 


8 dayere only in later uncials (Tisch., W.H., omit). 


9 8 BCDLAZ omit to (from Lk.). 


10 For to t. xatvys 5. SBCL have trys 8108. (D omits xatvas). 
1 S$SBCDLA have exxvvvopevoy urep wohAwv. T.R. from Mt. 


makes Jesus reply: one of the Twelve ; 
he who dippeth with me in the dish. A 
repetition of the original declaration with 
variations: the Twelve for you, and 
dipping in the dish for eating ; the former 
bringing out the gravity of the fact, the 
Twelve chosen to be Apostles of the faith, 
one of them the traitor of its Author; 
the latter narrowing the circle within 
which the traitor is to be found. Twelve 
ate with Jesus, only three or four would 
dip with Him.—épBarrdpevos, middle, 
dipping with his own hand: ‘thaec vis medii 
verbi,” Bengel.—Ver. 21. 671, assigns a 
reason for the fact just stated. To fulfil 
Scripture (Ps. xli. 9) the Son of Man 
must go from the earth through betrayal 
by an intimate. This verse contains an 
instance in Mk. of the construction peév 
Sé (again in ver. 38 and in xvi. rg, 20).— 
Kady avT@, good for him, without the qv 
asin Mt. For the construction vide on 
Mt. and Burton, M. and T. in N. T., § 
248.—5 GvOpwiros éxeivos : this repetition 
(vide tO G&. éx. above) gives a tragic 
solemnity to the utterance = good for 
aim, if he had not been born, that man! 


Cf. Mk. ii. 20, ‘“‘days will come, etc., 
and then shall they fast, in that day”. 
Vv. 22-25. The Lord’s Supper (Mt. 
XxVi. 26-29, Lk. xxii. 19-20), vide notes 
on Mt.’s account, to which Mk.’s closely 
corresponds.—Ver. 22. éoO.dyTwy a., while 
they were eating, as in ver. 18; a very 
general indication of time. This and 
the announcement of the betrayal are 
for Mt. and Mk. the two memorabilia of 
the paschal feast of Jesus with His dis- 
ciples, and all they know is that they 
happened during feast-time. —AaPere, 
take, without gdayere, as in Mt.; the 
more laconic expression likely to be the 
original. ‘‘ Take” implies “eat ”’,—Ver. 
23. «at €mov, etc., and they drank of 
it, all. In Mt.’s account Jesus bids them 
drink, as He had previously bidden them 
eat. Mk.’s version strikes one as the 
more primitive ; Mt.’s as influenced by 
liturgical usage.—Ver. 24. Kal etmev: 
while they drank the cup (not after they 
had drunk it, De Wette: nor before 
they began to drink, as Mt.’s narrative 
by itself would suggest), Jesus ex- 
plained to them the symbolic import of 


KATA MAPKON XIV. 


438 
26. Kai dprvijcarres €f9NOov eis Td Spos tov "Ehady. 27. kat 

héyer adtois & “Ingods, “Or wdvtes cxavSaiodnceabe ev épot év 

TH vuxti tadry }> Ste yéypamrat, ‘Mardéw tov woipeva, Kal SiacKop- 

2 28. "AMAA pera 73 eyepOAval pe, mpodtw 
29. “O B€ Nérpos Ey adtd, “Kai ei ® 
30. Kai héyea aira 6 
"Ingois, “Apt héyw got, Ste 4 otjpepov év TH vuKti tadry,® amply h 
Bis GAéktopa hwricat, Tpis drapyijon pe.” 


moOyceTa Ta mpdPata. 
bpas eis thy Fadthalav.” 
mdvtes oxavdahicOjcovra, AX’ odk ey.” 


31. ‘O 8é éx mepiocod 
Eheye padXov,” “Edy pe Sén cuvatrobavety cot, ob py oe Grrapyy- 


copa.” 


‘Qaattus Sé® Kai mdvtes EXeyov. 


32. KAI €pxovrat eis xwpioy oF 7d Gvopa Febonpavi: Kal héyer 


Tois paOntals adrod, “KaSicate Gde, ews Tpocedéwpar.” 


ISSBCDLA al. omit ev enor . . 


33- Kai 


. tavtyn, which comes from Mt. 


47a mpoB. Stagxopm. in SBCDL; Stacxopmic@ynavovra: in BBCDLAL. 


*e. xat in NBCGL (Tisch., W.H.). 


* Add ov ABL2 al., omitted in NCDA (Tisch., W.H., adopt ; vide below). 
® rauTy T. v-, without ev, in SBCDL (Tisch., W.H.). 

® we before amrap. in $BCDA (T.R. = Mt.). 

7 extreptogws in NBCD; eater in NBDL; omit paddow NBCDL. 


® B omits 5« (W.H. brackets). 


the cup. The important point in Mk.’s 
account of the words, as compared with 
Mt.’s, is the omission of the expression, 
als Gdheoty apapTiay. 

Vv. 26-31. On the way to Gethsemane 
(Mt. xxvi. 30-35, Lk. xxii. 39).—Ver. 26, 
exactly as in Mt. xxvi. 30, states that 
after singing the paschal hymn the 
company went forth towards the 
Mount of Olives.—Ver. 27. ‘aves 
okavoaricbyiceoGe, ye all shall be made 
to stumble; absolutely, without the addi- 
tion of év énol év Tq vuKTt tavTy im- 
ported into the text from Mt. in! T.R. 
It was a startling announcement in 
broad general terms that the disciple- 
circle was about to experience a moral 
breakdown. The announcement was 
made not by way of reproach, but rather 
as a preface toa more cheering prophecy 
of an early reunion.—Ver. 28. GAAa p.: 
stronger than Mt.’s p. 5¢=ye shall be 
offended, but (be of good cheer) after 
my resurrection I will go before you, as 
your Shepherd (rpod&w tpas) into Gali- 
lee.—Ver. 29. It is the former part of the 
Master’s speech that lays hold of Peter’s 
mind; hence he promptly proceeds to 
make protestations of fidelity.—el Kal, 
etc.: even if (as is likely) all the rest 
shall be offended (the future, because the 
case put is conceived to be probable), yet 


certainly (&AX’ strongly opposing what 
follows to what goes before; vide Klotz, 
p. 93, on the force of @Ada in the apo- 
dosis of a conditional proposition) not 
I.—Ver. 30. To this over-confident 
GAN’ od eye of the disciple, the Master 
returns a very pointed and peremptory 
reply: I tell thee that thou (ov emphatic) 
to-day (ompepov), on this night (more 
precise indication of time), before the cock 
crow twice (still more precise indication 
of time), shall deny me, not once, but 
again and again and again (tpts).—Ver. 
31. éxmeptooas, abundantly in matter 
and manner, with vehemence and itera- 
tion; a awa dey.—éAdAet, kept saying : 
that he would not deny his Master even 
if he had to die for it.—dcavtws, a 
stronger word than Mt.’s énotws=in the 
same way, and probably in the same 
words. But the words of the others 
were simply a faint echo of Peter’s 
vehement and copious talk. They feebly 
said once (€Xeyov = etzrov) what he said 
strongly again and again (éAdAet). 

Vv. 32-42. In Gethsemane (Mt. xxvi. 
36-46, Lk. xxii. 40-46).—Ver. 33. 7péato, 
introduces the description of our Lord’s 
awful experience in the garden.— 
éx@apPeioPar, to be amazed; in Mk. 
only, first in ix. 15, where see remarks 
on its meaning. Though Jesus had long 





26—40. EYATPTEAION 


439 
wapahapBdver tov Mérpov kat rov “IdkwBov Kal “lwdvyqy! ped 

€autod.? Kai iptato éxPapBeicbar kal ainpovetv. 34. kat héyer 
autots, “Mepihumds éotww 7 Wuxy pou ews Oavdrou~ petvate OSc kal 
ypnyopeite.” 35. Kat mpoedOay ® pixpdy, erecey * emi ris yijs, Kat 
Mpoonuxeto, iva, et BSuvardv éott, wapédOn aw adtod  dpa- 
35. Kai edeyey, “"ABBG, 6 watyp, mdvta Suvatd cor. mapdveyKe 
TO woTyplov dm éyod todto>+ GAN od Ti éyw Oédw, GANA TL od.” 
37: Kat €pxerat kal ebpioxer adtods kabedSovtas, Kai dyer ro 
Nétpw, “‘Zipwr, Kabevders; odK icxvoas piav dpav ypynyopqsa; 
38. ypnyopette kal mpocedyeabe, iva pi etodd@yte © cis metpacpdr. 
TO pev tvedpa mpdbupoy, 7 Sé€ caps doers.” 39. Kal médw 
amehOav mpoonigato, Tay adtév Adyov city. 40. Kat brootpéWas 


eUpeyv adtods wédww’ KalevSovras: joav yap ot d¢Oahyol adtay 


BeBapnpévor,® kal odx ySecav Ti adta drroKxpbdat.® 


1 B has tov before each name (W.H.). 


Nerpov. 
4 ner avTov in WBCD. 


Many MSS. have the article only with 


3 CDLA have wpocedOwv, but mpoe\Owv, found in YB al., seems to be the word 
needed. mpoced@wv is a frequent mistake of the scribes. 


4 ewurtev in WBL (ewecey from Mt.). 
8 ehOnre in $QB (Tisch., W.H.). 
very frequent mistake in the old MSS. 


7 For vaootpewas . 
avtous (W.H.). 


® rovro aw. exov in NABCLAS al. 


Weiss rejects the omission of ets before edO.; a 


..madw (ACA, Tisch.) BL have wadw edov eupev 
D the same, omitting maAuvy. 


Sautwv before ot od in NBCLA, and xartaBapvvopevor in ABLA; xara- 


Papovpevor in D, 
9 amok. before avrw SABCDL, 


known, and had often with realistic 
plainness spoken of, what was to befall 
Him, yet the vivid sense of what it all 
meant came upon His soul at this hour, 
as a sudden appalling revelation. The 
other two words used by Mk. to de- 
scribe Christ’s state of mind (a8npoveiv. 
mep(Avmos) occur in Mt. also.—Ver. 35. 
émumrev (NBL, éweoev T.R. as in Mt.), 
imperfect: He fell again and again on 
the ground. It was a protracted des- 
perate struggle.—xal wpoonvxeto iva: 
Mk. first indicates the gist of Christ's 
prayers (=that if possible the hour might 
pass from Him), then reports what Jesus 
said (ver. 36). In the prayer of Jesus 
the experience dreaded is called the cup, 
asin Mt. The Hour and the Cup—both 
alike solemn, suggestive names.—Ver. 
36. “ABBa 6 waryp: in the parallels 
simply watep. In the Apostolic Church 
the use of the double appellation among 
Gentile Christians was common (vide 
Rom. viii. 15, Gal. iv. 6), “ABBa having 


become a proper name and marnp being 
added as its interpretation=God our 
Father. Mk. imparts into the prayer of 
our Lord this apostolic usage. Jesus 
doubtless would use only one of the 
names, probably the Aramaic.—arapéveyke 
7. 1. T., remove this cup ; equivalent to 
mapédOy in ver. 35 (Lk. xxii. 42).—aAN 
ov, etc.; ‘but not what (rf for 6) I will, 
but what Thou”’; elliptical but clear and 
expressive : yevyjoetar or yevér Oar Set 
(not yevéo8w which would demand pa 
before @€\w) is understood (vide Holtz- 
mann, H.C., and Weiss in Meyer).— 
Ver. 37. t@ Nérpq@: to the disciple who 
had been so confident of his loyalty, but 
also from whom Jesus expected most in 
the way of sympathy.—Zipwv: the old, 
not the new, disciple, name ; ominous.— 
Ver. 38. This exhortation to watch and 
pray is given in almost identical terms 
in Mt. and Mk. It looks like a second- 
ary version of what our Lord actually 
said.—Ver. 39. Mk., like Mt., divides 


XIV. 


41. Kai Epxerat Td tpirov, Kat Ayer adrots, “KabedSere 1d! 


dméxer* HAOev H Gpa- Bod, wapadisora 


42. éyelpecde, 


43- Kai ebOéws, Err adtod Aadodvros, mwapayiverat “loUSas, els 


Tav SdSexa, Kat pet abtod Sxdos modds® perd paxatpay Kai 


440 KATA MAPKON 
Rowdy Kal dvatravenGe. 
6 vids Tod dvOpdrrou Eis TAs XElpas TOY dpaprwhav. 
dywpev~ iSod, 6 mapadiSovs pe ryyee.” 
dy? 
b Ch. xv. 


ro, John §UXwy, Tapa Tav dpxrepéwy kal Tov ypappatéwy Kal Tov mpecBuTépwr. 


xi. 57 
(omission 44. 
of aug- 
ment: 
usual in 
NWT.) 


“SeBdxer 5€ 6 wapadiSods adtév atioonpov abtots, héywr, “*Ov 
Gv pitjow, abtdés €ote- Kpatioate adtov, kat dmaydyete* dodahds,” 
45. Kat éN@dv, ed8éws mpovehOavy attd dhéyer, ““PaBBi, paBBL°-”’ 


ro is found in $BAZ; omitted in CDL (Tisch. retains, W.H. in brackets). 


2? Omit ey NABCDLE. 


= SSBL omit roAvs found in CDA (comes from Mt.). 


‘ amayete in NBDL. 


-he agony into three acts, but he reports 
the words spoken by Jesus in prayer 
only in the first. Mt. gives the prayer 
of Jesus in the second act, as well as in 
the first, generalising in the third, where 
he repeats the formula here used by 
Mk.: rév attrév Adyov elaev.—Ver. 40. 
xataBapuvopevor, ‘their eyes were very 
heavy”; R. V., weighed down with 
irresistible sleep.—kataBapvve, here and 
occasionally in the Sept. =the more usual 
xataBapéw (from the simple verb Bapéw 
comes ede vaiévat in T.R.).—xal ov« 
Wderray, etc.: this remark recalls the 
experience of the same three on the hill 
of transfiguration (cf. ix. 6). But in the 
earlier instance the reference is to the 
stupidity produced by sleep, here probably 
to shame on account of unseasonable 
sleep. They felt that they ought to have 
kept awake during their Master’s hour of 
trial, and knew not how to excuse them- 
selves. —Ver. 41. atréxet, “itis enough,” 
A. V. =sufficit in Vulgate; one of the 
puzzling words in Mk.’s vocabulary to 
which many meanings have been given. 
Beza, in doubt as to Jerome’s interpreta- 
tion, was satisfied at last by a quotation 
from Anacreon coming into his mind, in 
which the poet, giving instructions to 
a painter for the portrait of his mistress, 
concludes: améyet. BXérw yap aityy: 
Taxa, Knpé, kat Aadroers=“‘ Enough! 
the girl herself I view: so like, ‘twill 
soon be speaking, too”. Elsner and 
Raphel follow Beza. Kypke dissents 
and renders: déyer, HAGev 4 Spa, as if 
it were 7AGe kal an. 7 S.=the hour (of 
my passion) is come and calls you and 
me away from this scene. Most modern 


5 PaBBe: once only in $BCDLA. 


commentators accept the rendering, “ it 
isenough”. Vide an interesting note 
in Field’s Otium Nor. The meaning is: 
I have conquered in the struggle; I 
need your sympathy no longer; you 
may sleep now if you will. 

Vv. 43-52. The apprehension (Mt. 
xxvi. 47-56, Lk. xxii. 47-53).—Ver. 43. 
evOis, etc. (Sod in Mt.), straightway, 
even while He is speaking, appears 
Judas, who is carefully defined by sur- 
name and position as one of the Twelve. 
At what point of time the traitor left the 
company on his nefarious errand is not in- 
dicated. According to Weiss (in Meyer) 
the evangelist conceives of Judas as 
going with the rest to Gethsemane and 
stealing away from the nine, after the 
three had been taken apart, having now 
satisfied himself as to the Master’s 
whereabouts.—7rapa T. Gpx., etc.: mapa 
goes along with wapayiverat, and im- 
plies that Judas and those with him 
had an officiai commission from the 
authorities, the three classes of whom 
are carefully specified.—Ver. 44. Sedo- 
xet: the pluperfect, but without augment, 
vide Winer, § xii. 9.—ovoonpoy (neuter 
ofadjective cvconpos: giv, onpa): asign 
previously agreed on (onpetov in Mt.), 
a late word severely condemned by 
Phrynichus, p. 418, here only in N., T. 


In Sept. for DJ) an “ensign”? (Is. v. 26). 


—4aogaGs may mean either: lead Him 
away with an easy mind (He will not 
attempt escape), or: lead, etc., cautiously, 
carefully—-He may slip out of your 
hands as He has done before (Lk. iv. 30). 
Judas was just the kind of man to have 





41-—52. EYArTEAION 


Kau kateptAnoer abtév. 46. Ot 82 eréBadov én’ adrdv Tas xeipas 
attav,! Kai éxpdtyoay abtéy. 

47. Eis 8€ tis? tay mapectnKétev ocragdpevos Thy pdXatpay 
ematce Tov Soddov Tod dpxrepdws, Kai ddethey attod Td driov.§ 
48. Kat dmoxpibcis 6 “Ingois etarey adtois, “ “Qs emt Anorhy eéqhOete 
peTa paxatp@y Kat EUNwv, cuddaBey pe; 49. Kal? Huepay juny 
Tpos Opds ev TO lepO SiddoKwv, Kai odx éxpatyoaté pe: add’ tva 


441 





TAynpwbdow at yeaa.” 


50. Kat a&dbévtes atrov wdvtes euyov.* 


51. Kat ets tig veaviaxos *® Hxododber® att, weprBeBAnpEvos owvddva 


émt yupvou. 


‘ a ree c , vf [3 \ 
Kat KpaTodow atTév ot veavicxo.’- 52. 6 S€ KaTa- 


\umdy Thy owddva yupvds Ebuyer dw abtav.® 


1 For ew avroy T. x. avtwy BDL have simply ras xetpas avtw, the most probable 


reading. 


2 es Se without Trg in NAL (W.H. have tts bracketed); BCA have tts. 
3 wtaptoy in BD; wtov in CLA (probably from Mt.). 

4 epuyov waves in SBCLA, preferable reading. Vide below. 

5 Instead of ers tus veav. (AAZ al.) S8BCL have veav. tig. 

5 ouyynk. in BCL. D=T.R. A ovyyxodovbyceyv. 


78 BCDLA omit on veav. 


5 SSBCL omit am avtwy (a gloss found in ADA al.). 


a superstitious dread of Christ’s preter- 
natural power.—Ver. 45. éAOdav evOds 
mpocehOay = arrived on the spot he 
without delay approaches Jesus; no 
hesitation, promptly and adroitly done.— 
PaBBi: without Mt.’s yatpe, and only 
once spoken (twice in T.R.), the fervour 
of false love finding expression in the 
kiss (kate@(Anoev, vide notes on Mt.) 
rather than in words. 

Vv. 47-52. Attempt at rescue.—Ver. 
47.  €is tT. map., one of those standing 
by, z.e., one of the three, Peter according 
to the fourth gospel (xviii. 10).—riv 
pay., the sword = his sword, as if each 
disciple was armed; vide on Mt.— 
étdpiov = @tiov, T.R., diminutive of 
ous ; the use of diminutives for the mem- 
bers of the body was common in popular 
speech. Vide Lobeck, Phryn., p. 211.— 
Ver. 48. On this and the following 
verse vide notes on Mt.—Ver. 49. tva 
wAnpwfao.y ai y.: this may be a case of 
iva with the subjunctive used as an im- 
perative = let the Scriptures be fulfilled. 
Cf. 2 Cor. viii. 7, last clause, and consult 
Winer, § xliii, 5d.— Ver. 50. Kat 
adévres, etc., and deserting Him fled 
all (wavres last, vide above): the nine 
with the three, the three not less than 
the nine—all alike panic-stricken.—Ver. 
51 introduces a little anecdote peculiar 


to Mk., the story of an unknown friend, 
not one of the Twelve, who had joined 
the company, and did not fly with the 
rest.—ovuvyKxodhovGer a., was following 
Jesus; when He was being led away, 
and after the disciples had fled.—repu. 
BeBAnpevos coivddva eat yupvov: this 
suggests that the youth, on hearing some 
sudden report, rose out of his bed and 
rushed out in his night-shirt, or, being 
absolutely naked, hurriedly threw about 
his body a loose cotton or linen sheet. 
The statement that on being laid hold 
of he cast off the garment favours the 
latter alternative.—Ver. 52. yupvds €p., 
fled naked, in the literal sense, whereon 
Bengel remarks: ‘‘on a night not with- 
out a moon; fear conquers shame in 
great danger’. (A few years ago a 
young wife chased a thief, who had been 
stealing her wedding presents, through 
the streets of Glasgow, in the early 
hours of the morning, in her night-gown ; 
not without success. Her husband 
modestly stayed behind to put on his 
clothes.)—Who was this young man? 
Mk. the evangelist, say many, arguing: 
the story was of no interest to any one 
but the hero of it, therefore the hero was 
the teller of the tale. A good argument, 
unless a motive can be assigned for the 
insertion of the narrative other than 


“ad KATA MAPKON xIV. 
53. KAI dmjyayor Tév "Incody mpos tov dpxrepéa* Kal cuvépxovTas 
1 mdvres of Gpxtepeis Kal of mpeoBtepor Kai of ypappateis. 
54: Kal 6 Métpos dd paxpdbev HKodovOnoer aitd Ews eow eis Thy 
addijy Too apxtepéws* Kal fy cuyKabypevos pera Tay brnpeTar, Kal 
Beppatvdpevos mpds Td @s. 55. Ot S€ dpyepets Kai Gdov Td 

*Inood paptupiay, eis 1d Bavatdcat 
56. moddot yap epeuSopaptipouy Kat 


A A 
atTov, kai trat al paptupiat ok ijoav. 


abt@ 


auvedptoy éLytouy Kata Tod 
adTév: Kat otx etptoKoy. 
, 
57+ Kat tives dvactdvres 
€evdopaptupouy Kar attoi, Aéyovres, 58. “"Orn Hpets Hkodoaper 
a @ lol 
attod héyorros, “OT éy® katahiow Tov vady TodTov Tov xeLpoTroiyroy, 


kai Sid tpiav hpepav GAov dxetpowoinror oiKkodoprjow.” 


59. Ka’ 


I NDLA omit avr, found in BE al. pler. (W.H. marg.). 


merely personalinterest. Schanz suggests 
a desire to exhibit in a concrete instance 
the danger ot the situation, and the 
ferocity of the enemies of Jesus. On the 
whole one feels inclined to acquiesce in 
the judgment of Hahn, quoted by Holtz., 
H.C., that in this curious incident we 
have “the monogram of the painter 
(Mk.) in a dark corner of the picture”’ 
Brandt, however (Dze Ev. Gesch., p. 28), 
dissents from this view. 

Vv. 53-65. Before Caiaphas (Mt. xxvi. 
57-68, Lk. xxii. 54 66-71).—Ver. 53. 
ouvépxovTat a. waves, etc.: again all 
the three orders of the Sanhedrists are 
named, who have been summoned to 
meet about the time the party sent to 
apprehend Jesus might be expected to 
arrive.—Ver. 54. 6 Métpos: the story 
of Peter’s denial begins here, and, after 
being suspended by the account of the 
trial, isresumed at ver. 66.—a1é paxpdbev, 
from afar (46 redundant here as else- 
where), fearful, yet drawn on by love 
and curiosity.—éws €ow els : a redundant 
but expressive combination, suggesting 
the idea of one stealthily feeling his way 
into the court of the palace, venturing 
further and further in, and gaining 
courage with each step (vide Weiss, 
Mk.-Evan., p.  470).—@eppatvdpevos : 
nights cold even at Easter in Palestine ; 
a fire in the court welcome in the early 
hours of morning, when something un- 
usual was going on. ‘“ However hot it 
may be in the daytime, the nights in 
spring are almost always cold ”—Furrer, 
Wanderungen, p. 241.—mpos TO $s, at 
the fire; here called light, because it was 
there to give light as well as heat. Elsner 
and Raphel cite instances of the use of 
$s for fire from Xenophon, Hesychius 
gives mUp as one of its meanings. 


Vv. 55-65. The trial and condemna- 
tion.—Ver. 55. paptupfav: Mt. has 
evdonaptuptay, justly so characterised, 
because the Sanhedrists wanted evidence 
for a foregone conclusion: evidence that 
would justify a sentence of death.—Ver. 
56. itoat, equal, to the same effect, as 
the testimonies of true witnesses would, 
of course, be. Grotius takes the word as 
meaning, not equal to one another, but 
equal to the demands of weighty evidence 
and justifying condemnation. Elsner 
agrees, arguing from the use of the word 
again, in reference to the evidence about 
the temple logion of Jesus. These 
witnesses, he holds, are not represented 
as making conflicting statements, but 
simply as making statements not suffici- 
ently weighty —not equal to the occasion. 
There is some force in this,—Ver. 57. 
tues, some, for which Mt. has the more 
definite §¥0, the smallest number neces- 
sary to establish a matter.—Ver. 58. 
Sri, etc.: Mk.’s version of the testimony 
borne by the witnesses differs in im- 
portant respects from that of Mt.; vis., 
by the insertion of the words tov 
xetpomoinroy and GAhov ayetpotrointov. 
Mt.’s form doubtless comes nearest to 
what the witnesses actually said. Mk.’s 
puts into their mouths, to a certain ex- 
tent, the sense in which he and his 
fellow-Christians understood Christ’s 
saying, viz., as a prophecy that the 
material temple would be superseded by 
a spiritual temple = the community of 
believers in Jesus. If they had really 
spoken, as here reported, the talsehood 
would have lain rather in the animus of 
their statement than in its meaning: 
the animus of men who regarded it as 
impious to speak of the temple of God 
being destroyed, as contemptuous to 





53—66. EYAITEAION 


38 , ~ 
obS€ obtws ton Fv 4 paptupia adtay. 60. Kat dvacrtas 6 dpyiepeds 

> fol 
eis To! p€oov érnputyge Tov ‘Incoov, Méywv, “ Odn aaroKxptvyy otdév ; 
’ piyy 3 

, a , a 

ti oUTot gov Katayaptupodow; 61. ‘O 8é éordma, Kal odSey 
, ~ 
dmexpivato.? Mddw 6 dpxtepeds emnpwita adtov, Kal héyer atta, 
30 et 6 Xptotds, 6 vids Tod eddoyyTod ;” 
“co? 


62. ‘O 8€ “Incods citer, 
Eyo eip. Kal dheobe tov uldv tod Gv8pwrou Kabijuevov éx 
SeétGv 8 THs Suvduews, Kat épxdpevoy peta Tay vehed@y TOG otpayod.” 
63. “O 8€ dpyxtepets Stappygas tods yitavas adTod héyer, “Th ere 
, A “ 
Xpelav Exopev paptupwy; 64. Hxovcate THs BAaodypias: ti Spiy 
, ” c Se , , eek if 4 4 
paiverar;” Ot 8€ mdvres Katéxpivayv adtov elvat Evoxov * Bavdrou. 
6 K om” Fs 6 > , 3 nw \ hd 7 = , 
5. Kal jpgavrd ties epmtiew adtd, kal weptkahtnrety 16 mpdcw- 
ov adTod,° Kal KodadiLer adtdv, kai héyev adT@, “ Mpopyteucoy-”” 


443 


kal ot Gwypérat paticpacw adtov €Bahdov.® 


66. Kai évtos tod Mérpou év rH addy kdtw,’ Epyerar pita Tor 


1 sgsABCLAS al. fl. omit ro found in D. 


2 For ovSev amex. (ADA al.) S$ BCL 33 sah. cop. have ove azrex. ovdev. 


3 ex Seé. «a9. in BECDLAZ al. 
5 guTov To mpeg. in SBCLA 33. 


4 evoyov ervar in PYBCLA 33. 


® ehkaBov in KABCILA. ¢Beddov substituted in later MSS. for a word not under- 


stood. 


7 katw ev T. avA. in RBCL. DI omit «ato. 


characterise it as hand-made, and as 
blasphemous to suggest that another 
could take its place.—Ver. 60. eis 
péoov : a graphic feature in Mk., suggest- 
ing that the high priest arose from his 
seat and advanced into the semi-circle 
of the council towards Jesus—the action 
of an irritated, baffled man.—otx aro- 
xptvy ; on the high priest’s question vide 
notes on Mt.—Ver. 61. éo.d7ra kal, 
etc.: one of Mk.’s dualisms, yet not idle 
repetition = He maintained the silence 
He had observed up to that point (im- 
perfect), and He answered nothing to 
the high priest’s pointed question 
(aorist).—maAuv : the high priest makes 
another attempt to draw Jesus into some 
self-condemning utterance, this time 
successfully,—rod evAoynTod, the Blessed 
One, here only, absolutely, as a name for 
God. Usually, an epithet attached to 
Kupteos (Winsche, Beitrage).—Ver. 62. 
"Eye cipt. On Christ’s reply to the high 
priest affirming the Messianic claim, 
vide notes on Mt.—Ver. 63. ‘Tovs 
XtTovas, his tunics, or undergarments, of 
which persons in good position wore two. 
—Ver. 64. tf tptv datverar, what ap- 
pears to you to be the appropriate penalty 
of such blasphemous speech ?= tt vpiv 


Soxet in Mt.. Nodsgen denies the equi- 
valence, and renders Mk.’s peculiar 
phrase: what lies for you on the hand, 
what is now your duty? with appeal to 
Xenophon, Anab., v., 7, 3.—Ver. 65. 
tiwes: presumably Sanhedrists. — wept- 
xaduwrew: Mt. says nothing of this, but 
he as well as Mk. represents them as 
asking Jesus to prophesy. Mt.’s version 
implies that Jesus was struck from be- 
hind, Mk.’s in front.—oi trnpéra: fol- 
lowing the example of their masters.— 
patriopaciy avtov €AaPov, received Him 
with slaps of the open hand: a phrase 
recalling the Latin, accipere aliquem 
verberibus. 

Vv. 66-72. Peter's denial (Mt. xxvi. 
69-75, Lk. xxii. 54-62).—Ver. 66. ratw 
é. +. a., below in the court, implying 
that the trial of Jesus had taken place in 
a chamber on ahigher level.—épyeran plo, 
etc,, cometh one of the maids of the high 
priest—a servant in his palace, on some 
errand that night when all things were 
out of their usual course. That a maid 
should be astir and on duty at that un- 
seasonable hour was itself a sign that 
something extraordinary was going on.— 
Ver. 67. tWotcoa: Peter, sitting at the 
fire, catches her eye, and she sees at once 


444 


KATA MAPKON 


XIV. 


tradioxav Tod dpxrepéws, 67. Kat isodca tov Mérpov beppatvdpevor, 


énBrépaca abt héyet, “Kal od pera rod NaLapyvod "Inood joda.”’} 
68. ‘O 8€ jpyyoato, Aéywr, “On? olSa, obS€? emictapar ti od ® 


héyets.” 


Kai eg Ger fw eis Td mpoatNov: Kai ddéxtup epavyve.t 


69. Kai } wadioxyn iSoica adrav médw Apgaro® Aéyew tois mape- 


« ~ 
otyKdow,® ““Or. obtos é§ attav éotw.” 


70. ‘O S€ wadw Hpvetro. 


Kai pera puxpoy wddw ot mapeotates EXeyor TH Nétpw, “’AAnGGs 


1 yo8a before |. with rou prefixed in BCL. The readings vary much here, but 
that of BCL (Tisch., W.H., Weiss) is the most like Mk.’s graphic style. Vide below. 


2 ovre ovte in NBDL. 


2 ov Tt in NBCLAZX 33, altered by the scribes into the smoother tt ov. _ 
4 kat adexTwp ehwvncey omitted in \BL; foundin CDIJA al. Vide below. 


5 mpEaro wakw in $$CLA (Tisch.. W.H., text). 


ing has evrev (W.H. marg.). 
6 rapeotwowy in BEBCILA 


that heisastranger. Going closer to him, 
and looking sharply into his face in the 
dim fire-light (¢pBAéaca), she comes at 
once to her conclusion.—kal ot, etc., 
thou also wert with the Nazarene—that 
Jesus; spoken in a contemptuous 
manner, a faithful echo of the tone of 
her superiors. The girl had probably 
seen Peter in Christ’s company in the 
streets of Jerusalem, or in the temple 
during the last few days, and doubtless 
she had heard disparaging remarks about 
the Galilean prophet in the palace.— 
Ver. 68. ove oida, etc., I neither know 
nor understand, thou, what thou sayest. 
—otre-ovte connect closely the two 
verbs as expressing inability to compre- 
hend what she means. The unusual 
emphatic position of ot (av rl Aé€yers, 
smoothed down into tl ov X. in T.R.) 
admirably reflects affected astonishment. 
—ééjdOev: he slunk away from the fire 
into the forecourt—mpoavXloy, here only 
in N. T.—xat aréxtwp épdvgce: these 
words, omitted in SyBL, are of very 
dubious authenticity. Weiss and Holtz- 
mann think they were inserted by copyists 
under the impression that the words of 
Jesus to Peter, ver. 30, meant that the 
cock was to crow twice in close 
succession, whereas the 8ts referred to 
the second time of cock-crowing, the 
beginning of the second watch after 
midnight. Schanz, while regarding this 
explanation of 8is as unnatural, admits 
that it is difficult to understand how this 
first crow did not remind Peter of the 
Lord’s warning word.—Ver. 69. 7 
watdioxn: the article naturally suggests 
that it is the same maid, and probably 


B omits, and for Aeyew follows 


but for harmonistic interests there would 
have been no doubt on the subject. Yet 
the fact that Mt. makes it another 
obliges us to ask whether Mk.’s ex- 
pression necessarily means the same 
person. Grotius, whom Rosenmiller 
follows, says 9 may here, as occasionally 
elsewhere = tts. Of more weight is the 
suggestion that it means the maid on 
duty in that particular place, the fore- 
court (Schanz and Klostermann; the 
remarks of the latter specially worthy ot 
notice). On first thoughts one might 
deem wdadw decisive as to identity, but 
(1) it is wanting in B, and (2) its most 
probable position is just before héyew, 
and the meaning, that Peter was asecond 
time spoken to (or at) on the subject of 
his connection with Jesus, not that the 
same person spoke in both cases. On 
the whole a certain element of doubt 
remains, which cannot be eliminated by 
exegetical considerations. In favour of 
one maid is the consideration that two 
able to recognise Peter is more unlikely 
than one. Yet the two might be 
together when they saw Peter previously, 
or the one might point him out to the 
other that night. In Mt.’s narrative the 
standers-by seem also to have inde- 
pendent knowledge of Peter. In Mk. 
the maid gives them information. On 
the whole, Mk., as was to be expected, 
gives the clearer picture of the scene.— 
Tois TapectTa@otv, to those standing by ; 
pointing to Peter, and speaking so that 
he could hear.—Ver. 70. Now, it is the 
bystanders who persecute Peter with the 
charge of being a disciple.—adn@as : 
they are quite sure of it, for two reasons * 





67—72. 


EYATTEAION 


445 


é& adtav ef: nal yop Taddolos ef, Kat } Aadid cou dpordter.” 2 


71. “O 8€ 7p—aro dvabeparilery kai duvide,” “Ore odk oda tov 


a“ ,’ 
dvOpwrov tolrovy, oy héyere.’ 


Efuvye. 


"Iyaods, ““OT: amply Ghextopa pwvica: Sis,° darapyyoy pe tpis.” 


wal émPahdy © éxate. 


72. Kal® ék Seurépou ddéxtwp 
AS. Ul c 4 At es ca Wee 5) Ae 
Kat dvepyno8y 6 Nérpos tod pyparos ob * etmey ato 6 


5 


1 at 7 Aad. o. oporafe. is imported from Mt.; omitted in RBCDL (Tisch., 


W.H., Weiss). 
2 ouvuvar in BL al. (opvyvery in Mt.). 


5 kat in $$BLD followed by evdus omitted in ACNXA, etc., which insert kau 


ahex. ebwvqoe in ver. 68. 


470 pypa ws in RABCLA, corrected into the more usual tov pypartos in some 


copies. 


> B places 81s before gwevnoar, and SBCLA have tpis pe avapyyoy instead of 


the order in T.R. 


6 For emtBadwv exAate D has npgaro xAaevy, and is followed by Latin, Egyptian, 


and Syriac verss., including Syr. Sin. 


(1) the maid’s confidence not specified 
but implied in the kat yap, which in- 
troduces an additional reason; (2) 
TadtAatos et = you are (by your speech) 
a Galilean. The addition in some MSS., 
Kal 7 Aadia o., etc., explanatory of the 
term Galilean, would be quite in Mk.’s 
manner, but the best authorities omit it.— 
Ver. 71, avafeparifer : used absolutely, 
to call down curses on himself in case he 
was telling lies. Mt. has naraé., which 
is probably a contraction from Kxatavaé. 
(in T.R.).—Ver. 72. «000s: omitted in 
the MSS. which insert a first cock-crow 
in ver. 68, as implying that this was the 
first crow at that hour, as in Mt.—éx 
Sevrépov (omitted in SL because appa- 
rently implying a first cock-crow during 
the denial, which they omit) must be 
understood with Weiss as referring to 
the second time of cock-crowing (three 
in the morning), the first being at mid- 
night.—émuBadoy: another puzzle in 
Mk.’s vocabulary; very variously inter- 
preted. Most modern interpreters adopt 
the rendering in the A. V. and R. V., 
‘‘when he thought thereon ” (émBadov 
Tov vouv). Weizsacker: ‘“‘er bedachte es 
und weinte”’. Theophylact took ém.8 = 
émucahupapevos THY Kedadyy, having 
covered his head (that he might weep 
unrestrainedly), a rendering which 
Fritzsche and Field (Otium Nor.) 
decidedly support. Field remarks: ‘‘it 
may have been a frivial or colloquial 
word, such as would have stirred the 
bile of a Phrynichus or a Thomas 
Magister, who would have inserted it 
in their Index Expurgatorius, with a 


caution: émBadov pr Adye GANG éyca- 
Avdpevos 7 éwixahupapevos ”’. Brandt 
(Die Ev. Gesch., p. 31), adopting a 
suggestion by MHolwerda, thinks the 
original word may have been éxBadkav = 
going out, or flinging himself out. 
Klostermann ingeniously suggests: 
‘stopped suddenly in his course of denial, 
like a man, running headlong, knocking 
suddenly against an obstacle in his way”’. 
The choice seems to lie between the 
renderings: “thinking thereon” and 
‘‘ covering his head”. 

CHAPTER XV. THE Passion Hisrory 
CONTINUED. — Vv. 1-5. Before Pilate 
(Mt. xxvil. 1-14, Lk. xxiii, 1-10).—Ver. 
I. ev00s, wpwt, without delay, quam 
primum, in the morning watch, which 
might mean any time between three and 
six, but probably signifies after sunrise. 
—ovupPovdAroy will mean either a con- 
sultation or the result, the resolution 
come to, according as we adopt the 
reading: mwowjoavtes (T.R. = BA) or 
érondoavtes (SQCL).—xal Sdov 7d 
ovvedpiov: the cal simply identifies= 
even the whole Sanhedrim, and does 
not imply that, besides the three classes 
previously mentioned, some others were 
present (e.g., orpatnyovs Tov tepov: Lk. 
xxii. 52). This added clause signifies 
that it was a very important meeting, 
as, in view of its aim, to prepare the case 
for Pilate, it obviously was. The San- 
hedrists had accomplished nothing till 
they had got the matter put in sucha 
form that they might hope to prevail 
with the procurator, with whom lay the 
jus gladu, to do their wicked will, and 


446 


KATA MAPKON XV. 


XV. 1. KAI edOéws ent 1d mpwt! cupBodhror woujoarres * of 
Gpxtepets preva tOv meoButépwy Kal ypapparéwy, Kal Sdov 1d 
guvedpiov, Siyoavres Tov “Ingody darjveyxay Kal wapédwxay 1H * 
Midrw. 2, kat émypdrncey adtov 6 Middtos, “20 el 5 Baorheds 
TOv “loudaiwy;’” “O Bé daroxpibeis elev adta, “Xd héyers.” 
3: Kat xatnydspouy adtod ot dpxrepets wokhd-: 4. 6 8€ Mddros 
mahwy émnpdrycev* adrdv, A€ywr,> “Odn datroxpivy obdév; Be, 
6.” 5. ‘0 8é “Ingots obxén odSey 


, 


Toga cou KaTapapTupouoLW 
dmwexpt0n, Gore Oaupdlew tov Muddrov. 

6. Kara 8€ opty dméhuev adrois eva Séopuov, dvirep yrobvro.! 
7. Hv Sé 6 Neyopevos BapaBBas pera tay guctactacray ® Sedepevos, 


1arpwt without ere ro in NBCDL. 
2 So in BAZ al. 
3 Omit ro NBCDLA. 


SCL have erowpacaytes(Tisch., W.H., margin). 
4 erypwra in B 33 (Tisch., W.H.). 


5 8 omits Aeyov (Tisch., W.H., in brackets). 


5 karnyopovew in BCD (Tisch., W.H.). 
Tov wapynrovyto in NAB (Tisch., Trg., marg., W-H.). 


nowhere else in the N.T. Vide below. 


katapap. in T.R. is from Mt. 
ovrep (T.R.) is found 


Scractactwey in BCD. Weiss thinks the ovo- (T.R.) has been omitted per 


incuriam in these MSS. 


of course that Jesus claimed to be the 
Christ would not serve that purpose. 
Vide notes on Mt.—MltAdt@: without 
the article in best MSS. on this the first 
mention ; with, in subsequent reference. 
Mk. does not think it necessary to say 
who or what Pilate was, not even men- 
tioning, as Mt., that he was the governor. 
—Ver.2. oveldB. Pilate’s question 
reveals the secret of the morning meet- 
ing. The crafty Sanhedrists put a po- 
litical construction on the confession of 
Jesus. The Christ, therefore a pretender 
to the throne of Israel. Vide on Mt.— 
Ver. 3. woAAd: either an adverb=much, 
or the accusative after karnydépouv. As 
to the matter of these accusations vide 
on Mt. But to what end, when Jesus 
had confessed that He was King; giving 
Himself away, soto speak? The San- 
hedrists must have seen from Pilate’s 
manner, a smile on his face perhaps, 
that he did not take the confession 
seriously, For the reason of this vide 
on Mt.—Ver. 4. méoa, answering to 
wokhd in ver. 3, might mean “how 
grave,”’ Thayer’s Grimm, but probably 
=how many, as in vi. 38, viii. 5, 19.— 
Ver. 5. Gore Savp. 7. 1. Mt. adds 
May. The governor had never seen a 
prisoner like this before. He does not 
believe Him to be a political pretender, 
but he sees that He is a remarkable 


man, and feels that he must proceed 
cautiously, groping his way amid the 
parties and passions of this strange 
people. 

Vv. 6-15. $Fesus or Barabbas ? (Mt. 
xxvii. 15-26, Lk. xxiii. 16-25).—Ver. 
6. awéAvev, imperfect = Mt.’s cidber 
Gmohvety, pointing to. a practice of the 
governor at passover season; on which 
vide on Mt.—évrep qrotvro, ‘* whomso- 
ever they desired,” A. V. The R. V. 
adopts the reading preferred by W.H., 
dv tapytovvto, and translates “whom 
they asked of him’’. It is difficult to 
decide between the two readings, as the 
aep might easily be changed into wap, 
and vice versd. In favour of the T.R. 
is the fact that mapytotvro ordinarily in 
N. T., as in the classics, means to refuse, 
and also that évaep very strongly em- 


phasises the finality of the popular choice M 


—they might ask the release of any one, 


no matter whom—such is the force of 


“4 
ry 


aep; it would be granted. On these 
grounds Field (Otium Nor.) decides for 
the T. R.—Ver.7. oracvacrev (overas., 
T.R.): this word (here only in N. T.) con- 
tains an interesting hint as to the nature of 
the offence committed by Barabbas and 
his associates. They were no mere band 
of brigands (Aqorys: John xviii. 40), but 
men engaged in an insurrection, pro- 
bably of a political character, rising out 





‘ 
fy 


| 


“4 





4 
h 


I—13. 


J ~ , , 
oitives éy TH oTdoer povoy mewojKeoay. 


” A a 
dxhos HpEaTo aitetoOar, Kabws del? éoter adrois. 


EYAITEAION 


447 


8. Kai dvaBojoas! 6 
g. 6 8é Mudd ros 


, A ; a im 
amekpiOn abrois, héywy, “Oddeve Atroktow Spiv tov Baoihéa Tar 


*Joudatwr ;” 
> a c ~ 3 
aUTOV Ol GpxLEpEls. 


10. ‘Eyivwoxe yao ore Sia pOdvov wapadeddxercay 
II. ot 3€ dpxrepets avéceicay Tov dyXov, iva 


padhov tov BapaBBay dwoduon adtois: 12. 6 8é MuAdtos daroKpibeis 


MH Hs 
méhw etrev* adtots, “Ti ody Oéhete® moijow dv ® héyete Bacthéa? 


~ > , ” 
TOY ‘loudatwy ; 


13. Ot S€ mddw Expagav, “ Xravpwoov addy.” 


1 avaBas in SBD sah. cop. (Tisch., W.H.). 
* aet wanting in ${BA sah. cop. (Tisch. and W.H. omit). 


> B omits ot apy. (W.H. in brackets). 


4 For arok. mak. evrev SBC have aad. azok. eheyev. 


> @ehere, found in D, is omitted in BCA 33. 
Vide below. 


§ B omits ov (W.H. in brackets). 
7 gov before Bac. in ABCA. 


of the restless desire of many for in- 
dependence, and in connection with that 
guilty of murder (ddvov), at least some 
of them (otrives), Barabbas included.— 
Th otaoe.: the article refers back to 
oTactacTav=the insurrection implied 
in there being insurrectionists. Mk. 
therefore does not refer to the insurrec- 
tion as known to his readers. Perhaps 
he knew nothing about it himself, nor 
do we.—Ver. 8. dvaBas, etc.: Mk. 
assigns the initiative to the people. So 
Lk. ; Mt. and John to Pilate. The 
difference is not important to the course 
of the history. The custom existing, this 
incident was bound to come about some- 
how. Nor does it greatly affect the 
question as to the attitude of Pilate. In 
either case he was simply feeling his 
way. The custom gave him a chance of 
feeling the popular pulse, a most im- 
portant point for a ruler of his oppor- 
tunist type.—ka8as, here=that which. 
—Ver.g. Oédere, etc.: Pilate makes the 
tentative suggestion that the favoured 
person should be Jesus; whom he de- 
signates ‘King of the Jews,” to see 
how the people would take a title which 
the Sanhedrists regarded as a mortal 
offence.—Ver. 10. éylvworkey, it gradually 
dawned upon him. Pilate would see the 
animus of the Sanhedrists in their many 
accusations (ver. 3), from which it would 
appear that Christ’s real offence was 
His great influence with the people. 
Hence the attempt to play off the one 
party against the other: the people 
against the priests.— Ver. Ii. avereroay, 
the aorist implies that the priests stirred 


Tisch. retains, W.H. omit. 


up the people with success, to the effect 
that their request to Pilate was in favour 
of Barabbas. One may wonder how 
they so easily gained their purpose. But 
Barabbas, as described by Mk., repre- 
sented a popular passion, which was 
stronger than any sympathy they might 
have for so unworldly a character as 
Jesus—the passion for political liberty. 
The priests would know how to play on 
that feeling. What unprincipled charac- 
ters they were! They accuse Jesus to 
Pilate of political ambition, and they re- 
commend Barabbas to the people for the 
samereason. Buta ‘holy ”’ end sancti- 
fies the means ! On the contrast between 
Jesus and Barabbas vide Klostermann. 
—Ver. 12. It is presupposed that the 
people have intimated their preference 
for Barabbas perhaps by the cry: not 
Jesus, but Barabbas. Hence Pilate pro- 
ceeds to ask: ‘‘ what, then, am I to do 
with Him whom ye call (héyere) the 
King of the Jews?” That whom ye call 
was very astute. It ought to bring out 
the real feeling of the people, as from 
the next verse we learn that it did.— 
Ver. 13. mdAw: they had intimated 
their will already by a popular shout= 
Barabbas, not Jesus; now they intimate 
their feeling about Jesus by a second 
shout with the unmistakable ring of re- 
probation in it: Cruciry Him! That 
is what Pilate’s év Aéyere has brought 
out. It has been taken as an insult. 
The sense is the same if, with B, we 
omit $y. Pilate’s question then = what 
then shall I do, tell me, to the King 
of the Jews? The sting lies in the 


448 


KATA MAPKON XV. 


14. ‘O 8€ Mudcros Eheyer atitots, “Ti ydp Kaxdv éroinoey!;”’ 
15. ‘O 8 
TiAdros Boudépevos TH SyAw 1d ikavdy torijoat, dwéAugery adrois 
roy BapaBBav - 
oraupw6. 


Oi S€ wepiscotépws* Expatay, “Eravipwoor adtdéy.” 
kai wapédwxe Tov ‘“Ingodv, ppayeAddoas, iva 


16, Ot 3€ otpatidrat dmjyayov airév Eeow ris addjjs, 5 éore 
Mpattaptoy, Kat guykahodow Skyy Thy omelpay, 17. nal évSvoucw ® 
autév wopdupay, Kat wepiTiOéacw att mdgavtes dxdvOwov oré- 
gavov, 18. kal mpkavto domdlecOar adtdév, “ Xaipe, Backed tov 

” ‘ nw“ 
*loudaiwy’” 19. Kal €rumtoy adtod Thy Kepahiy Kaddue, Kal 
». 2B > ~ ‘ , , > ~ ‘ 
évértuovy att@, kal TUévtes TA ydvata mpooeKtvouy alte. 20. Kal 
Ste évermatgav atta, e€ducay adtov thy wopdupay, kal évéSucay 

Yu. wre , A 1d 4 ‘ 3 } Sen 4 @ , 
avtéy Ta tpdtia Ta tSta*- Kat e&dyouow adtdv, tva oraupdcwow 
aitév. 21. Kat dyyapedouot tapdyorvtd twa Xipwva Kupyvatoy, 
€pxopevov dw dypot, toy matépa “AdefdvSpou kal “Poddou, iva apy 


Tév oTaupoy adTou. 


22. KAI péepovow adroy ért Fodkyo8G> témov, 6 dort pebeppnveud- 


1 erot. kaxov in BCA. 


2 weptoogws in NABCDA. Vide below. 


8 evySibuoKovow in NBCDA. Vide below. 


4 For va Sta BCA have avrov (W.H.) ; 


® rov ToAyo@ay in HBLAZ. 


title.——Ver. 14. This final speech of 
Pilate presents a subtle combination of 
honesty and craft. He says what he 
really thinks: that Jesus is innocent, 
and he makes sure that the people really 
mean to stand to what they have said. 
—wnepisoas, beyond measure: the po- 
sitive here is stronger than the com- 
parative mepiaoortépws (T.R.), and it is 
far better attested.— Ver. 15. Pilate was 
now quite sure what the people wished, 
and so, as an opportunist, he let them 
have their way.—to ixavév motjoat: to 
satisfy (here only in N. T.)=satisfacere in 
Vulg., perhaps a Latinism (vide Grotius), 
but found in later Greek (vide Raphel and 
Elsner).—payehAdwoas : certainly a 
Latinism, from flagellare. 

Vv. 16-20. Mocked by the soldiers 
(Mt. xxvii. 27-31).—Ver. 16. The 
soldiers in charge of the prisoner con- 
duct Him into the barracks (ow tis 
avAjs, 3 tori mpattmpiov = into the 
court, that is, the praetorium—Weiz- 
sacker), and call together their comrades 
to have some sport.— Any Thy ometpay : 
“a popular exaggeration” (Sevin); at 
most 200 men.—Ver. 17. évduitoKnovcw 
for évSvovow, T.R.: a rare word, not in 


8 reads ra c8ta ysaria avrov (Tisch.). 


classics, found in Sept. and Joseph. (and 
in Lk. viii. 27, xvi. 19), and because rare, 
the more probable reading.—opdvpav, 
a purple garment, for. Mt.’s xAapvda 
Koxktvynv = ‘scarlet robe’’.—-&xavO.vov 
o.: here and in John xix. 5. 

Vv. 21-26. The crucifixion (Mt. 
xxvii. 32-37, Lk. xxiii. 26, 33-38).—Ver. 
21. ayyapevovow: on this word vide 
on Mt. v. 41.—am’ aypot: this detail in 
Mk. and Lk. has been taken as an un- 
intentional hint that the crucifixion took 
place a day earlier than the synoptical 
statements imply. Coming from the 
country, z.e., from his work. But even 
Holtzmann, H. C., disallows the in- 
ference: ‘as if nine in the morning 
were evening after work time, and eis 
dypov in Mk. xvi. 12 meant ploughing or 


reaping ”.— ’Aheg., ‘Poud.: these names 


imply interest in the persons referred to 
within the circle of Mk.’s first readers, 
presumably well-known Christians. 
Rufus in Rom. xvi. 13? Alexander in 
Acts xix. 33 ?—Ver. 22. ¢é€povoty a., 
they carry Him: ‘ferunt, non modo 
ducunt,” Bengel. It would appear that 
Jesus was so weak through the strain of 
the last few days, and the scourging, 


’ 
1) q 
{i 
i 


ao ps Ee. 


Be. oe ge 





14—32. EYATTEAION 


23. Kai €8i80uv ait metv? éouupricpévoy 
5 


uwevov,! Kpavtou té1os. 
24. Kai oraupdcavtes * abtdv, Srepncpilov 
ra tpdtia adtou, BddAovtes KAfjpov éw adtd, Tistidpy. 25. hv dé 
26. Kat tv * émypabh tis 
27. Kat 
sdv adT@ oTaupodar Svo Anotds, Eva ex Sefidv Kai eva €& edwvdpor 


28. kai émdnpdbn 7 ypady 4 Aéyouca, ‘Kal peta dvépwv 


oivov: 6 Sé 3 odk eAaBe. 


7, 
Spa tpityn, kal eotatpwoay aitdv. 


, a lol td 
aitias aitod émyeypappervn, ““O Bacideds Tav ‘loudaiwr.”’ 


adTou. 
édoyiaOn.© 29. Kat ot mapamopeuduevor éBAacdipouy attdy, 
kuvodvTes Tas Kepahds attay, Kai Aéyovtes, “Odd, 6 Katadior 
rov vadv, kal év Tptcly Héoats oikodopay,’ 30. coor ceauTéy, Kal 
catéBa® dad tod otaupod.” 31. “Opoiws S€% Kal ot dpxtepets 
éutratLovtes mpds GAAjous peTa TOY ypappatéwy Eheyor, “*A)Xous 
10 


Eowoev, EauTov ob Sivatat cioat. 32. 6 Xpiotds 6 Bacrheds Tod 


’ ~ ~ a“ 
Iopat\ KataBdtw viv dard Tod ctaupod, iva iSwper Kal mLeTedowpey.” 


449 


} peBeppnvevopevos in BZ. 
3 os Se in NB 33. 


7 NBCLA omit mrety. 


4 For the participle BL have oravpovew avrov rat, 


5 For Stepeptfoy (in minusc. only) read Stapepifovrar. 
6 SSABCD sah. omit this verse, which is interpolated from Lk. xxii. 37. 
7 o.xkoSopwy before tpt. np. in BDL. ev is wanting in D and other uncials (Tisch, 


omits, W.H. brackets). 


8 For xat kataBa SBDLA have xaraBas. 


9 Se omitted in $BCLA al. verss. 


that He was unable to walk, not to 
speak of carrying His cross. He had to 
be borne as the sick were borne to Him 
(Mk. i. 32).—Ver. 23. é8i6ovv: the 
conative imperfect = they tried to give, 
offered. — éopvpvicpévov olvov, wine 
drugged with myrrh, here only in N. T. 
Cf. Mt.’s account.—ovn édaBev: Mt. 
says Jesus tasted the drink. He would 
not take it because He knew that it was 
meant to stupefy.—Ver. 24. tis tl Gpp, 
who should receive what; two questions 
pithily condensed into one, another 
example in Lk. xix. 15, vide Winer, 
§ Ixvi., 5, 3-—Ver. 25. pa tpirn, the 
third hour = nine o’clock as we reckon ; 
raising a harmonistic problem when 
compared with John xix. 14. _Grotius 
comments: “id est, jam audita erat 
tuba horae tertiae, quod dici solebat 
donec caneret tuba horae sextae”’ (they 
called it the third hour till the sixth was 
sounded).—xal = when, Hebraistic, but 
also not without example in classics in 
similar connections : the fact stated con- 
nected with its time by a simple xal; 
instances in ep ace 6, Perveae 
éqrt aupevn: awkwardly expressed ; 
Bjeed Lic ‘have phrases which look 


29 


10 SSBDLA omit tov before lopanh. 


like corrections of style—é Bao. trav 


*lovS.: the simplest form of the in- 
scription, 
Vv. 29-32. Taunts of spectators (Mt. 


xxvii. 39-44, Lk. xxiii. 35, 37, 39).—Ver. 
29. ova = Latin, vah, expressing here 
ironical admiration: ‘‘ admirandi vim 
cum ironia habet,” Bengel. Raphel re- 
marks that this word was not given in the 
Greek Lexicons, but that it is not there- 
fore to be regarded as a Latinism peculiar 
to Mk., but rather as a word which had 
been adopted and used by the later 
Greeks, e.g., Arrian. Here only in 
N. T.—Ver. 30. xaraBas (kal xatraBa, 
T.R.), etc.,save Thyself, having descended, 
etc., or by descending = descend and so 
save Thyself.—Ver. 31. of apxtepets : 
both in Mt. and in Mk. the priests lead 
in the unhallowed chuckling, scribes and 
elders (Mt.) being mentioned only 
subordinately (pera, etc.).—mpos a&dAq- 
Aovs: a common fear gives place to a 
common sportiveness in this unholy 
brotherhood, now that the cause of their 
fear is removed.—Ver. 32. tva iS8wpev' 
that we may see (in the descent from the 
cross) an unmistakable sign from heaven 
of Messiahship, and so believe in Thee.— 


450 


KATA MAPKON XV 


33- Tevopévns Se * 
Gpas Exrys, oxdros eyévero sp SAyv thy yay, Ews Spas evvdrys. 
34. kal TH Spa tH evvdry ® €Bdnoev 6 “Ingots uve peyddy, Aéywr,! 
“Edw, “EXwt, Nappa oaBay@avi® ;” 


Kal of cuvectaupwpévor! atte avelSiLov adrdv. 


5 éore peleppyveudpevor, 


“"O eds prov, 6 Geds pou, eis TL me éyxaréAumes®;” 35. Kal tives 


TOv wapectyKxdTwv’ dxotoavtes Eheyov, “IS0d,9 “HAlay dwvel.” 
36. Apapioy 8 efs,® Kail? yeploas omdyyor dkous, mepibels te 1! 
Kahduw, émdtiley adtév, Néywr, “"Adete, iSwpev ei Epyetar “HAlas 
KaQeheiv adtov.”” 


37. O 8é “Incods ddets hwvv peyddyv efémveuce. 


katatéracua Tod vaod écxicby eis SU0, dad aywbev Ews Kdtw. 


38. Kai To 


! ouy after cuvertavpwpevor in NBL. 


8 +m evaTn wpa in NBDL. 


2 kat yev. in NBDLA 33. 
4 Omit Aeyov NBDL. 


5 The spelling of the words Aap. oaf. varies much in the MSS. 


® we after eyxateA. in NBL. 
8 .8e in NBLA 33. 


9 aus in NBLA. 


7 B has eornkotov. 
10 BL omit was. 


1 ESBDL 33 omit re (W.H. read Apapwy Se tis yep. o. 0. wepibets Kad.). 


ol cuverravpwpévor, the co-crucified. 
Mk., like Mt., knows nothing of the con- 
version of one of the robbers reported 
by Lk. How different these fellow- 
sufferers in spirit from the co-crucified in 
St. Paul’s sense (Rom. vi. 6, Gal. ii. 
20) ! ; 

Vv. 33-36. Darkness without and 
within (Mt. xxvii. 45-49, Lk. xxiii. 44-46). 
—Ver. 33. yevopevns, éyévero: another 
awkwardness of style variously amended 
in Mt. and Lk.—oxéros: on this dark- 
ness vide on Mt. Furrer (Wanderungen, 
pp. 175-6) suggests as its cause a storm 
of hot wind from the south-east, such as 
sometimes comes in the last weeks of 
spring. ‘‘ The heavens are overcast with 
a deep gray, the sun loses his bright- 
ness, and at last disappears. Over the 
darkened land rages the storm, so that 
the country, in the morning like a flower- 
carpet, in the ‘evening appears a waste. 
. .. On the saddest day in human his- 
tory swept such a storm at noon over 
Jerusalem, adding to the terrors of the 
crucifixion.” —Ver. 34. éAwt, édwt: the 
Aramaic form of the words spoken by 
Jesus, Mt. giving the Hebrew equiva- 
lent. On this cry of desertion vide re- 
marks on the parallel place in Mt.— 
6 Oeds pov. 6 ©. p.: as in Sept. Mt. 
gives the vocative.—els ri, for what 
end? tva ti in Mt. and Sept.—Ver. 35. 
*HAiav: the name of Elijah might be 
suggested by either torm of the name of 
God—Eli or Eloi. Who the tives were 


that made the poor pun is doubtful, 
most probably heartless fellow-country- 
men who only affected to misunder- 
stand.—Ver. 36. Spapeav 8é: if the 
wits were heartless mockers, then $é will 
imply that this person who offered the 
sufferer a sponge saturated with fosca 
(vide Mt.) was a friendly person touched 
by compassion. For the credit of human 
nature one is very willing to be con- 
vinced of this.—éwérifey might, like 
ediSouv (ver. 23), be viewed as a conative 
imperfect = offered Him a drink, but 
John’s narrative indicates that Jesus 
accepted the drink (xix. 30).—Aéyov 
refers to the man who brought the 
drink. In Mt. it is others who speak 
(xxvii. 49), and the sense of what was 
said varies accordingly—ades in Mt. 
naturally, though not necessarily, means: 
stop, don’t give Him the drink (vide on 
Mt.)—adete in Mk., spoken by the man 
to the bystanders, means naturally: 
allow me (to give Him the drink), the 
idea being that thereby the life of the 
sufferer would be prolonged, and so as 
it were give time for Elijah to come 
(iSupev et Ep. °H.) to work an effectual 
deliverance by taking Him down from 
the cross («aGeXciv a.).—el ép.: eb with 
the present indicative instead of the 
more usual éav with subjunctive in a 
future supposition with probability (vide 
Burton, M. and T. in N. T., § 251). 

Vv. 37-41. Death and its aecompani- 
ments (Mt. xxvii. 50-56, Lk. xxiii. 46-49).— 





SS & 


aia aS Ee = = +) =. 


7 a 


i- f° # oS 


33-42. EYATTEAION 

> ‘ aye , a 4 > a «@ Ad 
39. ldav Sé 6 nevtupiwy 6 wapeotnkis é& évaytias adtou, Sti obTw 
kpdgas! éfémveucev, etmev, “ANnOGs 6 dvOpwios obtos? vids Fy 
Qe05.” 40. "Hoay Sé Kal yuvaixes dd paxpdbey Oewpodcat, éy 


ais v8 Kai Mapia ¥ MaySadyyy, Kat Mapia % Tod* “laxwBou tod 
pukpod Kal “lwo pytyp, Kat Laddun, 41. at Kai,® dre Hy ev TH 
Fadthaia, ykohodGour adtG, Kal Sinxdvouy adtG, Kal GAat modal 


451 


i A 7 A > e , 
at suvavaBacot adT@ ets ‘lepood\upa. 


42. Kat 48n dias yevopevnys, éwel Hy wapackeun, 3 gor mpoodp- 


1 NBL cop. omit xpatas, found in ACAX al. 
* The order of the words varies: ovtos 0 av@. in S$BDLA 33 (Tisch., W.H.); 
vtos nv 6. in AC al. (Tisch.) ; vtos 8. ny in BLA (W.H.). 


3 nv (from Mt.) omitted in NBL. 
4 SS BCAX omit tov. 


5 lwoyros in BDLA. 


6 NB 33 omit kat; ACLA omit as. Perhaps both omissions are due to similar 


ending. 


Ver. 37. wvihv peyaAnv: asecond great 
voice uttered by Jesus (vide ver. 34), the 
fact indicated in Mt. by the word waAuy. 
At this point would come in John’s 
reréheotat (xix. 30). — é&émvevcev, 
breathed out His life, expired; aorist, the 
main fact, to which the incident of the 
drink (éwérilev, imperfect) is subor- 
dinate ; used absolutely, here (and in Lk. 
xxiii, 46), as often in the classics. Bengel 
remarks: ‘‘spirare conducit corpori, ex- 
spirare spiritui’”’.—Ver. 38. The fact of 
the rending of the veil stated as in Mt., 
with omission of Mt.’s favourite iSod, and 
the introduction of another of Mk.’s 
characteristic pleonasms, am’ avw0ev.— 
Ver. 39. Kevtuplwv, a Latinism = 
centurio, for which Mt. and Lk. give 
the Greek éxarévrapyos.—é— évayrias 
(x@pas), right opposite Jesus, so that he 
could hear and see all distinctly. The 
thing that chiefly impressed him, accord- 
ing to Mk., was the manner of His death. 
—ottws ébémrvevoey = with a loud voice, 
as if life were still strong, and so much 
sooner than usual, as of one who, needing 
no Elijah to aid Him, could at will set 
Himself free from misery. This was a 
natural impression on the centurion’s 
part, and patristic interpreters endorse 
it as true and important. Victor Ant. 
says that the loud voice showed that 
Jesus died kar’ éfovciav, and Theophy- 
lact applies to the éf€arvevoev the epithet 
Seorrottkas. But it may be questioned 
whether this view is in accord either 
with fact or with sound theology. What 
of the dépovor in ver. 22? And is there 
not something docetic in self-rescue 


from the pangs of the cross, instead of 
leaving the tragic experience to run its 
natural course? Mt.’s explanation of 
the wonder of the centurion, by the ex- 
ternal events—earthquake, etc.—is, by 
comparison, secondary. Schanz char- 
acterises Mk.’s account as ‘‘schdner 
psychologisch”’ (psychologically finer). 
—Ver. 4o. On the faithful women 
who looked on from afar, vide on 
Mt. Mk. singles out for special men- 
tion the same three as Mt.: Mary of 
Magdala, Mary the mother of James and 
Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s 
children. Mk. distinguishes James, the 
brother of Joses, as Tov pixpov = either 
the little in stature (Meyer and Weiss), 
or the less in age, the younger (Schanz). 
Mk. refers to the mother of Zebedee’s 
children by her own name, Salome. 
Neither evangelist mentions Mary, the 
mother of Jesus.—Ver. 41. This in- 
teresting reference to service rendered 
to Jesus in Galilee, given here by Mk. 
only, applies to the three named, hence the 
honourable mention of them. Mt. sub- 
stitutes service on the way from Galilee 
to Jerusalem rendered by all—evidently 
a secondary account.—aAAat odAdal, 
others, many; also worthy of honour, 
but of an inferior order compared with 
the three. They made the journey from 
Galilee to Jerusalem with Jesus. 

Vv. 42-47. Burial (Mt. xxvii. 57-66, 
Lk. xxiii. 50-56).—Ver. 42. 75: omitted 
by Mt., but important, as indicating that 
the business Joseph had on hand—that of 
obtaining and using permission to take 
down and bury the body of Jesus—must 


452 KATA MAPKON XV. 43—47. 
Baroy, 43. Mev! “lwohp & dd “Apipabaias, edoyrpwv Boudeuris, 
5s kal adrds fv mpoodexopevos thy Bacielay tod Ocod~ ToAunoas 
clon Oe pds? Middrov, Kal yrjoato Td Gdn Tod "Inood. 44. 6 Be 
Mirdros eBatpacey® ei Sn TéOvyKe> Kal mpooxaherdpevos Tov 
Kevtupiwva, érnpdtycev adrdv ei mddar* dwdOave 45. Kal yvods 
amd Tod Kevtupiwvos, édwpjcate To cdya® TO “lwonp. 46. Kai 
dyopdoas owddva, Kal® Kabehiv atrdv, évethnoe TH owddn, Kat 
katéOyKev” adtav év pynpetw,® & fv NeAarounpévoy éx métpas* Kal 
47. 4 S€ Mapia 7 


mpocvexdhice iBoy eri tiv Ovpay tod pvypeiou. 


MaySahnvh kal Mapia ‘lwo ® édedpouv mod Tietar.!° 


1 eMGav in NABCLA, etc., nev in D. 


2 arpos Tov in WBLA 33. 


7 NOD have efaupaler (Tisch.), aor. (T.R.) in BCLA (W.H.). 

‘ wakat in KCL (Tisch.), 4Sy in BD (W.H. text, wadat marg.). 

5 wrwpa in $BDL; changed into owpa from a feeling of decorum, 
® S$BDL cop. omit wat, added as a connecting particle. 


7 cOnxev in NBDL (W.H.). 


8 $$B have pynpart, instead of pynperw in CDLA. Tisch. and W.H. adopt 


reading of SB. 


® » before lwo. in BCA; lwanros in BLA. 


be gone about without delay. It was 
already the afternoon of the day be- 
fore the Sabbath, mpooaBBarov, called 
wapackevy (here and in the parallels 
in this technical sense). It must, 
therefore, be done at once, or it could 
not be done till Sabbath was past.— 
Ver. 43. evoxipov: Mt. has wdovouos ; 
vide there for remarks on the two 
epithets.—BovAeutys, a councillor, not 
in the provincial town, Arimathaea, 
which would have been mentioned, but 
in the grand council in Jerusalem.—xat 
avrés: not in contrast to the Sanhedrists 
generally (Weiss), but in company with 
the women previously named (Schanz) ; 
he, like them, was an expectant of the 
Kingdom of God.—rodpyoas: a graphic 
word, in Mk. only, giving a vivid idea of 
the situation. Objections to be feared 
on Pilate’s part on score of time—dead 
so soon? possibly surly indifference to 
the decencies of burial in the case of a 
crucified person, risk of offence to the 
religious leaders in Jerusalem by sym- 
athy shown to the obnoxious One, even 
in death. Therefore to be rendered: 
“taking courage, went in unto Pilate” 
(vide Field, Ot. Nor., ad loc.).—Ver. 44. 
Omitted by Mt., whose narrative through- 
out is colourless compared with Mk.’s.— 
el réOvnke: ef = St, after a verb of 
wonder (vide Burton, M.and T., § 277, and 
Winer, § lx., 6).—el awé@ave: réOvnKe 


10 reSertat in BCDLA 33. 


has reference to the present of the 
speaker, amwéQave to the moment of 
death.—mdAat: opposed to dprt, and not 
implying a considerable time before, but 
only bare priority to the present. Pilate’s 
question to the centurion was, did He die 
before now? =is He actually dead ?— 
—Ver. 45. Satisfied on the point Pilate 
freely gives (@wptjcaro) the carcase 
(wrGpa, SSBDL, corrected from feelings 
of reverence into s@pa in many MSS.). 
—Ver. 46. ayopdcas, having pecker 
linen; therefore purchases could be made. 
This word, and the reason given for 
Joseph’s haste (ver. 42), have, not with- 
out a show of reason, been regarded as 
unintentional evidence in favour of the 
Johannine Chronology of the Passion. 
So Meyer, Weiss, and Holtzmann.— 
KaSehov: Kaatpety was the technical 
term for taking down from the cross. 
Proofs in Elsner, Raphel, Kypke, and 
Loesner.—évetAnoev: hereonly in N. T.— 
év pvnpel@ (vipat, NB): no indication 
in Mk. as in Mt. that it was new, and 
Joseph’s own.—Ver. 47. Té@errar: from 
the perfect Meyer and Weiss infer that 
the women were not present at the 
burial, but simply approached and took 
note where Jesus lay after burial. 
Schanz dissents, and refers to the xat 
before Ste in ver. 41 in some MSS., as 
proving that they had come to render the 
last office to Jesus. 





XVI. 16. EYATTEAION 


XVI. 1. KA! S:ayevonevou tod caBBdrou, Mapia 4 MaydSahnvi 
kai Mapia % tod “laxwBou xal Lakdpyn jydpacav dpwpata, iva 
EMModoar Gdelwou abtév. 2. Kal Aiavy mpwt THs pds! cakBdrwv 
€pxovrar émi 1d pynpetov,? dvatethavtos® tod HAlov. 3. kat 
éheyov mpds Eautds, “Tis dmoxudice: Hpiv tov AiPov ex THs Odpas 
TOO pvnpetou ;” 


6 AtBos- Fv yap péyas odddpa. 5. 


4. Kat dvaBdépacar Qewpodow ore dmokexUKorat 4 
eis TO 
pvnpetov, elSov veavioxoy Kalypevov év tots Seftois, mwepiBeBAn- 
pévoy orodyy Aeuxyy: Kat efeBanPyOnoar. 


Kat eiceNPotca > 


6. 6 8€ héyer adrats, 
“Mi exBapBetobe. “Inoodv Lytette tov NaLapnydv tov éotaupwpevor: 


453 


1 ry pia in SBLA 33 (B omits ty, W.H. brackets). 


2So in BDLA (W.H.). 
> avateAXovros in D (W.H. marg.). 


4 avakexudtorat in BL. 
® ehMGovoas in B (W.H. marg.). 


CHAPTER XVI. THE RESURRECTION, 
Vv. 1-8. The open grave (Mt. xxviii I-10, 
Lk. xxiv. 1-12).—Ver. 1. Stayevopévou 
rov caBBdtov, the Sabbath being past ; 
similar use of Stay- in Acts xxv. 13, 
xxvii. g, and in late Greek authors; 
examples in Elsner, Wetstein, Raphel, 
e.g., Stayevonévwy madi érav d€xa, 
Polyb., Hist., ii., 19.—7ySpacav ap., pur- 
chased spices; wherewith, mingled with 
oil, more perfectly to anoint the body 
of the Lord Jesus. The aorist implies 
that this purchase was made on the first 
day of the week. Lk. (xxiii. 56) points 
to the previous Friday evening. Har- 
monists (Grotius, e.g.) reconcile by tak- 
ing nySp.asapluperfect. ‘‘ After sunset 
there was a lively trade done among 
the Jews, because no purchase could 
be made on Sabbath”’ (Schanz).—Ver. 
2. Alav mpot, very early in the morn- 
ing, suggesting a time hardly consistent 
with the qualifying clause : advatetXavros 
7ov Atov=when the sun was risen, 
which again does not harmonise with 
the ‘“‘deep dawn” of Lk. and the ‘‘ yet 
dark” of John. Mk.’s aim apparently 
is to emphasise the fact that what he is 
going to relate happened in broad day- 
light ; Lk.’s to point out that the pious 
women were at their loving work as early 
on the Sunday morning as possible.— 
Ver. 3. €deyov mpos éautds: as they 
went to the sepulchre, they kept saying 
to each other (ad invicem, Vulg., mpds 
&dAvyAas, Euthy.).— tle droxvdice: 
their only solicitude was about the stone 
at the sepulchre’s mouth : no thought of 
the guards in Mk.’s account. The pious 


SC have pvypa (Tisch.)- 


amroxex. conforms to ver. 3. 


women thought not of angelic help. 
Men had rolled the stone forward and 
could roll it back, but it was beyond wo- 
man’s strength.—Ver. 4. dvaBrAédacan, 
looking up, as they approached the 
tomb; suggestive of heavy hearts and 
downcast eyes, on the way thither.— 
WW yap peyas oddpa: this clause seems 
out of place here, and it has been 
suggested that it should be inserted 
after pynpelov in ver. 3, as explaining 
the women’s solicitude about the removal 
of the stone. As it stands, the clause 
explains how the women could see, even 
at a distance, that the stone had already 
been removed. It was a sufficiently large 
object. How the stone was rolled away 
is not said. 

Vv. 5-8. The women enter into the 
tomb through the open door, andexperience ° 
a greater surprise.—veavioxoy, a young 
man. In Mt.’s account it is an angel, 
and his position is not within the tomb, 
as here, but sitting on the stone without. 
Lk. has two men in shining apparel.— 
aorodnv AcvKrv, in a white long robe, 
implying what is not said, that the youth 
is an angel. Wo such robe worn by 
young men on earth.—Ver. 6. 7 
éxOapBeiobe, “be not affrighted” Ge 
they had been by the unexpected sight 
of a man, and wearing heavenly apparel) ; 
no tpeis after the verb here, as in Mt. 
after boBetoGe, where there is an implied 
contrast between the women and the 
guards (vide on Mt.).—'Iynooty, etc., 
Fesus ye seek, the Nazarene, the cruci- 
fied. Observe the objective, far-off style 
of description, befitting a visitor from 


454 


HyépOy, obx Eoti Dde- Be, 6 réwos Swou EOyxav adrdv. 
imdyerte, etrrate tois pabytais atTod Kai TH Nétpw, Str mpodyer 
dpas eis Thy Fadthatav: exel adrdv dpeoGe, Kabds elrev Spiv.”’ 
8. Kai €€eMBodcat taxd! Epuyov awd Tod pvypetou: elxe SE? adrds 
Tpdpos Kai ExoTacis Kat odSevl odSév ettov, epoBoivro ydp.3 

1 SSABCDLAE omit raxv (Tisch., W.H.). 


2 yap for Se in SBD vet. Lat. cop. syr. verss (Tisch., W.H.). 
3 On verses 9-20, in relation to the Gospel, vide below. 


another world.—yép8n, etc. : note the 
abrupt disconnected style: risen, not 
here, see (t8e) the place (empty) where 
they laid Him. The empty grave, the 
visible fact; resurrection, the inference; 
when, how, a mystery (a8yAov, Euthy.). 
—Ver. 7. 4GAda, but; change in tone 
and topic; gazing longer into the empty 
grave would serve no purpose: there is 
something to be done—go, spread the 
news! Cf. John xiv.31; But . . . 
arise, let us go hence !—xai +o Mérpq, 
and to Peter in particular: why? to 
the disciple who denied his Master ? 
so the older interpreters—to Peter, with 
all his faults, the most important man 
in the disciple band? so most recent 
interpreters: ut dux Apostolici coctus, 
Grotius.—6tt, recit., introducing the 
very message of the angel. The message 
recalls the words of Jesus before His 
death (chap. xiv. 28).—éxe?, there, point- 
ing to Galilee as the main scene of the 
reappearing of Jesus to His disciples, 
creating expectation of a narrative by the 
evangelist of an appearance there, 
which, however, is not forthcoming.— 
Ver. 8. é&eABotoat, going out—of the 
sepulchre into which they had entered 
(ver. 5).—€vyov, they fled, from the 
scene of such surprises. The angel’s 
words had failed to calm them; the 
event altogether too much for them.— 
TpOpos Kal éxoracts, trembling, caused 
by fear, and stupor, as of one out of his 
wits. —tpdépos = ‘‘ tremor corporis ” : 
éxoTagis = “stupor animi,” Bengel.— 
ovdevi ovSev etzrov: an unqualified state- 
ment as it stands here, no ‘‘on the 
way,” such as harmonists supply : * obvio 
scilicet,” Grotius.—éhoBotvto yap gives 
the reason of this reticence so unnatural 
in women: they were in a state of fear. 
When the fear went off, or events 
happened which made the disciples in- 
dependent of their testimony, their 
mouths would doubtless be opened. 





So ends the authentic Gospel of Mark, 
without any account of appearances of 


KATA MAPKON 


XVI. 


7. Gdn’ 


the risen Jesus in Galilee or anywhere 
else. The one thing it records is 
the empty grave, and an undelivered 
message sent through three women to 
the disciples, promising a reunion in 
Galilee. Strange that a story of such 
thrilling interest should terminate so 
abruptly and unsatisfactorily. Was 
there originally a continuation, unhappily 
lost, containing, ¢.g., an account of a 
meeting of the Risen One in Galilee 
with His followers? Or was the evange- 
list prevented by some unknown cir- 
cumstances from carrying into effect an 
intention to bring his story to a suitable 
close? Wecannot tell. All we know 
(for the light thrown on the question by 
criticism, represented, e.g., by Tischen- 
dorf, Nov. Test., G. Ed., viii., vol. i., pp. 
403-407; Hahn, Gesch. des. N. Kanons, 
ii., p. g10 ff.; Westcott and Hort, Intro- 
duction, Appendix, pp. 29-51, approaches 
certainty) is that vv. 9-20 of Mk. xvi. in 
our N, T. are not to be taken as the ful- 
filment of any such intention by the 
author of the second Gospel. The ex- 
ternal evidence strongly points this 
way. The section is wanting in $B and 
in Syr. Sin. Jerome states (Ep. cxx., 
quaest. 3) that it was wanting in nearly 
all Greek copies (“omnibus Graecis 
libris pene’), and the testimony of 
Eusebius is to the same effect. The in- 
ternal evidence of style confirms the 
impression made by the external : charac- 
teristic words of Mk. wanting, words 
not elsewhere found in the Gospel 
occurring (e.g., €Bead@n, v. 11), the narra- 
tive a meagre, colourless summary, a 
composition based on the narratives of 
the other Gospels, signs ascribed to 
believers, some of which wear an apoc- 
typhal aspect (vide ver. 18). Some, in 
spite of such considerations, still regard 
these verses as an integral part of Mk.’s 
work, but for many the question of 
present interest is: what account is to 
be given of them, viewed as an indubi- 
table addendum by another hand? Who 
wrote this conclusion, when, and with 





7—II. 


EYATTEAION 


455 


g. Avaotas 8€ mpwt mpdr_a caBBdrou épdvyn mpOtov Mapia rH 


MaySahqvq, ad fs! éxBeBAyxer 


éwtda, Satpdvra. 


ses) 
Io. EKELVT) 


a“ A ~ = 4 
mopeufeioa GiwhnyyetXe TOIS ET AUTOU yevouevots, tmevOodcL Kal 
nYY 


«Aalougt 
1 wap ns in CDL 33 (W.H.). 


what end in view? We wait for the 
final answers to these questions, but 
important contributions have recently 
been made towards a solution of the pro- 
blem. In an Armenian codex of the 
Gospels, written in 986 a.p., the close 
of Mk. (vv. 9-20), separated by a space 
from what goes before to show that it is 
distinct, has written above it: ‘‘ Of the 
Presbyter Aristion,” as if to suggest that 
he is the author of what follows. (Vide 
Expositor, October, 1893. Aristion, the 
Author of the last Twelve Verses of Mark, 
by F. C. Conybeare, M.A.) More 
recently Dr. Rohrbach has taken up this 
fact into his interesting discussion on 
the subject already referred to (vide on 
Mt. xxviii. 9, 10), and appreciated its sig- 
nificance in connection with the prepara- 
tion of a four-gospel Canon by certain 
Presbyters of Asia Minor in the early 
part of the second century. His hypo- 
thesis is that in preparing this Canon 
the Presbyters felt it necessary to bring 
the Gospels into accord, especially in 
reference to the resurrection, that in 
their preaching all might say the same 
thing on that vital topic. In performing 
this delicate task, the fourth Gospel was 
taken as the standard, and all the other 
Gospels were to a certain extent altered 
in their resurrection sections to bring 
them into line with its account. In Mt. 
and Lk. the change made was slight, 
simply the insertion in the former of two 
verses (xxviii. 9, 10), and in the latter of 
one (xxiv. 12). In Mk., on the other 
hand, it amounted to the removal of the 
original ending, and the substitution for 
it of a piece taken from a writing by 
Aristion the Presbyter, mentioned by 
Papias. The effect of the changes, if 
not their aim, was to take from Peter 
the honour of being the first to see the 
risen Lord, and from Galilee that of 
being the exclusive theatre of the 
Christophanies. It is supposed that the 
original ending of Mk. altogether ig- 
nored the Jerusalem appearances, and 
represented Jesus, in accordance with 
the statement of St. Paul (1 Cor. xv. 5), 
as showing Himself (in Galilee) first to 
Peter, then to the Twelve. The in- 
ference is based partly on Mk. xvi. 7, 


II. Kdkevor Gkovoavtes Ott Ly Kal ebed0n dw adtis 


and partly on the relative section of the 
Gospel of Peter, which, following pretty 
closely Mk.’s account as far as ver. 8, goes 
on to tell how the Twelve found their way 
sad of heart to their old homes, and re- 
sumed their old occupations. In all this 
Rohrbach, a pupil of Harnack’s, is simply 
working out a hint thrown out by his 
master in his Dogmengeschichte, vol. i., 
p- 346, 3 Ausg. It would be premature 
to accept the theory as proved, but it is 
certainly entitled to careful considera- 
tion, as tending to throw some light on 
an obscure chapter in the early history 
of the Gospels, and on the ending of the 
canonical Gospel of Mark in particular. 

Vv. g-20 may be divided into three 
parts corresponding more or less to 
sections in fohn, Luke, and Matthew, 
and not improbably based on these; vv. 
g-II, answering to John xx. 14-18; vv. 
12-14, answering to Lk. xxiv. 13-35; 
vv. 15-18, answering to Mt. xxvili. 19. 
Vv. 19, 20 wind up with a brief reference 
to the ascension and the subsequent 
apostolic activity of the disciples. 

Vv. g-11. dvaoras Sé refers to Jesus, 
who, however, is not once named in the 
whole section. This fact with the 6 
favours the hypothesis that the sectior 
is a fragment of a larger writing.—mpwt 
mpwo7ty oaB.: whether these words are 
to be connected with avagras, indicat- 
ing the time of the resurrection, or with 
ébavn, indicating the time of the first 
appearance, cannot be decided (vide 
Meyer).—p@rov Mapia +. M., first to 
Mary of Magdala, as in John (xx. 14),.— 
map Ws, etc.: this bit of information, 
taken from Lk. viii. 2, is added as if this 
woman were a stranger never mentioned 
before in this Gospel, a sure sign of 
another hand.—éddvy, in this verse = 
appeared to, does not elsewhere occur 
in this sense.—Ver. 10. éxetvy, she, 
without emphasis, not elsewhere so 
used.—opev@etoa: the simple verb 
mopeveoGat, three times used in this 
section (vv. 12, 15), does not occur any- 
where else in this Gospel.—rots er’ 
avrov yevonevois: the reference is not 
to the disciples in the stricter sense who 
are called the Eleven (ver. 14), but to 
the friends of Jesus generally, an ex- 


456 KATA MAPKON XVI. 


iriomoay. 12. Meta 8€ taira Suolv e& adray weprratodow 
epavepaidn ev érépa poppy, wopevopevors cis dypdv. 


GrehOdvtes Gmjyyetdav Tots Aoimois: obde exetvors emioreucar. 


13. KGKELVOL 


14. “Yotepov! dvaxeipdvois attois tois evdexa pavepddn, Kal 
ove(Sice Thy dmortiav adtév Kat oxAypoxapSiavy, Str tois Ocaca- 
pévors abtov éynyeppévov? otk emiotevoay. 15. Kat etmev adtois, 
“ Topeudérvtes cis Tov Kdopor Gmavta, knpitate Td edayyéAiov Técy 
TH KTice. 16. 5 motedcas Kai Barriobels owOjcetar: 6 Se 
amioTyoas KataxpiGjcetar. 17. onpela S€ Tois moredcact TadTa 
mapakohoubyce *- ev 7 dvépari pou Sapdvia éxBahodor yAdooats 
hadyoouar Katvais *- 18. hers dpodor: Kav Bavdowudy te lwo, of 


pi) abtods Brdper®- emt dppdcrous yeipas émOycoug, Kal Kadds 


7? 
é§ouow. 


1 ADE al. add Se after vorepov. 


2 ACA add ex vexpoy after eynyeppevov (W.H. brackets). 
5 axodov0noet Tavta in CL (W.H. text; as in T.R. margin). 
“CLA omit watvats, and have in this place kat ev tats xepoww (W.H. text, 


brackets, with katvats in margin). 


5 BXaty in ACLA al, (Tisch., W.H. T.R. only in minusc.), 


pression not elsewhere occurring in any 
of the Gospels.—Ver. 11. é@ea6n, was 
seen. This verb, used again in ver. 14, 
is foreign to Mk., as is also amoveiv, 
also twice used here (arlotyeay, ver. II; 
amrioTyoas, ver. 16). 

Vv. 12-14. pera 8 Tatra, afterwards 
(only here in Mk.) ; vaguely introducing 
a second appearance in the neighbour- 
hood of Jerusalem.—8votv é& aitayv, to 
two of the friends of Jesus previously 
referred to, not of the Eleven. Cf. with 
Lk. xxiv. 13. It is not only the same 
fact, but the narrative here seems 
borrowed from Lk.—év érépq popdj, in 
a different form. Serving no purpose 
here, because the fact it accounts for, 
the non-recognition of Jesus by the two 
disciples (Lk. xxiv. 16), is not mentioned. 
—els dypdév: for els kopnv in Lk. The 
use of davepoto Gar in the sense of being 
manifested to, in ver. 12, is peculiar to 
this section (again in ver. 14).—Ver. 14. 
torepov, at a later time; vague indica- 
tion, here only. It is difficult to identify 
this appearance with any one mentioned 
in the other Gospels. What follows in 
ver. 15, containing the final commission, 
seems to point to the farewell appear- 
ance in Galilee (Mt. xxviii. 16), but the 
Gvaxemevors (ver. 14) takes us to the 
scene related in Lk. xxiv. 36-43, though 
-more than the Eleven were present on 
that occasion. The suggestion has been 


made (Meyer, Weiss, etc.) that the 
account here blends together features 
taken from various appearances. The 
main points for the narrator are that 
Jesus did appear to the Eleven, and that 
He found them in an unbelieving mood. 

Vv. 15-18. The Commission (Mt. 
xxvili. 18-20).—eis tov kécpov arava, 
added to Mt.’s wopev0évres.—xnpvtate 
7. ev.: this more specific and evangelic 
phrase replaces Mt.’s pa@nrevoare, and 
wdoy Ti] KTioes gives more emphatic 
expression to the universal destination of 
the Gospel than Mt,’s mavra ra €0vy.— 
Ver. 16 is a poor equivalent for Mt.’s 
reference to baptism, insisting as it does, 
in an ecclesiastical spirit, on the necessity 
of baptism rather than on its significance 
as an expression of the Christian faith in 
God the Father, Son, and Spirit. Jesus 
may not have spoken as Mt. reports, but 
the words put into His mouth by the 
first evangelist are far more worthy of the 
Lord than those here ascribed to Him. 
—Ver. 17. Here also we find a great 
lapse from the high level of Mt.’s version 
of the farewell words of Jesus: signs, 
physical charisms, and thaumaturgic 
powers, taking the place of the spiritual 
presence of the exalted Lord. Casting 
out devils represents the evangelic 
miracles; speaking with tongues those of 
the apostolic age; taking up venomous 
serpents and drinking deadly poison 





12—20. 


EYALTEAION 


457 


19. ‘O pev odv Kuptos,! peta Td KadAoat adtois, dvedyhOy eis Tov 


obpavdy, Kai éxdbioev ex Sekt@v Tod Oeod- 20. exeivor Sé efehOdvres 


bs , A n , a \ A 4 A 
€xypusav tavtaxou, TOU Kuptou ouvepyobrtos, kat Tov Adyov BeBatodv- 


A ~ , , 
Tos 81a Tay émaxohoulodvTwy onpelwy. 


“Apyy.? 


1 CLA have Inoovus after Kuptos (W.H. brackets). 
2 Apyy is found in CLA among other uncials (W.H. marg.). 


seem to introduce us into the twilight of 
apocryphal story. Healing of the sick 
by laying on of hands brings us back to 
apostolic times. O@avdgwmov is a am. 
hey. 

ee 19, 20. The story ends with a 
brief notice of the ascension of the Lord 
Tesus om the one hand (péyv), and of the 


apostolic activity of the Eleven on the 
other {8é). Lk., who means to tell the 
story of the acts of the Apostles at 
length, contents himself with reporting 
that the Eleven returned from Bethany, 
his scene of parting, to Jerusalem, not 
with sadness but with joy, there to 
worship and wait. 


TO KATA AOTKAN 


ATION EYATTEAION. 


I. 1. “EMEIAHMEP wodhol eéwexeipnoay dvardfacba Sijynow 


wept Tov wemdnpohopypéevwr év piv mpaypdtwv, 2. Kabds mape- 


Cuaprer I, Tue Earty History. 
Vv. 1-4. The preface.—Ver. 1. éare8- 
yep: three particles, éwel, 84, wep, 
blended into one word, implying that 
the fact to be stated is well known (8%), 
important (wep), and important as a 
reason for the undertaking on hand 
(2qret) = seeing, as is well known. Hahn 
thinks the word before us is merely a 
temporal not a causal particle, and that 
Luke means only to say that he is not 
the first to take such a task on hand. 
But why mention this unless because it 
entered somehow into his motives for 
writing? It might do so in various 
ways: as revealing a widespread im- 
pulse to preserve in writing the evangelic 
memorabilia, stimulating him to do the 
same; as meeting an extensive demand 
for such writings on the part of Chris- 
tians, which appealed to him also; as 
showing by the number of such writings 
that no one of them adequately met the 
demand, or performed the task in a final 
manner, and that therefore one more 
attempt was not superfluous. "Ewevdyzrep, 
a good Greek word, occurs here only in 
N. T.—rokAol: not an exaggeration, 
but to be taken strictly as implying 
extensive activity in the production of 
rudimentary “ Gospels’. The older 
exegetes understood the word as re- 
ferring to heretical or apocryphal gospels, 
of course by way of censure. This view 
is abandoned by recent commentators, 
for whom the question of interest rather 
is: were Mt.’s Logia and Mk.’s Gospel 
among the earlier contributions which 
Lk. had in his eye? This question 
cannot be decided by exegesis, and 
answers vary according to the critical 
theories ot those who discuss the topic. 
All that need be said here is that there is 


no apparent urgent reason for excluding 
Mt. and Mk. from the crowd of early 
essayists.—émeyeipynoav, took in hand; 
here and in Acts ix. 29, xix. 13. It isa vox 
ambigua, and might or might not imply 
blame = attempted and did not succeed, 
or attempted and accomplished their 
task. It is not probable that emphatic 
blame is intended. On the other hand, 
it is not likely that éaey. is a meze ex- 
pletive, and that éwey. advatdiac9ar is 
simply = averdgtavro, as, after Casaubon, 
Palairet, Raphel, etc., maintained. The 
verb contains a gentle hint that in some 
respects finality had not yet been reached, 
which might be said with all due respect 
even of Mt.’s Logia and Mk.’s Gospel. — 
avatafac8ar Siyynoiv; to set forth in 
order a narrative; the expression points 
to a connected series of narratives 
arranged in some order (tdfts), topical 
or chronological, rather than to isolated 
narratives, the meaning put on Sinyyots 
by Schleiermacher. Both verb and noun 
occur here only in N. T.—epi... 
™paypater indicates the subject of these 
narratives. The leading term in this 
phrase is wemAnpodopypévev, about the 
meaning of which interpreters are much 


divided. The radical idea of mAnpogopéw — 


(wAxpys, dépw) is to bring or make full. 
The special sense will depend on the 
matter in reference to which the fulness 
takes place. 
of fact, in which case the word under 


consideration would mean ‘‘ become a 
completed series,” and the whole phrase © 


“concerning events which now lie before 
us as a complete whole ”’. 


modern commentators (vide R. V.). Or 


the fulness may be in conviction, in ~ 


which case the word would mean ‘“ most 


It might be in the region © 


This view is — 
adopted by an increasing number of — 



































I—3. 


Socav Hpiv ot dw dpyfs aitémra: wal Ganpérar yevdpevor Tob 9 of. in 1 


EYATTEAION 


459 


im. iv. 


Adyou, 3. edofe Kdpol, *mapynKkodouOnkdte dvwhev waow dxpiBds, 6; 2 Tim. 


surely believed” (A. V.). This sense of 
complete conviction occurs several times 
inp Nema (Rom) 1v.02teeblebs viz. Lr, 
x. 22), but with reference to persons not 
to things. A very large number of in- 
terpreters, ancient and modern, take the 
word here in this sense (‘ bei uns 
beglaubigten,” Weizsacker). Holtz., 
H. C., gives both without deciding 
between them (“vollgeglaubten oder voll- 
brachten”’), Neither meaning seems 
quite what is wanted. The first is too 
vague, and does not indicate what the 
subject-matter is. The second is ex- 
plicit enough as to that = the matters 
which form the subject of Christian 
belief; but one hardly expects these 
matters to be represented as the subject 
of sure belief by one whose very aim in 
writing is to give further certainty con- 
cerning them (ae¢dAetav, ver. 4). What 
if the sphere of the fulness be knowledge, 
and the meaning of the clause: ‘ con- 
cerning the things which have become 
widely known among us Christians’’? 
Then it would be plain enough what 
was referred to. Then also the phrase 
would point out the natural effect of the 
many evangelic narratives—the uni- 
versal diffusion of a fair acquaintance 
with the leading facts of Christ’s life. 
But have we any instance of such use of 
the word ?—Anpodopta is used in re- 
ference to understanding and knowledge 
in Col. ii. 2. Then in modern Greek 
wAnpopop® means to inform, and as the 
word is mainly Hellenistic in usage, 
and may belong to the popular speech 
preserved throughout the centuries, trav 
wend. may mean, “those things of 
which information has been given ” 
(Geldart, The Modern Greek Language, 
p. 186), or those things generally known 
among Christians as such. 

Ver. 2. «xa@os implies that the basis 
of these many written narratives was the 
mapadoos of the Apostles, which, by 
contrast, and by the usual meaning of 
the word, would be mainly though not 
necessarily exclusively oral (might in- 
clude, ¢.g.,the Logia of Mt.).— of . . . rod 
Aéyou describes the Apostles, the ulti- 
mate source of information, as men 
‘who had become, or been made, eye- 
witnesses and ministers of the word”’. 
Both aitént. and trp. may be con- 
nected with tot Adyouv, understood to 
mean the burden of apostolic preaching 


lll. 10. 


= the facts of Christ’s earthly history. 
Eye-witnesses of the facts from the 
beginning (am -4py7s), therefore com- 
petent to state them with authority ; 
servants of the word including the facts 
(= ‘‘all that Jesus began both to do and 
to teach”’), whose very business it was to 
relate words and facts, and who there- 
fore did it with some measure of fulness. 
Note that the qpiv after wapéSocay im- 
plies that Lk. belonged to the second 
generation (Meyer, Schanz). Hahn in- 
fers from the piv in ver. 1 that Lk. 
was himself an eye-witness of Christ’s 
public ministry, at least in its later stage. 

Ver. 3. €30f€ xapot: modestly intro- 
ducing the writer’s purpose. He puts 
himself on a level with the wodAol, and 
makes no pretensions to superiority, 
except in so far as coming after them, 
and more comprehensive inquiries give 
him naturally an advantage which makes 
his work not superfluous.—apyKodov- 
O@nxért av. 7.: having followed (in my 
inquiries) all things from the beginning, 
i.¢.,not of the public life of Jesus (a7’ 
a@px7s, ver. 2), but of His life in this 
world. The sequel shows that the start- 
ing point was the birth of John. This 
process of research was probably gone 
into antecedent to the formation of his 
plan, and one of the reasons for its 
adoption (Meyer, also Grimm, Das 
Prodmium des Lukasevangelium in $ ahr- 
biicher f. deutsche Theologie, 1871, p. 
48. Likewise Calvin: omnibus exacte 
pervestigatis), not merely undertaken 
after the plan had been formed (Hahn). 
—axpiBas, xaeffs o. yp. explain how 
he desired to carry out his plan: he 
wishes to be exact, and to write in an 
orderly manner (xa@efijs here only in 
N. T., éeéqs in earlier Greek). Chrono- 
logical order aimed at (whether success- 
fully or not) according to many (Meyer, 
Godet, Weiss, Hahn). Schanz main- 
tains that the chronological aim applies 
only to the great turning points of the 
history, and not to all details; a very 
reasonable view. These two adverbs, 
axp., ka0., may imply a gentle criticism of 
the work of predecessors. Observe the 
historical spirit implied in all Lk. tells 
about his literary plan and methods: 
inquiry, accuracy, order, aimed at at 
least; vouchers desired for all statements. 
Lk. is no religious romancer, who will 
invent at will, and say anything that 


460 


KATA AOYKAN I. 


kabetijs oor ypdipa, Kpdriote Oeddire, 4. tva emeyvas wept dv 


KaTyx Ons Adywr Thy dopddecav. 
5. EFENETO éy rats tpépats ‘HpwdSou tod! Bucth€éws rijs “louSatas 


tepeds Tis dvépatt Zaxaptas, e& epyprepias "ABid- Kal a yur abrod? 


'SSBLE omit rov, 


* For 7 yuvn avrov NBCDXE 33 have yuvy avtw (Tisch., W.H.). Lhas qy.avte. 


suits his purpose. It is quite compatible 
with this historic spirit that Lk. should 
be influenced in his narrations by re- 
ligious feelings of decorum and reverence, 
and by regard to the edification of his 
first readers. That his treatment of 
materials bearing on the characters of 
Jesus and the Apostles reveals many 
traces of such influence will become 
apparent in the course of the exposition. 
—«pdtiote Ocddire. The work is to be 
written for an individual who may per- 
haps have played the part of patronus 
libri, and paid the expenses of its pro- 
duction. The epithet kpdtiore may 
imply high official position (Acts xxiii. 
26, xxvi. 25). On this see Grotius. 
Grimm thinks it expresses only love and 
friendship. 

Ver. 4. Indicates the practical aim: 
to give certainty in regard to matters of 
Christian belief.—7epi dv x. Adyov: an 
attraction, to be thus resolved: wept trav 
Adywv ots Karnx7Oys. Adywy is best 
taken = matters (mpaypdrwv, ver. 1), 
histories (Weizsacker), not doctrines. 
Doubtless this is a Hebraistic sense, but 
that is no objection, for after all Lk. is 
a Hellenist and no pure Greek, and even 
in this preface, whose pure Greek has 
been so often praised, he is a Hellenist 
to alarge extent. (So Hahn, Einleitung, 
p. 6.) The subject of instruction for 
young Christians in those early years 
was the teaching, the acts, and the ex- 
perience of Jesus: their ‘‘ catechism” 
historic not doctrinal.—kxatnynoys: is 
this word used here in a_ technical 
sense = formally and systematically in- 
structed, or in the general sense of ‘‘ have 
been informed more or less correctly ”? 
(So Kypke.) The former is more pro- 
bable. The verb (from xara, yxéw) is 
mainly Hellenistic in usage, rare in pro- 
fane authors, notfoundinO. T. The N.T. 
usage, confined to Lk. and Paul, points 
to regular instruction (vide Rom. ii. 18). 

This preface gives a lively picture of 
the intense, universal interest felt by the 
early Church in the story of the Lord 
Jesus: Apostles constantly telling what 
they had seen and heard; many of their 


hearers taking notes of what they said 
for the benefit of themselves and others: 
through these gospelets acquaintance 
with the evangelic history circulating 
among believers, creating a thirst for 
more and yet more; imposing on sucha 
man as Luke the task of preparing a 
Gospel as full, correct, and well arranged 
as possible through the use of all avail- 
able means—previous writings or oral 
testimony of surviving eye-witnesses. 

Vv. 5-25. The birth of the Baptist 
announced, From the long prefatory 
sentence, constructed according to the 
tules of Greek syntax, and with some 
pretensions to classic purity of style, we 
pass abruptly to the Protevangelium, 
the prelude to the birth of Christ, con- 
sisting of the remainder of this chapter, 
written in Greek which is Hebraistic in 
phrase and structure, and Jewish in its 
tone ofpiety. The evangelist here seems 
to have at command an Aramaic, Jewish- 
Christian source, which he, as a faith- 
ful collector of evangelic memorabilia, 
allows to speak for itself, with here and 
there an editorial touch. 

Vv. 5-7. The parents of Fohn.— 
éyévero, there was, or there lived.—éy 
Tats q., etc.: in the days, the reign, of 
Herod, king of Judaea. Herod died 
750 A.c., and the Christian era begins 
with 753 A.c. This date is too late by 
three or four years.—é& é@ypeplas “ABud : 
épnpepia (a noun formed from édnpé- 
ptos -ov, daily, lasting for a day), not in 
profane authors, here and in ver. 8 in 
N. T., in Sept., in Chron. and Nehemiah, 
= (1) aservice lasting for a day, or for 
days—a week ; (2) a class of priests per- 
forming that service. The priests were 
divided into twenty-four classes, the 
organisation dating according to the 
tradition in Chronicles (1 Chron. xxiv.) 
from the time of David. The order of 
Abia was the eighth (x Chron. xxiv. Io). 
Josephus (Ant., vii., 14, 7) uses épypepts 
and warpia to denote a class. On the 
priesthood and the temple worship and 
the daily service, consult Schiirer’s His- 
tory, Div. ii., vol. i., pp. 207-298.—yuv7y: 
a daughter of Aaron; John descended 





4—13.- 


€x TOV Buyatépwy “Aapdy, kat TS Gvoua aris "EXuodBer. 


EYATTEAION 


461 


6. Roa 


BE Sixaror dpporepor evimiov! tod Geos, opeudpevor ev wdcats Tats 


évtohais Kal Sikarwuacr Tod Kuplou 


m” ‘ > > 
O[LEPLTTOL. 7; K@t ouK HY 


attots tékvov, Ka0ét. 4 “EXuodBer Fv? otetpa, Kal duddrepor 


mpoBeBykdtes év Tats Hucpats atTav joav. 


8. “Eyévero S€ év 


TO teparedew aitov év th Tage THs ebrnpeplas adtou év o 
D tep ito TH fis ebnpeptas 0 évayte too 
~ lod [4 A 
©co0, 9. "kata Td Bos Tis ‘ieparetas, “ENaxe Tod ° Qupidoar bagaininii. 


eicehOav eis Tdv vady Tod Kupiou- 10. Kal wav Td TAOS TOD 49, 
a * 3 , ” ~ 4 lol , 

haod jv? mpoceuyspevov €fw TH Spa Tod Suprdparos. 

auT@ d&yyehos Kuplou, éotas ex Seftav Tod Fuctactypiou Tod Oupid- 


42; Xxii. 


>» . ¢ Heb. vii. 5. 
It. ad>9y BE g John xix. 
24. Acts 
117, 2 
Pet.iin 


> 
patos: 12. Kat érapdxOn Zaxaptas iSdy, kat pdBos emémecey em oho, 


aed 
QuTov. 


13. Ete 5é€ mpds adtév 6 dyyedos, “Mi poBod, Zaxapia- 


in N, T. 


Srdtt elonxovaly 4 Sénais cou, Kal H yury cou EhtodPer yevyynce 


1 SBC have evavtioy ; evamiov in DLA. 
2 nv before y EA. in S$ BDLAE (Tisch., W.H.). 


B 69 omit n (W.H. brackets). 


3 qv Tov Aagov in NBLA (Tisch., W.H.). 


from priestly parents on both sides.— 
Ver. 6. S{xator: an O. T. term, and ex- 
pressing an O. T. idea of piety and good- 
ness, as unfolded in the following clause, 
which is Hebrew in speech as in senti- 
ment: walking in all the commandments 
and ordinances (equivalent terms, not to 
be distinguished, with Calvin, Bengel, 
and Godet, as moral and ceremonial) 
blameless (relatively to human judgment). 
—Ver. 7. Kalovx jy, etc.: childless, a 
calamity from the Jewish point of view, 
and also a fact hard to reconcile with 
the character of the pair, for the Lord 
loveth the righteous, and, according to 
O. T. views, He showed His love by 
granting prosperity, and, among other 
blessings, children (Ps. cxxviii.).—«a0d6t1: 
a good Attic word: in Lk.’s writings only 
in N. T. = seeing, inasmuch as.—poBe- 
Byxdtes év T. Hyp.: ‘advanced in days,” 
Hebraistic for the classic ‘‘ advanced in 
age” (rhv nAuktay) or years (rots Erecuv): 
childless, and now no hope of children. 

Vv. 8-10. Hope preternaturaily re- 
vived,—év T@ iepateverv: Zechariah was 
serving his week in due course, and it 
fell to his lot on a certain day to per- 
form the very special service of burning 
incense in the holy place. A great 
occasion in a priest’s life, as it might 
never come to him but once (priests said 
to be as many as 20,000 in our Lord’s 
time). ‘The most memorable day in 
the life of Zechariah ” (Farrar, C. G. T.). 
—Ver. 9. kata 76 fog is to be connected 
with €\axe : casting lots, the customary 


manner of settling who was to have the 
honour.—eivedOav is to be connected 
with 6vpidcat, not with €daye. The 
meaning is that entering the sanctuary 
was the necessary preliminary to offer- 
ing incense: in one sense a superfluous 
temark (Hahn), yet worth making in 
view of the sacredness of the place. A 
great affair to get entrance into the 
vads.—Ver. 10. A790: there might be 
a crowd within the temple precincts at 
the hour of prayer any day of the week, 
not merely on Sabbath or on a feast day 
(‘dies solennis, et fortasse sabbatum,” 
Bengel). 

Vv. 11-17. A celestial visitant.—Ver. 
11. G84: the appearance very par- 
ticularly described, the very position of 
the angel indicated: on the right side of 
the altar of incense; the south side, the 
propitious side say some, the place of 
honour say others. The altar of incense 
is called, with reference to its function, 
Ovprarjpiov in Heb. ix. 3.—Ver. 12. 
érapdy@m describes the state of mind 
generally = perturbed, $é6Bos specifically. 
Yet why afraid, seeing in this case, as 
always, the objective appearance answers 
to the inward state of mind? This fear of 
the divine belongs to O. T. piety.—Ver. 
13. Sénots : all prayed at that hour, there- 
fore of course the officiating priest. The 
prayer of Zechariah was very special— 
8énois implies this as compared with 
mpogevxy, vide Trench, Synonyms—and 
very realistic: for offspring. Beneath 
the dignity of the occasion, say some 


a 
by 


462 KATA AOYKAN 1 


vidy got, Kal Kaddoers Td Svowa adtod “lwdvyny. 14. Kal Eorar 
Xapd gor Kat dyadXiaots, Kal wohdol emt TH yarvyoer! adtod 
, ™» , a 2 , ‘ 
Xapyjoovrat. 5. €orat yap péyas évwmov tod * Kupiou: Kat olvov 
‘ , x , 4 , « ‘ , ” 
Kal oikepa o§ ph aly, Kal Mveipatos “Ayiou mAnoOjcerar Ett ex 
Ld ‘ > “A ‘ 4 lal ta > ~ > 
KotXtas pytpds adtod. 16. Kat toddods Tay uidy ‘Iopanr éemorpeper 
émt Kiptov tov Oedv aitav: 17. kal adtds mpoededcetar® évdmov 
attod év mrvedpart kat Suvdper “HAlou,* émotpépar kapdias matépwy 
émi téxva, Kat dmelets ev ppovyjce Sixaiwy, érourdoat Kupiw hadv 
18. Kat elwe Zayxapias mpds Tov dyyedor, 
éyo ydp eipt mpeoBitns, kal 4 yurn 
pou mpoPeBynkuia ev Tais tucpars adris. 19. Kal daroxpilels 6 
» ? er “ec? , > A i. + Pael 2 ~ 
Gyyehos eltrev atta, ““Eyd eiuc FaBpryA 6 mapeotnKwds éveitriov Tod 


>” 
KATETKEUATLEVOY. 


, ~ 
“Kata Tl yvaocouat todTo ; 


©cod- Kal dmeotddny ahjoat pds oe, Kal edayyedioacbai gor 


taita. 20. Kat idou, Eon ciwmrady Kal ph Suvdpevos Aahfoa, dyxpr 


1 yeveoret in most uncials. 
2 9ACL 33 omit tov (Tisch.). 


BDA have it (W.H. in marg.). 


3 wpogedevoetat in BCL (W.H. marg.), probably an unintentional error. 


* HXeva in KWBL. 


interpreters ; a very superficial criticism. 
True to human nature and to O. T. piety, 
and not unacceptable to God. That the 
prayer was for offspring appears from the 
angelic message, objective and subjective 
corresponding. —-yevvyjoet, shall bear; 
originally to beget.—’lwdvvnv: the name 
already mentioned to inspire faith in the 
reality of the promise: meaning, God is 
gracious.—Ver. 14. xapd, dyaAXtacts, 
a joy, an exultation; joy in higher, 
highest degree : joy over a son late born, 
and such a son as he will turn out to be. 
—o\Xol: a joy not merely to parents 
as a child, but to many as a man.—Ver. 
I5. peyas, a great man before the 
Lord; not merely in God’s sight = true 
greatness, but indicating the sphere or 
type of greatness: in the region of ethics 
and religion.—xat otvoy, etc., points to 
the external badge of the moral and re- 
ligious greatness: abstinence as a mark 
of consecration and separation —a 


devotee.—oixepa = “\Y (not Greek), 


strong drink, extracted from any kind of 
fruit but grapes (here only in N. T.).— 
Nvevparos ‘Ayiou: in opposition to wine 
and strong drink, as in Eph. v. 18. But 
the conception of the Holy Spirit, formed 
from the Johannine type of piety, is very 
different from that of St. Paul, or 
suggested by the life of our Lord.—Ver. 
16 describes the function of the Baptist. 
—imotpeer: repentance, conversion, 


his great aim and watchword.—Ver. 
I7. ™poedevoerat év. a.: not a refer- 
ence to John’s function as forerunner of 
Messiah, but simply a description of his 
prophetic character. He shall go before 
God (and men) = be, in his career, an 
Elijah in spirit and power, and function; 
described in terms recalling Malachi 
iv. 6. - 

Vv. 18-20. Zechariah doubts. The 
angel’s dazzling promise of a son, and 
even of ason with such a career, might 
be but a reflection of Zechariah’s own 
secret desire and hope; yet when his 
day-dream is objectified it seems too 
good and great to be true. This also is 
true to human nature, which alternates 
between high hope and deep despair, 
according as faith or sense has the upper 
hand.—Ver. 19. aroxpifels : the very 
natural scepticism of Zechariah is treated 
as a fault—faBpur: the naming of 
angels is characteristic of the later stage 
of Judaism (vide Daniel viii. 16, x. 21).— 
Ver. 20. oiwwrév kal py 5. X., silent and 
not able to speak; a temporary dumb- 
ness the sign asked, a slight penalty; 
not arbitrary, however, rather the almost 
natural effect of his state of mind—a 
kind of prolonged stupefaction resulting 
from a promise too great to be believed, yet 
pointing to a boon passionately desired.— 


av@ Ov: a phrase of Lk. = Ws nnn, 


because. (Also in 2 Thess. ii. ro.) 





14-—28. EYATTEAION 463 
is Hpépas yévnrat taita> dv® Gv obk émiotevoas Tots Adyous pou, 
oities mAnpwlijcovTar elg Tov Katpdv auTav.” 21. Kal qv 6 Aads 
mpoodoK@v Tov Zaxapiav: Kat €Badpafoy év TH yxpoviLew adtév éy 

t 

TO vad! 22. éfeNOdv 8é odx HSdvato Aadfoa adtois: Kal éwé- 
jvwoov oT. dmtaciav éwpaxey év TO vad: Kal adTds Hy Stavedor 
adrots, Kat Sieveve kwpds. 23. Kat éyéveto Os emAynolqncay ai 

ypepar ths *ettoupylas adrou, dmAhOev eis tov otxov adtot. f 2 Cor. ix 

ie 12, Phil. 

24. Meta S€ Taitas tas pepas cuvéhaBey “EXtodBetr H yuri) ii. 17-30. 

i 2 Heb. viii. 

autod, Kal wepvexpuBey éauTyv pivas wévte, Néyouga, 25. ““Ort 6; ix. ar. 


oUTw pol TeToinKey 67 Kuptos év wpépats, ats éwetdSev ddehetv 1d? 


Ovetdds rou év dvOpdtrots.” 

26. "EN 8€ TO pynvi TO ExTw dweotddyn 6 Gyyehos FaBprijd dod * 
tod Ocod eig Wodw THS FadtAalas,  Svopa Nalapet, 27. mpds 
mapOévoy penvnoteupevny * dvdpi, @ Svopna. ‘Iwor>, é§ otkou AaBid- 
Kal Td dvona THs Tapévou Mapidp. 28. Kat eicehOdy 6 dyyedos > 
mpos atriv etme, “Xaipe, kexapttwuévy* 6 Kuptos peta ood, 


1 avrov after ev tw v. in BLE (W.H.). 

788CDL 33 omit o (Tisch., W.H., text, o in marg.). 
omit to before ovedos. 

3 amo in {BL 1, 69. ‘ exynor. in NABL. 

5 BLE 1, 131, cop. omit o ayyeAos (W.H.). 


Order as in T.R. in QACDA al. (Tisch.). 
BA have it. SBDL 1 


event happened. Whether she appeared 


Vv. 21-22. The people without.—mpoo- 
openly thereafter is not indicated. 


Sox@v, waiting; they had to wait. The 





> 


priest was an unusually long time with- 
in, something uncommon must have 
happened. The thought likely to occur 
was that God had slain the priest as un- 
worthy. The Levitical religion a re- 
ligion of distance from God and of fear. 
So viewed in the Epistle to the Heb- 
rews. Illustrative quotations from Talmud 
in Winsche, Beitrdge, p. 413.—Ver. 22. 
émraciav: from his dazed look they 
inferred that the priest had seen a 
vision (chap. xxiv. 23, 2 Cor. xii. 1).— 
Stavevwv: making signs all he could do; 
he could not bless them, e.g., if that was 
part of his duty for the day, or explain 
his absence (here only). 

Vv) 23-25. Returns home. The week 
of service over, Zechariah went back to 
his own house.—Aettovpyias : in Biblical 
Greek used in reference to priestly ser- 
vice ; elsewhere of public service rendered 
by a citizen at his own expense or of any 
sort of service.—Ver. 24. ‘mweptéxpupev: 
hid herself entirely (aept), here only; 
€xkpvBov: alate form of 2nd aorist. Why, 
not said, nor whether her husband told 
her what had happened to him.—pfvas 
arevze: after which another remarkable 


Possibly not (J. Weiss).—éweidev: here 
and in Acts iv. 29 = took care, the 
object being adedetv 7d Gv. p. = to re- 
move my reproach: keenly felt by a 
Jewish woman. év is understood before 
ats (Bornemann, Scholia). 

Vv. 26-38. The announcement to 
Mary.—Ver. 26. Nafapér: the original 
home of Joseph and Mary, not merely 
the adopted home as we might infer from 
Mt. ii. 23.—Ver. 27. é& otkov A.: 
Mary, Joseph, or both? Impossible to 
be sure, though the repetition of 
map8évov in next clause (instead of 
avtis) favours the reference to Joseph.— 
Ver. 28. xatpe, Kexapitwpevg: ave 
plena gratid, Vulg., on which Farrar 
(C. G. T.) comments : “ not gratia plena, 
but gratia cumulata’’; much graced or 
favoured by God.—yapuitéwis Hellenistic, 
and is found, besides here, only in Eph. i. 
6 in N. T.—é Kuptos pera cod, the 
Lord (Jehovah) ts or be with thee, éeri 
or €orw understood ; the two renderings 
come practically to the same thing.— 
Ver. 29. Sierapdx8n: assuming that 
wSotea (T.R.) is no part of the true 
text, Godet thinks that Mary saw nething, 


464 KATA AOYKAN i, 
edoynpern od ev yuvargiv.”! 29. ‘H 8é iBolca SrerapdxOy emi 
TO Adyw adtod,? Kai SredoyiLero moramds etn 6 domagpds obtos. 
30. Kal elwev 6 dyyedos adth, “Mi oho, Mapidp: etpes yap 
31. Kal iSov, oukdnWy ev yaotpl, kal réE&y 
32. obTds Ector péyas, 


Xdpw tapd TO Ged. 
vidvy, Kal Kahécets Td Svopa adtod “Incodv. 
kat vids biotou KAnOyjcetars Kal Sdce atta Kupios 6 eds Tov 
Opdvov AaBid rod watpds adtod, 33. Kat Bacidedoer emi Tov olkov 
> ‘ > IA ‘ ~ ’ 2 A > ™ ? 
lak®B eis Tos aidvas, Kat THs Baoidelas ato’ odK Eotat Tédos. 
34. Elwe 8€ Mapidp mpds tov dyyehov, “Mas E€orat TodTo, érrei 
Gyyedos elev ath, 


c 


GvSpa od ywookw;” 35. Kat dioxpibeis 6 
“Tyvedpa “Aytov éwededoetat él o€, kal Sdvapts ipiotou émoxidoe 


1 evdoynp. « . . yuvatéw comes from ver. 42; wanting in NBL. 


2 For ovga... 


and that it was only the word of the 
angel that disturbed her. It is certainly 
the latter that is specified as the cause 
of trouble. The salutation troubled 
her because she felt that it meant some- 
thing important, the precise nature of 
which (woramds) did not appear. And 
yet on the principle that in supernatural 
experiences the subjective and the ob- 
jective correspond, she must have had a 
guess.—Ver. 31. ‘“Ingotv: no interpre- 
tation of the name here as in Mt. i. 21; 
a common Jewish name, not necessarily 
implying Messianic functions. There 
may have been ordinary family reasons 
for its use.—Ver. 32 foreshadows the 
future of the child.—p¢yas, applied also 
to John, ver. 15.—kAnSyoerat, shall be 
called = shall be.—rév O@pévov A. 1. 
matpos a.: the Messiah is here con- 
ceived in the spirit of Jewish expectation: 
a son of David, and destined to restore 
his kingdom.—Ver. 34 : Mary’s per- 
plexity, how a mother and yet a virgin! 
J. Weiss points out that this perplexity 
on the part of a betrothed woman is 
surprising. Why not assume, as a 
matter of course, that the announce- 
ment had reference to a child to be born 
as the fruit of marriage with the man to 
whom she was betrothed? ‘ These 
words betray the standpoint of Lk., who 
knows what is coming (ver. 35).” J. 
Weiss in Meyer.—Ver. 35. [Mvetpa 
Aytov: without the article because a 
proper name =the well-known Holy 
Spirit, say some (Meyer, Farrar), but 
more probably because the purpose is 
not to indicate the person by whom, 
etc., but the kind of influence: spirit as 
opposed to flesh, holy in the sense of 


avtov NBEDL have emt. A. SterapayxOny (Tisch., W.H.). 


separation from all fleshly defilement 
(Hofmann, J. Weiss, Hahn).—dvvapis 
ublerov: the power of the Most High, 
also without article, an equivalent for 
aw. &., and more definite indication of the 
cause, the power of God. Note the use 
of tWueros as the name of God in ver. 
32, here, and in ver, 76.  Feine 
(Vorkanonische Uberlieferung des Lukas, 
p- 17) includes 6 tyoros, 6 Suvards 
(i. 49), 6 Seomdrns (ii. 29), 6 KUptos (i. 
6, 9, 11, etc.), all designations of God, 
among the instances of a Hebraistic 
vocabulary characteristic of chaps. i. 
and ii. The first epithet recurs in vi. 
35 in the expression “sons of the 
Highest.” applied to those who live 
heroically, where Mt. has “ children of 
your Father in heaven ”.—émedevoerat, 
émirkiaget: two synonyms delicately 
selected to express the divine substitute 
for sexual intercourse. Observe the 
parallelism here: “sign of the exaltation 
of feeling. The language becomes a 
chant,” Godet. Some find poetry 
throughout these two first chapters of 
Lk. ‘These songs. . . doubtless re- 
present reflection upon these events by 
Christian poets, who put in the mouths 
of the angels, the mothers and the 
fathers, the poems which they com- 
posed” (Briggs, The Messiah of the 
Gospels, p. 42. Even the address of 
Gabriel to Zechariah in the temple, 
i. 13-17, is, he thinks, such a poem).— 
Td yevvapevov aytov, the holy thing— 
holy product of a holy agency—which is 
being, or about to be, generated = the 
embryo, therefore appropriately neuter. 
—wids Geod, Son of God; not merely 
because holy, but because brought into, 








29—41. 


gor? 8d Kal TS yevvwpevov Gyroy KAnOyceTar Yids Oeod. 


EYATTEAION 


465 
36. Kat 


iSou, "EXtodBer H ouyyeris! cou, Kal adth ouverAnpuia® vidv év 
yipa® adris: Kal odtos phy extos éorty adrh TH Kadoupéry 
oteipa: 37. Ste odk dduvatyce: wapd TO OcG* way fyjpa.” 
38. Etre S€ Mapidp, “7180,  SovXn Kuptou- yévowtd por Kata 


TO ppd cou.” 


Kal dmad@ev dm abtis 6 dyyedos. 


39. Avactaca S€ Maptap ev tats tpepats Tadtats émopevOn eis 
Thy dpeuviy peta otroudis, eis wok *lovSa, 40. kal eionADey eis Toy 


° 
olxoy Zaxaptou, kal jowdcato Thy ‘EdiodBer. 


qkoucey  EdtodBet tov domracpov 


41. Kal éyéveto @s 
Tis Mapias,® éoxiptnce Td 


Bpéhos ev tH Kowdla adtys: Kal émdyoOn Mvedpatos “Aylou i 


1 gvyyevis in K8BDLA al. (Tisch., W.H.). 


3 ynpet in all uncials. 
5 tov aom. THS M. 7 EX. in SBCDLE 


being by the power of the Highest.— 
Ver. 36. kxat iSov, introducing a re- 
ference to Elizabeth’s case to help 
Mary’s faith.—ovyyevis, late form for 
ovyyevys (T.R.), a blood relation, but 
of what degree not indicated, suggesting 
that Mary perhaps belonged to the tribe 
of Levi.—ynpev: Ionic form of dative for 
yipa (T.R.). Hellenistic Greek was an 
eclectic language, drawing from all 
dialects as from the poets, turning their 
poetic expressions to the uses of prose.— 
kadoupévy: Elizabeth is described as 
one who is still being called barren, 
though six months gone in pregnancy, 
because people have had no means of 
knowing her state.—Ver. 37. advva- 
tyoev: the verb means, in classic Greek, 
to be weak, of persons. In Sept. and 
N. T. (here andin Mt. xvii. 20) it means to 
be impossible, of things. Commentators 
differ as to whether we should render: no 
word of God shall be weak, inoperative, 
or no thing, with, on the part of, God, 


shall be impossible.—fyjpa = "7 may 
Pit Lt 


be rendered either word or thing. The 
reading mapa Tov 0e00 (BDL) seems to de- 
mand the former of the two translations. 
Field, Otium Nor., discusses this passage. 
Adopting the above reading, and adhering 
to the sense of advvar. in reference to 
things, he translates: ‘for from God no 
word (or no thing) shall be impossible ”’. 

Some recent critics find in this sec- 
tion two different views of the birth 
of Jesus, one implying natural pater- 
nity, the other supernatural causality, 
the former being the view in the 
original document, the other introduced 


2 cuverdndey in NBLE (W.H.). 
4 rou Geov in NBDLE. 


and some cursives. 


by the evangelist, the former Fewish 
in its tendency of thought, the latter 
heathen-Christian. The subject is dis- 
cussed by Hillmann in ¥ahrb. sir prot. 
Theol., 1891, and Usener, Religions- 
geschictliche Untersuchungen, 1888. J. 
Weiss, in his ed. of Meyer, p. 303, 
note, seems inclined to favour this view, 
and to see in vv. 31-33 the one version, 
and in vv. 34, 35 the other, due to Lk. 
Against this view vide Feine, Vork. 


Oberlief. 
Vv. 39-45. Mary visits Elizabeth.— 
Ver. 39. év T. %. TavrTats in these (not 


those = éxe(vats, A. V.) days = at the 
time of the angelic visit.— peta orovdijs : 
no time lost, a most natural visit from 
one woman with a high hope, to another, 
a friend, in a similar state of mind.— 
els THY Spey (xepav, again ver. 65): 
into the hill country, referring to the 
southern hill country of Judah, Ben- 
jamin and Ephraim. Galilee had a hill 
country too. The expression has been 
supposed to point to the origin of Lk.’s 
document in Judaea (Hillmann).—els 
aédw *lov8a, to a city of Judah, not 
particularly named. Reland (Palaestina) 
conjectures that we should read ¥xtta, 
the name of a priestly city mentioned 
twice in Joshua (xv. 55, xxi. 16).—Ver. 
41. éoxiptyoe: commentators discuss 
the connection between the maternal 
excitement and the quickening of the 
child—which was cause and which effect. 
Let this and all other questions in re- 
ference to the movement denoted be 
passed over in respectful silence.—Ver. 
42. avehwovycev: hereonlyin N.T. The 
verb, with the following words, xpavyj 


30 


466 KATA AOYKAN L, 
'EhiodBer, 42. nal dvepdvyce puvi ! peyddy, kal elev, “ Eddoyn- 
perm od ev yuvarti, Kal eddoynpévos 6 Kapmds Tis KotAias cou. 
43. Kal 1wé0ev por todo, iva EXOn  prTyp Tod Kuplou pou mpds 
we?; 44. i800 ydp, ds eyévero } wrt Tod domacpod aou eis TA 
Grd pou, éoxiptncey év dyahdidoet 7d Bpépos ev tH Kothia prou. 

g of, Heb. 45. Kal pakapia i) moredcaca, St. Eotat * rehelwors Tos hehadn- 
pévois adTH tapa Kupiou.” 

hg use in 46. Kai ele Mapidp, “™Meyadiver 7 uxt) pou tov Kuptoy, 

5 47- kal hyahNioce TO mvedpd pou eri TH GeO TO owrijpl pou: 


48. Sr. éréBrepev emt thy tateivwow Tis BSovAns adtod. 


yap, dd tod viv paxaprodct 


180d 


pe Theat at yeveat> 49. Ste éroinad 


por peyadeta® 6 Suvatds, kal Gytov 7d dvopa adTod 50. Kat Td 


“eos abtod eis yeveds yevedv* Tois poBoupevors adtov. 


51. érrol- 


y€ kpdtos év Bpaxton adtod: Suecxdpmicey Swepnpdvous Stavoia 


, 9 in 
Kapdias adTay. 
Tamevous. 


! «pavyy in BL= (Tisch., W.H.). 
5 weyada in BDL (Tisch., W.H.). 


52. kaBethe Suvdotas amd Opdvav, kai dpwoe 
53- WewGrras évérhncev dyabav, Kat mAoutodvtas 


? eve in NB. 


peyadera (CAE al.) occurs in Acts ii. 11. 


‘ es yeveas kat yeveas in BCLE (Tisch., W.H.). 


peyady, point to an unrestrained utter- 
ance under the influence of irrepressible 
feeling, thoroughly true to feminine 
nature: ‘blessed thou among women (a 
Hebrew superlative), and blessed the 
fruit of thy womb,’’ poetic parallelism 
again, answering to the exalted state of 
feeling. The reference to the Holy 
Spirit (in ver. 41) implies that Elizabeth 
spoke by prophetic inspiration.—Ver. 43. 
tva €\@q: subjunctive instead of infin. 
with art., the beginning of a tendency, 
which ended in the substitution of va 
with the subjunctive for the infinitive in 
modern Greek.—Ver. 44. yap: implies 
that from the movement of her child 
Elizabeth inferred that the mother of 
the Lord stood before her.—Ver. 45. 
paxapla, here, as elsewhere, points to 
rare and high felicity connected with 
heroic moods and achievements.,—6rtt, 
because or that, which? great conflict of 
Opinion among commentators. The 
former sense would make ért give the 
reason for calling Mary blessed = 
blessed because the things she hopes for 
will surely come to pass. The latter 
makes Sr indicate the object of faith = 
blessed she who believes that what God 
has said will come to pass, with possible 
allusion to her own husband’s failure in 
faith. 

Vv. 46-56. Mary’s song.—peyahvver: 


magnificat, Vulg., whence the ecclesias- 
tical name for this hymn, which has 
close affinities with the song of Hanna 
in 1 Sam. ii. 1-10; variously regarded by 
critics: by some, e.g., Godet and Hahn, 
as an extemporised utterance under in- 
spiration by Mary, by-others as a rem- 
nant of old Jewish-Christian Hymnology 
(J. Weiss, etc.), by others still as a purely 
Jewish Psalm, lacking distinctively 
Christian features (Hillmann). There 
are certainly difficulties connected with 
the first view, ¢.g., the conventional 
phraseology and the presence of elements 
which do not seem to fit the special 
situation, — ux, mvedpa: synonyms in 
parallel clauses.—Ver. 48. This verse 
and the two preceding form the first of 
four strophes, into which the song natur- 
ally divides. The first strophe expresses 
simply the singer’s gladness. The 
second (vv. 49-50) states its cause. The 
third (vv. 51-53) describes in gnomic 
aorists the moral order cf the world, for 
the establishment of which God ever 
works in His holy and wise Providence, 
overturning the conventional order, 
scattering the proud, upsetting thrones, 
and exalting them of low degree, filling 
the hungry, and sending the rich away 
empty. It is this third part of the hymn 
which on first view seems least in keep- 
ing with the occasion. And yet on a 





efaréotetde Kevols. 54. avteddPeto ‘Iopaijd maidds adtod, pyyo- 
Ojvat eddous, 55. Kalas eAdAnoe Wpds Tods Tatépas Huav, TO 

” 4 
56. “Epewe de 


Mapidp odv adth aoet 1 payvas Tpeis* Kat Saéotpeper eis Tov otkor 


*ABpadp Kal Ta é attod eig Tov aidva.” 
padp Kal TO oéppate s : 


avTHs. 

57- TH Sé "EdtodBer erdyobn & xpdvos To Texely adTHy, Kal 
éyévynoev vidv: 58. Kai iKovgcav ol teptorxor Kal ot cuyyevets 
adtis, Ore éueydduve Kuptos TO EAeos adtod pet adtis, Kal ouve- 
Yatpov adtH. 59. Kat éyéveto év TH dySdn Hmepa,” AAOov weprtepetv 
TO Tawdiov: Kal éxddouv adtd emt TH dvépate Tod tatpds adtod 
Zaxapiay. 60. Kal dmoxpiWeion  pyTnp adTod elev, “ Odxi, 
AAA KANOACETAL “lwdvvys.” 
ovdels éotiy év TH ouyyeveta? cou, ds Kahetra TO dvdparte TOUTo.” 
4 


61. Kat eliroy mpds adtyy, “Ore 


62. “Evévevoy 8€ 14 watpl adrod, Td Ti dy Oho. Kadeiobar adtdy. 


467 


lws in BLE 1. 
3 ex THS ovyyevetas in NABCLAE 33. 


large view this strophe exactly describes 
the constant tendency of Christ’s in- 
fluence in the world: to turn things 
upside down, reverse judgments, and 
alter positions. The last strophe (vv. 
54, 55) sets forth the birth about to 
happen as a deed of divine grace to 
(srael.—Ver. 54. avredaBero: laid hold 
of with a view to help, as in Isaiah xli. 
SO yeACtSmxxas5 0 time vie 2. Css 
lrtkapBaverar, Heb. ii. 16.—pvyobjvar 
éhéous, Ka0os éX\addnoev: what is about 
to happen is presented as fulfilling a pro- 
mise made to the Fathers long, long 
ago, but not forgotten by God, to whom 
tooo years, so far as remembering and 
being interested in promises are con- 
cerned, are as one day.—r@ ABpaap Kal 
rt @ a. The construction is a little 
joubtful, and has been differently under- 
stood. It is perhaps simplest to take 
AB., etc., as the dative of advantage = 
:o remember mercy for the benefit of 
Abraham and his seed. The passage is 
an echo of Micah vii. 20. 

Ver. 56. Mary returns to her home.— 
fuewe: the time of Mary’s sojourn 
with her kinswoman is given as ‘*‘ about 
three months’’. This would bring her 
departure near to the time of Elizabeth’s 
confinement. Did she remain till the 
event was over? That is left doubtful. 

Vv. 57-66. Birth of ¥ohn.—Ver. 57. 
’rAneby, was fulfilled, the time for 
giving birth arrived in due course of 
nature.—Ver. 58. mepio.kot (rept, otxos), 
dwellers around, neighbours, here only in 


37H NHEpa TH oySoy in NBCDLE 33. 
* avto in NBD 33 (Tisch., W.H.). 


N.T., several times in Sept. Named first 
because nearest; some of the relatives 
would be farther away and would arrive 
later. This gathering of neighbours and 
kinsfolk (ovyyeveis) presents a “ gracious 
tableau of Israelite life,” Godet.—per' 
avtis: a Hebraism = apis airiv.— 
ovvéxatpov a., they congratulated her: 
congratulabantur ei, Vulg.; or, better, 
they rejoiced with her (ver. 14).—Ver. 
59. 7\Gov, on the eighth, the legal day, 
they came, to circumcise the child; .z., 
those who were concerned in the function 
—the person who performed the opera- 
tion, and the relatives of the family.— 
éxdhovy may be the imperfect of re- 
peated action = they took for granted by 
repeated expressions that the name was 
to be Zechariah, or the conative imper- 
fect indicating a wish which was frus- 
trated.— Ver. 60. “lwdvvys, Fohn; pre- 
sumably the mother had learned this 
from the father, by writing on a tablet 
as on the present occasion. The older 
commentators (Meyer also) supposed a 
Divine revelation.—Ver. 61. ovyye- 
velas, kinsmanship. In Lk. only in 
N. T. Cf. Acts’ vii. 3, 14.—Ver. 62. 
évévevoy (here only in N. T.): they made 
signs, which seems to imply that 
Zechariah is supposed to be deaf as well 
as dumb. Various suggestions have 
been made to evade this conclusion ; 
¢.g., that men are very apt to treat a 
dumb person as if he were also deaf 
(Bengel, De Wette, Godet); that they 
communicated by signs instead of by 


468 


KATA AOYKAN 1; 


63. kal airjoas myraxiSiov Eypawe, Méywr, “"lwdvvns gor 73 Svopa 


adtod *” Kat €Badpacav mdvres. 


64. “Aves Oy Sé 73 ordpa adtod 


Tapaxpy.a Kal } yhdooa ato’, nai éAdder eddoyav tov Ccdv. 


65. Kal éyévero éri mdvtas péBos tods mepiotkodvTas abtods* Kal 


ev Ody TH Spetvf Tis ‘loudaias Stehadetro wdévra Ta pypata TadTa - 


66 Kai €Bevto wdvres of Gxovcavtes év TH Kapdia atta&v, Aéyortes, 


, a“ 
“Ti dpa td tatSlov TodTo éora ; ” 


Kat! xeip Kupiou jv jet’ adtod. 


67. Kai Zaxapias 6 wathp adtod émjobn Mvedpatos ‘Ayiou, cal 


mpoeprteuce,? héywr, 68. “EdNoyntds Kuptos 6 Ocds Tod “lopar, 


i Ch. ii, 38.074 émeoxépato kai émoinge 'Aitpwow TH had adtod- 69. Kai 


Heb. ix. 


12. Hyetpe Kepas owrnplas Hpiv, ev TH? oikw AaBid tod ® adds abtod - 


70. (xabds ehdAnoe Sid ordparos trav dytav tov ® dn’ aidvos mpody- 


1 «as yap in NBCDL (Tisch., W.H.). 


2 expo. in NABCL 1, 33. 


Omit tw SBCDL 33: also row before warSog SSBDL; also twv after ayiwy 


NBLA 33. 


speech to spare the feelings of Elizabeth, 
whose judgment was being appealed 
from (Meyer); that a sign was all that 
was needed, Zechariah having heard all 
that was said (Bleek, J. Weiss, Hahn). 
—ré before the clause following—ri Gy 
@éXor, viewed as a substantive, is very 
appropriate in a case where the question 
was not spoken but signalled.—év 6édou: 
the optative with Gv, implies diverse 
possibilities; found in Lk.’s writings 
only in N. T.—Ver, 63.  wivaxiSiov 
(dim. from wfvag), here only in N. T.: a 
little tablet probably covered with wax, 
used like a slate; pugillarem in Vulg.— 
Aéywv is used here, Hebrew fashion = to 
the effect.—éypawe A¢ywv: hypallage pro 
ypadwv ereye (Pricaeus) = he said by 
writing.—é@avpacay: they wondered, at 
this consent of the parents in giving a 
strange name, and felt there must be 
something under it—an omen.—Ver. 64. 
orépa, yAGooa: both connected with 
dvewy Oy, though the idea of opening is 
applicable only to the former—a case of 
zeugma. ‘The return of speech a second 
marvel or rather a third: (1) a child of 
old parents; (2) the singular name; (3) 
the recovery of speech, much marked, 
and commented on among the denizens 
of the hill country of Judah (SteAadctro). 
—?éBos, not terror, but religious awe in 
presence of the supernatural—charac- 
teristic of all simple people.—Ver. 66. 
wt Gpa, etc.: what, in view of all these 
unusual circumstances, will this child 
come to? A most natural question. 
They felt sure all things portended an 
uncommon future for this child : ‘‘ omina 


principiis inesse solent ”.—xal yap, etc. : 
a reflection of the evangelist justifying 
the wistful questioning of the hill folk = 
they might well ask, for indeed the hand 
of the Lord was with him. 

Vv. 67-79. The song of Zechariah, 
called from the first word of it in the 
Vulgate the Benedictus. It is usually 
divided into five strophes, but it is more 
obviously divisible into two main parts, 
vv. 67-75, vv. 76-79. (Briggs, The 
Messiah of the Gospels, calls these 
divisions strophes, thus recognising only 
two.) Hillmann (¥ahrb. f. prot. Theol., 
1891) regards the first part as a purely 
Jewish Psalm, having no reference to 
the birth of the Baptist ; furnished with 
a preface, ver. 67, and an epilogue re- 
ferring to the Baptist as the forerunner 
of Jesus by the evangelist. J. Weiss (in 
Meyer) seems to accept this conclusion, 
only suggesting that the second part 
(vv. 76-79) might be in the source used 
by Lk., appended to the Psalm by the 
Jewish-Christian redactor. 

Ver. 67. émpodyrevaev, prophesied, 
when? At the circumcision, one naturally 
assumes. Hahn, however, connects the 
prophesying with the immediately pre- 
ceding words concerning the hand of the 
Lord being with the boy. That is, 
Zechariah prophesied when it began to 
appear that his son was to have a re- 
markable career.—Ver. 68. émeoKéwWaro, 
visited graciously (vide on Mt. xxv. 36), 
occasionally used in Sept. in the sense 
of judicial visitation (Ps. Ixxxix. 33). 
Note the use of the aorist here, which 
runs through vv. 68-75, in vv. 76-79 





63—79. 


EYALTEAION 


469 


A a , A ~ 
Tov adtod) 71. cwrnpiav ef exOpav pay, Kal ek yxetpds TmdvTov 


TOV picouvTwY Huds ° 


72. Tovjoat €Xeos peta Tay TaTépwv jLay, 


kat pynoGivar Siabykyns dyias adtod, 73. spxov dv apoce mpds 
“ABpadp tov matépa tyav, 74. Tod Sodvar Fpiv, apdBas, é« yerpds 
Tay é€xOpav jpav) puodévtas, Katpedew attG 75. év dovdryT Kal 


dikaroodvy évamuov attod mdgas Tas ‘pepas ths Luis? 
76. Kai ot,® maSiov, mpopjtns spictou KdnOjon- 
yap mpd mpoodrrou * Kupiou, éroindcat d8ods adtod- 


par. 
d TpoTropedan j Pai? and 


n Acts 
77. Tod Sodvat vii. 40. 


~ , lol fot lol lot 
yraow owrptas TO had aitod év ddécer dpaptidv atta, 78. id 
omhdyxva ehéous Oeod rudy, év ots emeokdato® Hpas dvatodh && 


Uipous, 


1 ex xetpos exPpwv in WBDL 33. 


79+ €mpavar Tots év oxdter Kat oxid Bavdrou xabypévors > 


2 wragats Tals Nepats in BL and trys Lwys omitted in SBCDL al. 
3 kat ov Se in NBCDL 33 (Tisch., W.H.). 
‘ For mpo mpoowrov $B Orig. have evwrov (W.H.). 


5 SSBL have emtoxeerar (W.H.). 


futures occur. The object of eweoxéaro 
is latent in t@ Aad (tov adv, cf. vii. 
16; ads applied to Israel as the chosen 
people, €0vos to the other nations).—Ver. 
69. Képas a. = Bactdetav, because kings 
were anointed with a horn of oil, or = 
Svvapiy, because in their horn all horned 
animals have their power (Euthy. Zig.) ; 
a thoroughly Hebrew symbol.—éy otk 
A., pointing to a descendant of David, 
who has wrought signal deliverance for 
Israel Ver. 70. aytwv: a predicate 
applied in reverence to the prophets, as 
to the apostles in Eph, ili. 5.—Ver. 71. 
gwrnpiav, in apposition with képas a., 
resuming and developing the thought 
interrupted by ver. 70, which is paren- 
thetical.—éx@pav, trav pisgovvtwy: not 
to be anxiously distinguished; poetic 
synonyms.—Ver. 72. ‘mowjoat: in effect 
epexegetical of salvation, though for- 
mally indicating the aim of the salva- 
tion.— peta 7. m., as in ver. 58, to make 
mercy with, for to show mercy to.— 
aytas, holy, applied to another of Israel’s 
sacred inheritances: the covenant.— 
Ver. 73. Spxov for Spxov, depending on 
pvnoSrvar, a case of inverse attraction, 
the noun by the relative (6v, object of 
Gpooev) instead of the relative by the 
noun. Cf. Lk. xx. 17. Examples from 
Greek authors in Bornemann, Scholia. 
—Ver. 75. s6avdtntt: the Godward, re- 
ligious aspect of conduct (Eph. iv. 24).— 
Stxatoovvy : the manward, ethical aspect. 
Vv. 76-79. From the general thanks- 
giving for Divine mercy the song turns 
to the special cause of gladness afforded 


by the birth of Fohn.—ovd, wat8{ov: this 
address supposes the Baptist to be still a 
child, and all that is said of him is a 
prophetic forecast of the future, in 
literary form.—tWicrov: once more, for 
God. In the circle which produced this 
hymn, and these early records, the 
idea of Divine transcendency charac- 
teristic of later Judaism seems to have 
prevailed.—Ver. 77. tov Sotvat, the in- 
finitive of purpose, to be connected with 
mpotopevoy in ver. 76 = John will go 
before the Lord (Jehovah), with the view 
of giving the knowledge of salvation in 
the forgiveness of sins. This is a very 
general description of John’s ministry, 
hardly differentiating it from that of 
Christ. The knowledge of salvation in 
forgiveness is salvation = Christ’s gift.— 
Ver. 78. 8d omAdyxva, etc., on account 
of, etc., indicating the fountain-head of 
salvation—the mercy of God, described 
in Hebrew phrase as the bowels of 
mercy of our God.—émoxéperar: the 
future (aorist in T.R.), though in few 
MSS. ($BL), is doubtless the true read- 
ing. In the second great strophe the 
verbs are all future, and describe what 
is to be.—avarody: happily rendered 
‘‘dayspring’’? in A. V. The reference is 
undoubtedly to a light, star, or sun, not 
to a branch from Jesse’s stem, as it 
might be so far as usage in Sept. is con- 
cerned (vide Jer. xxiii. 5, Zechar. iii. 8, 
vi. 12), for its function is émidavat, to 
appear as a light to those in darkness 
(oxétet).—oKig Oaydrov: vide on Mt. 
iv, 16, 


470 


Tod KatevOivar Tods wéSas av eis S8dv elphvys.” 


KATA AOYKAN 


I. 80. IT. 


80. Td Be 


, ” ‘ a , , # a , 
tadiov nUgave Kal éxpatatodto mvedpati’ Kal qv év Tats épypots, 


k here only €ws Hpépas “ dvadeigews adtod mpds tdv “lopani. 


in N. 
Sir. xliii. 
6. 


The Benedictus is steeped in O. T. 
language; ‘an anthology from Psalms 
and Prophets,” Holtz., H. C. 

Ver. 80. Conclusion: being a sum- 
mary statement on John’s history from 
childhood to manhood.—rvevpate: the 
growing strength of John’s spirit, the 
development of a remarkable moral in- 
dividuality, the main point in the view of 
the evangelist.—évy tais éprjpois, in the 
desert places : not far to go from his home 
to find them; visits to them frequent in 
early boyhood; constant abode when 
youth had passed into manhood; love 
of solitude grown into a passion. Meet 
foster-mother for one who is to be the 
censor of his time. Essenes not far off, 
but no indication of contact, either out- 
wardly or inwardly, with them. 

CHaPTeR II. THE BirTH AND Boy- 
HOOD OF JESUS.—Vv. I-5. Yoseph and 
Mary go up to Bethlehem. In these 
verses Luke makes a historical state- 
ment, which one might have been in- 
clined to regard as an illustration of the 
axp(Bera (i. 1), at which he aimed, as 
well as of his desire, in the spirit of 
Pauline universalism, to connect the 
birth of Jesus with the general history of 
the world. In the former respect the 
experience of the exegete is very dis- 
appointing. The passage has given rise 
to a host of questions which have been 
discussed, with bewildering conflict of 
opinion, in an extensive critical and 
apologetic literature. The difficulty is 
not so much as to the meaning of the 
evangelist’s words, but rather as to their 
truth. As, however, the apologetic 
and the exegetical interests have been 
very much mixed up in the discussions, it 
may be well at the outset to indicate 
briefly the chief objections that have 
been taken to the passage on the score 
of historicity. On the face of it, Lk.’s 
statement is that the Roman Emperor 
at the time of Christ’s birth ordered a 
universal census, that this order was 
carried out by Quirinius, governor of 
Syria, and that the execution of it was 
the occasion of Joseph and Mary going 
to Bethlehem. To this it has been 
objected :— 

1. Apart from the Gospel, history 


II. 1. EFENETO 8€ év tats tpepats exelvats, ef Oe Sdypa mapa 
Katcapos Atyotorou, dmoypdpeoGar wicay Thy oixoupevny: 2. aity 


knows nothing of a general imperial 
census in the time of Augustus. 

z. There could have been no Roman 
census in Palestine during the time of 
Herod the Great, a rex socius. 

3. Such a census at such a time could 
not have been carried out by Quirinius, 
for he was not governor in Syria then, 
nor till ten years later, when he did 
make a census which gave rise to a 
revolt under Judas of Galilee. 

4. Under a Roman census it would 
not have been necessary for Joseph to 
go to Bethlehem, or for Mary to accom- 
pany him.—With these objections in 
our view we proceed with the exposi- 
tion, noting their influence, as we go 
along, on the details of interpretation. 

Ver. 1. év Taig qpépats éxelvais: the 
days of Herod (i. 5), and of the events 
related in the previous chapter: the 
birth of John, etc.—8déypa (Soxéw) = 
SeSo0ypévoyv, an opinion as of philosophers ; 
here a decree, as in Acts xvii. 7.—atroypa- 
geoGar (here and in Heb. xii. 23): the 
decree concerned exroiment or registra- 
tion of the population (the verb might 
be either middle or passive—enrol itself, 
or be enrolled; the latter the more 
probable). For what purpose—taxation, 
or general statistical objects—not indi- 
cated, and not to be taken for granted as 
in the rendering ‘“‘taxed” in A. V., but 
the former most probably intended. The 
hypothesis that the registration had 
reference to statistics meets objec- 
tions 1 and 2, because Augustus did 
make or complete a descriptio orbis of 
that sort, and such a census would give 
no offence to the Jews or their king. 
Vide Hahn, ad loc. The Greek word for 
taxing is dwotipnots.—rdoay ri olxov- 
pévyv: the whole habitable world, orbis 
terrarum =the Roman empire, not 
merely the provinces (Italy excluded), or 
Palestine, as has been suggested in an 
apologetic interest to get rid of the diffi- 
culties connected with a universal cen- 
sus. The usual meaning of the phrase, 
and the reference to Augustus as the 
source of the order, favour the larger 


sense. Augustus reigned from 30 B.c. 
to 14 A.D. 
Ver. 2. _ This verse looks like a paren- 





I—5. 


EYAITEAION 


471 


11 &roypadh) mpdty eyeveto? ijyepovedoytos Tis Lupias Kupyviou. 
3. kat émopetovto mdvtes amoypddeoOat, Exagtos cis tiv idiav® 


TOU. 


4. “AvéBry B€ wal “Iwonp amd ths TodtAalas, ex médews 


NaLapér, eis tiv “loudaiay, eis wékw AaBid, Hrs KadetTar BynOdcdep, 
Sid TS €tvor adtov e& olkou Kai watpids AaBid, 5. dmoypdwacbat 


civ Mapidp TH peprynoteupevyn * abt yuvarxi,® 


=f 2 , 
ouoy eyKuo. 


1 y omitted in BD 131; found in CLA (om. Tisch., W.H.). 


2 eyev. before mpwtn in SYD Orig. lat. (Tisch.). 


difficulty, thinks J. Weiss. 
3 eavrov in NCBDLE= (Tisch., W.H.). 


An exegetical device to meet a 


‘As in T.R. ABCLA (W.H.). 


4 euynot. in SBCDLE. 


5 Omit yuvarxt SBCDLE 1, 131 (Tisch., W.H.). 


thetical explanation, and is actually 
bracketed in W.H. One could almost 
wish it had been omitted, or that there 
were reason to believe, as has been 
suggested by several writers, that it is a 
gloss that has found its way into the 
text, and that Lk. is not responsible for 
it—so much trouble has it given to com- 
mentators. Text and sense have alike 
been disputed.—avry has been taken as 
airy = self, not atrn = tila, the same, 
to make room for a distinction between 
the decree and its execution or com- 
pletion ten years after by Quirinius, so 
meeting difficulty No. 3. This device is 
now generally discarded. mpéty has 
been taken as = mporépa, meaning : this 
census took place before Quirinius was 
governor, a possible but very improbable 
rendering, not to say that one fails to 
see the object of such a statement. The 
true text is atrn droy. wpeTy éyév., and 
the meaning: that census took place, as 
a first, when, etc. But why as a first ? 
Because, reply many, there was a second, 
under the same Quirinius, ten years 
later, known to Lk. (Acts v. 37), 
disastrous in its consequence, and which 
he was anxious his readers should not 
confound with this one (so Hahn and 
others).—nyepovevovros: this raises a 
question of fact. Was Quirinius 
governor then? He was, admittediy, 
governor of Syria ten years later, when 
he made the census referred to in Acts 
v. 37. Either there is a mistake here, or 
Quirinius was governor twice (so A. W. 
Zumpt, strenuously supported by Farrar, 
C.G. T., ad loc.), or at least present in 
Syria, at the time of Christ’s birth, in 
some capacity, say as a commissioner 
in connection with the census. 

Ver. 3. wévres: not all throughout 
the world, but all in Palestine—the execu- 
tion of the decree there being what the 


evangelist is interested in.—els rhv lSlav 
aot (or €avtot m., W.H.). Does this 
mean to the city of his people, or to the 
city of his abode? Ifthe former, what 
a stir in Palestine, or in the world if 
advtes be taken widely! A regular 
“Volkerwanderung” (Holtzmann in 
H.C.). Sensible of this, some (Hahn, 
e.g.) take the reference to be to the 
place of residence (Wohnort not Stamm- 
ort), implying that Bethlehem was for 
Lk. as for Mt. Joseph’s home, and that 
they merely happened to have been 
living in Nazareth just before. But ver. 
7 implies that Joseph and Mary had no 
house in Bethlehem. Feine quotes, 
with a certain amount of approval, the 
view of Schneller (Kennst du das Land) 
that Joseph was not a carpenter but a 
mason, and that Bethlehem was there- 
fore his natural home, being the head- 
quarters of that craft then as now. On 
this view, Joseph had simply been in 
Nazareth building a house, not at home, 
but away from home for a time as an 
artisan. 

Vv. 4, 5. Joseph and Mary and 
Nazareth are here referred to, as if they 
had not been mentioned before (i. 26, 27), 
implying that Lk. is here using an inde- 
pendent document (Holtz., H. C.).—ae 
v7. Tak., ék woX.: used with classical accur- 
acy: @wo=direction from, é« from within 
(C. G. T.).—é& oikov xai marpids, ‘‘ of 
the house and family,” R. V.—olk«os, 
warpial, mvAai represent a series of 
widening circles.—amoypdwao@ar, to be 
enrolled. If Bethlehem was Joseph’s 
home, he would have gone to Bethlehem 
sooner or later in any case. Because of 
the census he went just then (Hahn).— 
civ Mapiapnz, coming after droyparp., 
naturally suggests that she had to be 
enrolled too. Was this necessary ? Even 
if not, reasons might be suggested for 


472 KATA AOYKAN Il. 
6. “Eyévero 8€ a TO elvar adrods exei, ewhjoOnoay ai tyépar 
Tod Tekeiv adtyy. Jeo Kal Erexe Tov uldv adtis Tov mpwrdroKor, 
Kal éorrapydvwoey abrév, cal dvékdwev adrov év tH! pdrvy: Sidr 
odk Hv adrois témos év TH KaTahdpatt. 

8. Kat mouéves joav ev tH xdpa tH atti dypavdodvres Kal 
guddocovtes pudakds THs vuKTos emt Thy Toluvyy adTov. 9g. Kat 
iSou,” dyyedos Kupiou éréotn adtots, kal 8dfa Kupiou wepiéhappev 
attodss Kal époByOnoay pdBov péyay. To Kal elev adtois 6 
Gyyedos, “Mi goPetcbe- i80d ydp, edayyedifopar tuiv yapay 
peyddyy, Hts €oTa. waytl TH haG@* IX. Gti eréxOy Syiv ojpepor 
gump, Ss éot. Xpiotds Kuptos, év moder AaBid. 12. Kat rodro 
ipiv 768 onpetov: etipyoete Bpépos éotrapyavwpévov, Keipevov éy 
TH* pdtvy.” 13. Kat éfaidvns éyévero obv TO dyyéhw WAHMs 


1 Omit 7m NABDLE, 


2 SSBLE omit tdov. 


2 ro is omitted in BE 130 (W.H. relegate to margin). 


4 For keupevov ev ty batvy WD 68 read simply ev datvy (Tisch.). 
Most MSS. omit ry before dar. 


have kat keypevov (W.H.). 


her going with her husband: her con- 
dition, the intention to settle there as 
their real home, she an heiress, etc.— 
tyxv@ (here only in N. T.), preparing for 
what follows. 

With reference to the foregoing state- 
ment, it is generally agreed that a census 
of some kind must have taken place. 
Meyer and Weiss, following Schleier- 
macher and Olshausen, think that the 
event was something internal to Judaea, 
and concerned the revision of family 
genealogical registers, and that Lk. was 
misled into transforming this petty 
transaction into an affair of world- 
historical significance. This is not satis- 
factory. It would be much more satis- 
factory if it could be shown that Lk.’s 
historic framing of the birth of Jesus is 
strictly accurate. But most satisfactory 
of all is it to know that such a demon- 
stration, however desirable, is not vital 
to faith. i 

Vv. 6,7. The birth—émdyoOncav al 
j-, asin i. 57. In this case, as in that 
of John, the natural course was run,— 
éorrapyavwoev (here and ver. 12), avé«- 
Awev: the narrative runs as if Mary did 
these things herself, whence the patristic 
inference of painless birth.—dgartvp, in 
a manger (in a stall, Grotius, et al.).— 
catahvpart, in the inn, not probably a 
mavdoyetov (x. 34), with a host, but 
simply a khan, an enclosure with open 
recesses. The meaning may be, not 
that there was absolutely no room for 
Joseph and Mary there, but that the 


BLE 1, 33 al. 


place was too crowded for a birth, and 
that therefore they retired to a stall or 
cave, where there was room for the 
mother, and a crib for the babe (vide 
ch. xxii. rr). 

Vv. 8-13. The shepherds and the 
angels.—Ver. 8. mwo.séves, shepherds, 
without article ; no connection between 
them and the birthplace.—daypavAotvres 
(&ypés, avd, here only), bivouacking, 
passing the night in the open air; imply- 
ing naturally a mild time of the year 
between March and November. In 
winter the flocks were in fold.—Ver. 9. 
éréoty, used elsewhere by Lk. in re- 
ference to angelic appearances, eighteen 
times in his writings in all = stood 
beside ; one more than their number, 
suddenly.—weptéAapwev: here and in 
Acts xxvi. 13, only, in N. T. = shone 
around.—égoByoncay, they feared 
greatly; yet they were not utterly un- 
prepared, their thoughts had been of a 
Divine gracious visitation—waiting for 
the consolation of Israel ; subjective and 
objective corresponding. — Ver. 10. 
evayyedLopas, etc., I bring good news 
in the form of a great joy (cf. i. 19).— 
Travtt T@ Aag, not merely to you, but to 
the whole people (of Israel, vide i. 68),.— 
Ver, II.—owrjp: a word occurring 
(with owrnpta) often in Lk. and in St. 
Paul, not often elsewhere in N. T.— 
Kuptos: also often in Lk.’s Gospel, 
where the other evangelists use Jesus. 
The angel uses the dialect of the 
apostolic age.—Ver. 12. onpetov, the 





6—18. 


EYATTEAION 


473 


cal , 
gtpatias otpaviou,! aivovytwy tiv Oedv, Kal AeydvTwy, 14. “ Adéa 


ld lal ~ 
ev biiatos Ce@, Kal emt yas elpyyn- ev avOpdmog ebdoxia. 


»Z 


15. Kal éyéveto, ds dwi\ov dm aitay eis tov odpavdy ot dyyeXor, 
Kal ot GyOpwirot of mounéves? etov* mpds adAHAous, “ Acdhbapev 


37) Ews BynOdedp, kal iSwpev Td Ppa TolTo TS yeyords, 6 6 KUptos 


2 , CHASES 
EyV@pLoev TMLv. 


16. Kat 4\@ov omedcavtes, Kal dveipovy Thy Te 


Mapidp. Kai tov “lwond, Kai td Bpedos keivevoy ev TH Hdtry. 


17. iSdvtes S€ Steyvdproay > 
auTots mept Tod wadiou tTovTou. 


1 ovpavov in BD (Trg., W.H., margin), 
2The documents are divided between evSoxra and evSoxres. 


Tept Tod fAnyatos Tod AadyO€vros 
18. Kat wdvtes ot dxovcartes 


Most recent 


editors favour the latter, following ABD, vet. Lat. Vulg., Iren, lat, Orig, lat. 
W.H. place ev8ox.as in text and evdoxia in margin. 


3 NQBLE 1 omit ot avOpwrot found in ADA al. fler. 


Tisch?,y Wi. le,somen J. 


Weiss suggests that ot qwoweves is an ancient gloss which in one branch of the 
tradition crept into the text, in another displaced ou avd. 


4 eXKadovy in NB. 


sign just that which might, but for fore- 
warning, -have-been a~stumbling~ block : 
the Saviour and-Lord-lying in a crib, in 
a-cattle stall; or-cavel So Hahn, but 
Godet and Schanz take “ sign’ merely 
in the sense of means of identification. 

Ver. 14. The angels’ song.—lf we re- 
gard the announcement of the angel to 
the shepherds (vv. 10-12) as a song, 
then we may view the gloria in excelsis 
as a refrain sung by a celestial choir 
(wA780s orpatiaGs ovpavtov, ver. 13). 
With the reading evSoxfas, the refrain 
is in two lines :— 

1. ‘* Glory to God in the highest.” 

2. ‘‘And on earth peace among men, 
in whom He is well pleased.” 
eipyvn in 2 answering to 8d€a in 1; 
émt yis to év tnpiorois; avOpeois to 
@ce@. With the reading evdoxla (T.R.), 
it falls into three :— 

1. Glory to God in the highest. 

2. And on earth peace (between man 
and man). 

3- Good will (of God) among men. 
év uiiorots, in the highest places, proper 
abode of Him who is repeatedly in these 
early chapters called ‘‘the Highest’’. 
The thought in 1 echoes a sentiment in 
the Psalter of Solomon (18, 11), péyas 6 
Ocds Hpav nal evSofos év tlaerois.— 
evSoxtas is a gen. of quality, limiting av- 
8pamrorg=those men who are the objects 
of the Divine etSoxia. They may or 
may not be all men, but the intention is 
not to assert that God’s good pleasure 
rests on all. J. Weiss in Meyer says = 
Trois éxXexTots. 


5 eyvwpitoay in NBDL=, 


Vv. 15-20. The shepherds go to 
Bethlehem.—d.ébwpev 84, come! let 
us go. The force of 8}, a highly 
emotional particle (the second time we 
have met with it, vide at Mt. xiii. 23), 
can hardly be expressed in English. 
The rendering in A. V. (and R. V.), 
“Let us now go,’ based on the 
assumption that 8% has affinity with 
75n, is very tame, giving no idea of the 
mental excitement of the shepherds, and 
the demonstrative energy with which 
they communicated to each other, com- 
rade-fashion, the idea which had seized 
their minds. ‘‘ The 8% gives a pressing 
character to the invitation,’’ Godet. 
Similarly Hahn = “agedum, wobhlan, 
doch”. Cf. 8 in Acts xiii. 2. The 
Sia in 8éA8wpev suggests the idea of 
passing through the fields.—éws (con- 
junction used as a preposition) may 
imply that it was a considerable distance 
to Bethlehem (Schanz).—f7jpa, here = 
‘“‘thing”’’ rather than ‘ word”’.—Ver. 
16. owevoavres, hasting; movement 
answering to mood revealed by 84.—njyv 
ve Maprop, etc., mother, father, child, 
recognised in this order, all united 
together in one group by te. The 
position of the babe, in the manger, 
noted as corresponding to the angelic 
announcement; hence in ver. 17 the 
statement that the shepherds recognised 
the correspondence.—Vvy. 18, 19. The 
shepherds of course told what they had 
seen in Bethlehem, and how they had 
been led to go there, and these verses 
state the effect produced by their story. 


474 


KATA AOYKAN 


II. 


€Oatpacay wept tav adnOdvrwv bad Tov wownévwy mods abtous. 
19. 7 S€ Maptdp mdvta cuveryipe Ta Phpara tadta, cupPdddouca 


dv +H kapdia adrijs. 


20. Kal éméotpepay? of moiéves, So€dtovres 


kat aivodvtes Tov Oedv éwl waow ols jKovgay Kai elSov, Kaus 


€XadnOn mpds adTous. 


21. KAI Ste éwhyjoOnoav hpepar sx Tod mepitepeiv 73 woLdior,” 


kal €xd7Oy 76 dvopa adtod “Incois, 7d KAnGev bird Tod dyyéAou mpd 
rod guddAnpOyvat adtdév év TH Koudia. 
22. KAI ote émAnoOncay ai tuépar tod KaSapiopod adtay, Kata 


Tov vopov Mwodus, dvijyayor adtév eis ‘lepoodhupa, wapactiaat TH 


Kupiw, 23. KaQws yéypamrar év vow Kuplou, ‘Or mav dpcev 


a , ) A , A A 
Stavotyoy pytpay dyrov TH Kupiw KAnOyjcerac’” 24. Kat Tod Sodvac 


a here only 
in N. T. 

b here only 
in N. T. 


1 yreotpepay in all uncials, 


2 avrov in NABLAE al. (Tisch., W.H.). 


3 rw before vope in BDL. 


4 yoowous in NB; veoocovs in ADLA. 


All wondered, but Mary thought on all 
the wonderful things that had happened 
to herself and to the shepherds ; keep- 
ing them well in mind (cuveryper), and 
putting them together (cvpBaddovga, 
conferens, Vulg.), so as to see what they 
all meant. The wonder of the many 
was a transient emotion (aorist); this re- 
collecting and brooding of Mary was an 
abiding habit (ovverjpet, imperfect). 

Vv. 21-24. Circumcision and pre- 
sentation in the temple.—Ver. 21. émwhio- 
@noay, as in i. 57, ii. 6, and again in 
ii. 22; in the first two places the re- 
ference is to the course of nature, in the 
second two to the course prescribed by 
the law.—rot wepttepetv, the genitive 
not so much of purpose (Meyer, J. 
Weiss), but of more exact definition 
(Schanz; vide Burton, M. and T., § 400, 
on the use of tov with infinitive to 
limit nouns).—«al é«AyOn: the kat may 
be taken as ‘‘also”’ = He was circum- 
cised (understood), and at the same time 
His name was called Jesus, or as intro- 
ducing the apodosis: and = then (so 
Godet and Hahn). It might have been 
dispensed with (superfluit, Grotius).— 
Ver. 22. kata tov vépov M. The law 
relating to women after confinement is 
contained in Leviticus xii.—dvyyayov: 
at the close of these forty days of purifi- 
cation His parents took Jesus up to 
Jerusalem from Bethlehem. The Greek 


5 re ae | me 
uo veocoous TWEPLoTEpwy. 


Ouciay, Kata TO eipnpévov év vduw® Kupiou, ‘Zeiyos *tpuydvey 


D has to watdoy, 


form of the name for Jerusalem, ‘lepo 
oé\upa, occurs here and in a few other 
places in Lk. ‘lepovoadrp is the more 
common form.—rapacrfooa1, a word 
used by Lk. and St. Paul (Rom. xii. 1), 
in the sense of dedication. This act 
was performed in accordance with the 
legal conception that the first-born 
belonged to God, His priestly servants 
before the institution of the Levitical 
order (Num. viii. 18, 19). J. Weiss 
suggests that the narrative is modelled 
on the story of the dedication of Samuel 
(r Sam. i. 21-28).—Ver. 23. yéypawrat: 
the reference is to Ex. xiii. 2, and the 
statement implies that every first-born 
male child, as belonging to God, must 
be ransomed (Ex. xxxiv. 19, Num. xviii. 
15, 16).—Ver. 24. tod Sodvat: parallel 
to wapaorTyoa, indicating another of 
the purposes connected with the visit to 
Jerusalem. The mother went to offer 
her gift of thanksgiving after the days of 
purification were ended.—rd eipypévoy, 
in Lev. xii., where alternative offerings 
are specified: a lamb, and a turtle dove 
or a young pigeon; and in case of the 
poor two turtle doves, or two young 
pigeons, the one for a burnt offering, 
the other for a sin offering. Mary 
brought the poor woman’s offering. The 
question has been asked, why any purifi- 
cation in this case ? and the fact has been 
adduced in proof that the original docu- 





19g—30. 


25. Kat i8od, jv avOpwros) év ‘lepougahjp, @ 


ae ° , \ e@ 
KOLO avGpwiros OUTOS Stkatos KQL 


kAnow Tod “lopanh, kal Mveipa “Ayrov qv? éw adtév: 26. kal jy 


EYATTEAION 


475 


em , 
Ovopa Lupewy, 


edAaPys, mpocdexdpevos wapd-c Acts ii 5; 


Vili. 2; 
xxii. 12. 


adT® Kexpnpatiopéevoy bd tod Mvedpatos tod “Aylou, ph “idety d Heb. xis. 


*@dvaroy mpiv 7° i8y Tov Xpiotdy Kuptou. 


27. Kal qdOev ev Ta 


, > Wie sue Rh ts Ones) a ‘ “ % i 
Nvevpate €lg TO LEepOV" KaL EV TW ELOAYAYELY TOUS YOVELS TO TALOLOY 


> wn a ~ ry a > , na , A > A 
Ingoty, Tod torq{cat adtods KaTd Td EiOtopevoy Too vonoU TeEpl adTOd, 


28. kat aités éSfato aitd eis tas dyxdhas adtod, 


* kal edhoyyoe 


\ wn an 
Tov Gedy, Kat eime, 29. “Nov daodves Tov So0Ady cou, déoTroTa, 


kata TO pypd ou, év cipjyn: 30. Ste elSov of SpOahpoi pou 1d 


1 avOpwmos before ny in NB (Tisch., W.H.). 


marily rejected, J. Weiss). ; 
2 yy before aytov in WBLA ai., e. 


ny av. in ADLA (not to be sum. 


TRE =D: 


3 pw y in ADA; awpw av in BF 36 (W.H. bracket y and read wp. av); wpiv 


y ay in L 33 (Tisch.). 
*S8BL omit avrov (Tisch., W.H.). 


ment used by Lk. knew nothing of the 
virgin birth.—yowets, ver. 27, has been 
used for the same purpose (vide Hill- 
mann, F¥ahrb. f. pr. Theol., 1891). 

Vv. 25-28. Simecon.—Zupedy, intro- 
duced as a stranger (4v@pwrros Hv). The 
legendary spirit which loves definite par- 
ticulars about celebrities of Scripture 
has tried to fill up the blank. The 
father of Gamaliel the son of Hillel, 
one of the seventy translators of the 
Hebrew Bible, are among the suggestions. 
A bracketed passage in Euthy. Zig. says, 
in reference to the latter suggestion, 
that Simeon alone of the company ob- 
jected to the rendering of Isaiah vil. 14: 
“the virgin shall conceive,” and that an 
angel told him he should live to take the 
virgin’s son into his arms.—®lxavos «al 
evhkaBys. The evangelist is careful to 
make known what this man was, while 
giving no indication who he was (‘‘ who 
they were no man knows, what they 
were all men know,’’ inscription on a 
tombstone in a soldiers’ graveyard in 
Virginia), just and God-fearing, a saint 
of the O. T. type.—poobdexdpevos 
mapakAynow tT. “1.: an earnest believer 
in the Messianic hope, and fervently 
desiring its early fulfilment. Its fulfil- 
ment would be Israel’s consolation. The 
Messianic hope, the ideal of a good time 
coming, was the child of present sorrow 
—sin and misery prevalent, all things 
out of joint. The keynote of this view 
is struck in Is. xl. i, : ‘comfort ye”.— 
mwapakadetre. The Rabbis called Messiah 
the Comforter, Menahem. Cf. xpoodey. 


hutpwow in ver. 38.—Ver. 26. fv 
kexpnpatiopévoy, it had been revealed 
(for the verb vide Mt. ii. 12), how long 
before not indicated.—py iSetv: we have 
here an instance of the aorist infinitive 
referring to what is future in relation to 
the principal verb. In such a case the 
aorist is really timeless, as it can be in 
dependent moods, vide Burton, M. and 
T., § 114.—mwpiv 4 Gv (89: wplv here 
and in Acts xxv. 16 with a finite verb, 
usually with the infinitive, vide Mt. i. 
18, xxvi. 34.—Ver. 27. év T@ Nvevpare: 
observe the frequent reference to the 
Spirit in connection with Simeon, vide 
vv. 25 and 26.—elWicpévov (20ife), here 
only in N. T.: according to the estab- 
lished custom of the law.—Ver. 28. «al, 
as in ver. 21, before éxA7Gy, introducing 
the apodosis ‘‘then” in A. V. and R. V. 
—avtos, not necessarily emphatic (Keil, 
Farrar), vide i. 22. 

Vv. 29-32. Nunc dimittis.—Ver. 29. 
vuy, now, at last, of a hope long 
cherished by one who is full of years, 
and content to die.—dwoAvers, Thou re- 
leasest me, present for the future, death 
near, and welcome.—Soddov, Samora: 
slave, master ; terms appropriate at all 
times to express the relation between 
God and men, yet savouring of legal 
piety.—év elpyvy, in peace; he has had 
enough of life and its service, and the 
purpose of life has been fulfilled by the 
crowning mercy of a sight of the Christ : 
death will be as a sleep to a labouring 
man.—Ver. 30 gives the reason for this 
tranquil attitude towards death.—-ré 


476 


KATA AOYKAN 


TI; 


owty)pidy cou, 31. 8 ijToipacas Kata mpdowmoy wdvtwy TOV Kady ° 


32. 


gas eis droxdhupw €bvdv, Kai Sdfay aod cou “lopard.” 


33- Kai fv ‘lwohp Kat 4 pymp abtrod! Oaupdfovtes emt trois 


Aadoupévors epi adrod. 


34. Kal edddynoev adrods Zupedy, Kai 


e Phil. i. 16.€le mpds Maptdp thy pytépa adtod, “7IlS0u, obtos *Ketrat eis 


1 Thess. 
iii. 3. 


~ ‘ a > “ 
mT@ow Kat dvdotacw tmodhav év TO “lopanh, Kai eis onpetov 


dvtiheydpevov> 35. (kat cod 8é? adris thy puxhy Srehedoerar 


poppaia:) Smws Gy dawoxahup@dow ex wohhdv Kapdidv Sado- 


yeop.ol.” 
f Rev. il. 20. 


36. Kal fv “Avva *rpopiris, Quydrnp bavound, ex duds Aor: 


aut mpoBeBynxuta éy ipépats modAats, Lhoaca ern peta dvdpds 3 


1 For nv . 


. - Gavp. read ny o watnp avTov Kat 7 pnTnp Savp. with NBDL 1, 


131. NL retain second avrov. The substitution of lwrn® for o rarnp explains itself. 


2 $e omitted in BLE. 


TwrTiptoy = THY cwTypiay, often in Sept. 
—Ver. 31. wdvtwy trav adv: all 
peoples concerned in the salvation, at 
least as spectators.—Ver. 32. ods eis a. 
é.; the Gentiles are to be more than 
spectators, even sharers in the salvation, 
which is represented under the twofold 
aspect of a light anda glory.—dés and 
Séfav may be taken in apposition with 6 
as objects of jrotwacas: salvation pre- 
pared or provided in the form of a 
light for the Gentiles, and a glory for 
Israel. Universalism here, but not of 
the pronounced type of Lk. (Holtz., 
H. C.), rather such as is found even in 
O. T. prophets.—Ver. 33. jv: the con- 
struction is peculiar, the verb singular, 
and the participle, forming with it a 
periphrastic imperfect, plural = was the 


father, and was the mother, together 
wondering. Vide Winer, § 58, p. 


651. The writer thinks of the two 
parents first as isolated and then as 
united in their wonder.—Ver. 34. 
evAdynoev: ‘the less is blessed of the 
better”. Age, however humble, may 
bless youth. Jacob blessed Pharaoh.— 
Ketrat, is appointed—els wrdovv, etc.: 
generally, this child will influence His 
time in a decided manner, and to opposite 
effects, and with painful consequences to 
Himself; a forecast not necessarily be- 
yond prophetic ken, based on insight into 
the career of epoch-making men. It is 
so more or less always. The blessing of 
being father or mother of such a child is 
great, but not unmixed with sorrow.— 
Ver. 35. Kaicot, singles out the mother 
for a special share in the sorrow con. 
nected with the tragic career of one 


3 peta avdpos before ern in $BLA 13, 33, 69, 131. 


destined to be much spoken against 
(avrtAcydpevoy) ; this inevitable because 
of a mother’s intense love. Mary’s 
sorrow is compared vividly to a sword 
(pepdata here and in Rev. i. 16, and in 
Sept., Zech. xiii. 7) passing through her 
soul. It is a figure strong enough to 
cover the bitterest experiences of the 
Mater Dolorosa, but it does not 
necessarily imply prevision of the cross. 
There is therefore no reason, on this 
account at least, for the suggestion that 
ver. 35a is an editorial addition to his 
source by the evangelist (J. Weiss).— 
émws introduces a final clause which 
can hardly refer to the immediately pre- 
ceding statement about the sword 
piercing Mary’s soul, but must rather 
indicate the purpose and result of the 
whole future career of the child, whereof 
the mother’s sorrow is to be an inci- 
dental effect. Theconnection is: xetrat 
els wt., etc. .. . Saws Gy Gwoxadk. The 
general result, and one of the Divine 
aims, will be the revelation of men’s 
inmost thoughts, showing, e.g., that the 
reputedly godly were not really godly. 
Observe the &v in this pure final clause. 
It does not affect the meaning. Godet 
says that it indicates without doubt that 
the manifestation of hidden thoughts 
will take place every time occasion 
presents itself, in contact with the 
Saviour. 

Vv. 36-38.  Anna.—Another aged 
saint of the O. T. type comes on the 
stage speaking thankful prophetic words 
concerning the Holy Child.—Ver. 36. 
qv : either there was there, aderat (Meyer, 
Godet, Weizsacker), or there was, there 





31—40. 


éwrd wd ris "mapbevias abris: 


SynoneaumaxcandAol, i ob apictaro amd 
Kat Senoeot *atpevouca véKTa Kal *pépay- 
TH Spa émotaca dvOwpodoyetto Th kupley kat éAdder mept adtod 
Tao. Tos Mpoddexonéevors AUTpwow ev > 


EYATTEAION 


477 


37. kal airy xipa és} érave oo 


2 TOU Eeaot yaoTetaus 


38. Kat eats GUTH b Acts xxvi. 

7: Het. 
1x. 9; x.2 
- (absol.). 


‘lepoucadyp. 39. Kal ds 


érékecav Gmavta T° kata tov vouov Kuplou, tméotpepay” eis thy 


FadtNatay, eis thy wodw adtav® NafLapér. 
nugave, Kat éxpatarodto mredpatt,® wAnpovpevoy aodias !” 


xdpis Gcod Hy ew atts. 


l ews in NABLE 33. 


3 SABDLE 33 al. omit this aurn (Tisch., W.H.). 


40. Td 8€ trardiov 


‘ 
KQaL 


2 BDL omit azo (Tisch., W.H.). 


4 Gew in NBDLE. 


5 $SBE minusc. omit ev (Tisch., W.H.) found in DLA al. 
6 savra and without re in SL (Tisch.); wavra with ta in B= (W.H.); awavra 


without ra in D. 
7 eweorpeway in B=. 


8 For ets tT. w. avtwv SBD have es w. cavTwy. 


T.R.=NDA (Tisch.). 


% gogia in BL 33 (W.H.). 


lived (De Wette, J. Weiss, Schanz, 
Hahn). my, rt Sam. i. 


(Avvain Sept.) = grace. Of this woman 
some particulars are given, e.g., her 
father and her tribe, which makes the 
absence of such details in Simeon’s case 
more noteworthy. The two placed side 
by side give an aspect of historicity to 
the narrative.—atry (or avr}, the sense 
much the same) introduces some further 
details in a loosely constructed sentence, 
which looks like biographic notes, with 
verbs left out = she advanced in years, 
having lived with a husband, seven years 
from virginity, the same a widow till 
eighty-four years—all which may be 
regarded, if we will, as a parenthesis, 
followed by a relative clause contain- 
ing a statement of more importance, 
describing her way of life = who 
departed not from the temple, serving 
(God) by fasts and prayers, night and 
day.—Ver. 37. &ws: either a widow for 
eighty-four years (Godet), or, as most 
think, a widow till the eighty-fourth 
year of her life. The former rendering 
would make her very old: married, say, 
at sixteen, seven years a wife, eighty- 
four years a widow = 107; not im- 
possible, and borne out by the wodAais 
after nuépats (ver. 36, advanced in days 
—many).—vyorelars: the fasting might 
be due to poverty, or on system, which 
would suggest a Judaistic type of piety. 
—vuixta k. 4.: did she sleep within the 


—"Avva = 20 


umeg. conforms to the common usage in Lk. 


* SBDL omit wvevpate. 


temple precincts ?—Ver. 38. The T.R. 
has yet another auty here (the third), 
before avrg, which really seems wanted 
as nominative to the verb following, but 
which one can imagine scribes omitting 
to relieve the heaviness and monotony 
of the style.—av@wpodoyetro (here only 
in N. T.): perhaps no stress should be 
laid on the preposition avri, as the com- 
pound verb occurs in the sense of the 
simple verb in Sept. (Ps. lxxix. 13). The 
suggestion of an antiphony between 
Anna and Simeon (Godet; vicissim, 
Bengel) is tempting = began in turn to 
give thanks. The avtt may refer to 
spectators = began to praise God openly 
before all (Hahn). The subject of her 
praise of course was Jesus (wept avtov), 
and its burden that He was the Saviour. 
—éhaket points to an activity not con- 
fined to a single utterance; she spoke 
again and again on the theme to all 
receptive spirits. The omission of év 
before ‘lep. in $QB, etc., gives us a 
peculiar designation for the circle to 
whom the prophetess addressed herself= 
those waiting for the redemption of 
Ferusalem (instead of Israel in ver. 25). 
Yet Isaiah xl. 2—‘‘ speak ye comfortably 
to Jerusalem ’’—makes such a turn of 
thought intelligible. And there might 
be discerning ones who knew that there 
was no place more needing redemption 
than that holy, unholy city. 

Vv. 39, 40. Return to Nazareth.—- 
wékw éavtov, their own city, certainly 


478 


KATA AOYKAN 


Il, 


41. KAI émopevovro ot yovets abrod Kat’ Eros els ‘lepoucadtp Ti 


éopty Tod mdoxa. 


42. Kal dre éyévero érdv Sédexa, dvaBdvrwy ! 


aitay eis ‘lepoodhupa? Kata 1d 00s tis éoprijs, 43. Kat Teherw- 
odvtwy Tas Hpépas, évy TO brootpépew adrods, bwénewev “Ingoids 6 
Tats év ‘lepoucahyp: Kal obx Eyvw “lwotp Kal 7 pitnp® abdrtod. 
44. voploavtes Sé adrév év TH ouvodia eivar,* AOov Hpepas 68dv, 
kal dvelijtrouy adtdv éy tois ouyyevéo. cat év® trois yrworois: 
45. Kal ph edpdvres adrdy,® Sardotpepay eis ‘lepoucadhp, Lytodvtes™ 


atrdy. 


46. Kai éyévero pe0” tpépas tpets, eipoy abrév év TO iepa, 


xaleLénevov ev pdow tov Si8acKkddwy, Kal dkovovta atta, Kai 


' avaBatvovrwy in RABL 33 al. 


2 SBDL omit ets |., an explanatory addition. 
5 For eyve |. kat y p. NBDL 1, 33 al. have eyvwoav ot yovers. 


4 evvat before ev TH ovy. in BDL 1, 33. 


§ Omit avrov NBCDL. 


suggesting that Nazareth, not Bethlehem, 
had been the true home of Joseph and 
Mary.—Ver. 40. nvfave xal éxparat- 
ovTo, grew, and waxed strong, both in 
reference to the physical nature.—rvev- 
part in T.R. is borrowed from i. 80; a 
healthy, vigorous child, an important 
thing to note in reference to Jesus.— 
wAnpovpevoy: present participle, not = 
plenus, Vulg., full, but in course of being 
filled with wisdom—mind as well as 
body subject to the law of growth.— 
xapis: a great word of St. Paul’s, also 
more used by Lk. than by either of the 
other two synoptists (vide i. 30, iv. 22, 
vi. 32, 33, 34); here to be taken broadly 
= favour, good pleasure. The child 
Jesus dear to God, and the object of His 
paternal care. 

Vv. 41-52. When twelve years old, 
Lk. here relates one solitary, significant 
incident from the early years of Jesus, as 
if to say: from this, learn all. The one 
story shows the wish to collect anecdotes 
of those silent years. There would 
have been more had the evangelist had 
more to tell. The paucity of informa- 
tion favours the historicity of the 
tradition. Ver. 41. «at éros: law- 
observing people, piously observant of 
the annual feasts, especially that of the 
passover.—Ver. 42. érav Sd3exa: this 
mention of the age of Jesus is meant to 
suggest, though it is not directly stated, 
that this year He went up to Jerusalem 

ith His parents ; avaBatvévrTwy includes 
Him. At twelve a Jewish boy became a 
son of the law, with the responsibility of 
a man, putting on the phylacteries which 


® B 33 omit this ev (Tisch., W.H.). 
T ava. in BCDL. 


reminded of the obligation to keep the 
law (vide Winsche, Beitrdge, ad loc.).— 
Ver. 43. TeXetwodvrev +r. Hy This 
naturally means that they stayed all the 
time of the feast, seven days, This 
was not absolutely incumbent; some 
went home after the first two days, but 
such people as Joseph and Mary would 
do their duty thoroughly.—tmédpewvey, 
tarried behind, not so much intentionally 
(Hahn) as by involuntary preoccupation 
—His nature rather than His will the cause 
(Acts xvii. 14).—Ver. 44. év tT] ovvodig, 
in the company journeying together (ovv, 
686s, here only in N. T.), a journeying 
together, then those who so journey. 
A company would be made up of people 
from the same neighbourhood, well 
acquainted with one another.—jpépas 
686v, aday’s journey. It is quite con- 
ceivable how they should have gone on 
so long without missing the boy, without 
much or any blame to the parents; not 
negligence, but human infirmity at 
worst.—ovyyevéot, yvwortois: kinsfolk 
and acquaintances. Had there been less 
acquaintance and intimacy there had 
been less risk of losing the child. Friends 
take up each other’s attention, and mem- 
bers of the same family do not stick so 
close together, and the absence of one 
excites no surprise.—Ver. 45. avalnrotv- 
veg: the present participle, expressing 
the purpose of the journey back to 
Jerusalem, where (not on the road) the 
search took place (cf. Acts xi. 25). The 
ava here (as in ave{jrovv, ver. 44) im- 
plies careful, anxious search.—Ver. 46. 
npépas Tpets, three days, measured from 





41—52. 


éwepwt@vtTa adtous. 


> ~ Ca , ~ 
€mt TH ouveoe: Kal Tats dmoKpiceow atToU. 


éfendtdynoay: Kal mpds adtov  pHTHp adTod eine, 


EYATTEAION 


479 


47. e&loravto Sé mavres ot dxovovtes attod, 


48. Kal iSdvtes attov, 


, 
1 “Téevov, Tt 


5) 4 ¢ A o > Cate , CN 35 , 2 rata Leah | 
ETFOL]TAS NBLY OUTS ; idou, 0 TATHP TOU KAYwW COUVWLLEVOL elntoupev 


2» 
o€. 


@ > - a r oem. Sad 2 
OTL €¥ TOLS TOU TaTPOS pou Set ewar pe; 


cuvijkay TO pypa & eXddAnoev adTots. 


kat 7hGev eis Nalapér kat Hy brotagcdpevos adTots. 
auto Sveryiper Tdvra Ta pyjpata Ttaita 


52. Kat “Inaois ' 


GeO Kat dvOpdrois. 


1 eewev before mpos avrov in BCDL. 
2 B has Cnroupev (W.H.). 


, A 
49. Kai etme mpds adrous, “Ti St. eLnrette pe ; 


s 4 A. Le s ‘ \ 
Tpo€komte godia* Kat HAucia, Kal xdpiT. rapa 


> om 
ovK ndecte 
50. Kat adtot od 
51. Kat xateBy pet attay, 
Ae , 
apne 
8 > ~ St ZT ~ 
év TH Kapdta adris. 
i Rom. xiii 
12. Gal. i 


14. 2 Tim. 
ii. 16; iii.9 


5 SBD omit tavta (Tisch., W.H.). 


‘ev ty o. in NL (Tisch.) ; ty without ev in B (W.H.). 


the time they had last seen Him, not 
implying three days’ search in Jerusalem. 
The place where they had lodged and the 
temple would be among the first places 
visited in the search.—év t@ iep@: pro- 
bably in a chamber in the temple court 
used for teaching and kindred purposes. 
Some think it was in a synagogue 
beside the temple.— Ver. 46. naOe{opevov, 
sitting ; therefore, it has infer Ss 
a teachér, not as a scholar, among (év 
péow) the doctors, for scholars stood, 
teachers only sitting. An unwelcome 
conclusion, to which, happily, we are not 
shut up by the evidence, the posture- 
rule on which it rests being more than 
doubtful (vide Vitringa, Synag., p. 167). 
—érepwtovTa: nothing unusual, and 
nothing unbecoming a fongadal boy.— 
Ver. 47. 
at His position among the doctors, or at 
His asking questions, but at the intelli- 
gence (avvéoet) Shown in His answers to 
the questions of the teachers; some- 
thing of the rare insight and felicity 
which astonished all in after years 
appearing in these boyish replies.—Ver. 
48. t&dvres refers to the parents. This 
astonishment points to some contrast 
between a previous quiet, reserved manner 
of Jesus and His present bearing ; sudden 
flashing out of the inner life.—j pyrnp: 
the mother spoke, naturally ; a woman, 
and the mother’s heart more keenly 
touched. This apart from the peculiar 
relation referred to in Bengel’s major 
evat necessitudo matris.—Ver. 49. éy 
Tots Tov watpds pov, in-the things of 
my Father (‘about my Father’s busi- 
ness,’ A. V.); therefore in the place or 


éticravro, were amazed, not Kat jAtklq, in wisdom and 


house of my Father (R. V.); the former 
may be the verbal translation, but the 
latter is the real meaning Jesus wished 
to suggest. In this latter rendering 
patristic and modern interpreters in the 
main concur. Note the new name for 
God compared with the ‘“ Highest ” and 
the “ Despotes” in the foregoing narra- 


— . 
tive. e dawn of a new era is here.— 
Ver. 50. ov ovvikay, they did not 


understand ; no wonder! Even we do 
not yet fully understand.—Ver. 51. 
xatéBn, He went down with them, gentle, 


affectionate, habitually obedient (trortac- 
~oépevos), yet far away in thought, and 


solitary.—8.eryjper: she did not forget, 
though she did not understand.—Ver. 
52. @mpotkorre, steadily grew, used in- 
transitively in later Greek.—év rq codiq 


also as, the 
one the measure of the other) in stature, 
wths alike real. eal in y> 


“apparent in the mind: growth in mani- 


festation of the wisdom within, complete 
from the first—such is the docetic gloss 
ot ecclesiastical interpreters, making the 
childhood of Jesus a monstrum, and His 
humanity a phantom.—yapite w. O. wal 
&., in favour with God and men: beloved 
of all; no division even among men while 
the new wisdom and the new religion 
lay a slumbering germ in the soul of the 
heaven-born boy. 

CHAPTER III. Tue Ministry oF 
THE New ERA Opens. Having related 
the beginnings of the lives of the two 
prophets of the new time (chapters i. 
and ii.), the evangelist now introduces 
us to the beginnings of their prophetic 
ministries, or rather to the ministry ot 


480 


a here only 


KATA AOYKAN 


Ii, 


III. 1. “EN Ever S€ wevrexatdexdrw ris “iHyepovias TiPepiou 


bee Tost , b , ‘ , a > , ‘ 
bCh.ii.2. Katoapos, °yemovedovros Moytiou Middrou tis ‘lovdalas, Kai 


tetpapxouvtos! ris Fadthatas “HpwSou, Pidiamou $é tod ddedou 


aitod tetpapxodvtos Tis “Iroupaias Kal Tpaxwritidos xwpas, Kai 


1 The spelling of this word varies in MSS. B has it asin T.R. WC rerpaap- 
xourtos (fev), which Tisch. and W.H. adopt. 


John as the prelude to the evangelic 
drama. In regard to the ministry of 
Jesus he gives us merely the date of its 
beginning (iii. 23), attaching thereto a 
genealogy of Jesus. Bengel has well 
expressed the significance of this chapter 
by the words: Hic quasi scena N. T. 
panditur. 

Vv. 1-2. General historic setting of 
the beginnings. For Mt.’s vague “in 
those days” (iii. 1), which leaves us 
entirely in the dark at what date and age 
Jesus entered on His prophetic career, 
Lk. gives a group of dates connecting 
his theme with the general history of the 
world and of Palestine ; the universalistic 
spirit here, as in ii. I, 2, apparent. This 
spirit constitutes the permanent ethical 
interest of what may seem otherwise dry 
details: for ordinary readers of the 
Gospel little more than a collection of 
names, personal and_ geographical. 
Worthy of note also, as against those 
who think Lk. was toa large extent a 
free inventor, is the indication here 
given of the historical spirit, the desire 
to know the real facts (i. 3). The his- 
toric data, six in all, define the date of 
John’s ministry with reference to the 
reigning Roman emperor, and the civil 
and ecclesiastical rulers of Palestine. 

Ver.x. éy Gre, etc., in the fifteenth 
year of the reign of Tiberius as Caesar. 
This seems a very definite date, render- 
ing all the other particulars, so far as 
fixing time is concerned, comparatively 
superfluous. But uncertainty comes in 
in connection with the question: is the 
fifteenth year to be reckoned from the 
death of Augustus (19 Aug., 767 A.U.c.), 
when Tiberius became sole emperor, or 
from the beginning of the regency of 
Tiberius, two years earlier? The former 
mode of calculation would give us 28 or 
29 A.D. as the date of John’s ministry 
and Christ’s baptism, making Jesus then 
thirty-two years old; the latter, 26 
A.D., Making Jesus then thirty years 
old, agreeing with iii. 23. The former 
mode of dating would be more in 
accordance with the practice of Roman 
historians and Josephus; the latter lends 


itself to apologetic and harmonistic in- 
terests, and therefore is preferred by 
many (¢.g., Farrar and Hahn).—Novriov 
MiAarov. Pilate was governor of the 
Roman province of Judaea from 26 a.p. 
to 36 a.D., the fifth in the series of 
governors. His proper title was éqt- 
tpotros (hence the reading of D: émirpo- 
qevovTos 7. 7.) ; usually Hyepnav in Gos- 
pels. He owes his place here in the historic 
framework to the part he played in the last 
scenes of our Lord’s life. Along with him 
are named next two joint rulers of other 
parts of Palestine, belonging to the 
Herod family ; brought in, though of no 
great importance for dating purposes, 
because they, too, figure occasionally in 
the Gospel story.—rerpapyotvtos, act- 
ing as tetrarche The verb means 
primarily: ruling over a fourth part, 
then by an easy transition acting as a 
tributary prince.—ladtAalas: about 
twenty-five miles long and broad, divided 
into lower (southern) Galilee and upper 
(northern). With Galilee was joined 
for purposes of government Peraea.— 
‘Hpwdov, Herod Antipas, murderer of 
the Baptist, and having secular authority 
over Jesus as his subject.—¢.Ximrov, 
Herod Philip, brother of Antipas, whose 
name reappears in the new name of 
Paneas, rebuilt or adorned by him, 
Caesarea Philippi—rfjs ‘Irovpatas Kal 
Tpaxwviridos xwpas: so Lk. designates 
the territory ruled over by Philip. The 
words might be rendered: the Ituraean 
and Trachonitic territory, implying the 
identity of Ituraea and Trachonitis (as 
in Eusebius. For a defence of this view, 
vide article by Professor Ramsay in 
Expositor, February, 1894); or, as in 
A. V., of Ituraea and of the region of 
Trachonitis. The former was a moun- 
tainous region to the south of Mount 
Hermon, inhabited by a hardy race, 
skilled in the use of the bow; the latter 
(the rough country) = the modern EI- 
Lejah, the kingdom of Og in ancient 
times, was a basaltic region south of 
Damascus, and east of Golan. It is pro- 
bable that only a fragment of Ituraea 
belonged to Philip, the region around 








I-—4, EYAL 


LAION 481 


Aucaviou tis “ABuAnviis tetpapxodvtos, 2. ém dpxiepéwy ! "Avva Kat 


Kaidha, éyévero pia Geod emi ‘lwdvyny tov tod? Zayxapiou uidy év 


TH epypw: 3. Kal AOev eis macav thy ® aepixwpov Tod ‘lopSdvou, 


knpicowy Bdnticpa petavotas els Gheow Guaptiay: 4. ds yéypamTat 


év BiBXw Adywv “Hoatou tod woodyHtou, Aéyovtos,* ‘avi Boadvtos 
cy SY pooy y 7 


év TH epypw, “Erousdoarte thy 686v Kupiou- edQelas moveite Tas 


1 apxtepews in most uncials ; pl. in minusc. only. 


2 Omit tov most uncials. 


3 my is in SCDA al. (Tisch.); wanting in ABL (W.H.). 
4S8BDLA 1, 118, it. vulg. omit Aeyovtos. 


Paneas. Onthe other hand, according 
to Josephus, his territories embraced 
more than the regions named by Lk.: 
Batanaea, Auranitis, Gaulonitis, and 
some parts about Jamnia (various places 
in Ant. and B. J.).—Avoaviov, etc. 
This last item in Lk.’s dating apparatus 
is the most perplexing, whether regard 
be had to relevancy or to accuracy. To 
what end this reference to a non-Jewish 
prince, and this outlying territory 
between the Lebanon ranges? What 
concern has it with the evangelic his- 
tory, or of what use is it for indicating 
the place of the latter in the world’s his- 
tory? By way of answer to this ques- 
tion, Farrar (C. G. T.) suggests that the 
district of Abilene (Abila the capital) is 
probably mentioned here ‘‘ because it 
subsequently formed part of the Jewish 
territory, having been assigned by Cali- 
gula to his favourite, Herod Agrippa L., 
in A.D. 36”. As to the accuracy: it so 
happens that there was a Lysanias, who 
ruled over Chalchis and Abilene sixty 
years before the time of which Lk. 
writes, who probably bore the title 
tetrarch. Does Lk., misled by the title, 
think of that Lysanias as a contemporary 
of Herod Antipas and Herod Philip, or 
was there another of the name really 
their contemporary, whom the evangelist 
has in his view? Certain inscriptions 
cited by historical experts make the 
latter hypothesis probable. Schirer 
(The Fewish People, Div. I., vol. ii., 
appendix x, on the History of Chalchis, 
Ituraea, and Abilene, p. 338) has no 
doubt on the point, and says: “the 
evangelist, Lk., is thoroughly correct 
when he assumes that in the fifteenth 
year of Tiberias there was a Lysanias 
tetrarch of Abilene ”. 

Ver. 2. él dpxuepéws “Avva xal 
Katada, under the high priesthood of 
Annas and Caiaphas. The use of the 
singular @pxtepéws in connection with 
two names is peculiar, whence doubtless 


“” 


3 


the correction into the easier apx.epéwv 
(T. R.); and the combination of two 
men as holding the office at the same 
time, is likewise somewhat puzzling. As 
Caiaphas was the actual high priest at 
the time, one would have expected his 
name to have stood, if not alone, at 
least first = under Caiaphas, the actual 
high priest, and the ex-high priest, Annas, 
still an. influential senior. One can 
only suppose that among the caste of 
high priests past and present (there had 
been three between Annas and Caiaphas) 
Annas was so outstanding that it came 
natural to name him first. Annas had 
been deposed arbitrarily by the Roman 
governor, and this may have increased 
his influence among his own people. 
His period of office was A.D. 7-14, that 
of Caiaphas A.D. 17-35.—éyévero pypa, 
etc., came the word of God to John; 
this the great spiritual event, so care- 
fully dated, after the manner of the O. T. 
in narrating the beginning of the career 
of a Hebrew prophet (vide, e.g., Jer. i. 
1). -But the date is common to the 
ministry of John and that of Jesus, who 
is supposed to have begun His work 
shortly after the Baptist.—év tq épyjpe. 
From next verse it may be gathered 
that the desert here means the whole 
valley of the Jordan, El-Ghor. 

Vv. 3-6. Yohn’s ministry.—Ver. 3. 
WAGev. In Mt. and Mk. the people come 
from all quarters to John. Here John 
goes to the people in an itinerant 
ministry. The latter may apply to 
the early stage of his ministry. He 
might move about till he had attracted 
attention, then settle at a place con- 
venient for baptism, and trust to the 
impression produced to draw the people 
to him.—«ypvocwyv, etc.: here Lk. 
follows Mk. verbatim, and like him, as 
distinct from Mt., connects John’s bap- 
tism with the forgiveness of sins, so 
making it in effect Christian.—Ver. 4. 
BiBX\w Aédywov: Lk. has his own way of 


I 


482 KATA AOYKAN Ul 


tpiBous adtov. 5. waca pdpay§ mAnpwhjoerat, Kal wav Spos Kai 
¢ Ch. xxiii. * Bouvds TatewwOjcetar* Kal Eorat Ta ckohia eis eUMetay,! Kai at 


o. (Is. xl. a x , 
a3 6. kal Setar waca capt Td owrrprov 


Tpaxeiar eis Sdovs elas. 
Tou Geou. 7. “EXeyev obv Tots exmopevopevors Sxdotrs BartioOjvar 
bn’ adtod, “Tevwyjpata éxi8vav, tis médecgev Suiv puyety dd Tis 
peddXovons dpyas; 8. woijoarte ov kaptovs afious” THs peTavotas: 
Kal pi) dptnobe Aéyew ev Eaurois, Matépa Exouev tov “ABpadp- 
héyw yap duiv, ote Sdvarar 6 Oeds ex Tay Aidwy TovTwY éyeipaL 
téxva TO ABpadp. 9g. 75n S€ Kal H déivn mpos Thy pilav tov 
SévSpwv Keitar: wav obv SévSpov ph worotv Kapmoy Kahdv éxxdr- 


TeTat Kal cis mop BdddeTa.” 


10. Kal érypwtwy adtov ot dxdot, A€yovtes, “TL obv morjoopev?;” 
It. “Amoxpilels S€ A€yer* adtots, ““O Exwyv Sv0 xiTavas peTaddTw 


1 evOeras in BDE. 


2atvous Kapmovs in B. Orig. (W.H. marg.). 


T.R. = NCLA many verss. 


Most uncials as in T.R. (Tisch.), 


3 rro.nowpev in most uncials (Tisch., W.H.). 


* eXeyev in HBCL 1, 33, 69 al. 


introducing the prophetic citation (‘in 
the book of the words’’), as he also 
follows his own course as to the words 
quoted. Whereas Mt. and Mk. are con- 
tent to cite just so much as suffices to 
set forth the general idea of preparing 
the way of the Lord, Lk. quotes in con- 
tinuation the words which describe 
pictorially the process of preparation 
(ver. 5), also those which describe the 
grand result: all mankind experiencing 
the saving grace of God (ver. 6). The 
universalistic bias appears here again.— 
Ver. 5. ddpayé, a ravine, here only in 
N. T.—eis et@eias, the crooked places 
shall be (become) straight (ways, 68ovs, 
understood)—ai tpayetat (dot), the 
rough ways shall become smooth. 

Vv. 7-9. Fohn’s preaching (cf. Mt. 
iii. 7-10).—Lk. gives no account of 
John’s aspect and mode of life, leaving 
that to be inferred from i. 80. On the 
other hand he enters into more detail in 
regard to the drift of his preaching. 
These verses contain Lk.’s version of 
the Baptist’s censure of his time.—Ver. 
7. €xopevopevors SxAois: what Mt. 
represents as addressed specially to the 
Pharisees and Sadducees, Lk. less appro- 
priately gives as spoken to the general 
crowd. Note that here, as in the other 
synoptists, the crowd comes to John, 
though in ver. 3 John goes to them.— 
yevynpata éxiSvav: on this figure vide 
Mt. Lk.’s report of the Baptist’s severe 
words corresponds closely to Mt.’s, 


suggesting the use of a common source, 
if not of Mt. himself. The points of 
variation are unimportant.—Ver. 8. 
Kapqovs: instead of kapméy, perhaps to 
answer to the various types of reform 
specified in the sequel.—apéno@e instead 
of 86nTe (vide on Mt.), on which Ben- 
gel's comment is: “f omnem excusationis 
etiam conatum praecidit’’. While the 
words they are forbidden to say are the 
same in both accounts, perhaps the 
raising up children to Abraham has a 
wider range of meaning for the Pauline 
Lk. than for Mt.: sons from even the 
Pagan world. 

Vv. 10-14. Class counsels, peculiar to 
Lk. Two samples of John’s counsels to 
classes are here given, prefaced by a 
counsel applicable to all classes. The 
classes selected to illustrate the Baptist’s 
social preaching are the much tempted 
ones: publicans and soldiers.—Ver. ro. 
émnpotwy, imperfect. Such questions 
would be frequent, naturally suggested 
by the general exhortations to repentance. 
The preacher would probably give 
special illustrative counsels without 
being asked. Those here reported are 
meant to be characteristic. —oijowper : 
subj. delib.—Ver. 11. 8vo x.: two, one 
to spare, not necessarily two on the 
person, one enough; severely simple 
ideas of life. The xttav was the under 
garment, vide on Mt. v. 40.—Bpdpata: 
the plural should perhaps not be em- 
phasised as if implying variety and 





5—16. 


O ph € > Kal 6 é Bpdpata Spotws moveitw.” 
TO ph Exovtes kal 6 Exwv Bowp LOlWs ‘ 


EYAIrTEAION 


483 


12. "H\APov 


Sé kal TeAGvan BawticOjvar, Kal eiwov mpds adtdv, “ ASdoxade, Th 


, 1.7 
TOL) TOWEV ’ 
‘ , te = Ci , 2? 
TO Svaretaypeévoy UpLVY TPAOCETE. 


, , ‘6 Ny ne ~ , , 2.” 
OTPATEVOMEVOL, héyovtes, Kai pers TL Troujooper * ; 


13. ‘O 8€ etme mpds attous, “ Myndév méov mapa 
14. “Ennpdtev Sé€ adtév KkatdCh xix 


23. 
Kal eime 


mpos adtous,® “Mndéva Siacetonte, pndé Souxohavtyionte* kal = Ch. xix.s 


dpxetabe Tois * dpwviors bpay.” 


15. MpocSoxavtos 8€ tod Aaod, Kal SiahoyLoudvey mdvtwy ey 


a , iit tal ‘ ae) , Cats »” ¢ , 
Tats KapSiats avT@y mepl Tod ‘Iwdvvou, pote adTos Ein 6 Xpiotds, 


f Rom. vi. 
23. 1 Cor 
ix. 7. 2 
Cor. xi. 6 


16. dmexptvato 6 “lwdvyns amact héywv,* “Eye pev Ware BantiLe 


coz ” RY ee ect , , a > yer ner 3 a A a 
UGS ° EPpXETAL de oO LOXUPOTEPOS pou, QU OUK EL{LL LKaVOS Goa TOV 


= A € A 4 A , 
ipdvta tov brodynudtway adtod: adtés bpads Bantice év Mveipare 


1 Again wotnowpev in most uncials; also in ver. 14. 


2+. mol. Kat nets in SBCLE 1, 69. 


3 avro.s for mpos avtovs in BDLE 33 (W.H.). 
4S9BL have Aeywv atract o |. (Tisch., W.H.). 


abundance (ra teptomevovta, Grotius). 
The counsel is: let him that hath food 
give to him that hath none, so inculcat- 
ing a generous, humane spirit. Here 
the teaching of John, as reported by 
Lk., touches that of Jesus, and is 
evangelical not legal in spirit.—Ver. 13. 
pydev wAéov wapa: this mode of ex- 
pressing comparison (usual in mod. Grk.) 
is common to Lk. and the Ep. to Heb. (i. 
4, etc.), and has been used in support of 
the view that Lk. wrote Heb. ‘‘ Non 
improbabilis videtur mihi eorum opinio 
qui Lucae eam Ep. adjudicant,” Pricaeus. 
—mpacoete, make, in a sinister sense, 
exact, exigite, Beza. Kypke quotes 
Julius Pollux on the vices of the pub- 
licans, one being wwaperompattev, 
nimium exigens, and remarks that this 
word could not be better explained than 
by the phrase in Lk., wpdttwv 1. a. Td 
Siat-—Ver. 14. oTpatevdopevon, ‘ soldiers 
on service”. R. V. margin. So also 
Farrar. But Field disputes this render- 
ing. “ The advice seems rather to 
point to soldiers at home, mixing among 
their fellow-citizens, than to those who 
were on the march in an enemy’s 
country” (O#. Nor.). Schiirer, whom J. 
Weiss follows, thinks they would be 
heathen.—8taceionre: the verb (here 
only) means literally to shake much, 
here = to extort money by intimidation 
=concertio in law Latin. This mili- 
tary vice would be practised on the 
poor.—cvkcodavtynonte: literally to in- 
form on those who exported figs from 
Athens; here =to obtain money by 


acting as informers (against the rich),.— 
deviors (Sov, d@véopar): a late Greek 
word, primarily anything eaten with 
bread, specially fish, “ kitchen”; salary 
paid in kind; then generally wages. 
Vide Rom. vi. 23, where the idea is, the 
‘‘kitchen,” the best thing sin has to 
give is death. 

Vv. 15-17. Art thou the Christ ? (Mt. 
ili, 21, 12, Mk, i. 7, 8).—Ver. 15. 
mpooSox@vtTos: in Mt. and Mk. John 
introduces the subject of the Messiah of 
his own accord: in Lk. in answer to 
popular expectation and conjecture; an 
intrinsically probable account, vide on 
Mt.—pajrote, etc., whether perhaps he 
might not himself be the Christ; ex- 
presses very happily the popular state of 
mind.—Ver. 16. Graco: might suggest 
frequent replies to various parties, uni- 
form in tenor; but against this is the 
aorist G@mexpivato, which suggests a 
single answer given once for all, to a 
full assembly, a formal solemn public 
declaration. On the Baptist’s statement 
in this and the following verse, vide on 
Mt.—év Mvevpat. “Ayiw Kal amvpi: 
against the idea of many commentators 
that the Holy Spirit and fire represem 
opposite effects on opposite classes— 
saving and punitive—Godet and Hahn 
press the omission of év before mvupi, and 
take Iveta and wtp to be kindred = 
fire the emblem of the Spirit as a purifier. 
They are right as to the affinity but not 
as to the function. The function in 
both cases is judicial. John refers to 
the Holy Wind and Fire of Judgment 


484 


KATA AOYKAN 


Hil. 


“Ayiw Kal mupi> 17. of 1d wrdov ev TH xetpt adrod, Kat SraxaBaprer ! 
Thy Gova abrod+ Kal cuvdter! rdv oirov eis Thy dwoOjKyy adtod, 


76 S€ Gxupov Kataxatce. mupt doBéoTw.” 
érepa wapakaha@y ednyyedilero tov adv. 


18, ModAad pev ody Kat 
1g. ‘O de “Hpwdys 6 


Tetpdpxys, eAeyxdpevos Sm’ adtod mept ‘Hpwdidd0s ris yuvarKds 
diXtrrrou ” Tod Gdehpod adtod, kal wept mdvtwy dv érotyce movnpay 
g Acts xxvi. 6 “Hpddns, 20. mpoceyxe kal todo émi mact, cal® © xaréxewe Tov 


is. 


"lwdvyny ev tH * pudakg. 


21. ‘Eyévero 8€ év 7H BamwnoPiva: dmavta tov adv, Kat "Inood 
Bamricbévtos kai mpocevxopevou, dvewxOivar Tov odpavdy, 22. Kal 
kataByvat T6 Mvedpa 1d “Aytoy cwpatid cider doel> weprotepav 
éw’ adréy, kal daviy é& odpavod yevéoOar, Aéyoucay,® “Ed ef 6 vids 


pou 6 dyamntés, év cot nbddxyoa.” 


23. Kat atts fv 5% “Ingots 


1 For cat Sak. (from Mt.) $B have Staxa0apar, also cvvayayety for cvvate, 


2 Omit $:Aumwov BMBDLAE al. 
4 Omit tn NBDLE. 


§ Omit Aey. (expletive) with BDL verss, 


It is, however, not impossible that Lk. 
read an evangelic sense into John’s 
words. 

Vv. 18-20. Close of the Baptist’s 
ministry and life. Lk. gives here all he 
means to say about John, condensing 
into a single sentence the full narratives 
of Mt. and Mk. as to his end.—Ver. 18. 
moh\a pév ovv kal Erepa, ‘‘ many things, 
too, different from these”’ (Farrar, who 
refers to John i, 29, 34, iii. 27-36, as illus- 
trating the kind of utterances meant). 
The evnyyedifero following seems to 
justify emphasising €repa, as pointing to 
amore evangelic type of utterance than 
those about the axe and the fan, and the 
wrath to come. But it may be ques- 
tioned whether by such a representation 
the real John of history is not to a cer- 
tain extent unconsciously idealised and 
Christianised.—peév otv: the otv may be 
taken as summarising and concluding 
the narrative about John and peéyv as 
answering to 8 in ver. 1g = John was 
carrying on a useful evangelic ministry, 
out it was cut short; or pevody may be 
taken as one word, emphasising arodAa 
cai €repa, and preparing for transition 
to what follows (Hahn).—Ver. 1g. 
‘Hp@Sns : the tetrarch named in ver. 1.— 
wept mwavtwv, implying that John’s re- 
buke was not confined to the sin with 
Herodias. Probably not, but it was 
what John said on that score that cost 
him his head.—Ver. 20. ét waot, 
added this also to all his misdeeds, and 


* Omit this kat R}BDE b, e (Tisch., W.H.). 


5 ws in NBDL 33. 
TREBL 33 omit o. 


above all the crowning iniquity, and yet 
Lk. forbears to mention the damning sin 
of Herod, the beheading of the Baptist, 
contenting himself with noting the im- 
prisonment. He either assumes know- 
ledge of the horrid tale, or shrinks from 
it as too gruesome.—katékhetoe: in- 
stead of the infinitive; the paratactic 
style savours of Hebrew, and suggests a 
Hebrew source (Godet). 

Vv. 21-22. The baptism of Fesus (Mt. 
iii. 13-17, Mk. i. g-11).—év to Bamtic- 
O@jvat: the aorist ought to imply that 
the bulk of the people had already been 
baptised before Jesus appeared on the 
scene, z.¢., that John’s ministry was draw- 
ing to its close (so De Wette; but vide 
Burton, M. and T., p. 51, § 109, on the 
effect of év).—at’l. Barrie Bévrtos: so Lk. 
refers to the baptism of Jesus, in a parti- 
cipial clause, his aim not to report the fact, 
but what happened after it. On the 
different ways in which the synoptists 
deal with this incident, vide on Mt.— 
mpowevxonévov: peculiar to Lk., who 
makes Jesus pray at all crises of His 
career; here specially noteworthy in 
connection with the theophany follow- 
ing: Jesus ina state of mind answering 
to the preternatural phenomena; sub- 
jective and objective corresponding.— 
cTopatix@ etder, in bodily form, peculiar 
to Lk., and transforming a vision into 
an external event.—Zv el: the voice, as 
in Mk., addressed to Jesus, and in the 
same terms. 





17—29. 


EYALTEAION 


485 


4 ~ A 
del érav tpidkorta dpxopevos,! Gy, ds evopifeto, vids? “Iwond, Tod 


HAG S 


24. to0 MatOdr, tod Aeut, tod MeAxl, Tod “lavvd, Tod “Iwond, 


25.700 MatraQiou, Tod “Ayds, Tod Naotp, Tod "EoXl, tod Nayyat, 


26. 


27. 
28. 


29. 


l apyopevos before aoe: €. T. in NBL 1, 33, 131, etc. 


of ADA al. 
2 yios ws evop. in NBL 1, 131 al. 


Tod Mad3, toi MatraQiou, tod Lepet, tod "Iwond, Tod “lovda, 
TOO “lwavva, Tod “Pyod, tod ZopoBdBeh, Tod Ladhabuyd, Tod Nupt, 
tod MeAxt, tod "A8Si, Tod Kwodu, tod “Ekpwddp, tod “Hp, 
Tod “Iwoyn, Tod “EdueLep, Tod “lwpetp, tod MarOdr, tod Acui, 


The order of T.R. = that 


3 The spelling of many of the names in this genealogy varies in the MSS. As 
these variations are of little importance I let the names stand as in T.R. without 
remark, referring the curious to W.H. or Tisch. 


Vv. 23-38. The age of Fesus when He 
began His ministry, and His genealogy. 
—Ver. 23. Kal aitéds, etc., and He, 
Jesus, was about thirty years of age 
when He began. The evangelist’s aim 
obviously is to state the age at which 
Jesus commenced His public career.— 
a&pxopevos is used in a pregnant sense, 
beginning = making His beginning in 
that which is to be the theme of the his- 
tory. There is a mental reference to 
am apxjs in the preface, i. 1; cf. Acts 
i. 1; “all that Jesus began (7pgaro) 
both to do and to teach ””.—acei, about, 
nearly, implying that the date is only 
approximate. It cannot be used as a 
fixed datum for chronological purposes, 
nor should any importance be attached 
to the number thirty as the proper age at 
which such a career should begin. That 
at that age the Levites began full ser- 
vice, Joseph stood before Pharaoh, and 
David began to reign are facts, but of 
no significance (vide Farrar in C. G. T.). 
God’s prophets appear when they get 
the inward call, and that may come at 
any time, at twenty, thirty, or forty. In- 
spiration is not bound by rule, custom, 
or tradition. 

Vv. 24-38. The genealogy. One is 
surprised to find in Lk. a genealogy at 
all, until we reflect on his preface with 
its professed desire for accuracy and 
thoroughness, and observe the careful 
manner in which he dates the beginning 
of John’s ministry. One is further 
surprised to find here a genealogy so 
utterly different from that of Mt. Did 
Lk. not know it, or was he dissatisfied 
with it? Leaving these questions on 
one side, we can only suppose that the 
evangelist in the course of his inquiries 
came upon this genealogy of the 


Saviour and resolved to give it as a 
contribution towards defining the fleshly 
relationships of Jesus, supplying here 
and there an editorial touch. Whether 
this genealogy be of Jewish-Christian, 
or of Pauline-Christian origin is a 
question on which opinion differs. 

Ver. 24. dv, being, introducing the 
genealogical list, which ascends from 
son to father, instead of, as in Mt., 
descending from father to son, therefore 
beginning at the end and going back- 
wards.—os évopifero: presumably an 
editorial note to guard the virgin birth. 
Some regard this expression with “leojd 
following, as a parenthesis, making the 
genealogy in its original form run being 
son of Eli, etc., so that the sense, when 
the parenthesis is inserted, becomes: 
being son (as was supposed of Joseph 
but veally) of Eli, etc., Eli being the 
father of Mary, and the genealogy 
being that of the mother of Jesus (Godet 
and others). This is ingenious but not 
satisfactory. As has been remarked by 
Hahn, if that had been Lk.’s meaning it 
would have been very easy for him to 
have made it clear by inserting Ovtws 8e 
before tov “"HAi. We must therefore 
rest in the view that this genealogy, 
like that of Mt., is Joseph’s, not Mary’s, 
as it could not fail to be if Jews were 
concerned in its compilation. 

Vv. 24-31. From Foseph back to 
David. Compared with the correspond- 
ing section of Mt.’s genealogy these 
differences are apparent: (1) in both 
sub-divisions of the section (David to 
captivity, captivity to Christ) there are 
considerably more names (20, 14), a fact 
intelligible enough in genealogies 
through different lines; (2) they start 
from different sons of David (Nathan, 


486 


30. 
3. 
32. 
33- 
34: 


KATA AOYKAN 


III. 30—38. 


TOO Lupedv, Tod “lodda, Tod “wor, Tod “lwvdv, Tod "EXaxein, 
Tod Mehea, Tod Maivdy, tod Matra@d, tod Na@dv, rod AaBid, 
Tod “leoat, Tod ‘QBH8, tod BodL, rod Eahpwv, tod Naacow, 
Tod “ApivaddB, tod “Apdp, tod "Eopwp, Tod bapés, Tod “lovda, 
Tod “laxwB, Tod “load, tod “ABpadp, Tod Odpa, Tod Naxwp, 


35+ TOU Lapoux, Tod “Payad, roi Gahék, Tod “EBep, Tod Eahd, 36. rod 
Kaivdy, tod “Appagdd, rod Erp, Tod Nae, Tod Adpex, 37. TOD MaGou. 
adda, Tod "Evdx, tod “lapéd, tod MadaderA, Tod Kativdy, 38. Tou 
*Evdis, TOO EHO, Tod "Addu, Toi Geod. 


Svlomon); (3) they come together at 
the captivity in Shealtiel and Zerubbabel ; 
(4) after running in separate streams 
from that point onwards they meet 
again in Joseph, who in the one is the 
son of Eli, in the other the son of Jacob. 
The puzzle is to understand how two 
genealogical streams so distinct in their 
entire course should meet at these two 
points. The earlier coincidence is 
accounted for by harmonists by the 
hypothesis of adoption (Jeconiah adopts 
Shealtiel, Shealtiel adopts Zerubbabel), 
the later by the hypothesis of a Levirate 
marriage. Vide Excursus ii.in Farrat’s 
work on Luke (C. G. T.). These 
solutions satisfy some. Others main- 
tain that they do not meet the difficulties, 
and that we must be content to see in 
the two catalogues genealogical attempts 
which cannot be harmonised, or at least 
have not yet been. 

Vv. 32-34a. From David back to 
Abraham. The lists of Mt. and Lk. in 
this part correspond, both being taken, 
as far as Pharez, from Ruth iv. 18-22. 

Vv. 34b-38. From Abraham to Adam. 
Peculiar to Lk., taken from Gen. xi. 12- 
26, v. 7-32, as given in the Sept., 
whence Canaan in ver. 36 (instead of 


rdw in Gen. xi. 12, in Heb.). It is 


probable that this part of the genealogy 
has been added by Lk., and that his 
interest in it is twofold: (1) universalistic: 
revealed by running back the genealogy 
of Jesus to Adam, the father of the 
human race; (2) the desire to give 
emphasis to the Divine origin of Jesus, 
revealed by the final link in the chain: 
Adam (son) of God. Adam’s sonship is 
conceived of as something unique, 
inasmuch as, like Jesus, he owed his 
being, not to a human parent, but to 
the immediate causality of God. By 
this extension of the genealogy beyond 
Abraham, and even beyond Adam up to 
God, the evangelist has deprived it of all 


vital significance for the original purpose 
of such tables: to vindicate the Messianic 
claims of Jesus by showing Him to be 
the son of David. The Davidic sonship, 
it is true, remains, but it cannot be vital 
to the Messiahship of One who is, in the 
sense of the Gospel, Son of God. It 
becomes like the moon when the sun is 
shining. Lk. was probably aware of 
this. 

This genealogy contains none of those 
features (references to women, etc.) 
which lend ethical interest to Mt.’s. 

CuaPTER IV. THE TEMPTATION AND 
BEGINNINGS OF THE MINISTRY.—VV. I- 
13. The Temptation (Mt. iv. 1-11, Mk. 
i. 12-13). Lk.’s account of the tempta- 
tion resembles Mt.’s so closely as to 
suggest a common source. Yet there 
are points ot difference of which a not 
improbable explanation is editorial 
solicitude to prevent wrong impressions, 
and ensure edification ‘in connection with 
perusal of a narrative relating to a 
delicate subject: the temptation of the 
Holy Jesus by the unholy adversary. 
This solicitude might of course have 
stamped itself on the source Lk. uses, 
but it seems preferable to ascribe it to 
himself. 

Ver. 1. 8€: introducing a new theme, 
closely connected, however, with the 
baptism, as appears from ad Tov 
*lopdavov, the genealogy being treated 
as a parenthesis.—mAxpys Mvevparos‘A., 
full of the Spirit, who descended upon 
Him at the Jordan, and conceived of as 
abiding on Him and in Him. This 
phrase is adopted by Lk. to exclude the 
possibility of evil thoughts in Jesus: no 
vyoom for them; first example of such 
editorial solicitude.—iméorpewev a. 7. ’l. 
Hahn takes this as meaning that Jesus 
left the Jordan with the intention of 
returning immediately to Galilee, so 
that His retirement into the desert was 
the result of a change ot purpose brought 
about hy the influence of the Spirit. 





iV. 1—6. EYATTEAION 


487 
IV. 1. "IHZOYE 8€ Nvevparos “Ayiou mdyjpys! Sméotpeper dad 
rou “lopddvou: Kai jyeTo év TH Mvedpati eis Thy Epynpov? 2. Hpépas 
Tecoapdkovta teipaldpevos bmd Tod SiaPddov. Kal ovK Epayer 
obdev év Tats Hpepats exelvaig: Kal ouvTehecOeicay adtay, Uotepov ® 
eveivace. 3. kal elmev* att@ 6 SidBodos, “Ei vids ef tod Oeod, 
eimé TH LOW ToUTW iva yévntat aptos.” 4. Kat dmexpiby ‘Incoids 
mpos abtév, héywv,® “Téypamrat, ‘“OTe obk ém dptw pdvw Liceror 


6 dvOpwiros, GAN emi wavTi priya. Geos.” 


5. Kat dvayayov 
adTov 6 SidBodos Eis Spos Unhov” Berke adTS mdgas Tas Baowdetas 
THS oikoupevns ev oTtypy xpdvou- 6. Kal eimev abtTd 6 BrdBodos, 


“Sot SHow Thy éouciay TavTny Gmacay Kal Thy Sdgav adtav: Stu 





1ardknpys before My. Ay. in SBDLE 1, 33 verss. (Tisch., Trg., W.H.). 
2 ev TH Epynpw in $BDL vet. Lat. (Tisch., W.H.). 


5 $3BDL vet. Lat. omit. 


* evrrev Se in NBDL 1, 33. 


* NBL omit Aeywr 


SadA .., . Oeov omitted in NBL sah. cop. (Tisch., W.H.). 


7 o Saf. 


The words do not in themselves convey 
this sense, and the idea is intrinsically 
unlikely. Retirement for reflection after 
the baptism was likely to be the first 
impulse of Jesus. Vide on Mt.—nyero: 
imperfect, implying a continuous process. 
—éy 7@ Ilv., im the spirit, suggesting 
voluntary movement, and excluding the 
idea of compulsory action of the Spirit 
on an unwilling subject that might be 
suggested by the phrases of Mt. and 
Mk. Vide notes there.—év rq ép.: this 
reading is more suitable to the continued 
movement implied in 7jyero than els rhv 
é. of T.R.—Ver. 2. tpépas teoo.: this 
is to be taken along with jyero. Jesus 
wandered about in the desert all that 
time ; the wandering the external index 
of the absorbing meditation within 
(Godet).—retpaldpevos: Lk. refers to 
the temptation participially, as a mere 
incident of that forty days’ experience, 
in marked contrast to Mt., who repre- 
sents temptation as the aim of the retire- 
ment (me.paoOjvar); again guarding 
against wrong impressions, yet at the 
same time true to the fact. The present 
tense of the participle implies that 
temptation, though incidental, was con- 
tinuous, going on _ with increasing 
intensity all the time.—ovx épayev ovdév 
implies absolute abstinence, suggestive 
of intense preoccupation. There was 
nothing there to eat, but also no inclina- 
tion on the part of Jesus. 

Vv. 3-4. First temptation.—1@ di®o 
x.: possibly the stone bore a certain 


- . « vipnrov omitted in NNBDL 1 al. (from Mt.). 


resemblance to a loaf. Vide Farrar’s 
note (C. G. T.), in which reference is 
made to Stanley's account (Sinai and 
Palestine, p. 154) of ‘ Elijah’s melons” 
found on Mount Carmel, as a sample of 
the crystallisations found in limestone 
formations.— Ver. 4. Kal dzrexp(0n, etc.: 
the answer of Jesus as given by Lk., 
according to the reading of $BL, was 
limited to the first part of the oracle: 
man shall not live by bread only; 
naturally suggesting a contrast between 
physical bread and the higher food of 
the soul on which Jesus had been feed- 
ing (J. Weiss in Meyer). 

Vv. 5-8. Second temptation. Mt.’s 
third.—al avayayov, without the added 
els dpos ty. of T.R., is an expression 
Lk. might very well use to obviate the 
objection: where is the mountain so 
high that from its summit you could see 
the whole earth? He might prefer te 
leave the matter vague = taking Him 
up who knows’ how high!—-ris 
oikoupévns : for Mt.’s tot xdopov, as 
in ii. I.—év ortypy x-, in a point or 
moment of time (orvypy from orifLa, to 
prick, whence ortypata, Gal. vi. 17, 
here only in N. T.).—Ver. 6. é§ouciav, 
authority. Vide Acts i. 7, 8, where this 
word and 5vvap.y occur, the one signify- 
ing authority, the other spiritual power. 
—6rt épol, etc.: this clause, not in Mt., 
is probably another instance of Lk.’s 
editorial solicitude; added to guard 
against the notion of a rival God with 
independent possessions and power 


488 


KATA AOYKAN IV. 


€pol mapaddSorat, Kal @ édv 0é\w BiSwpe adrjy: 7. od obv édy 
Tpookuryoys evuimidy pou, Estat gov mdvta.”! 8. Kal doxpibeis 
alr® elev 6 *"Ingois, *"Y maye étricw pou, arava * yéypatra: ydp,° 
“Npooxuryoers Kiptoy tov Gedy gou,* Kat auto pdvw Katpevoets.’” 
9. Kat jyayev® adrdv eis ‘lepousadip, Kal €ornoev adrov émt rd 
TTEpUytov TOU iepod, Kal elev alta, “Ei 6° ulds ef Tod Geos, Bade 
geautov evredbev kdtw* 10. yéypamtar ydp, ‘"Or Tois dyyéhots 
autod évtedettat mept cod, Tod Siapuddtar oe* II. Kal Ste ém 


XEipGv dpodci ce, prjmote mpooKdyns mpds diBov tov 1dSa cou. 


>> 


‘ “~ A 
12. Kat dtwoxpieis elev attd 6 “Ingois, ““Or eipyra, ‘Oux 


éxtreipdcets Kupiov tov Oedv gov.” 


13. Kal ouvtekéoas mdvta 


tretpacpov 6 SidBohos dréorn Gm’ adtod axpt Katpod. 


c 


14. KAl bwéotpepev 6 


> lel , na 
Ingots év tH Suvdper rod Mvevparos eis 


Thy Fahihatay: Kai dipn eff Oe Kal Sdns ris mepixdpou mepi 


auTou. 


1 raoca in NABDLAE. 


15. kal adtés €8i8acKey €v Tals cuvaywyais alrav, Sofatd- 


Iyraye ... Lat. omitted in NBDLE 1, 33 al. (from Mt.), 


3 yap omitted by the same authorities. 


4 S9BDL al. have Kup. tov 8. o. mpook. (W.H.). 
> nyayev Se in BLE, which also omit avrov after exrqoev. 


6 Omit o NABDLAE. 


From the Jewish point of view, it is 
true, Satan might quite well say this 
(J. Weiss-Meyer).—Ver. 7. ov, emphatic; 
Satan hopes that Jesus has been dazzled 
by the splendid prospect and promise: 
Thou—all Thine (€rrai cot raca).—Ver. 
8. Uaraye Latrava is no part of the true text, 
imported from Mt.; suitable there, not 
here, as another temptation follows. 
Vv. 9-13. Third temptation. Mt.’s 
second.—‘lepovcadyp, instead of Mt.’s 
ayiav wéAw.—évtevdev, added by Lk., 
helping to bring out the situation, 
suggesting the plunge down from the 
giddy height.—Vv. 1o and 11 give 
Satan’s quotation much as in Mt., with 
tov Stad¢vddtat oe added from the 
Psalm.—Ver. 12 gives Christ’s reply 
exactly as in Mt. The nature of this 
reply probably explains the inversion of 
the order of the second and third tempta- 
tions in Lk. The evangelist judged it 
fitting that this should be the last word, 
construing it as an interdict against 
tempting $esus the Lord. Lk.’s version 
of the temptation is characterised 
throughout by careful restriction of the 
devil’s power (vide vv. 1 and 6). The 
inversion of the last two temptations is 
due to the same cause. The old idea of 


Schleiermacher that the way to Jerusalem 
lay over the mountains is paltry. It is 
to be noted that Mt.’s connecting particles 
(rére, wadtv) imply sequence more than 
Lk.’s (ai, 5€). On the general import of 
the ternptation vide on Mt.—Ver. 13. 
mwavta w., every kind of temptation.— 
Gxpt katpov: implying that the same 
sort of temptations recurred in the ex- 
perience of Jesus. 

Vv. 14-15. Return to Galilee (cf. Mk. 
i. 14, 28, 39).—Ver. 14. tar€orpewev, as 
in ver. 1, frequently used by Lk.—év rq 
Svvdper rt. [1., in the power of the 
Spirit; still as full of the Spirit as at the 
baptism. Spiritual power not weakened 
by temptation, rather strengthened : post 
victoriam corroboratus, Bengel.—dypn 
(here and in Mt. ix. 26), report, caused 
by the exercise of the Suvapis, implying 
a ministry of which no details are here 
given (so Schanz, Godet, J. Weiss, etc.). 
Meyer thinks of the fame of the Man 
who had been baptised with remarkable 
accompaniments; Hahn of the altered 
transficured appearance of Jesus.—Ver. 
15. éi8acKxev: summary reference to 
Christ’s preaching ministry in the 
Galilean synagogues.—atrév refers to 
TadtXkalay, ver. 14, and theans the 


7—18. 


pevos Umrd TavTwy. 


EYAITEAION 


489 


16. Kat 7Oev eis THY Nalapér,! ob Hv teOpap- 


, Die ee se a 8 >? x 2A > a £ 4 ~ s 
pévos*: Kal eioqhOe kata 76 ciw0ds abta, ev TH Hepa TOV oaBBdtwv, 


> ~ 
els THv cuvaywyyy, Kal dvéoTy dvayvavat. 


BiBXtov ‘Hoatou tod mpopytou §- 


tov? 


17. kat éwedd0n atdt@ 


kat dvantigas* TO BiBXtov, edpe 
» €Up 


, an 
TOTov 00 Hy yeypoppevoy, 18. ‘Mvedua Kupiou éw ene: ob 


evexev €xpice pe evayyeNiLecBar® mrwyols, dméotahké pe idoacbar 
X a 

ToS GuVTETpiLevoUus THY Kapdiay’ Kypigar aiypaddros adeowy. 

XP ’ 


kal tupdois dvdBdeyv: daootethar teOpavopevous év adéoe 


leus Nalap. without ny NBDLE. 


7 $$L= minusc. have avare®. (Tisch., W.H., marg.). 


3 rov mpod. lo. in NBLE 33, 60. 


So im NDA al. (Tisch.); avorgas in BLE 33 (W.H.). 


5 Omit Tov NL= 33 (W.H. bracket). 
5 evayyeAtoac8at in SBDLAE al. 
TracacGar .. 


Galileans; construction ad sensum.— 
So€aldpevos : equally summary statement 
of the result—general admiration. Lk. 
is hurrying on to the following story, 
which, though not the first incident in 
the Galilean ministry (vv. 14 and 15 
imply the contrary), is the first he wishes 
to narrate in detail. He wishes it to 
serve as the frontispiece of his Gospel, 
as ifto say: ex primo disce omnia. The 
historic interest in exact sequence is here 
subordinated to the religious interest in 
impressive presentation; quite legitimate, 
due warning being given. 

Vv. 16-30. Fesus in Nazareth (Mt. 
xiii, 53-58, Mk. vi. 1-6a). Though Lk, 
uses an editorial discretion in the placing 
of this beautiful story, there need be no 
suspicion as to the historicity of its 
main features. The visit of Jesus to 
His native town, which had a secure 
place in the common tradition, would be 
sure to interest Lk. and create desire for 
further information, which might readily 
be obtainable from surviving Nazareans, 
who had been present, even from the 
brethren of Jesus. We may therefore 
seek in this frontispiece (Programm- 
stick, J. Weiss) authentic reminiscences 
of a synagogue address of Jesus. 

Vv. 16-21. Karta 7d elwOds: the re- 
ference most probably is, not to the 
custom of Jesus as a boy during His 
private life, but to what He had been 
doing since He began His ministry. He 
used the synagogue as one of His chief 
opportunities. (So J. Weiss and Hahn 
against Bengel, Meyer, Godet, etc.) 
That Jesus attended the synagogue as a 


T.R. in minusc. 
. kapdvav omit RBDLE 13, 33, 69 (Tisch., Trg., W.H.). 


boy and youth goes without saying.—- 
avéorn, stood up, the usual attitude in 
teading (‘both sitting and standing 
were allowed at the reading of the Book 
of Esther,” Schirer, Div. II., vol. ii., p. 
79); either as requested by the presi- 
dent or of His own accord, as a now 
well-known teacher.—Ver. 17. “‘“Hoaiov: 
the second lesson, Haphtarah, was from 
the prophets; the first, Pavashah, from 
the Law, which was foremost in 
Rabbinical esteem. Not so in the mind 
of Jesus. The prophets had the first 
place in His thoughts, though without 
prejudice to the Law. No more con- 
genial book than Isaiah (second part 
especially) could have been placed in 
His hand. Within the Law He seems 
to have specially loved Deuteronomy, 
prophetic in spirit (vide the temptation). 
—etpe towov: by choice, or in due 
course, uncertain which; does not 
greatly matter. The choice would be 
characteristic, the order of the day 
providential as giving Jesus just the 
text He would delight to speak from. 
The Law was read continuously, the 
prophets by free selection (Holtz., 
H. C.).—Vv. 18, 19 contain the text, 
Isaiah lxi. 1, 2, free reproduction of the 
Sept., which freely reproduces the Heb- 
rew, which probably was first read, 
then turned into Aramaean, then preached 
on by Jesus, that day. It may have 
been read from an Aramaean version. 
Most notable in the quotation is the 
point at which it stops. In Isaiah after 
the ‘‘acceptable year’ comes the ‘“‘ day 
of vengeance’’. The clause referring to 


490 


19. kynpugar éviautdv Kupiou Sexrdv.’ 


KATA AOYKAN 


IV. 


20. Kai mrigas 7d BiBXiov, 


darodods TO Swypérn, exdbice: Kal mdvtwv ev TH cUvaywyf ot 


dpbapot! Foay drevilovres adta. 


21. "Hpgato 8é héyeww tpds 


adtous, ““Ort ovpepoy memArjpwrat f ypaph adty ev tois doiv 


judy.” 


22. Kat wdvres épaptipouy abtd, Kat eBatpafoy emi rots 


Adyous Tis XdpiTos, Tots exropevopévois ek TOO oTdpaTos adTod, 


kat €Neyov, “Odx oftds got 6 vids “lwojp?;” 


23. Kal elwe 


mpos attods, “Mdvtws éepetté por thy tmapaPodhy tadtyy, “latpe, 


Sepdrevcov ceautév: Goa jkovdcapey yevdpeva ev TH Katepvaoup,* 


moingov kat Ode év rH watpid. cou.” 
24. Eltre 8é, “Api héyw bptv, Ste oddels mpopytys Sextds eotw 


1 ot od. before ev Ty ovv. in KBL 33 (Tisch., W.H.). 
2 ovxt vios eat |. ovtos in KYBL (Tisch., W.H.). 
3 evs Thy K. in SB; DL evs K. without thy. 


the latter is omitted. —amooretXat Te- 
Opavopévous év adeoet (ver. 19) is im- 
ported (by Lk. probably) from Is. lviii.6, the 
aim being to make the text in all respects 
a programme for the ministry of Jesus. 
Along with that, in the mind of the evan- 
gelist, goes the translation of all the 
categories named—poor, broken-hearted, 
captives, blind, bruised—from the 
political to the spiritual sphere. Legiti- 
mately, for that was involved in the 
declaration that the prophecy was ful- 
filled in Jesus.—Ver. 20. mrvéas, fold- 
ing, avamrrvéas in ver. 17 (T.R.) = un- 
folding.—tmnpérn, the officer of the 
synagogue; cf. the use of the word in 
Acts xiii. 5.—<dreviLovres, looking 
attentively (arevys, intent, from a and 
telvw), often in Acts, vide, ¢.g., xiii. 9.— 
Ver. 21. ipgaro: we may take what 
follows either as the gist of the dis- 
course, the theme (De Wette, Godet, 
Hahn), or as the very words of the open- 
ing sentence (Grotius, Bengel, Meyer, 
Farrar). Sucha direct arresting announce- 
ment would be true to the manner of 
Jesus. 

Vv.22-30. The sequel.—Ver. 22. épap- 
TUpovy a., bore witness to Him, not = S0éa- 
{dpevos in ver. 15; the confession was 
extorted from them by Christ’s unde- 
niable power.—é0avpalov, not, admired, 
but, were surprised at (Hahn).—Adyots 
TS xapitos, words of grace. Most take 
xapts here not in the Pauline sense, but 
as denoting attractiveness in speech 
(German, Anmuth), suavitas sermonis 
(Kypke, with examples from Greek 
authors, while admitting that ydptros 
may be an objective genitive, ‘‘sermo de 


rebus suavibus et laetis”). In view of the 
text on which Jesus preached, and the 
fact that the Nazareth incident occupies 
the place of a frontispiece in the Gospel, 
the religious Pauline sense of ydpis is 
probably the right one = words about 
the grace of God whereby the prophetic 
oracle read was fulfilled. J. Weiss (in 
Meyer), while taking ydpts = grace ol 
manner, admits that Lk. may have 
meant it in the other sense, as in Acts 
xiv. 3, xx. 24. Words of grace, about 
grace: such was Christ’s speech, then 
and always—that is Lk.’s idea.—ovyi 
vids, etc. : this fact, familiarity, neutral- 
ised the effect of all, grace of manner 
and the gracious message. Cf. Mt. xiii. 
55, Mk. vi. 3.—Ver. 23. avrws, doubt- 
less, of course—trapaBodjny = Hebrew 
mashal, including proverbs as well as 
what we call ‘ parables”. A proverb in 
this case.—'latpé, etc.: the verbal 
meaning is plain, the point of the 
parable not so plain, though what follows 
seems to indicate it distinctly enough = 
do here, among us, what you have, as 
we hear, done in Capernaum. This 
would not exactly amount to a physician 
healing himself. We must be content 
with the general idea: every sensible 
benefactor begins in his immediate 
surroundings. There is probably a 
touch of scepticism in the words = we 
will not believe the reports of your great 
deeds, unless you do such things here 
(Hahn). For similar proverbs in other 
tongues, vide Grotius and Wetstein. 
The reference to things done in Caper- 
naum implies an antecedent ministry 
there.—Ver. 24. “Apnv: solemnly in- 





t9—31. EYAL EAION 


€v TH Watpidt adTod. 25. em adnGetas Sé Adyw Spiv, wodAal yjpar 
Yoav ev Tals Hpepars “H\kou ev TO ‘“lopand, dre exdeiaOy 6 odparvds 
ént} éry tpia kal pivas ef, ds éyeveTo Aipds péyas emi wacay Thy 
yiv: 26. kat mpds otdepiav adtavy eéeméppOn “HAlas, ci py eis 
Edpenta THs LSadvos? mpds yuvatka yypav. 27. 
hempot joav emt “Ehiooalou tod mpopyjtou év T@ “lopandh®- Kat 
odSeis attav exabapicby, et pi Neepav 6 Zupos.” 


Ka: toN\ot 


28. Kai éw\yo- 
Oycav wdvtes Oupod év tH cuvaywyf, aKovovtes taita, 29. Kat 
avactavtes éf€Bahov adtov ew THs Toews, Kal Hyayov aiTov ews 
THs * dppvos Tod Gpous, €p oF FH Wodis adTa@Y WKoddpTO,” cis Td ° 


*kaTakpypwioa: abtév: 30. abTds S€ SrehOdy Bd peécou adTar a 


491 


here only 
in N, T. 


cmopeveTo. 


31. KAl katqhOev eis Kamepvaodp modw tis FahtNaias: Kat qv 


l emt, found in CLA al. (Tisch.), is wanting in BD (W.H. text, ewe marg.). 


2 Yi8wvias in SBCDL 1, 13, 69, 131 al. 


3 ev tw lo. before emt EX. in RBCDL 1, 13, 33, 69 al. 


4 Omit tns NABCLA al. 


3 wkoSopyTo avtwv in BDL 33, altered into the more usual order in T.R. 
§ wore for ets TO in NBDL 33 (Tisch., W.H.). 


troducing another proverb given in Mt. 
and Mk. (xiii. 57, vi. 4) in slightly varied 
form.-—Sextds (vide ver. 19, also Acts 
x. 35), acceptable, a Pauline word (2 Cor. 
vi. 2, Phil. iv. 18).—Ver. 25. This verse 
begins, like ver. 24, with a solemn asse- 
veration. It contains the proper answer 
to ver. 23. It has been suggested (J. 
Weiss) that vv. 22 and 24 have been in- 
terpolated trom Mk. vi. 1-6 in the source 
Lk. here used.—érn tpia x. p. €, three 
years and six months. The reference is 
to 1 Kings xvii. 1, xviii. 1, where three 
years are mentioned. The recurrence 
of the same number, three and a half 
years, in James v. 17 seems to point to a 
traditional estimate of the period of 
drought, three and a half, the half of 
seven, the number symbolic of misfortune 
(Daniel xii. 7).—Ver. 26. Zdpemra, a 
village lying between Tyre and Sidon 
modern Surafend.—Ver. 27. 6 Lupos. 
Naaman and the widow of Sarepta both 
Gentiles: these references savouring of 
universalism were welcome to Lk., but 
there is no reason to suspect that he put 
them into Christ’s mouth. Jesus might 
have so spoken (vide Mt. viii. 11).— 
Vv. 28-29. Unsympathetic from the 
first, the Nazareans, stung by these 
O. T. references, become indignant. 
Pagans, not to speak of Capernaum 
people, better than we : away with Him ! 


out of the synagogue, nay, out of the 
town (&w Tis wohews).—éws ddpvos rt. 
6., etc., to the eyebrow (supercilium, here 
only in N. T.) of the hill on which the city 
was built, implying an elevated point 
but not necessarily the highest ridge. 
Kypke remarks: ‘‘non summum montis 
cacumen, sed minor aliquis tumulus sive 
clivus intelligitur, qui cum monte 
cohaeret, metaphora a superciliis ocu- 
lorum desumta, quae in fronte quidem 
eminent, ipso tamen vertice inferiora 
sunt”. Nazareth now lies in a cup, 
built close up to the hill surrounding. 
Perhaps then it went further up.—déoe 
(els 76, T.R.) with infinitive indicating 
intention and tendency, happily not 
result.—Ver. 30. avtds 8, but He, 
emphatic, suggesting a contrast: they 
infuriated, He calm and self-possessed. 
—8tehkOQv: no miracle intended, but 
only the marvel of the power always 
exerted by a tranquil spirit and firm will 
over human passions, 

Vv. 31-37. In Capernaum ; the de- 
moniac (Mk. i. 21-28).—xar7AOev els K. 
He went down from Nazareth, not from 
heaven, as suggested in Marcion’s Gos- 
pel, which began here: ‘‘ Anno quinto- 
decimo principatus Tiberiani Deum 
descendisse in  civitatem Galilaeae 
Capharnaum,” Tertull. c. Marc. iv. 7.— 
wédw 7. [.: circumstantially described 


492 


SiSdoxwv adtods év tots odBBacr. 
SidSaxq abrod, Ste év efouela Fv & Adyos adtod. 


KATA AOYKAN 


IV. 


32. Kal éfemdyjooovro éwi TH 
33. Kal év rH 


cuvaywyh Fv dvOpwros Eexwv mredpa Satpoviou dxabdprov, Kal 


dvéxpage porA peyddy. 34. Aéywv.) “"Ea, ti Hpiv Kal col, Inood 


Nalapnve ; 


Oeou. 
Kat egehOe €& 2 adrod.” 


b Ch.v.g. €qOev da’ adrod, pndev BrAdpary adtov. 


Acts iii. 10. , 


WAVES Atrod€oat pas ; 


ol8d ge tis el, 6 Gytos Tod 


, ~ an 
35- Kat éretinnoey atte 6 “Ingods, Aéywr, “ dipdOnT, 
, 
Kat pipay adrév 1d Satpdmoy eis 76 pxéoov 


36. kal éyéveto ° OduBos 


éml mdvtas, kal guvehddouv mpds ddAjdous, Aéyortes, “ Tis 6 Adyos 


* e 2 ‘ ‘ > f iad > , , 
OUTOS, OTL EV éfoucia KaL Suvdper ETTLTAGCEL TOLS dkabdprors TVEULGCL, 


kat 退pxovrat ;” 
TéTOV THS TEpLXapou. 


37- Kat eferopedeto Hxos mepl adtod eis wavra 


38. “Avactas S€ éx® ths cuvaywyis, eionhBev eis Thy olKtuv 


Lipwvos: i * wevOepa Sé Tod Lipwvos Hv cuvexouevyn TupeTo peyddw * 


Kal 7pwTycav attoy teplt adtijs. 


39. Kal emotas éemdvw attrs, 


éretinoe TH TupeTd, Kal ddijxey adtyv* Tapaxphpa dé dvactaca 


Sunkdver avrois. 


40. Advoytos 8€ Tod HAlou, wdvtes Soot elxov doPevodvTas vdcors 


' Omit Aeywv NBLE cop. Orig. 
3 aro in $WBCDLE 33 al. 


as it is the first mention in Lk.’s own 
narrative. Yet the description is vague, 
as if by one far off, for readers in the 
same position. No mention here of the 
lake (vide v. 1).—Ver. 32. év é£ovolq: 
no reference to the scribes by way of 
contrast, as in Mk., whereby the charac- 
terisation loses much of its point.—Ver. 
33. dwvq peyady, added by Lk: in 
Lk.’s narratives of cures two tendencies 
appear—(1) to magnify the power dis- 
played, and (2) to emphasise the benevo- 
lence. Neither of these is conspicuous 
in this narrative, though this phrase and 
piav, and pnSév BAdwav avréy in ver. 
35, look in the direction of (1).—Ver. 34. 
éa: here only (not genuine in Mk., T.R.) 
in N. T. =ha!l Vulg., sine as if from éqv; 
a cry of horror.—Nalapnvé: Lk. usually 
writes Nalwpate. The use of this form 
here suggests that he has Mk.’s account 
lying before him.—Ver. 35. pndév before 
Bday implies expectation of a contrary 
result.—Ver. 36. 6 Adyos otros refers 
either to the commanding word of Jesus, 
followed by such astounding results 
(‘quid est hoc verbum?” Vulg.), or = 
what is this thing? what a surprising 
affair! (‘quid hoc rei est?”’ Beza, and 
after him Grotius, De Wette, etc.). In 
either case Lk.’s version at this point is 


Jam in SBDLE minuse. 
4 Omit 7 NABDLE. 


altogether secondary and colourless as 
compared with Mk.’s, q.v.—Ver. 37. 
7xos (axon, Mk.), a sound, report; again 
in xxi. 25, Acts li. 2 = 4x in classics. 

Vv. 38, 39. Peter’s mother-in-law 
(Mt. viii. 14, 15, Mk. i. 29-31).—2Zipwvos : 
another anticipation. In Mk. the call of 
Peter and othere to discipleship has 
been previously narrated. One wonders 
that Lk. does not follow his example in 
view of his preface, where the apostles 
are called eye-witnesses, am’ apyts.— 
qv ovvexouevn, etc.: Lk’.s desire to 
magnify the power comes clearly out 
here. ‘‘ The analytic imperfect implies 
that the fever was chronic, and the verb 
that it was severe,” Farrar (C. G. T.). 
Then he calls it a great fever: whether 
using a technical term (fevers classed by 
physicians as great and small), as many 
think, or otherwise, as some incline to 
believe (Hahn, Godet, etc.), in either 
case taking pains to exclude the idea 
of a minor feverish attack.—Ver. 39. 
wapaxypypa, immediately, another word 
having the same aim: cured at once, 
and perfectly ; able to serve. 

Vv. 40, 41. Sabbath evening cures 
(Mt. viii. 16, 17, Mk. i. 32-34).—8dvovros 
7 %.: Lk. selects the more important 
part of Mk.’s dual definition of time. 





32—44. 


, >” > ‘ BY cad 
Twouxthats nyayov G@uTous TpOS G@UTOV* 


2 


xetpas émdeis! ebepdrreucev 


daizdvia dard todhOv, kpdLovta* kat éyovTa, 
Kal émitipav otk eta atta aheiv, 


Xpiotés ® 6 vids tod Ceod.” 


Ott yderoay Tov Xprordv adtov elvan. 
efehOav eropedOn eis Epnpov témov, Kal ot dxor éLnTouy 


EYATTEAION 


> , 
QUTOUS. 


$93 


6 S€ evi Exdotw aitay tds 
41. e&qpxeto® Sé Kal 
“"Ore od ct 6 


Tevopévns d€ tyepas 
6 


42. 


> , 
auTov, 


kat AAOov ~ws adtod, kal katetxov adtov Tod ph tmopevecPar an’ 


auT@v. 43. 6 Sé ele mpds atTous, 


edayyeNicacbal pe Set tiv Bactheiay tod Geod- 
44. Kal jv knptoowy év tats cuvaywyats ® 


dméotahpat,” § 
Toduatas. 


1 emutiBers in BDE al. (Tisch., W.H.). 
? Beparrevey in BD (Tisch., W.H., 


“"Ort kat tals érépais médeou 


TOUTO 


THS 


étt eis? 


text). 


3 eEnpxovro in SCX 1, 33 (Tisch., W.H., marg.). BD have the sing. (W.H. text). 


4 So in many MSS. (BCL, etc.). 


* Omit o Xprotos NBCDLE 33 (Tisch., 


DA al, kpavyalovra (Tisch.). 


W.H.). 


§ ewe{ntovy in very many uncials (NSBCDL, etc.). 


7 emt in WBL. 


8 ameoradny in NSBCDL 33 (Tisch., W.H.). 


9 eis Tas ouvaywyas in NBD, 


With sunset the Sabbath closed. 8uvovros 
is present participle of the late form 
vvw = Siw.—évt éexdorw: laying His 
hands on each one, a touch peculiar to 
Lk., pointing, Godet thinks, to a separate 
source at Lk.’s command; much more 
certainly to Lk.’s desire to make pro- 
minent the benevolent sympathy of Jesus. 
Jesus did not heal en masse, but one 
by one, tender sympathy going out from 
Him in each case. Intrinsically pro- 
bable, and worth noting. This trait in 
Lk. is in its own way as valuable as 
Mt.’s citation from Isaiah (viii. 17), and 
serves the same purpose.—Ver. 41. 
Aéyovra Sri, etc.: Lk. alone notes that 
the demons, in leaving their victims, 
bore witness in a despairing cry to the 
Divine Sonship of Jesus. God’s power 
in this Man, our power doomed. Again 
a tribute to the miraculous might of 
Jesus. 

Vv. 42-44. Withdrawal from Caper- 
naum (Mk. i. 35-39).—yevopévns *pépas, 
when it was day, 7.e., when people were 
up and could see Jesus’ movements, and 
accordingly followed Him. In Mk. 
Jesus departed very early before dawn, 
when all would be in bed; a kind of 
flight.—ot oxdov: in Mk. Simon and 
those with him, other disciples. 
disciples Lk. as yet knows nothing.— 


But of 


ws attov, to the place where He was. 
From the direction in which they had 
seen Him depart they had no difficulty 
in finding Him.—xaretyov, they held 
Him back, from doing what He seemed 
inclined to do, 7.e., from leaving them, 
with some of their sick still unhealed.— 
Ver. 43. Sttkal: the purpose of Jesus 
is the same in Lk. as in Mk., but 
differently expressed, in fuller, more 
developed terms, to preach the good 
news of the Kingdom of God. Of course 
all must hear the news; they could not 
gainsay that.—deotdAnv, I was sent, 
referring to His Divine mission; in 
place of Mk.’s é§#AOov, referring to the 
purpose of Jesus in leaving Capernaum. 
Lk.’s version, compared with Mk.’s, is 
secondary, and in a different tone. Mk.’s 
realism is replaced by decorum: what it 
is fitting to make Jesus do and say. 
Flight eliminated, and a reference to 
His Divine mission substituted for an 
apology for flight. Vzde notes on Mk. 
CHAPTER V. THE CALL OF PETER. 


THE LEPER. THE PALSIED MAN. THE 
CaLL oF LEvi. Fastinc.—Vv. I-11. 
The call of Peter. This narrative, 


brought in later than the corresponding 
one in Mk., assumes larger dimensions 
and an altered character. Peter comes 
to the front, and the other three named 


494 


a bere only 
in same 
sense in 


Acts 
XXVIi. 20, 


KATA AOYKAN 


dXueis dmoBdvtes dw adtav 


Vv. 


V. 1. "ETENETO 8 év 1O Tov Sxdov “emeioOar adto rod! 
dxovew tdv Adyov Tod cod, kal adds Fv éotHs Tapa Thy Aiuyyy 
‘Tevynoapér’ 2. kal elSe SU0 mAoia? éotHra mapa Thy Nipvyy- ot Se 


aéméwAuvav* ta Sixtua. 


3: €pBads Sé 


eis €v TO TAOlwy, & Hy Tod® Lipwvos, Apdtyoer adrov dd THs ys 
énavayayeiv dXlyov: Kal xabicas® edi8acKey éx Tod moiou™ tods 


SxAous. 


4. ‘Qs Se énatcato addy, ele mpds tov Lipwva, 


t here only © Emavdyaye cis 1d > BdOos, Kal yaddoate Ta Sixtua Spay cis 


in same 
sense in 
N. T. 


Gypay.” 


1 wat for rov in SABL 1, 131. 

2B has wAota Sv0 (W.H. text). 
marg.). 

Sam avtwy arofavytes in BCDL 33. 

§ Omit tov NBDL. 


5. Kal dioxpibels 6% Eipwv eitev ad7@,? “’Emordra, 8 
SAns THs! vuKtds KomidoavTes obdey EAGBopev: emi S€ TH Aypari 


NCL 33 al. min. have wAovapta (Tisch., W.H., 


 ewhvvay (-ov) in SBCDL. 
§ xabioas Se in NBL. 


Text. wr. eSid5acKev in B (W.H.). SD have ev tr. wA.,also before €8:5. (Tisch.). 


§ Omit o BLA. 


in Mk., James, John and Andrew, retire 
into the shade; the last-named, indeed, 
does not appear in the picture at all. 
This, doubtless, reflects the relative 
positions of the four disciples in the pub- 
lic eye in the writer’s time, and in the 
circle for which he wrote. The interest 
gathered mainly about Peter: Christian 
people wanted to be told about him, 
specially about how he became a dis- 
ciple. That interest had been felt before 
Lk. wrote, hence the tradition about his 
call grew ever richer in contents, till it 
became a lengthy, edifying story. Lk. 
gives it as he found it. Some think he 
mixes up the call with the later story told 
in John xxi. 1-8, and not a few critics 
find in his account a symbolic repre- 
sentation of Peter’s apostolic experience 
as narrated in the book of Acts. Such 
mixture and symbolism, if present, had 
probably found their way into the his- 
tory before it came into Lk.’s hands. 
He gives it bond fide as the narrative of 
a real occurrence, which it may quite 
well be. 

Vv. 1-7. éarixetofar. In Mt. and 
Mk. (iv. 18, i. 16) the call of the four 
disciples took place when Jesus was 
walking alone. Here Jesus is surrounded 
by a crowd who pressed upon Him.— 
Kal axovety, etc., and were hearing the 
word of God. The crowd, and their 
eagerness to hear the word of God 
(phraseology here secondary), serve in 
the narrative to explain the need of 
disciples (so Schanz and Hahn).—-wapa 


* Omit avtw WB, e, cop. 


1 Omit Tas NABL 33. 


thv Aiuvnv ll. The position of Jesus in 
speaking to the crowd was on the mar- 
gin of the lake; called by Lk. alone 
Aipvyn.—Ver. 2. éoT@Ta: two boats 
standing by the lake, not necessarily 
drawn up on shore, but close to land, so 
that one on shore could enter them. 
They had just come in from the fishing, 
and were without occupants, their owners 
having come on shore to clean their nets. 
—Ver. 3. épBas: this-action of Jesus 
would be noticed of course, and would 
bring the owner to His side. It was 
Simon's boat, the man whose mother-in- 
law, in Lk.’s narrative, had been healed of 
fever.—émravayayetv, to put out to sea, 
here and in ver. 4 and Mt. xxi. 18 only. 
—é6Xiyov: just far enough to give com- 
mand of the audience.—e6{8ackev : this 
teaching from a boat took place again 
on the day of the parables (Mt. xiii. 2, 
Mk. iv. 1). But that feature does not 
appear in the corresponding narrative of! 
Lk. (viii. 4). Did Peter’s call attract 
that feature from the later occasion in 
the tradition which Lk. followed ?— 
Ver. 4. els 1d Palos, into the deep 
sea, naturally to be found in the centre, 
inside the shelving bottom stretching 
inwards from the shore.—yaddoate, 
plural, after éwavayaye, singular; the 
latter addressed to Peter as the master, 
the former denoting an act in which all 
in the boat would assist. Bornemann 
(Scholia) gives instances of similar usage 
in classics.—a&ypav, here and in ver. G 
only, in N. T,; in the first place may be 





I—II. 


gou xaXdow Td Bixtuoy.”! 


EYATTEAION 


495 


6. Kai todto moiujoavtes, cuvénNerouw 


ixOdwv wAHO0s? wodt-: Sreppyyvuto S€ 7d Bixruov® adtay, 7. Kai 


A ~ A , ~ 
Katéveugav Tots *peToxors Tois* év TO étépw TAolw, Tod éAOdvTas c hese and 


a 5 several 

guddaPéo8ar adtots: Kat AAVov, kal Ewhynoav dppdtepa Ta ora, times in 
n eb. (i. 

8. idav Sé Xipwy Métpos mpocéwese Tois etc)” 


@ore BuPileoPar adta. 


yovact Tod “Ingod, Néywr, “"EEeNe at eucd, Ot. dvip dpaptwdds 


eip., Kupre.” 


9. OduBos yap mepréoyev adtov Kal Wdvras Tous ody 


Pine Stee des ~ 2 ae 26 eg ces, \ ‘ 
att, €wl TH Gypa Tov ixOdwy 7° cuvédkaBov: 10. dpotws Sé Kat 


, a * ‘ a , 
‘IdkwBov Kat “ladvvny, utods ZeBedatou, ot Hoav Kowwvol TO Lipo. 


Kal etme mpds Tov Xipwva 67 “Ingots, “My doBod- amd tod viv 


avOpatous Eon Lwypav.” 


Il, Kat katayaydvtes Ta mAota éwt Thy 


y1v, Abévtes Grravta, HkokovOngay ada. 


la Sixtva in NBDL. 


2 ardnOos txX@vwv in RABCL. T.R. =D. 


* NBL have d:epnooero, and BDL ra Stxtva (Tisch., W.H., adopt both). 


4 Omit tors NBDL. 
§ wv in BD instead of n (in SCL). 


used actively = for taking, in the second, 
passively = fora take. But the latter 
sense might suit both places. If so 
used here the word implies a promise 
(Hahn).—Ver. 5. émiotata: Lk.’s 
name for Jesus as Master, six times; a 
Greek term for Gentile readers instead 
of Rabbi = (1) Master, then (2) Teacher, 
‘qui enim magistri doctrinae erant, ii 
magistri simul vitae esse solebant,” 
Kypke.—émi t@ fyjpari cov, at Thy word 
or bidding. Success was doubly im- 
probable: it was day, and in deep 
water ; fish were got at night, and near 
shore. The order, contrary to  pro- 
bability, tempts to symbolic interpreta- 
tion: the deep sea the Gentile world; 
Peter’s indirect objection symbol of his 
reluctance to enter on the Gentile 
mission, overcome by a special revela- 
tion (Acts x.). So Holtz., H. C.—Ver. 
6. Stepyjoaczo began to break, or were 
on the point of breaking; on the sym- 
bolic theory = the threatened rupture of 
unity though the success of the Gentile 
mission (Acts xy.).—Ver. 7. katévevo-ay, 
they made signs, beckoned, here only in 
N. T. (évévevoy, i. 62); too far to speak 
perhaps, but fishers would be accustomed 
to communicate by signs to preserve 
needful stillness (Schanz).—ovAAaBéoOar 
autois: this verb with dative occurs in 
Phil. iv. 3 =to help one.—dore, with 
infinitive = tendency here, not result.— 
BubileoBat, to sink in the deep (BuOés), 
here only in O. or N. T. in reference to 
aship; init Tim. vi. 9 in reference to 
rich men. 


5 SSB al. omit tov. 
7 Omit e BL. 


Vv. 8-11. Sequel of the miracle,— 
Ver. 8. [létpos: here for first time 
introduced without explanation, pre- 
sumably in connection with the great 
crisis in his history.—a@vyjp apaptwAds : 
a natural exclamation especially for an 
impulsive nature in the circumstances. 
But the utterance, though real, might 
have been passed over in the tradition. 
Why so carefully recorded by Lk.? 
Perhaps because it was a fitting thing 
for any man to say on becoming a dis- 
ciple of the Holy Jesus—the sin of the 
disciple a foil to the holiness of the 
Master. Also to supply a justification 
for the statement in ver. 32, ‘*I came 
not to call,’ etc. In this connection sin 
is ascribed to all the apostles when 
called, in very exaggerated terms in Ep, 
Barnab., v. g (8vtas trip awacay 
Gpaptiay dvonwtépovs). — Ver. ro. 
"IdkwBov Kai “lwdvvyy, dependent on 
meptéoxev : fear encompassed them also, 
not less than Peter and the rest. This 
special mention of them is not explained, 
unless inferentially in what follows.— 
#7 oBod, fear not, addressed to Peter 
alone. He alone, so far as appears, is to 
become a fisher of men, but the other 
two are named, presumably, because 
meant to be included, and in matter of 
fact they as well as Simon abandon all 
and follow Jesus (ver. 11).—{fwypav: the 
verb means to take alive, then generally 
to take; here and in 2 Tim.ii. 26. The 
analytic form (€o Lwypev) implies per- 
manent occupation = thou shall be a 
taker.—Ver. II. Kxatayaydvres T WA,, 


$96 


KATA AOYKAN 4. 


12. KAI éyéveto év TO elvar adrov év pid trav médewv, Kal (Bod, 
dvijp whypys Aérpas: Kal (Sav! Tdv "Incodv, teady eri mpdowmoy, 
evn adrod, éywv, “Kupte, édv Ons, Bdvacai pe Kaapioa.” 
13. Kal éxretvas Thy xelpa, Hato adtod, eimdv,? “Oddw, Kabapico- 
Ont.” Kai edOéws 7 Aémpa aapOev dw adtou. 
Tapyyyerkey adtG prdevi eiweiv: “GAAA darehOdv Seigov ceauTov 


14. Kat adtds 


T@ lepet, kal mpooéveyxe wept Tod Ka0apiopod cou, Kabws mpocérate 
Mwojjs, eis paptupvoy aitots.” 15. Auppxeto 8é€ paddov 6 Adyos 
Wept adtod > Kal cuvipxovro SxAot ToAAol dkovewv, kal VepamrederOar 
bw’ adrod ® dwé tay dobeverdv abtav: 16. attds Sé Hv bwoxwpav ev 
Tais épypots, Kal Tpoceuxdpevos. 

17. Kat éyéveto év pd TOv hpep@v, Kal adtos Fv SiddoKwv: Kal 
joav Kabypevor Papicator Kal vopodiddoKxador, ot Haav é\nduddres 
€k Tdaons Kops THs TadtAalas Kal “loudaias Kal ‘lepoucadyp* Kai 
Suvapuis Kuplou hy eis TO idoar atrods.4 18. Kai idou, dvBpes 
pépovtes emt kAlvns avOpwiov Ss jv wapahedupevos, Kat éLyTouv 


1 LSwv Se in NB, e, cop. 
5 Omit vr avtov SBCDL minusce. 


2 Aeywv in NBCDL 33 al. 


4auvrov in NBLE aeth. (Tisch., W.H.), not understood, hence corrected into 


avtous (T.R.). 


drawing up their ships on land; that 
work done for ever. Chiefly in Lk. and 
Acts. 

Vv. 12-16. The leper (Mt. viii. 1-4, 
Mk. i. 40-45).—Ver. 12. év pag t. a. for 

tit, one of the cities or towns of 
Galilee in which Jesus had been preach- 
ing (Mk. i. 39 Lk. iv. 44).—at Lod, 
after wat éyévero, very Hebraistic.— 
awAnpns Aémpas, full of leprosy (Aewpds 
in parallels). Note here again the desire 
to magnify the miracle.—éav @éAps, etc., 
the man’s words the same in all three 
narratives. His doubt was as to the 
will not the power to heal.—Ver. 13. 
Hwaro: this also in all three—a cardinal 
point; the touch the practical proof of 
the will and the sympathy. No shrink- 
ing from the loathsome disease.—h 
héwpa awndGev: Lk. takes one of Mk.’s 
two phrases, Mt. the other. Lk. takes 
the one which most clearly implies a 
cure; éxaQepio6y (Mt.) might conceiv- 
ably mean: became technically clean.— 
Ver. 14. GAAa, etc.: here the ovatio 
indirecta passes into or. directa as in Acts 
i. 4, xiv. 22, etc.—7@ tepei, to the priest ; 
not necessarily in Jerusalem, but to the 
priest in the province whose business it 
was to attend to such duties (Hahn).— 
Ver. 15. Gkoverv, to hear, but not 
the word as in ver. 1, rather to hear 


about the wonderful Healer and to get 
healing for themselves (OepameveoOat).— 
Ver. 16. To retirement mentioned in 
Mk. Lk. adds prayer (rpocevydpevos) ; 
frequent reference to this in Lk. 

Vv. 17-26. The paralytic (Mt. ix. 1-8, 
Mk. ii. 1-12).—Ver. 17. €v pig Tav 
7pep@v, a phrase as vague as a note of 
time as that in ver. 12 as a note of 
place.—kal atrés, etc., and He was 
teaching ; the Hebraistic paratactic con- 
struction so common in Lk. Note xa 
qoav and kal Suvapis K. qv following.— 
vopodisdoKado., teachers of the law, 
Lk.’s equivalent for ypappatets. The 
Pharisees and lawyers appear here for 
the first time in Lk., and they appear in 
force—a large gathering from every 
village of Galilee, from Judaea, and from 
Jerusalem, Jesus had preached in the 
synagogues of Galilee where the scribes 
might have an opportunity of hearing 
Him. But this extensive gathering of 
these classes at this time is not accounted 
for fully in Lk. Not till later does such 
a gathering occur in Mk. (iii. 22).— 
avrév, the reading in $WBL gives quite 
a good sense; it is accusative before 
lac@at = the power of the Lord (God) 
was present to the effect or intent that 
He (Jesus) should heal.—Ver. 18, 
mapadehupevos, instead of mapahutixos 





EYATTEAION 


12—26, 


497 


: BA" > a “ - EPA 2 a S ey! 
adtov eiveveyxeiy Kat Qeivar évwimov adtod- 19. Kat ph edpdvtes 
Sid? otas eicevéyxwow adtov 31d tov Oxdov, dvaBdvtTes emi Td 

a N a , a > a a , > Q 
SGpa, Sta Tov Kepdpwv Ka0jkay adtév ably TO khuvtdiw eis Td pécov 
»” 6 a? A \ ida s 2A ? 2a 2 
Eumpoobey Tod “Ingod. 20, Kal iddv thy wiotw adtay, elwev adta, 
““AvOpurre, adéwvral cot at dGpaptia: cov. 21. Kal fpgavto 
SiadoyiLecOar ot ypapparets Kat ot Paptcator, héyortes, “ Tis éorw 
oltos bs Aadet PAacdypias ; 
22. "Emuyvods 8€ 6 “Ingots Tots S:ahoytopods 


tis Suvarar dprévar dpaprias,® ef ph 
2 
povos 6 Oeds; 
A , a 
adtOv drroxpOels etme mpds abtovs, “Tt SiadoyiLecbe ev rats 
kapdlats Guay; 23. Tl éotiw edxomutepov, eimety, Apewytal cor at 
~ 4 ~ 
dpaptiat cou, 4 eimeiv, “Eyerpar* kat wepimdrer; 24. iva Sé eidijTe 
Sti efouclay exer 6 vids Tod GvOpérrou 5 emi rijs Yis ddpiévar dpap- 
A A 
tias,” etme TH tapaheupevw, “ Eol A€yw, Eyerpar,® kai dpas Td 
, , , > A > , » ‘ a 
KAuviSLdy gou, Topevou eEis TOV OlKdY Gou. 25. Kat tapa a 
; paxpyp 
~ > @ A 
dvaotas évuriov abtav, dpas éb wo? Karéxerto, dmqOev eis TOV olkov 
: q 
abtod, SofdLwv tov Oedv. 26. Kat Exotaots EXaBev amavras, kai 
eddéalov tov Cedv, kat émAnoOncay ddBou, Aéyortes, “Ore etdonev 
’ i ’ lied 





mapdSofa onpepoy.” 


1 ta omitted in all uncials. 

3 apap. adrevat in BDE. 

Sov. 7. av. efovcray exer in BLE 
6 eyecpe here again in many MSS. 


in the parallels, the former more in 
use among physicians, and the more 
classical.—é{yrovv, imperfect, implying 
difficulty in finding access, due, one 
might think, to the great numbers ot 
Pharisees and lawyers. present, no 
mention having as yet been made of 
any others. But the 6xAos comes in in 
next verse.—Ver. 19. otas (81a troias 
6803), by what way.—o. T. KAwidio: 
dim. of xAivy (ver. 18, here only in N. T.). 
Lk. avoids Mk.’s x«paBBaros, though 
apparently following him as to the sub- 
stance of the story.—Ver. 20. av0pwre, 
man, instead of Mk.’s more kindly téxvov 
and Mt.’s still more sympathetic Oapoer 
téxvov ; because (suggests J. Weiss) it 
was not deemed fitting that such a sinner 
should be addressed as son or child! 
This from Lk., the evangelist of grace! 
The substitution, from whatever reason 
proceeding, is certainly not an improve- 
ment. Possibly Lk. had a version of 
the story before him which used that 
word. Doubtless Jesus employed the 
kindlier expression.—Ver. 21. 8adoyi- 
teoOar: Lk. omits the qualifying phrases 
év éavtots, év Tats xapdiats of Mt. and 


27 SSBLE 33 omit avtw. 
4 eyetpe in NABCDLE. 


(Tisch., W.H.). 


7 eb o in NABCLAE al. 


Mk., leaving it doubtful whether they 
spoke out or merely thought.—héyovres 
does not settle the point, as it merely 
indicates to what effect they reasoned.— 
Ver. 22. The expression ‘in your 
hearts’ coming in here suggests that 
Lk. may have omitted it in ver. 21 
merely to avoid repetition.—Ver. 24. 
€yeipe kal Gpas ... wopevov: by in- 
troducing the participle adpas Lk. im- 
proves the style as compared with Mk., 
but weakens the force of the utterance, 
‘‘ arise, take up thy bed and go”. The 
same remark applies to the words of the 
scribes, ver. 21, ‘‘who is this that 
speaketh blasphemies?”’ compared with, 
‘“why doth this person speak thus? 
He blasphemes.”’ Lk.’s is secondary, 
the style of an editor working over a 
rugged, graphic, realistic text.—Ver. 25. 
mwapaxpypa (tape +o xpjpa), on the 
spot, instantly; in Lk. only, magnifying 
the miracle.—Ver. 26. ékoraois might 
be taken out of Mk.’s é§{orac@ar.— 
mapadsota. Each evangelist expresses 
the comments of the people in different 
terms. All three may be right, and not 
one of them may give the ipsissima 


32 


498 


KATA AOYKAN Vv. 


27. Kai perd raira éfjNOe, kai Gedoato teddvyy, dvdpan Aeutr, 


kaOjpevoy eri td TeXdviov, Kal elmev aita, “’AkohovOer prot.” 


28. Kat katahuriy Gravta, dvactas jKohovOncer! adtd. 


29. Kat 


éwoince Soxiv peyddnvy 6? Aevis adtd ev TH oikia adrod: Kai jp 


SxAos TeAwvay tohus,® Kai GAKwr ot joav pet abtav KaTaKelpevor. 


30. Kal éyoyyuLov of ypapparets adtay Kal of bapicator * mpds Tous 


pabyntas attod, Aéyovres, “ 


éoOiere Kal tivete;” 


31. 


Avati peta tehwvGv kal dpaptwhday 
Kai dmoxpileis 6 “Ingots etme mpds 


abtous, “Od xpeiav Exouow ot bytaivovtes iatpod, add’ ol KaKds 


™” 
EXOVTES. 


1 ykodovder in BDLE 60, a. 
3 arodus before reX. in NBCDLE 33 al. 


40. Pap. Kat ot yp. autwy in ABCLAE 


verba. Lk.’s version is: We have seen 
unexpected things to-day. Here only in 
ING 

Vv. 27-32. Call of Levi (Mt. ix. 9-13, 
Mk. ii. 13-17).—Ver. 27. @@edacarto, 
instead of elSev. Hahn, appealing to 
John i. 14, iv. 35, xi. 45, assigns to it the 
meaning, to look with interest, to let 
the eye rest on with complacency. But 
it is doubtful whether in later usage it 
meant more than to look in order to 
observe. If the view stated in Mt. on 
the so-called Matthew’s feast (q.v.) be 
correct, Jesus was on the outlook for a 
man to assist Him in the Capernaum 
mission to the publicans.—émi 0 
teXaviov, at “the tolbothe,” Wyclif. 
The tolls collected by Levi may have 
been either on highway traffic, or on 
the traffic across the lake. Mk.’s 
wapdaywv (ver. 14) coming after the 
reference to the sea (ver. 13) points to 
the latter.— Ver. 28. karadurov arava, 
leaving all behind, in Lk. only; a 
specialty of the ebionitically inclined 
evangelist, thinks J. Weiss (in Meyer). 
But it merely predicates of Levi what all 
three evangelists predicate of Peter and 
his comrades.—Ver. 29. Sox7yv (from 
Séxopat here and in xiv. 13), a reception, 


a feast, in Sept. for raf ltosal (Gen. 


xxvi. 30, Esther i. 3). That Mt. madea 
feast is directly stated only by Lk., 
perhaps as an inference from the phrases 
in Mk. which imply it: Kkataxeio@at, 
ovvaveKewvto (ver. 15), éoBier Kat awlver 
(ver. 16). That it was a great feast is 
inferred from zroAXot in reference to the 
number present. The expressions of the 
evangelists force us to conceive of the 
gathering as exceeding the dimensions 


32. odx €\nduba Kahéoar Sixaious, GANA Gpaptwdods eis 


2 Omit o all uncials. 


al. T.R. = ND. 


of a private entertainment—a congrega- 
tion rather, in the court, to eat and to 
hear the gospel of the kingdom. Possibly 
none of the evangelists realised the full 
significance of the meeting, though Lk, 
by the expression 6xAos modts shows 
that he conceived of it as very large.— 
aAAwv stands for 4paptrwAey, which Lk. 
does not care to use when speaking for 
himself of the class, preferring the vague 
word “others”. They were probably a 
very nondescript class, the ‘“‘ submerged 
tenth’? of Capernaum.—Ver. 30. ot 
Papiraio. Kal of ypap. avrav, the 
Pharisees, and the scribes connected with 
them, the professional men of the party. 
They were not of course guests, but 
they might if they chose look in: no 
privacy on such occasions in the East ; 
or they might watch the strange com- 
pany as they dispersed.—éo@iete kat 
atvere: addressed to the disciples. In 
the parallels the question refers to the 
conduct of Jesus though put to the 
disciples.—Ver. 31. Jesus replies, under- 
standing that it is He who is put on His 
defence. His reply is given in identical 
terms in all three Synoptics ; a remark- 
able logion carefully preserved in the 
tradition.— Ver. 32. els peravo.av: 
doubtless a gloss of Lk.’s or of a tradi- 
tion he used, defining and guarding the 
saying, but also limiting its scope.— 
xahéoat is to be understood in a festive 
sense = I came to call sinners to the 
feast of the Kingdom, as I have called to 
this feast the ‘‘sinners”’ of Capernaum. 
Vv. 33-39. Fasting (Mt. ix. 14-17, 
Mk. ii. 18-22).—Ver. 33. ot 8@ connects 
what follows with what goes before as a 
continuation of the same story. Not so 
in Mk. : cor-etion there simply topical. 





| 
| 


Parable of the Tares among the Wheat 


The purpose of parables- "To you has been 
given the mystery of the kgdom of heaven. 


Many of the parables deal with the Kedom 

of Heaven, or muux Luke and Mk prefer:Kedom of 
God. 3 ‘ 

This parables compares the indident described 
to the Kingdom of God, so it is in place that 
we look at the start, at what the Ke. isf 


All Gospels agree, that the kg. is the 
starting point of Jesus's preaching adn teach 
John Baptist prepared... by announcing its 
arrival. 


The expression kgdom of God comes fromOT and 
means not a terrestraal territory over which 
God is sovereign--nétaa country or a territor) 
Nor is a people primarily in view--but rather 
it is the active exercise of God's kingly 
nature which is meant. 

Not static, but an active process whereby 
God's kingly nature is given its proper place, 


Now when Jesus came, he announced that this 
Was being realized, as never before. 


This perable is meant to illustrate what 
will resdlt with the realization or inaugur- 
ation of God's reign. 

The point of the parable is directed vs 
the mind-set of one of Christ's paxzhizs 
disciples, namely, Simon the Zealot. 

The mind-set of this man, and the class 
he represents wag thet when Messiah would coy 


he would pmrpez bring in the Kinedom and pur 





27—36. 


EYATTEAION 


499 


4 

petdvoiay.” 33. Oi Se elwov mpds adtdév, “Atati! of pabytai 
n~ if A c ~ 

‘lwdvvou vnotevouct Tukvd, Kal Severs TorovvTat, Gpolws Kal ol TOY 


’ ‘ , ” 
Papicaiwv: ot S€ cot éeaBioucs Kal mivouow ; 


34. 0 de? elwe 


mpds adtods, “Mi Suvacbe Tods ulods Tod vupdavos, év @ 6 vuppios 


wer adtav éott, movjoar vyotedery 8 ; 


35. ehevoovrar dé Hpépar, 


A , 
kat Stay drap0q dm adtav & vupdios, téTe vnoTEUTOUGL év éxeivats 


rais pépats.” 


36. “Edeye 8€ kai mapaBohiy mpds adtous, ““On 


oddeis emiBAnpa ipatiou Kawod* émPddder emt ipdtioy mahardy - 
ci S€ prye, Kal 7d xowdy oxiLe,® Kat TS mahad od ouppuvei ® 


i Omit Stat. BLE 33 cop. 


2 Add Inaovs NWBCDLE 33. 


3 ynorevoat in BE 28 (Tisch., W.H.). T.R. = NACDLA al. 
4 For ip. katvov SEBDLE 33 al. have awo tp. kK. oXLoas (Tisch., W.H.). ACA 


al. omit oxLoas. 
§ oxtoet in NBCDL 33. 


§ cupdovgge in $ABCDLX 33 and many other minusc. 


The supposed speakers are the Pharisees 
and scribes (ver. 30). In Mk. Phar. and 
John’s disciples. In Mt. the latter only. 
If the Pharisees and scribes were the 
spokesmen, their putting John’s dis- 
ciples first in stating the common practice 
would be a matter of policy = John held 
in respect by Jesus, why then differ 
even from him ?—vxva (neuter plural, 
from amu«vds, dense), frequently.— 
Sevjoetg morovvrat, make prayers, on 
system ; added to complete the picture 
of an ascetic life; cf. ii. 37; referred to 
again in xi. 1; probably the question 
teally concerned only fasting, hence 
omitted in the description of the life of 
the Jesus-circle even in Lk.—éo@iovow 
kat mtivovor, eat and drink; on the 
days when we fast, making no distinction 
of days.—Ver. 34. py Svvacbe... 
woujoat vyno., can ye make them fast ? 
In Mt. and Mk., can they fast? Lk.’s 
form of the question points to the futility 
of prescriptions in the circumstances. 
The Master could not make His dis- 
ciples fast even if He wished.—Ver. 35. 
kal Grav: Mt. and Mk. place the nal 
before +éte in the next clause. Lk.’s 
arrangement throws more emphasis on 
Hpépar: there will come days, and when, 
etc. The cat may be explicative ( = et 
guidem, Bornemann), or it may intro- 
duce the apodosis.—érav amap6q, the 
subjunctive with Gv in a relative clause 
teferring to a probable future event. 

Vv. 36-39. Relative parabolic Logia.— 
Heye . . . Ste: an editorial introduction 
tothe parabolic sayings. The first of 
these, as given by Lk., varies in form 
from the version in the parallels, suggests 


somewhat different ideas, and is in itself 
by no means clear. Much depends on 
whether we omit or retain ayioas in 
the first clause. If, with BDL, we re- 
tain it, the case put is: a piece cut out 
of a new garment to patch an old one, the 
evil results being: the new spoiled, and 
the old patched with the new piece pre- 
senting an incongruous appearance (ov 
oupdwvicer). If, with AC, etc., we 
omit oxtoas, the case put may be: a 
new piece not cut out of a new garment, 
but a vemnant (Hahn) used to patch an 
old, this new piece making a rent in the 
old garment; 76 katvov in second clause 
not object of, but nominative to, oxtcen, 
and the contrast between the new patch 
and old garment presenting a grotesque 
appearance. The objection to this latter 
view is that there is no reason in the 
case supposed why the new patch should 
make a rent. In Mt. and Mk. the 
patch is made with unfulled cloth, which 
will contract. But the remnant of cloth 
with which a new garment is made 
would not be unfuiled, and it would not 
contract. The sole evil in that case 
would be a piebald appearance. On the 
whole it seems best to retain cyioas, 
and to render 76 xawvév oxtoe, he (the 
man who does so foolish a thing) will 
rend the new. Kypke suggests as an 
alternative rendering: the new is rent, 
taking ox(fet intransitively, of which use 
he cites an instance from the Testament 
of the twelve patriarchs. The sense on 
this rendering remains the same.—Ver. 
37. The tradition of the second logion 
seems to have come down to Lk.’s time 
without variation; at all events he gives 


soo 


dwiBXypa 73 dd Tod Katvod. 


KATA AOYKAN 


V. 37—39- 


37. Kat obSels Bddder olvoy véov eis 


doxods madatots: ef Sé prjye, pijger 5 véos otvos! rods dokods, Kat 
adrés éxxuOncerat, cat ot doxol dmohodvrar: 38. adda olvov véov 
eis doxods Katvods BAytéov, Kal duddrepot currnpodvrar.? 39. Kat 
obSels may wadadv edbdws® Oder véov: Adyar ydp, “O wahatds 


xpnotétepds * éotw.” 
1 © otvog o veos in BCDL al. 


from 
5 Omit evbews BCL minusc. cop. 


3 kat apd. cuvTyp. omitted in NBL 1, 33 al. cop. (Tisch., W.H.); an addition 
Mt. 


“xpyoros in BL cop. D and some western codd. of vet. Lat. omit this verse. 


it substantially as in parallels. The diffi- 
culty connected with this parabolic word 
is not critical or exegetical, but scientific. 
The question has been raised: could 
even new, tough skins stand the process 
of fermentation? and the suggestion 
made that Jesus was not thinking at 
all of fermented, intoxicating wine, but 
of “‘ must,’’ a non-intoxicating beverage, 
which could be kept safely in new 
leather bottles, but not in old skins, 
which had previously contained ordinary 
wine, because particles of albuminoid 
matter adhering to the skin would set 
up fermentation and develop gas with an 
enormous pressure. On this vide Farrar 
(C. G. T., Excursus, III.).—Ver. 38 gives 
the positive side of the truth answering 
to Mt. ix. 17b, only substituting the 
verbal adjective BAnréov for BaddAovery. 
—Ver. 39. The thought in this verse is 
peculiar to Lk. It seems to be a genial 
apology for conservatism in religion, 
with tacit reference to John and his 
disciples, whom Jesus would always 
treat with consideration. They loved 
the old wine of Jewish piety, and did 
not care for new ways. They found it 
good (xpyords), so good that they did not 
wish even to taste any other, and could 
therefore make no comparisons. (Hence 
xpnords preferable to xpyordétepos in 
sven ke This saying is every way 
worthy of Christ, and it was probably 
one of Lk.’s finds in his pious quest for 
traditions of the Personal Ministry. 

With reference to the foregoing para- 
bolic words, drawn from vesture and 
wine, Hahn truly remarks that they 
would be naturally suggested through 
association of ideas by the figure of a 
wedding feast going before. Bengel 
hints at the same thought: “‘ parabolam 
a vesie, a vino; inprimis opportunam 
convivio’’. 


SaBBATIC CONFLICTS. 
THE APOSTLES. THE SERMON ON THE 
Mount.—Vv. 1-5. The ears of corn 
(Mt. xii. 1-8, Mk. ii. 23-28).—év oaBBarw: 
Mk. makes no attempt to locate this in- 
cident in his history beyond indicating 
that it happened on Sabbath. Mt. uses 
a phrase which naturally suggests tem- 
poral sequence, but to which in view of 
what goes before one can attach no 
definite meaning. Lk. on the other 
hand would seem to be aiming at very 
great precision if the adjective qualifying 
ocaBBaty—Sevtepotpare, were genuine. 
But it is omitted in the important group 
NBL, and in other good documents, 
and this fact, combined with the ex- 
treme unlikelihood of Lk.’s using a word 
to which it is now, and must always have 
been, impossible to attach any definite 
sense, makes it highly probable that 
this word is simply a marginal gloss, 
which found its way, like many others, 
into the text. How the gloss arose, and 
what it meant for its author or authors, 
it is really not worth while trying to con- 
jecture, though such attempts have been 
made. Vide Tischendorf, N. T., ed. 
viii., for the critical history of the word. 
—ijo6.ov, ate, indicating the purpose of 
the plucking, with Mt. Mk. omits this, 
vide notes there.—wWoyovtes T.  X., 
rubbing with their hands; peculiar to 
Lk., indicating his idea of the fault (or 
that of the tradition he followed) ; 
rubbing was threshing on a small scale, 
an offence against one of the many 
minor rules for Sabbath observance. 
This word occurs here only in N. T., 
and is not classical—Ver. 2. tives: 
more exact than Mt. and Mk., who say 
the Pharisees generally, but not neces- 
sary to make their meaning clear. Of 
course it was only some of the class.— 
Ver. 3. ovde, for Mk.’s ovSérore and 


CHAPTER VI. 


VI. 1-5. EYATTEAION 


sor 
VI, 1. ETENETO 8€ év caBBdtw SeutepoTpdtw! SramopedecOas 
aitév 81a TOv? omopinwy: Kal ErANoy of palntal adtod Tods 
, ‘ ” 6 3 , a , 4 Se ~ 
otdxuas, Kat yabrov,> Wwxovres tTais xepoi. 2. Twes Tav 
dapicaiwy eiwov autois,* “Ti movette & obn eet. more év® 


tots cdBBaor;” 3. Kal dmoxpiWeis mpds attods etmev 5 “Inoois, 
“ O58€ todTo dvéyvwre, 8 éwoince AaBid, émdre ® émeivacev abtés Kai 
ot pet aro dvtes’; 4. ds eioaOev Eis Tdv otkov TO Ceo’, Kat 
Tos Gptous THs mpolécews EAaPe, Kal® Epaye, kal ESwxe nai? 
Tots peT adTOD, ols obK EfeoTL Hayetv Et pi) povous Tous iepets ;” 


5. Kal €Xeyev adrois, ““Ore)° xupids €or 6 ulds Tod dvOpumou nal 





tod caBBdtou.” 1! 


1 SSBL 33 al. omit Sevtepompwre. 
2 SSBL al. omit tev (from parall.). 


Vide below. 


3 xat yoftoy Tovs oraxvas in BCL (W.H.; Tisch.=T.R. with §). 

‘ Omit avtots BCL minusc. a, ¢, e, cop. 

5 B omits wove, and BL omit ev (W.H. omit both). 

6 ore in S$BCDL minusc. (W.H.; Tisch. has orore with less weighty witnesses, 


vide below). 


7 Omit ovtes with NBDL 33 al. (W.H.). 
8 B omits ws (W.H. in brackets), D also, reading eoedOwv. 
® For ehaBe xat BCLX 33 have AaBwv, and BL omit Kat after edene. 


10 NSB 1, 131 aeth. omit ott (W.H.). 


1 sov oaB., without nat, before o v. tT. av.in NB cop. aeth. (W.H.). 


(Tisch.). 


Mt.’s oux = not even; have ye so little 
understood the spirit of the O. T.? (De 
Wette). The word might be analysed 
into ov, S¢, when it will mean: but have 
ye not then read this? So Hofmann, 
Noésgen, Hahn.—éqmdte, here only in 
N. T., if even here, for many good 
MSS. have 6tre (W.H.).—Ver. 4. Lk. 
contents himself with the essential fact: 
hunger, overruling a positive law con- 
cerning the shewbread. No reference 
to the high priest, as in Mk., and no 
additional instance of the Sabbath law 
superseded by higher interests, as in 
Mt. (xii. 5). The controversy no longer 
lives for him, and his accounts are apt 
to be colourless and secondary.—Ver. 5. 
kat é\eyev: in Lk. this important logion 
about the Son of Man’s Lordship over 
the Sabbath is simply an external annex 
to what goes before = and He said: 
instead of arising out of and crowning 
the argument, as in Mt., and partly in 
Mk., though the latter uses the same 
phrase in introducing the logion peculiar 
to him about the Sabbath being made 
forman. liLk. had Mk. before him, 


DL = T.R. 


how could he omit so important a word ? 
Perhaps because it involved a contro- 
versial antithesis not easily intelligible 
to Gentiles, and because the Lordship 
of the Son of Man covered all in his 
view. How did he and his readers 
understand that Lordship ? 

Vv. 6-11. The withered hand (Mt. 
xii. 9-14, Mk. iii. 1-6).—Ver. 6. éy 
étépw oaBBatw: simply intended to in- 
dicate that the following incident, like 
the one going before, happened on a 
Sabbath. Observe Lk. uses here, as in 
vi. I, 5, the singular for the Sabbath.— 
THY ovy.: the article here might point 
to a particular synagogue, as in Mt., or 
be generic.—8.8acxeuv, present, eioed Oey, 
aorist: the entering an act, the preach- 
ing continuous. He was _ preaching 
when the following happened.—xai 7 
xetp: by comparison with Mt. and Mk. 
Lk. is here paratactic and Hebraistic 
in construction, But Palairet, against 
Grotius emphasising the Hebraism, cites 
from Aelian, Hist. Anim. (lib. xii., c. 24): 
év rq Padarry TH "Epvdpa tx dis yiveras, 
Kal dvopa avT@ vypds point.—n Seka, 


§o2 KATA AOYKAN VI. 

6. “Eyévero 8€ kat? év érépw caPBdtw cicedOeiv addy eis Thy 
guvaywyiy Kat SiddoKew: Kal jv éxet dvOpwros,? Kai F xelp abroo 
7) Sef. Fv Enpd. 7. mwaperfpouv® $é adrdv of ypappareis xal of 
daproaion, ef &v TS caBBdtw Oepamedce*: iva eipwor xatnyopiay 5 
adrod. 8. adtds S€ qde tods Siadoyiopods adrav, Kai ele TO 
dvOpwimw° rd Enpdv ExovTe Thy xeipa, “"Eyerpat,” Kat orAO eis 7d 
pécov.” g. Eliev odv® & “Inoots mpds 
adtous, “"Erepwriow! Spas, ri efeor: trois od BBaow,!! &yabororijoa 
10. Kat mepiBreWd- 


/ lol “a 
pevos tdvtas adtous, ele TO GvOpdTw,!” “"Exrewwov Thy xetpd cou.” 


*O 8&8 dvactds eon. 


H KaxoTrojoat; Wuxi cdoa H dmoddoat ;” 


“O Sé éroinoey otTw.8 Kal étroxateoTaOn 14  Xelp adtoo bytis ds 7 
&AAn.15 
GAn ous, th av tojceray !® To "Ingod. 


II. adroit 8€ emdjobnoary dvoias: Kal Siehddouvy mpds 


1 Omit cat NBL min. 


9 av. exer in NBL 33 al. (Tisch., W.H.). 


3 wapernpovvto in ABDL 33 al. (Tisch., W.H.). 


* Oepamever in SNADL (Tisch., W.H., text). 


T.R. = B (W.H. marg.). 


5 xatnyopety avrov in NB (D -yopneat). 
§ cumev Se To avSpt in NBL 33 (Tisch., W.H.). 


7 eyerpe in very many uncials. 
® For ovy SWBDL 33 al. have 8. 


8 For o 8 SWWBDL have «au. 
10 emepwrw in KWBL. 


1 SQBDL have et for tt, and te caBBarw for tors caBBaow. 


18 autw in B and many other uncials. 
18 Omit ovrw BLA 33. 


T.R.= SDL 33- 


M4 arexateotady in ADL al. pl., but B has amok. 


18 Omit vyins . - . 


addy (from Mt.) with BL. 


6 roincatey in BLA 33 al. pl. (Tisch., W.H.). 


the right hand. This particular peculiar 
to Lk., with the Hebrew style, proves, 
some think (Godet, Hahn), a source dis- 
tinct from Mt. or Mk. Not necessarily. 
It may be an inference by Lk., added to 
magnify the beneficence of the miracle. 
The right hand the working hand, the 
privation great, the cure the more 
valuable.—Ver. 7. apetypotvro, they 
kept watching, in a sly, furtive manner, 
ex obliquo et occulto, Bengel on Mk.—et 
Gepamever, whether He is going to heal, 
if that is to be the way of it.—Ver. 8. 
yeu: a participle might have been ex- 
pected here = He knowing their thoughts 
said, etc.—€yetpe kat or7%1, etc.: this 
command was necessary to bring the 
matter under the notice of the audience 
present, who as yet knew nothing of the 
thoughts of the Pharisees, and possibly 
were not aware that the man with 
the withered hand was present.—Ver. g. 
ayafororjoat, Kaxotrorjoar: on the 
meaning of these words and the 


issue raised vide on Mk.—Ver. to. 
meptBhedpevos. Lk. borrows this word 
from Mk., but omits all reference to the 
emotions he ascribes to Jesus: anger 
mixed with pity. He looks round merely 
waiting for an answer to His pointed 


question. None being forthcoming, He 
proceeds to heal: ‘qui tacet, con- 
sentit,’””’ Bornemann,—Ver. 11. dvolas: 


they were filled with senseless anger. 
They were “‘ mad” at Jesus, because He 
had broken the Sabbath, as they con- 
ceived it, in a way that would make Him 
popular: humanity and preternatural 
power combined.—rf Gv rroujoatev: Gy 
with the optative in an indirect question, 
in Lk. only, following classic usage. 
This combination of occasional classicism 
with frequent Hebraism is curious. It 
is noticeable that Lk. does not impute 
murderous intentions to the opponents 
of Jesus at this stage, nor combination 
with politicians to effect truculent designs 
(vide Mk. iti. 6). 








6—17. 


EYATTEAION 


Bo) 


12. “Eyévero Sé€ év tats ypépars tavtats, eé@Oev! eis 1d Spos 
mpoceigacbor: Kai hv StavuKtepevwy év TH mpoceuxt Tod eos. 
{3. Kal Ore éyévero Hucpa, mpocepwvyce tods palytas adtod- 
kat éxdefdwevos dm aitav Sddexa, ots Kal dwoordAous avdpace, 
(4. Zipwva dv Kat dvonace Métpov, Kat “Avipéav tov adedpdv adtod, 
‘1dxwBov? Kal “ladvyny, P0\umTTov Kat BapPodopatoy, 15. MatOatov 


a > , 
kal Owpay, IdkwBov toy Tod ® “AXpatou kal Linwva tov kadovpevoy 


Zyroryy, 16. “loddav “laxdBou, kat “lovSav “loxapiityy, os Kait 


ree 4 , 
éyéveto mpoddtys ° 


17- Kat KataBas pet adtav, Eaty emi TéToU 


Tedtvou, Kal dxhos® pabytay adtod, kai mAqOos odd Tod aod amd 


1 efehOerv avrov in SEBDL. 


788BDL have xat before laxwBov, and there is MS. authority for nat before 
every name (Tisch., W.H.: was in brackets before lax. AXd., omitted there only in 


B, probably by oversight). 
3 Omit tov tov NWBL 33. 


Vv. 12-19. On the hill (Mt. iv. 24-25, 
x. 2-4; Mk. iii. 7-19).—Ver. 12. év tais 
Npépats TavTats: a vague expression, 
but suggestive of some connection with 
foregoing encounters.—ééeh@etv, went 
out; whence not indicated, probably 
from a town (Capernaum?) into the 
solitude of the mountains.—els To dpos: 
as in Mt. v. i. and Mk. iii. 13, to the 
hill near the place where He had been. 
—mpooevéacGar, to pray, not in Mk.; 
might be taken for granted. But Lk. 
makes a point of exhibiting Jesus as a 
devotional Model, often praying, and 
especially at critical times in His life. 
The present is viewed as a very 
special crisis, hence what follows.—hy 
Stavuxtepevwv, etc., He was spending 
the whole night in prayer to God; 
StavucTepevwy occurs here only in N. T. 
—Tov Geov is genitive objective: prayer of 
which God is the object ; but if rpocevy} 
were taken as = a place for prayer in 
the open air, as in Acts xvi. 13, we 
should get the poetic idea of the 
proseucha of God—the mountains !|—Ver. 
13. Tovs padyntas, the disciples, of 
whom a considerable number have 
gathered about Jesus, and who have 
followed Him to the hill.—amoartdXovs, 
Apostles, used by Lk. in the later sense, 
here and elsewhere. The word is more 
frequent in his Gospel than in Mt. and 
Mk. (six times in Lk., once in Mt., twice 
in Mk.).—Ver. 14. Zfpeva;: here 
follows the list much the same as in Mt. 
and Mk. Lk., though he has already 
called Simon, Peter (v. 8), here 
mentions that Jesus gave him the name. 


4 Omit nas NBL. 


® oxAos modus in NBL. 


In the third group of four Judas Jacobi 
takes the place of Thaddaeus in Mk. 
and Lebbaeus in Mt. and Simon the 
Kananite is called Simon the Zealot. 
Of Judas Iscariot it is noted that he 
became a 


traitor, ‘turned traitor” 
(Field, Ot. Nor.).—wpo8Sdétms has no 
article, and therefore should not be 


rendered the traitor as in A. V. and R. V. 
When the verb is used it is always 
mapadiSdvar.— Ver. 17. KataBas, de- 
scending, with the Twelve, suggesting 
descent to the foot of the hills, the plain 
below. Yet the expression -té7rov 
meStvod is peculiar; hardly what we 
should expect if the reference were to 
the plain beside the lake; rather sugges- 
tive of a flat space lower down the hill. 
—eSiwos, here only in N. T. The 
descent takes place in order to the 
delivery of a discourse which, with the 
choice of the Apostles, constitutes the 
occasion with reference to which Jesus 
had spent the night in prayer. The 
audience consists of three classes 
separately named (2) the Twelve, (2) the 
company of disciples described as an 
SxAos woAts, (3) a multitude (aA7Aos) 
gathered from a wide area. This is the 
same multitude from which in Mk.’s 
narrative Jesus escaped to the hill, 
taking His disciples with Him, to get 
rest, and presumably to devote some 
leisure time to their instruction. Of 
this desire to escape from the crowd, so 
apparent in Mk., there is no trace in 
Lk. In indicating the sources ot this 
great human stream Lk. omits Galilee 
as superfluous, mentions Judaea and 


504 


KATA AOYKAN 


VI. 


mdons THs ‘loudaias Kal ‘lepovoadyp, Kal rhs wapadiou Tupou Kal 
LiBdvos, ot HAOov dkodcat adtod, Kal iabjvat dwd tay véowy adtay, 
18. kat ot dxAodpevor wd! mveundrwv dxabdprwy, kal? €beparevorro. 
1g. Kat mwas & Sydos eLjter® GwrecOar adrod: drt Sivapis map 
adrod éfipxeto, Kal iato mdvras. 

20. Kal adtds éemdpas tods dpbarpods adtod eis tods pabntas 
adtod Edeye, “ Maxdpror of mrwxol, Str Spetépa éotiv  Bacidela 


Tov Qeod. 
, ~ 
pakdptot ot KAalovtes viv, 


21. paxdpior ot tevaytes viv, Str xoptacOycecbe. 


Ott yehdoere. 22. praxdpiol eore, 


* evoxyAoupevor atro in SABL (D has aro). 


2 kat omitted in NABDL 33. 


Jerusalem, passing over Idumaea and 
Peraea (Mk. iii. 8), and winds up with 
Tyre and Sidon, defining the territory 
there whence people came by the ex- 
pression tHs wapadtov (x@pas under- 
stood), the sea-coast. The people come 
from all these places to hear Jesus 
(axotoat avtov) in the first place, as if 
in expectation of a great discourse, and 
also to be healed. The eagerness to get 
healing even by touch, of which Mk. 
gives so graphic a picture (iii. 10), is 
faintly indicated by @{yrow (é{yret, 
T. R.).—Ver. 19. Svvapis may be 
nominative both to é&jpxero and to lato 
(A. V. and R. V.), or we may render: 
‘“power went forth from Him and He 
healed all’”’. 

Vv. 20-49. The Sermon (Mt. v.-vii.). 
That it is the same sermon as Mt. 
reports in chapters v.-vii. may be re- 
garded as beyond discussion. How, 
while the same, they came to be so 
different, is a question not quite easy to 
answer. There probably was addition 
to the original utterance in the case of 
Mt., and there was almost certainly 
selection involving omission in the case 
of Lk.’s version, either on his part or on 
the part of those who prepared the text 
he used. Retouching of expression in 
the parts common to both reports is, of 
course, also veryconceivable. Asit stands 
in Lk. the great utterance has much 
more the character of a popular discourse 
than the more lengthy, elaborate version 
of Mt. In Mt. it is didache, in Lk. 
kerygma—a discourse delivered to a 
great congregation gathered for the 
purpose, with the Apostles and disciples 
in the front benches so to speak, a dis- 
course exemplifying the ‘words of 
grace’”’ (iv. 22) Jesus was wont to speak, 
the controversial antithesis (Mt. v. 17- 


3 e{nrovy in NBL. T-.R. a correction. 


48) eliminated, and only the evangelic 
passages retained; a sermon serving at 
once as a model for ‘‘ Apostles” and as 
a gospel for the million. 

Vv. 20-26. First part of the discourse : 
Beatitudes and Woes (Mt. v. 1-12).— 
Ver. 20. éwdpas tr. d.: in Lk. the 
Preacher lifts up His eyes upon His 
audience (t. pa@ytas, who are them- 
selves a crowd), in Mt. He opens His 
mouth ; both expressions introducing a 
solemn set discourse. Lk.’s phrase 
suggests a benignant look, answering to 
the nature of the utterance.—pexdptor: 
Lk. has only four Beatitudes, of which 
the poor, the hungry, the weeping, the 
persecuted are the objects; the sorrows 
not the activities of the children of the 
kingdom the theme.—4rtw ol, wretvovtes, 
KkAatovtes are to be taken literally as 
describing the social condition of those 
addressed. They are characteristics o 
those who are supposed to be children of 
the kingdom, not (as in Mt.) conditions 
of entrance. The description corresponds 
to the state of the early Church. It is 
as if Jesus were addressing a church 
meeting and saying: Blessed are ye, my 
brethren, though poor, etc., for in the 
Kingdom of God, and its blessings, 
present and prospective, ye have ample 
compensation. Note the use of the 
second person. In Mt. Jesus speaks 
didactically in the third person. Christ’s 
words are adapted to present circum- 
stances, but it is not mecessary to 
suppose that the adaptation proceeds 
from an ebionitic circle, ascetic in spirit 
and believing poverty to be in itself a 
passport to the kingdom, and riches the 
way to perdition. 

Vv. 22, 23. In the corresponding 
passage in Mt. there is first an objective 
didactic statement about the persecuted. 


18—28. EYATrVEAION 


595 
Stay pionowow duds ot GvOpwiro, Kai Stay dhopicowow spas, 
Ns ’ QA 9 , oo” Cltn c , ] 
Kat dverdiowor, Kai éxBddwor TO Gvopa Spay as wovnpdv, évexa 
Tod ulod tod dvOpdmou. 23.  xaipere! ev exeivn TH tpépa 
4 , > A LA c \ < ~ lol > an 
kal oxiptyoate: id00 ydp, 6 piabds byay modds év TH odpavd- 
kata Tadta? yap émolouy tois mpodiyrats of matépes adTav. 
24. MAjv oval Suty trois mAouciots, Ste dwéxeTe Thy mapdKAynoww 
Opav. 


25. ovat Sptv, ot éumetAnopevor,® St. mewdoete. oval 


opiv,* ot yehGvres viv, Ore wevOncete Kal kAadceTe. 26. odal Spiv,4 
@ ho ec A ™” & L Ser 6 A 5 AY 
Stay Kah@s bpds etwwor mdvtes ot GvOpwro- Katd taita> yap 





émotouy Tots WeudSompopytais ot watépes attav. 


27. “ANN Suty Aéyw Tois dkovovow, “Ayamate Tos €x Opods 


bpa@v, Kah@s Torette ToLs pucovow Guds, 28. edhoyeite Tods KaTapw- 


1 yapnre in all uncials. 
37 NBLE 33 al. add vuy to epawemd. 
4 Omit vp. in both places BLE. 
5 +a aura again in 2 BD=E 33. 


then an expansion in the second person. 
Here all is in the second person, and the 
terms employed are such as suited the ex- 
perience of the early Christians, especially 
those belonging to the Jewish Church, 
suffering, at the hands of their unbelieving 
countrymen, wrong in the various forms 
indicated—hatred, separation, calumny, 
ejection.—adopiowo.v may point either 
to separation in daily life (Keil, Hahn) 
or to excommunication from the syna- 
gogue (so most commentaries) = the 


Talmudic fJ"73. 


one naturally finds the culminating evil 
of excommunication in the last clause— 
éxBddwo.y 1o 6. v. = erasing the name 
from the membership of the synagogue. 
In the latter case this clause will rather 
point to the vile calumnies afterwards 
heaped upon the excommunicated. 
“Absentium momen, ut improborum 
hominum, differre rumoribus,’’ Grotius.— 
Ver. 23. oxtptycate, leap for joy; the 
word occurs in i. 41, 44, and this and other 
terms found in the sermon have led some 
to infer that Lk. uses as his source a 
version of the discourse emanating from 
a Jewish-Christian circle. Vide the list 
of words in J. Weiss, Meyer, note, p. 
387. Vide also Feine, Vork. Uberlief. 

Vv. 24-26. mAnhv, but, used here 
adversatively, a favourite word with Lk., 
suggesting therefore the hypothesis that 
he is responsible for the ‘‘ woes’”’ follow- 
ing, peculiar to his version of the sermon. 
—amnéyere, ye have in full; riches and 


In the former case 


2a avta in BD (Tisch., W.H.), 


Many more omit the second. 


nothing besides your reward (cf. Mt. vi. 
2).—Ver. 25. éumemAynopevor, the sated, 
a class as distinct in character as the 
SeStwypévor of Mt. v. 10, on whom vide 
remarks there. Readers can picture the 
sated class for themselves.—Ver. 26. 
This woe is addressed, not to the rich 
and full without, but to the disciples 
within, and points out to them that to be 
free from the evils enumerated in ver. 
22 isnot a matter of congratulation, but 
rather a curse, as indicative of a dis- 
loyalty to the faith and the Master, which 
makes them rank with false prophets. 
Vv. 27-35. The law of love (Mt. v. 
38-48).—Ver. 27. dtpiv Aéyw: Lk. here 
uses the phrase with which Mt. intro- 
duces each dictum of Jesus in opposition 
to the dicta of the scribes. But of the 
many dicta of the Lord reported in Mt. 
he has preserved only one, that relating 
to the duty of loving (Mt. v. 44). The 
injunction to love enemies is much 
weakened in force by omission of the 
antithesis: love neighbours and hate 
enemies. As if to compensate Lk. gives 
the precept twice, (1) as a general head 
under which to collect sayings culled 
from the section of the discourse omitted 
(Mt. v. 17-42), (2) as a protest against 
limiting love to those who love us (ver. 
35, of. ver. 32).—Tots axovovow, to you 
who hear; a phrase by which the dis- 
course is brought back to the actual 
audience from the rich and the false 
disciples apostrophised in the preceding 
verses. It is an editorial phrase.— 


506 


KATA AOYKAN VI. 


a1 Det i évous Spiv,! nal? mpocedxecbe Swep® trav *éaynpealdvtav spas, 
1 


29. TO TUnTOvT’ oe emi Thy otaydva, mdpexe Kai THy GAAHY: Kal 
&md tod aiporvtéds cou Td ipdtiov, Kal Tov yxiTdva py KoAJons. 
30. wavtt $€ TO* airodvti ce, SiSou- Kal dad Tod atpoytos Ta od, 
ph dmairer. 31. Kal Kabds Oédere iva mordow spiv ot dvOpwrot, 
kal duets troveite adtots Spotws. 32. Kal ei dyamate Tols dyatav- 
cA , a , x Che ‘ 
tas Spas, mola duiv xdpis éoti; Kal ydp ot dpaptwdot tods 
Gyam@vtas altods dyam@or.. 33. Kal® dav dyalomorjte tods 
&yaborrovoivtas Spas, wota Suiv xdpis éoti; Kai yap® ot duaptwdol 
76 adTd Tower. 34. Kal édv SaveiLnte’ map dv éXmiLete aroda- 
Betv,® moia piv xdpis éoti; Kat yap ol? dpaptwdol dpaptwdois 
SaveiLouory, tva dwohdBwor Ta ica. 35. why dyamate tods €xOpods 


buav, Kat dyaBomoette, kal SaveiLere pydev !9 dmedmilovtes: Kat 


1 unas in NBDE vet. Lat. 6. 
2 Omit kat NBDLE al. 

4 Omit Se ro NB. 

6 Omit yap NB. 

8 AKaBew in BLE. 


vpty is a correction to classical usage. 
3 wept in NBLE. 
® NSB have kat yap eav (Tisch., W.H., in brackets). 
7 Savionre in SBE (Tisch., W.H.). 
* SBLE omit yap, and many uncials omit ot. 


10 undev is the best attested reading (ABLA al., W.H. in brackets); pndeva in 


NEN (Tisch.). 


Kaas crovette, etc.: Lk., in contrast 
with Mt. (true text), enlarges here, as if 
to say: you must love in every conceiv- 
able case, even in connection with the 
most aggravated evil treatment. In the 
clause enjoining prayer for such as have 
done wrong Lk. substitutes érnpealdvrwv 
(ver. 28) for Mt.’s Stexdévrwv = those 
who insult you, the people it is hardest 
to pray for. Persecution may be very 
fierce, at the prompting of conscience, 
yet respectful.—Ver. 29 = Mt. v. 39, 40 
with some changes: tuqwrevv for parifew, 
mapéxetv for orpédeww ; atpovros suggests 
the idea of robbery instead of legal pro- 
ceedings pointed at by Mt.’s xprOyjvar ; 
ipatioy and ytteva change places, 
naturally, as the robber takes first the 
upper garment; for Mt.’s ages Lk. puts 
p17 KwAvops = withhold not (for the 
construction tia dwd Tivos Kwdvety, 
which Bornemann thought unexampled, 
vide Gen, xxiii. 6, Sept.).— Ver. 30. Lk. 
passes over Mt.’s instance of compulsory 
service (v. 41), perhaps because it would 
require explanation, or was not a 
practical grievance for his readers, and 
goes on to the duty of generous giving, 
which is to be carried the length of 
cheerfully resigning what is taken from 
us by force.—Ver. 31. Lk. brings in 


here the law of reciprocity (Mt. vii. 12), 
hardly in its proper place, as the change 
from singular to plural shows, but in 
sympathy with what goes before, though 
not quite in line, and therefore inserted 
at this point as the best place to be 
found for the golden rule. It seems to 
be meant as a general heading for the 
particular hypothetical cases following = 
you would like men to love you, there- 
fore love them whether they love you or 
not, etc.—Ver. 32. ydpts, here and in 
the following verses stands for Mt.’s 
picOds, as if to avoid a word of legal 
sound and substitute an evangelical 
term instead. Yet Lk. retains pio @ds in 
ver. 23.—xdpts probably means not 
“thanks” from men but favour from 
God. It is a Pauline word, and 
apparently as such in favour with Lk. 
Vide on iv. 22.—GpaptwdAol here and in 
vv. 33, 34 for reX@var and é6vixol in Mt., 
a natural alteration, but much weaken- 
ing the point; manifestly secondary.— 
Ver. 33. For Mt.’s salutation Lk. sub- 
stitutes doing good (aya8orrotjre).— Ver. 
34. This example is robbed of its point 
if it be supposed that Lk. had an ascetic 
bias. If a man despise money there is 
no merit in lending without expecting 
repayment.—Ver. 35. wAjy, Sut, in 


29—39. 


EYATTEAION 


5°07 


Eotat 6 picOds Spay mwodds, Kat éceoGe viol tou! iipiorov: on 


attés xpyotds éotw emi Tods dxapiotous Kai Tovypous. 


36. yivecOe 


obv? Poixtippoves, KaOes Kal 6 mwarhp Spay oixtippwy éort. b here and 


37- Kal py Kpivete, kat od pi xpvOijTe. 


od ph KaTadiKacOTe. 


kal SoOjcerat Gpiv: pérpov Kaddv, * wemecpevoy Kat 


katt *Gmepexxuvdpevoy Sdcovcw eis Tov KdATrOv Spay. 
adt@ pétpw O° petpeite, dvtiperpnOycerar Spiv.” 


Jas. v. 11 
py Katadicdlete, kat 
Gtohvete, kat dohv@ncecGe- 38. didore, ‘ 
c here only 
4 cecaheupévoy in N. T. 
is P (Micah 
Tw ya vi. 15). 
Alea at d here and 
in Joel it 


39. Ele 8€° mapaBodhy adtois, “Mate Sdvarat tupdds Tudddy 


1 Omit rov NABDLAE al. pl. 
3 Omit nat WBLE. 


2 Omit ovy NBDLE 33 al. 


4 NBL omit first kat and S§$BDLE the second; more expressive without. 
5 For tw yap . . . o NBDLE 33 al. have w yap petpw (Tisch., W.H.). 


§ Se kat in NBCDLE 33. 


opposition to all these hypothetical 
cases.—pmdev areAmiLovres, ‘ hoping for 
nothing again,” A. V., is the meaning 
the context requires, and accepted by 
most interpreters, though the verb in 
later Greek means to despair, hence the 
rendering “never despairing” in R. V. 
The reading pndéva amr. would mean: 
causing no one to despair by refusing 
aid.—viot ‘Yiiorov, sons of the Highest, 
a much inferior name to that in Mt. In 
Lk. to be sons of the Highest is the 
reward of noble, generous action; in 
Mt. to be like the Father in heaven is 
set before disciples as an object of 
ambition.—xpyords, kind; by generalis- 
ing Lk. misses the pathos of Mt.’s con- 
crete statement (ver. 45), which is doubt- 
less nearer the original. 

Vv. 36-38. Mercifulness inculcated. 
God the pattern.—Ver. 36 corresponds 
to Mt. v. 48, which fitly closes the 
promulgation of the great law of love = 
be ye therefore perfect, as your Father in 
heaven is perfect (vide notes there). 
Lk. alters the precept both in its ex- 
pression (otxtippoves for réAe1or), and in 
its setting, making it begin a new train 
of thought instead of winding up the 
previous one = be compassionate (otv 
omitted, S8BDL, etc.) as, etc.—the pre- 
cepts following being particulars under 
that general.—ylveoGe, imperative, for 
the future in Mt.—olxrlppoves: a legiti- 
mate substitution, as the perfection in- 
culcated referred to loving enemies, and 
giving opportunity for setting forth the 
doctrine of God’s free grace.—xa@as for 
Mt.’s @s, common in Lk. (twenty-eight 
times), witnessing to editorial revision.— 
6 warnp v.: without 6 otpavios, which is 


implied in the epithet “‘the Highest” (ver. 
35)-—Ver. 37. In these special precepts 
it is implied throughout that God acts 
as we are exhorted to act. They give a 
picture of the gracious spirit of God.— 
cal, connecting the following precept as 
a special with a general. No «at in Mt. 
vii. 1, where begins a new division of 
the sermon. In Mt. the judging con- 
demned is referred to as a characteristic 
Pharisaic vice. Here it is conceived of 
as internal to the disciple-circle, as in 
James iv. 12.—amolvete, set free, as 
a debtor (Mt. xviii. 27), a prisoner, or 
an offender (ris Gpaptias aaohv0jvas, 
2 Macc. xii. 45).—Ver. 38.  8{8ore: 
this form of mercy is suggested by Mt. 
vii. 2, dv @ pétp@ petpeire, etc.: be 
giving, implying a constant habit, and 
therefore a generous nature.—pérpov 
Kahdv, good, generous measure ; these 
words and those which follow apply to 
man’s giving as well as to the recom- 
pense with which the generous giver 
shall be rewarded.—emiccpévoy, etc., 
pressed down, shaken, and overflowing ; 
graphic epexegesis of good measure, all 
the terms applicable to dry goods, e.g., 
grain. Bengel takes the first as referring 
to dry (in aridis), the second to soft (in 
mollibus), the third to liquids (in liquidis). 
—xéAmov: probably the loose bosom of 
the upper robe gathered in at the waist, 
useful for carrying things (De Wette, 
Holtz., H. C., al.). It is implied that 
God gives so, ¢g., ‘ plenteous re- 
demption ” (Ps. cxxx. 7). 

Vv. 39-45. Proverbial lore.—Ver. 30. 
elwe 5¢: the Speaker is represented here 
as making a new beginning, the con- 
nection of thought not being apparent. 


508 KATA AOYKAN VI. 


SSyyety; obyt dpddrepor cis BdOuvoy wecotvrar?; 40. od Zor 
pabytis dmép roy SiSdonahov attod?- xatnptscpévos Se was Eorat 
ds 6 Siddoxados adrod. gr. ti 8 Phéwers 7d Kdphos 7d ev TH 
Spbaue Tod adeAhod cou, Thy S€ Soxdv thy ev TS idSiw dpOarpd od 
42. 4° mds Suvacar Adyew 1TH ABdeAPG cou, "AdeAdE, 
Ges xBdhw rd Kdphos Td ev TH ShOaApG oou, abtds Thy ev TH 
dpParpd cou Soxdy of Bdéwwy; Smoxpird, ExBake mporov thy 
Soxdv éx tod dpParpod cou, Kat téte SraPdders exBadeiv* 7d 
kdppos Td év tO Sharp Tot GSeApod cov. 43. ob ydp éon 


dévSpov kahdy movodv Kapwév campdv: ob8€ SévSpov campdy moody 


KATQVOELS ; 


Kapwov Kaddvy. 44, Exaotov ydp Sévdpov éx tod iSiov Kapmod 
ywdonetars ob yap é§ dravOav cuddéyouct coxa, obdé éx Bdrou 
TpuyGorotapudyy.5 45. 6 dyabds avOpwios ex Tod dyalod Oncaupod 
Tis Kapdias attod mpopeépea Td dyaldv: Kal 6 wovnpds dvOpwmos ® 


ék Tod Tovnpod Oyoaupod THs Kapdias adtod © mpodpeper Td Tovnpor - 


éx yap Tod’ wepiocedpatos Tis” Kapdias Nadel Td oTdpa adTou. 


1 qurec. in BDL; weo. in NCAE 33. 
*B omits 7. WW has ws 8e. 


2 Omit avrov SBDLE 33. 


Most uncials = T.R. 


* exBadew at end of sentence in B 13, 69 al. (Tisch., W.H.). 


5 ota. tTpvy. in NBCDLE 13, 33, 69. 


* SSBDL omit av@pwros and Oyo. THs kapStas avrov (explanatory additions). 


7 SSABDE omit both articles. 


Grotius says plainly that there is no 
connection, and that Lk. has deemed it 
fitting to introduce here a logion that 
must have been spoken at another time. 
Mt. has a similar thought to that in ver. 
39, not in the sermon but in xv. 14.— 
ruddés tudddv: viewing the sermon as 
an ideal address to a church, this adage 
may apply to Christians trying to guide 
brethren in the true way (James v. 19), 
and mean that they themselves must 
know the truth.—Ver. 40. The con- 
nection here also is obscure; the adage 
might be taken as directed against the 
conceit of scholars presuming to criti- 
cise their teachers, which is checked by 
the reminder that the utmost height that 
can be reached by the fully equipped 
(xatnpticpéevos, a Pauline word, 1 Cor. 
i 10, cf. 2 Tim. iii. 17, é&ypteopévos) 
scholar is to be on a level with his 
teacher.—Ver. 41 introduces a thought 
which in Mt. stands in immediate con- 
nection with that in ver. 37 (Mt. vii. 1, 
a, 3). If the view of ver. 40, above 
suggested, be correct, then this and the 
mext verses may also be understood as 
referring still to the relations between 
teacher and taught in the Church, rather 


than to the vices ot the Pharisees, which 
in Lk.’s version of the sermon are very 
much left out of account. Censorious- 
ness is apt to be a fault of young con- 
verts, and doubtless it was rife enough 
in the apostolic age. On the parable of 
the mote and the beam vide on Mt. vii. 
3-5.—Ver. 42. ov BdAdmwv: this is one 
of the few instances in N. T. of par- 
ticiples negatived by ov. The ovin such 
cases may = ph, which in classical 
Greek has the force of a condition, ov 
being used only to state a fact (vide 
Burton, § 485).—Vv. 43-45. In Mt. 
these parabolic sayings are connected 
with a warning against false prophets 
(Mt. vii. 15-19). Here the connection 
is not obvious, though the thread is pro- 
bably to be found in the word troxpira, 
applied to one who by his censorious- 
ness claims to be saintly, yet in reality 
is a greater sinner than those he blames. 
This combination of saint and sinner is 
declared to be impossible by means of 
these adages.—Ver. 44. For tpiBddo 
in Mt., Lk. puts Baéros = thorn bush, 
rubus, and for ovAdéyovow applied to 
both thorns and thistles in Mt., Lk. uses 
in connection with Barov tpvyocu, the 





40—49. VII. r—2. 


EYAPTEAION 


599 


46. “Ti S€ pe xadetre, Kupie, Kupre, xat od movetre & déyw; 


47. Was 6 epydpevos wpds pe Kal Gxovwy pou Tay Adywy Kal Told 


> , « , e na , > a o 
auTous, UTrodEtgw UpLy Tive EoOTiV OMOLOS. 


48. Spords got avOpdmw 


oikodouourte oixiay, ds “éoxape nai *éBdduve, nai €Onxe Oepedrov ech. xiii &, 


guN ‘ , , 1 a , , « ‘ XV1. 3. 
émi Thy wétpay> whypulpas! S€ yevoucvns, wpoodppygev 6 woTapos f here only 
a eh > , ‘ > ” ~ Se. , A in N. iva 

TH Oixia éxeivn, kal obx icxuce cadedcat adthy: tePenediwro yap 
éml thy wetpav.2 49. 6 8€ dxodcas nai ph morjoas Spoids éotiw 

> ed Q a ‘ , e 

GvOpdmw oikodounoavte oikiay éwt Thy yyy xwpis Oepediou- F 
, c ’ ‘ > J 8 ‘ 2 A fA 

mpoceppygev 6 wotapds, Kat eu0dws Eewece,® Kai éyéveto Td piypa 


a Sa, > , &. » 
THS OlKLas Ekelvngs peya. 


VII. 1. ENE! S€* éwhypwce mévta To prpata avTod eis Tay 


Gxods Tod Aaod, eionhOev eis Kamepvacup. 


1 wAypEvpns in NBLE 33. 
2¥For re0. yap. . 
(-ero-)8av auvtny (Tisch., W.H.). 


2. ‘Exatovtdpxou Sé€ 


. wetpav (from Mt.) S$BLE 33 have 81a ro kadws orxodopne 


3 cuverecev in NBDLE 33 al., a stronger word = collapsed (Tisch., W.H.). 
4 eweidy in ABC (Tisch., W.H., text) ; ewes Se in SLE (W.H. marg.). 


proper word for grape-gathering.—Ver. 
45. Onoavpod tis Kapdias: either, the 
treasure which is in the heart, or the 
treasure which the heart is (Hahn). In 
either case the sense is: as is the heart, 
so is the utterance. 

Ver. 46, introducing the epilogue, 
rather than winding up the previous train 
of thought, answers to Mt. vii. 21-23; 
here direct address (znd person), there 
didactic (3rd person) ; here a pointed 
question, and paratactic structure as of 
an orator, in lively manner, applying his 
sermon, there a general statement as 
to what is necessary to admission into 
the Kingdom of Heaven—ov was 6 
héywv, etc. . 

Vv. 47-49. The epilogue (Mt. vii. 
24-27).—Ver. 47. Was 6 épxopevos, 
etc.: the style of address here corre- 
sponds to the idea of the discourse 
suggested by Lk.’s presentation through- 
out, the historical Sermon on the Mount 
converted into an ideal sermon in a 
church = every one that cometh to me 
by becoming a Christian, and heareth 
my words generally, not these words in 
particular. — Ver. 48. éoxawe Kal 
éBaduve, dug, and kept deepening. A 
Hebraism, say Grotius and others = dug 
deeply. But Raphel produces an example 
from Xenophon of the same construction : 
gadqvite te kai adyfever tor adnas 
cadnviter (Occonomict, cap. xx. ).—ar yp. 
pupys (from wiprdnpt, da. dey. in N.T.), 
a flood, ‘the sudden rush of a spate,” 


Farrar (C. G. T.); ‘* Hochwasser,” 
Weizsacker.--wpooéppyfev, broke against, 
here and in ver. 49 only, in N. T.— 
Ver. 49. ywpis Oepediov, without a 
foundation; an important editorial com- 
ment. The foolish builder did not make 
a mistake in choosing a foundation. 
His folly lay in not thinking ofa founda- 
tion, but building at haphazard on the 
surface. Vide notes on Mt. for the 
characteristics of the two builders.—7r6 
pyypa (wr@ors in Mt.), the collapse, 
here only in N. T. This noun is used 
to answer to the verb mpooeppnéev. 

The impression produced by the fore- 
going study is that Lk’s version of the 
Sermon on the Mount, while faithfully 
reproducing at least a part of our Lord’s 
teaching on the hill, gives us that teach- 
ing, not in its original setting, but 
readapted so as to serve the practical 
purposes of Christian instruction, either 
by Lk. or by some one before him. 

CHAPTER VII. THE CENTURION OF 
CAPERNAUM. THE WIDOW’S SON aT 
Nain. THE Baptist. IN THE House 
oF SIMON.—Vv. 1-10. The Centurion of 
Capernaum (Mt. viii. 5-13).—Ver. 1. 
€is Tas Gkoas, into the ears = eig TA OTA 
in Sept. (Gen. xx. 8, l. 4, Ex. x. 2). To 
show that it is not a Hebraism, Kypke 
cites from Dion. Hal.: eis thy arrdavrov 
TOV TapdvTwY aKonV.—cionAOev, entered, 
not returned to, Capernaum.—Ver. 2. 
és Fv atte évtipos, who was dear to 
him ; though a slave, indicating that he 


510 


a (Ch 


8.) 


Pet. ii. 4, 6. 


KATA AOYKAN 


VII. 


xiv. Twos So0do0s Kak@s Exwv pede Tedeutav, bs Fy atta * Evtipos. 
5.) Phil. : NO a priaad hh aT upur 

ii. 29. 1 3. dkodoas S€ wept Tod ‘Ingo’, dwéoterhke mpds attiv mpecBuTépous 
TOy ‘loudatwy, ép wav abtov, Strws eMOdv Siavdoy Tov Soddov adtod. 


4. ol 5€ rapayevdpevot mpds Tov “Inoodv mwapexddouv! adtév otrou- 
Saiws, Aéyorres, "Or. agids dot & wapéger? todto: 5. dyawd yap 


Td €Ov0s udy, Kal Thy cuvaywy)y abtds wKoddpnoev piv.” 
Sé “Incols éwopedeto ody adtois. 


6. ‘O 
75y 8€ adtod od paxpay daréxorros 


Grd 8 ris oixias, Emepe pds abtov* 6 éxatdvtapxos pidous,® Aéywr 


attd,° “Kupre, ph oxdAdou ob ydp etpe txavds” iva dd Thy otéyny 


pou eiceNOns~ 7. 8d obd€ epaurdv Agiwoa mpds oe EXOetv: GAA 


eime Adyw, Kal tabjcetar® 6 wats pov. 


8. Kat yap éy® avOpumds 


> Basia} ip , t »” ¢_3 nN 2 ‘ 
Ett UTTO éfouciay TACCOMEVOS, EXWY UTT €pauTov OTPATLWTAS, Kat 


s , , ‘ , 4 ” ” A 
Aéyw todtw, Moped@nT, kat mopeverar: Kat dAAw, “Epxou, Kal 


1 So in BC al. 
88D min. omit amo (Tisch.). 

5 didovs before o ex. in NBCLE 33 al. 
7 ux. epee in NB. 


was a humane master. Lk. has also in 
view, according to his wont, to enhance 
the value of the benefit conferred: the 
life of a valued servant saved.—Ver. 3. 
&kovoas: reports of previous acts of 
healing had reached him.—améoreune : 
there is no mention of this fact or of the 
second deputation (in ver. 6) in Mt.,’s 
version. Lk. is evidently drawing from 
another source, oral or written.— 
mperButépovs tav “lovSalwv, elders of 
the Jews; the reference is probably to 
elders of the city rather than to rulers of 
ihe synagogue. From the designation 
‘of the Jews” it may be inferred that 
the centurion was a Pagan, probably in 
the service of Antipas.—8:ac@oq, bring 
safely through the disease which 
threatened life.—Ver. 4. orovdalws, 
earnestly ; though he was a Pagan, they 
Jews, for reason given.—a@é.os 5 wapéfp, 
for Gftos tva ait@ mw. wapétn is the 
2nd person singular, future, middle, in a 
relative clause expressing purpose in- 
stead of the more usual subjunctive 
(vide Burton, § 318).—Ver. 5. ayamrq 
yap, etc., he loveth our race; a philo- 
Jewish Pagan, whose affection for the 
people among whom he lived took the 
form of building a synagogue. Quite a 
credible fact, which could easily be 
ascertained. Herod built the temple. 
Vide Lightfoot on this.—Ver. 6. étrop- 
evero: no hint of scruples on the part of 
Jesus, as in the case of the Syrophenician 
woman.—ov paxpay, not far, i.¢., quite 


npwrev in DLE minusc. (Tisch.). ? wapefq in SABCDLAE al. 


4 Omit mpos avrov NB. 
® $$ omits avtw (Tisch.). 
®abytw in BL. T.R. is from Mt. 


near. Lk. often uses the negative with 
adjectives and adverbs to express strongly 
the positive. Hahn accumulates in- 
stances chiefly from Acts.—¢iAovs : these 
also would naturally be Jews.—ixavdés 
cit tva: here we have ixavés, followed 
by tva with subjunctive. In iii. 16 it 
is followed by the infinitive.—Ver. 7. 
elie Adyw, speak, i.¢., command, with a 
word,—Ver. 8. Kat ydp éya: here 
follows the great word of the centurion 
reported by Lk. much asin Mt. But it 
seems a word more suitable to be spoken 
in propria persona than by deputy. It 
certainly loses much of its force by being 
given second hand. Lk. seems here to 
forget for the moment that the centurion 
is not supposed to be present. Schanz 
conjectures that he did come after all, 
and speak this word himself. On its 
import vide at Mt. viii. g—racodpevos : 
present, implying a constant state of 
subordination. 

Comparing the two accounts of this 
incident, it may be noted that Lk.’s 
makes the action of the centurion con- 
sistent throughout, as inspired by diffi- 
dent humility. In Mt. he has the 
courage to ask Jesus directly, yet he is 
too humble to let Jesus come to his 
house. In Lk. he uses intercessors, 
who show a geniality welcome to the 
irenic evangelist. Without suggesting 
intention, it may further be remarked 
that this story embodies the main 
features of the kindred incident of the 








3—13. 


€pxeTat’ Kat TO So¢Aw prou, Moinaov Touro, Kai moet.” 


EYATTEAION 


51 


9. “Akxovoas 


S€ tadta 6 “Ingots eBatpacey adtov> Kat otpadets TO dxohoulodvTe 


~ a a >? 
adt@ Sxdw etre, “Adyw Gpiv, ob8€ év TO “lopand tocattyy miotuw 


a ”» 
eupov. 


tov dobevoivta ” Sodhov bytatvorra. 


10. Kal dwootpépavtes ot meppOévtes eis tév otkov! eipov 


. 


11. KAI éyévero év tH* éffjs, eropeveto* eis médw Kadoupevny 


A a ¢ lol 
Naty: Kal cuveropevovto adTG ot pabyrat adtod ixavol,® kai dxhos 


Tous. 


12. ds S€ Hyyioe TH WHA THs WodEws, Kal iSou, eEexouiLeto 


tebynkds, ulds povoyevns® rH pyTpl adTod, Kal adty jv yjpa- Kal 


dxAos THS Wodews ikavds? adv abri. 


13. kat iSav adtihy 6 Kupiog 


1 evs r. 0. before ot wep. in SBDL ail. vet. Lat. (Tisch., W.H.). 


2 Omit avBevouvvta SYBL. 


3 ev tw efys in many MSS., including BL (W.H..). 
4 eropevOy in SB 13, 69 (Tisch., W.H.). 


5 nov. vios in BLE. 


Syrophenician woman, not reported 
by Lk. The excessive humility of the 
centurion = ‘‘we Gentile dogs”. The 
intercession of the elders = that of the 
disciples. The friendliness of the elders 
is an admonition to Judaists = this is 
the attitude you ought to take up towards 
Gentiles. All the lessons of the ‘‘ Syro- 
phenician woman ” are thus taught, while 
the one unwelcome feature of Christ’s 
refusal or unwillingness to help, which 
might seem to justify the Judaist, is 
eliminated. How far such considera- 
tions had an influence in moulding the 
tradition followed by Lk. it is impossible 
tosay. Suffice it to point out that the 
Natrative, as it stands, does double duty, 
and shows us :— 

1. Gentile humility and faith, 

2. Jewish friendliness. 

3. Christ’s prompt succour, and ad- 
miration of great faith. 

Vv. 11-17. The son of the widow of 
Nain. In Lk. only.—év 76 é&jjs (katp@), 
in the following time, thereafter; vague. 
—év tq € would mean: on the following 
day (jpépq, understood), i.¢., the day 
after the healing of the centurion’s ser- 
vant in Capernaum. Hofmann defends 
this reading on the negative ground 
that no usage of style on the part of Lk. 
is against it, and that it better suits the 
circumstances. ‘‘ We see Jesus on the 
way towards the city of Nain on the 
north-western slope of the little Hermon, 
a day’s journey from Capernaum. It is 
expressly noted that His disciples, and, 
as txavot is well attested, in consider- 
bable numers, not merely the Twelve, 


T.R. = NCD (Tisch.). 
5 Omit txavor NBDLE(W.H.). 
7 Add py after ux. NBL 33. 


were with Him, and many people besides ; 
a surrounding the same as on the hill 
where He had addressed His disciples. 
Those of the audience who had come 
from Judaea are on their way home.” 
The point must be left doubtful. W. 
and H. have év 7@ é., and omit tkavot. 
Naty: there is still a little hamlet of the 
same name (vide Robinson, Palestine, ii. 
355, 301). Eusebius and Jerome speak 
of the town as not far from Endor. 
Some have thought the reference is to a 
Nain in Southern Palestine, mentioned 
by Josephus. But Lk. would hardly take 
his readers so far from the usual scene of 
Christ’s ministry without warning.—Ver. 
12. xattSov, and lo! The xai introduces 
the apodosis, but is really superfluous ; 
very Hebrew (Godet).—éfexopilero, was 
being carried out (here only in N. T.); 
éxgéperw used in the classics (Acts v. 
6). Loesner cites examples of the use 
of this verb in the same _ sense, 
from Philo.—povoyevys,  xrjpa: these 
words supply the pathos of the situation, 
depict the woe of the widowed mother, 
and by implication emphasise the bene- 
volence of the miracle, always a matter 
of interest for Lk.—Ver. 13. 6 Kuptos, 
the Lord, first time this title has been 
used for Jesus in the narrative. Lk. 
frequently introduces it where the other 
synoptists have “‘ Jesus”. The heavenly 
Christ, Lord of the Church, is in his 
mind, and perhaps he employs the title 
here because it is a case of raising from 





the dead. The ‘‘Lord” is Himself the 
risen One.—éordayyxvioc8m: express 
mention of sympathy, pity, as the 


512 KATA AOYKAN Vil. 
domayyvioby ém adri, cai elmev ait, “Mi Kate.” 14. Kat 


Tpoceh Ody AWaro Tis gopod: ot S€ Bactdlovres Eotynoav: Kal etre, 
15. Kat dvexd@icev? 6 vexpds, 
Kai jp§aro Aadetvy: Kal ESwxev adtdv TH pytpl adrod. 16. EhaPe 
S€ pdBos dmavtas, kat éddgalov tdv Oedv, A€yovres, “Ore mpodytys 
péyas éyyyeptar? év piv,” Kal “Ore émeokdibato 6 Oeds Tov adr 


“Neavioxe, col héyw, éyépOyT1.” 


> a» 
auTou. 


17- Kat é€Oev 6 Adyos obtos év Ody TH “loudata sepi 


aitod, kat év® wéoy TH Teptxdpw. 

18. KAI dajyyerAay “lwdvvy ot padytat adrod wept wdvrwy TovTwy. 
19. Kal mpockaderdpevos B00 Twas Tay palytav adtod 6 *lwdvyns 
Erepe mpds Tov ‘Inaodv,* héywr, “Xd ef & epxdpevos, 4 aAdov ® 


A 2 
Tpogdok@pey ; 


20. Napayevdpevor S€ mpds adrév ot aydpes eitrov, 


“"ladvyns 6 Bamtioths dméotahkey Has mpds oe, éywy, EU ef 6 


a »” 


épxopevos, 


1B has exa€ioev (W.H. marg.). 
3 ev omitted by NBLE 33. 


4 Gddov® mpocdoxaper ; ” 


21. Ev airy de® Ti) Spa 


2 nyepOm in NRABCLE 33. 


4 xuptov in BLE 13, 33, 69, the most likely word for Lk. 


5 erepov in SBLE 33 (W.H.); in second place etepov in DLE 


aXXov (W.H. text). 


33, B has 


6 ev exewwn TH wpa in SQBL (Tisch., W.H.). 


motive of the miracle. Cf. Mk. i. 41.— 
pn KAaie, cease weeping, a hint of what 
was coming, but of course not under- 
stood by the widow.—Ver. 14. wopod, the 
bier (here only in N. T.), probably an open 
coffin, originally an urn for keeping the 
bones of the dead.—€ornoav: those who 
carried the coffin stood, taking the 
touch of Jesus as a sign that He wished 
this.—Ver. 15. avexaOicev, sat up: the 
ava is implied even if the reading éxd@- 
uoev be adopted; to sit was to sit up for 
one who had been previously lying ; 
sitting up showed life returned, speaking, 
full possession of his senses ; the reality 
and greatness ofthe miracle thus asserted. 
—vVer. 16. ¢d6Bosg: the awe natural to 
all, and especially simple people, in pre- 
sence of the preternatural.—mpodyrns 
péyas, a great prophet, like Elisha, who 
had wrought a similar miracle at Shunem, 
near by (2 Kings iv.).—éweoxéWaro, 
visited graciously, as in i. 68, 78.—Ver. 
17. 6 Adyos otros, this story. Lk. 
says it went out; it would spread like 
wildfire far and wide.—év 6Aq TH ‘lovdaia, 
in all Judaea. Some (Meyer, Bleek, J. 
Weiss, Holtzmann) think Judaea means 
here not the province but the whole 
of Palestine. But Lk. is looking for- 
ward to the next incident (message 
from John); therefore, while the story 


would of course spread in ali directions, 
north and south, he lays stress on the 
southward stream of rumour (carried by 
the Judaean part of Christ’s audience, 
vi. 17) through which it would reach the 
Baptist at Machaerus.—wdaoy tq 7rept- 
x%pw, the district surrounding Judaea, 
Peraea, 7.¢., where John was in prison. 
Vv. 18-35. The Baptist’s message 
(Mt. xi. 2-19).—Ver. 18. amnyyetAav: 
John’s disciples report to him. Lk. 
assumes that his readers will remember 
what he has stated in iii. 20, and does 
not repeat it. But the reporting of the 
disciples tacitly implies that the master 
is dependent on them for information, 
i.é., is in prison.—rept wavtwv TovTwv : 
the works of Jesus as in Mt., but rovrwv 
refers specially to the two last reported 
(centurion’s servant, widow’s son).— 
Ver. 19. 8vo, two; more explicit than 
Mt., who has &a +. pa@ytrav. The Svo 
may be an editorial change made on the 
document, from which both drew.—mpis 
tov xKuptov (‘Incotv, T. R.): a second 
instance of the use of the title ‘“‘ Lord” 
in Lk.’s narrative.—ov ef, etc. : question 
as in Mk., with the doubtful variation, 
a@Aov for Erepov.—Ver. 20. On their 
arrival the men are made to repeat the 
question.—Ver. 21. Lk. makes Jesus 
reply not merely by word, as in Mt. (xi. 





14—28. EYATTEAION 


i3 
eBepdmevge wodhois Amd vécwr Kal pactiywy Kal mveupdtwy 
22. Kai 
amoxpieis & “Inoods? eiwev atrots, “MopeuSévres drayyethate 
"lwdvyn & eiSere kal HKovcate> Sti% tupdot dvaBhéroucr, xwhot 


Tovnpav, Kal Tupdots moddois éxapicato th! Bdéwewvy. 


wepiTatooat, Aetrpot KabapiLovrat, Kwhol dkovouct, vexpol éye(porrat, 
TTwXol evayyeNiLovrat* 23. Kat paxdpids got, o5 day ph cKav. 
Sadioby év epoi.” 24. “AwedOdvrwy S€ trav dyyéhov ‘lwdvvou, 
Hpgato héyeww mpds ToUs SxAous Tept ‘Iwdyvou, “Ti éfehnubate 4 
eis Thy Epypov Bedoacar; Kdhapoy bwd dvéyou cadcudpevoy ; 
25. Ada th ebeAnuOare* idety ; 
Tpdreopevoy ; 
év tois Baouelots eiaiv. 
™y 
mept ob yéypamrat, ‘"ISod, éy® diooré\hw tov dyyehdvy pou mpd 


” = c , 
avOpwrov év padakois tatios 
> , c > c cal > 4 ‘ a ¢€ , 
iSod, ot év Wwatiope evddfw kal Tpudy Umdpxortes 
26. GAG ti éfeAnAUbate * idciv ; mpodi7- 
val, Aéyw Spiv, Kat wepiscdtepoy mpopytou. 27. obtds gore 
, 2 , ‘ 696 ” , > 
mpoowmou gov, os KaTacKeudoer Thy Oddy cou Epmpogbév cou. 


28. Adyw yap® spiv, peihov ev yevyntois yuvorxay mpodiytns! 





"lwdvvou tod Bamtioros? 


1 Omit ro most uncials. 
= Omit ott NBL (W.H.). 


ovSeis éotu. 


6 S€ puxpdtrepos ev 7H 


§ Omit ol. NBDE. 


4 efmOare in all three places in KRABDL= 69 (W.H.). 

5 Omit eyw SBDLE minusc. verss. (Tisch., W.H.), 

© Omit yap omitted in BE 33 (Tisch., W.H.). 

TSSBLE al. pl. vet. Lat. omit wpod. and tev B. ADA ai. have both. 


5), but first of all by deeds displaying 
His miraculous power. That Jesus 
wrought demonstrative cures there and 
then may be Lk.’s inference from the 
expression Gkovere wat BAéwete, which 
seems to point to something going on 
before their eyes.—éxapioaro: a word 
welcome to Lk. as containing the idea 
of grace = He granted the boon (of 
sight).—Ver. 22 contains the verbal 
answer, pointing the moral = go and 
tell your master what ye saw and heard 
(aorist, past at the time of reporting), 
and leave him to draw his own con- 
clusion.—vekpot éyelpovrat: this refers 
to the son of the widow of Nain; raisings 
from the dead are not included in the 
list of marvels given in the previous 
verse. Lk. omits throughout the con- 
necting Kat with which Mt. binds the 
marvels into couplets. On the motive 
of John’s message, vide notes of Mt., ad 
loc. 

Vv. 24-30. Encomium on the Baptist. 
—Ver. 24. tl: if we take ri = what, 
the question will be: what went ye out 
to see ? and the answer: “ areed, etc.” ; 


if=why, it will be: why went ye out? 
and the answer: “ to see a reed, etc.’’— 
éEeAnAVOare (T. R.): this reading, as 
different from Mt. (@&4\@ate), has a 
measure of probability and is adopted by 
Tischendorf, here and in wv. 25 and 26. 
But against this J. Weiss emphasises the 
fact that the ‘‘emendators” were fond 
of perfects. The aorists seem more 
appropriate to the connection as con- 
taining a reference to a past event, the 
visit of the persons addressed to the 
scene of John’s ministry.—Ver. 25. 
tSod of: Lk. changes the expression 
here, substituting for oi ta pahaxa dop- 
ovvres (:Mt.), of év inariop@ évddtw nal 
tpuoq imdpxovres = those living in 
(clothed with) splendid apparel and 
luxury.—Vv. 26 and 27 are = vv. g and 
to in Mt., with the exception that Lk. 
inverts the words mpodyrny, t8eiv, 
making it possible to render: why went 
ye out? to see a prophet? or, what went 
ye out to see? a prophet? In Mt., only 
the former rendering is possible.—Ver. 
28. éyw tpiv: here as elsewhere Lk. 
omits the Hebrew apjv, and he other- 


33 


514 


Bacitela tod Gcod peiLwv adtod éore.” 


KATA AOYKAN 


Vil 


29. Kat was & ads 


dxovoas Kal ot tedOvar eStkaiwoay tov Oedv, Bamticbdvres Td 
Bdaricpa “lwdvvous 30. ot 8€ daptcator Kat ot vopiKol thy Boudhhy 


Tod Gcod Oerynoay eis Eaurods, pi} Pawricbévtes On’ adtod. 


Re 


elwe 8€ 5 Kuptos,! “Tive ofv dpordow tods dvOpdmous THs yeveds 


TAUTNS ; 


‘ , a tees | 
KGL TLYL ELOLY O[LOLOL ; 


, . 
32. Spool eiat mardiors rors év 


dyopa KaOnpdvots, Kal mpoohwvodow aAAndos, Kat Aéyoucwy,? 
Hidjoapey piv, Kal odk dpxjoacbe: eOpnrvjoaper Spiv,® Kal obx 


éxX\avoate. 


33. edprube yap “lwdyyns 6 Bartiorhs pate dptoy 


Leume S¢ o K. omitted in uncials, found in minusc.; a marginal direction in 


Lectionaries. 


2 NB 1 have the peculiar reading a Aeyet, which W.H. adopt, 
* Omit this second vpw (conforms to first) NBDLE 13, 346. 


wise alters and tones down the remark- 
able statement about John, omitting the 
solemn éyyyeprat, and inserting, accord- 
ing to an intrinsically probable reading, 
though omitted in the best MSS. (and in 
W.H.), wpodyrys, so limiting the wide 
sweep of the statement. Lk.’s version 
is secondary. Mt.’s is more like what 
Jesus speaking strongly would say. 
Even if He meant: a greater prophet 
than John there is not among the sons 
of women, He would say it thus: 
among those born of women there hath 
not arisen a greater than John, as if 
he were the greatest man that ever 
lived.—6 6é pix. On this vide at Mt. 
—Vy. 29, 30 are best taken as a historical 
reflection by the evangelist. Its prosaic 
character, as compared with what goes 
before and comes after, compels this 
conclusion, as even Hahn admits. Then 
its absence from Mt.’s account points in 
the same direction. It has for its aim to 
indicate to what extent the popular 
judgment had endorsed the estimate 
just offered by Jesus. The whole people, 
even the publicans, had, by submitting 
to be baptised by John, acknowledged 
his legitimacy and power as a prophet of 
God, and so “justified” (€.xatwoayv) 
God in sending him as the herald of the 
coming: Messianic Kingdom and King, 
t.é., recognised him as the fit man for so 
high a vocation. To be strictly correct 
he is obliged, contrary to his wont, to 
refer to the Pharisees and lawyers as 
exceptions, describing them as making 
void, frustrating (nOérnoayv, cf. Gal. ii. 
21) the counsel of God with reference to 
themselves. The two words éSex. and 
70er. are antithetic, and help to define 
each other. The latter meaning to treat 


with contempt and so set aside, the 
former must mean te approve God's 
counsel or ordinance in the mission of 
the Baptist. Kypke renders: laudarunt 
Deum, citing uumerous instances of this 


sense from the Psalt. Solom.—eis 
€avtovs after 7Oérnoay has been 
variously rendered = “‘against them- 


selves’’ (A. V.) and = “‘ for themselves,” 
i.e.. in so far as they were concerned 
(R. V.; “quantum ab eis pendebat,’’ 
Bornemann). But the latter would re- 
quire 1d €is €avtovs. The meaning is 
plain enough. God’s counsel very speci- 
ally concerned the Pharisees and lawyers, 
for none in Israel more needed to repent 
than they. Therefore the phrase = they 
frustrated God’s counsel (in John’s 
mission), which was for (concerned) the 
whole Jewish people, and its religious 
leaders very particularly. 

Vv. 31-35. The children in the market 
place.—rovs av. T. yeveas tavrns. The 
pointed reference in the previous verse 
to the Pharisees and 'awyers marks them 
out as, in the view of “he evangelist, the 
‘‘generation” Jesus has in His eye. 
This is not so clear in Mt.’s version, 
where we gather that they are the 
subject of animadversion from the 
characterisation corresponding to their 
character as otherwise known. Jesus 
spoke severely only of the religious 
leaders; of the people always pitifully.— 
Ver. 32. 6porol eiow: referring to 
avOpamovs, spoia in Mt. referring to 
yeveay. The variations in Lk.’s version 
from Mt.’s are slight: both seem to be 
keeping close to a common source— 
G@AAjAots for érépors, éxAavoate for 
éxdwyaoGe; in ver. 33 Gproy is inserted 
aftex éo@Oiwy and olvoy after mlvev ; 





29—37- 


EYATTEAION 


515 


éoOiwy pre otvoy wivay,! nai Aéyete, Aarudvioy exer, 34. EdHjduber 
6 uids Tod dvOpdmou eobiwy Kat tmivwy, Kal Aéyere, 180d, dvOpwiros 


dyos Kal oivomdtyns, Tekwvav pidos? 


35- kat 


Kat duaptwhar. 


edixardOn H copia ard tay téxvev adtis wdvtwv.” § 


36. "Hpdta 8é ts adtév Tov dapicaiwy, iva ddyy pet’ adrod- 


kat eicehOiy eis Thy oixiav* tod bapicaiou dvexdiOn.© 37. Kal iSod, 
yuvh év rH moder, Hrs Fv® dpaptwdds, émyvodoa? Sr dvdxertas ® 


1 In pyre aprov . . . mivwy B= have py for first pnte, BD ecOwv for error, 
S{BLE apr. after eo@. and ov. after mivwv. W.H. adopt all these changes. 


2 pidos before teAwy. in most uncials. 


3 wavrwy after ao in $B minusc. (W.H.). 


4 tov ovxov in RBDLE 1, 33, 69 al. 


5 xarexAOy in BDLE 1, 33. 


6 aris ny ev TH WoAe in WBLE (Tisch., W.H.). 


7 wat before ewty. in SAB al. pl. 


following a late tradition, think Meyer 
and Schanz. More probably they are 
explanatory editorial touches by Lk., as 
if to say: John did eat and drink, but 
not bread and wine.—For 7AGev Lk. 
substitutes in vv. 33 and 34 éAjAv@ey = 
is come. ‘Thus the two prophets have 
taken their place once for all in the page 
of history: the one as an ascetic, the 
other as avoiding peculiarity—influenc- 
ing men not by the method of isolation 
but by the method of sympathy. The 
malignant caricature of this genial 
character in ver. 34—glutton, drunkard, 
comrade of publicans and sinners— 
originated doubtless in the Capernaum 
mission.—Ver. 35. Kal, etc., and wisdom 
is wont to be justified by all her 
children; by all who are themselves 
wise, not foolish and unreasonable like 
the “generation” described. On this 
adage vide notes on Mt. xi. 19. Borne- 
mann thinks that this verse is part of 
what the adverse critics said, of course 
spoken in irony = their conduct shown 
to be folly by results; what converts 
they made: the refuse of the population! 

Vv. 36-50. The sinful woman. This 
section, peculiar to Lk., one of the 
golden evangelic incidents we owe to 
him, is introduced here with much tact, 
as it serves to illustrate how Jesus came 
to be called the friend of publicans and 
sinners, and to be calumniated as such, 
and at the same time to show the true 
nature of the relations He sustained to 
these classes. It serves further to 
exhibit Jesus as One whose genial, 
gracious spirit could bridge gulfs of 
social cleavage, and make Him the 
friend, not of one class only, but of all 


8 xara. in SABDLE 33. 


classes, the friend of man, not merely of 
the degraded. Lk. would not have his 
readers imagine that Jesus dined only 
with such people as He met in Levi's 
house. In Lk.’s pages Jesus dines with 
Pharisees also, here and on two other 
occasions. This is a distinctive feature 
in his portraiture of Jesus, characteristic 
of his irenical cosmopolitan disposition. 
It has often been maintained that this 
narrative is simply the story of Mary of 
Bethany remodelled so as to teach new 
lessons. But, as will appear, there are 
original features in it which, even in the 
judgment of Holtzmann (H. C.), make it 
probable that two incidents of the kind 
occurred. 

Vv. 36-39. The situation.—ris rév %.: 
when or who not indicated, probably not 
known, but of no consequence to the 
story; the point to be noted that one 
of the Pharisaic class was the inviter.— 
Tov Papicaiov: the class indicated a 
second time to make prominent the fact 
that Jesus did not hesitate to accept the 
invitation. Euthy. Zig. remarks: He 
did not refuse that He might not give 
excuse for saying that He ate with 
publicans and sinners and avoided the 
Pharisees (BdeAvocdépevos).—Ver. 37. 
yvvy}, etc., a woman who was in the 
city, a sinner, This arrangement of the 
words (Arts qv dv tq wédct, W.H.) 
represents her as a notorious character ; 
how sinning indicated by expressive 
silence: aharlot. In what city? Various 
conjectures. Why not Capernaum? She 
a guest and hearer on occasion of the 
feast in Levi’s house, and this what came 
of it! Place the two dinners side by 
side for an effective contrast.—émtyvoiga, 


516 


b here only éy 
in sense of 


KATA AOYKAN VIL. 


, A ‘ 
TH olxia rod dapicaiov, *Kopicaca dhdBactpoy pupou, 38. Kai 


bearingor oTaga Tapd Tods wé8as adtod dmigw! Kdalovca, npkato Bpéxew 


bringing 
to, in 
N. T. 


tods 1édas abtod Tots Sdxpuct,? Kat tals Opigi tis Kepadis adtis 
éféuacce, Kai Katepiier tods médas adtoi, Kal repe TO pupy. 
39. iSdv B€ 6 Gapicatos 6 Kadéoas adrév elwer év éautd héywv, 
“Odtos, ei iv mpodyrys,® éyivwokev Av tis Kal wotam) i yury, ATs 


Grretat aitod: Ste dwaptwdds éote.” 


< 


40. Kat drroxpiBeis 6 


ee ee) 
Tt ELTTELV. 


"Ingots ele mpds abtér, “ Xipnwr, Exw cot 
“O 8€ hyo, “ AvSdoKxade, eimé.” 4 


41. “Ado xpew- 


petérar Hoav SaveroTH Tie 6 ets wherte Syvdpia wevtaxdora, 6 dé 


ETEpos TEVTHKOVTA. 


tépois éxapicato. 


tis otv adtay elwé,® mhetov abtév dyamijoe” ;’ 


42. ph éxdvtwv S€° adtay dmododvat, dpo- 


' emtow before wapa tT. 7. in NBDLXA 1, 33 (Tisch., W.H.}. 
2 ro.s Sax. before nptaro in NBDL 33, a very credible emphasis on the tears, 


> BE have o mwpod. (W.H. in brackets). 


* §i8acK. eve dyno in BILE x (Tisch., W.H.). 


6 Omit ere NBDLE. 


having learned, either by accident, or by 
inquiry, or by both combined.—éy rq 
oixia +. : the Pharisee again, nota 
bene! A formidable place for one like 
her to goto, but what will love not dare ? 
—Ver. 38. otaca édnicw, standing 
behind, at His feet. The guests reclined 
on couches with their feet turned out- 
wards, a posture learned by the Jews 
from their various masters: Persians, 
Greeks, Romans. In delicacy Jesus 
would not look round or take any notice, 
but let her do what she would.— 
kkalovoa: excitement, tumultuous 
emotions, would make a burst of weep- 
ing inevitable.—ptaro applies formally 
to Bpéxetv, but really to all the descrip- 
tive verbs following. She did not wet 
Christ’s feet with tears of set purpose; 
the act was involuntary.—Bpexew, to 
moisten, as rain moistens the ground: 
her tears fell like a thunder shower on 
Christ’s feet. Cf. Mt. v. 45.—#&pacce, 
she continued wiping. Might have 
been infinitive depending on jptaro, 
but more forcible as an imperfect. Of 
late use in this sense. To have her hair 
flowing would be deemed immodest, 
Extremes met in that act.—xated(he, 
kissed fervently, again and again. ¥udas 
also kissed fervently. Vide Mt. xxvi. 49 
and remarks there.—7\erge: this was the 
one act she had come of set purpose to 
do; all the rest was done impulsively 
under the rush of feeling.—Ver. 39. 
6 Papicaios, for the fourth time; this 


* Omit 8 BDLE. 
7 ayam. avtov in BLE 33. 


time he is most appropriately so 
designated because he is to act in 
character.—el Fv mpodyrys: not the 
worst thing he could have thought. 
This woman’s presence implies previous 
relations, of what sort need not be 
asked: not a prophet, but no thought of 
impurity ; simply ignorant like a common 
man.—tylvwoxev av, indicative with ay, 
as usual in a supposition contrary to 
fact.—ris kat woramwy, who and what 
sort of a woman; known to everybody 
and known for evil.—darerat: touch of 
a man however slight by such a woman 
impossible without evil desire arising in 
her. So judged the Pharisee; any 
other theory of her action inconceivable 
to him. 

Vv. 40-50. Host and guest.—atoxp- 
Gels, answering, to his thought written 
on his face.—Z(yuwv: the Pharisee now 
is called by his own name as in friendly 
intercourse. The whole dialogue on 
Christ’s part presents an exquisite com- 
bination of outspoken criticism with 
courtesy.—ye ool wrt elweiv: comis 
praefatio, Bengel.—A.8doxake; Simon’s 
reply equally frank and pleasant.—Ver. 
41. The parable of the two debtors, 
an original feature in the story.— 
xpewpetdérat: here and in xvi. 5, only,in 
N.T.—Saverorg (here onlyin N.T.): might 
mean a usurer, but his behaviour in the 
story makes it more suitable to think of 
him simply as a creditor.—é els Serre: 
even the larger sum was a petty debt, 





38—5o. 


EYATTEAION 


ny 


43. "Awoxpilels 8¢ 5} Eipwy etmev, “*“YrokapBdvw ote o Td wAetov c Acts fi.15 


> , 22 
EXaploaro. 


~ wn »” 
‘O Sé etwevy atta, *Op0ds Expivas. 


44. Kai 


a ry , m” a 
otpaets mpos Thy yuvatka, TO Lipwve ey, “ Bdérers tadtyy THY 
aA > lol , > A > , ifs) > ‘ x 55 3 
yuvaika; eio7Odv cou eis Thy olktay, Udwp et robs Todas pou 


ouK €dwKas. 


tais Opigl ris Kehadis® adris eépage. 


airy Sé tots Sdxpuow EBpe§E prov tods mddas, Kat 


45+ pitnpd por odk 


Ewxas- aitn S¢, ad’ fs eioHAOov, of Bielime* Katadidodcd pou 


Tous mmddas. 


46. ehatw thy Kepadijy pou odx Adeupas: avry d¢ 


ptpw wjAenpé pou Tos mddas.° 47. 08 xdptv, Aéyw cor, ddgwvrat 
ai dpapriat adris® ai woddal, St. Hydwyoe Woks: G 8 dAtyor 


an 
ddlerat, ddtyoy dyad. 


¢ , 2» 
GUAPTLAL. 


‘ , , » 
“Tis obTds éottvy ds Kal Gpaptias adinor ; 


48. Etre 8€ arf, 


A 


“’Adéwvtai cou at 


49. Kat jpgarto of cuvavaKetpevor héyeww €v Eautois, 


50. Etre 8€ mpds 


N a ce , é é : , 2 re » 
my yuvacka, H ILOTLS TOU TEOWKE DE’ TOPEUOU ELS ELpy yyy. 


1 Omit 8 BD, and o NBLE. 


2 nov before em t. 1. in NWLE 
(W.H. text). 


(Tisch , W.H., marg.). 


pot emt modas in B 


2 Omit ras eed. MABDILE vet. Lat. vulg. cop. al. (Tisch., W.H.). 
4 SteXue in BD (W.H. text); StehXermev in SAILAE al. (Tisch., W.H., marg.) 


—a correction of style. 


5 wou tT. . in $8 al., 1, 13, 69 al. (Tisch. = T.R.). 
5 aus before at apap. in NY, etc. (Tisch.). 


whereby Simon would be thrown off his 
guard: mo suspicion of a personal 
reference.—Ver. 42. éyxaploato: a 
warmer word than aduévar, welcome 
to Lk. as containing the idea of grace. 
—6p0ds éxpivas, like the mdvu ép0das of 
Socrates, but without his irony.—Vv. 
44-46. orpadets: Jesus looks at the 
woman now for the first time, and asks 
His host to look at her, the despised one, 
that he may learn a lesson from her, by 
a contrast to be drawn between her 
behaviour and his own in application of 
the parable. A sharply marked antithesis 
runs through the description.—véwp 
—S8dakpvortv; dlAnpa—Katadidrotca ; 
éXatw (common oil), pipe (precious oint- 
ment); Kepadyv—md8as. There is a 
kind of poetic rhythm in the words, as is 
apt to be the case when men speak 
under deep emotion.—Ver. od 
xapiv, wherefore, introducing Christ’s 
theory of the woman’s extraordinary 
behaviour as opposed to Simon’s un- 
generous suspicions.—Aé€yw oot, I tell 
you, with emphasis ; what Jesus firmly be- 
lieves and what Simon very much needs 
to be told.—agéwvrat (Doric perf. pas.) at 
Gpaptia: avrys, forgiven are her sins; 


1. 7. pov in BLE (W.H.). 
T.R. = BLE al. mul. (W.H.). 


i.¢., it is a case, not of a courtesan acting 
in character, as you have been thinking, 
but of a penitent who has come through 
me to the knowledge that even such 
as she can be forgiven. That is ‘the 
meaning of this extraordinary demon- 
stration of passionate affection.—at 
aro\Xal, the many, a sort of afterthought: 
many sins, a great sinner, you think, 
and so I also can see from her behaviour 
in this chamber, which manifests intense 
love, whence I infer that she is conscious 
of much forgiveness and of much need 
to be forgiven.—ér: jydrynoev odd: 
Srt introduces the ground of the asser- 
tion implied in woddal; many sins 
inferred from much love ; the underlying 
principle: much forgiven, much love, 
which is here applied backwards, 
because Simon, while believing in the 
woman’s great sin, did not believe in 
her penitence. The foregoing interpre- 
tation is now adopted by most com- 
mentators, The old dispute between 
Protestants and Catholics, based on this 
text, as to the ground of pardon is now 
pretty much out of date.—d 82 4Aflyov, 
etc, ; this is the other side of the truth, 
as it applied to Simon: little (conscious) 


VII. 


* Grapxdvrwv ° abtais. 


518 KATA AOYKAN 
a Acta xvil. VIII. 1. Kat éyévero ev 1 Kabegijs, Kat adtds *Sidbeve kad 
xiii. 17). 7Wékw Kal Kopny, Knpioowy Kal edayyedtfdpevos thy Bacdelay 
Tod Geod~ Kal ot Sddexa odv abtG, 2. Kal yuvaixds Ties at oar 
TeQepareunévat dd mveupdtwv tmovnpav Kal doeverav, Mapia 7 
Kahoupévy Maydahny, ad’ ts Saipdvia émra efeAnrvbar, 3. Kal 
*lodvva yurh XouLa émtpdmou “Hpddou, nal Loucdvva, Kat Erepar 
b ome modal, aitives Sinkdvouv aito! dwd* tov 
Ch. xii. 4. Xuvidvros S€ SxAou tohdod, Kai TOY Kara wodw emmopevopévwy 
iv. Sg mpds adtév, elwe 81a wapaBodfjs, 5- 


“EEqNGev 6 orrelpwy Tod 


a . a a a , 9 eae 
otreipat tov omdpoy abtod: Kat év TO omeipew aitdv, & pev Enece 


Tapa Thy 686v, kat kateram}On, Kai Ta werewd Tod odpavod Kat- 


} avrots for avtw in BD al. pl. 


2 «x for amo in NABDL 1, 69 al. (Tisch., W.H., adopt both changes). 


The doctrine here 
enunciated is another very original 
element in this story. It and the words 
in Lk. v. 31 and Lk, xv. 7 form together 
a complete apology for Christ’s relations 
with the sinful.—Ver. 48. dadéwvrac: 
direct assurance of forgiveness, for con- 
firmation of her faith tried by an un- 
sympathetic surrounding of frowning 
Pharisees.—Ver. 49. tls otros: again 
the stupid cavil about usurpation of the 
power to pardon (v. 21).—Ver. 50. 
Concerned only about the welfare of the 
heroine of the story, Jesus takes no 
notice of this, but bids her farewell with 
‘‘thy faith hath saved thee, go into 
peace”. J. Weiss (Meyer) thinks ver. 
49 may be an addition by Lk. to the 
story as given in his source. 

CHAPTER VIII. THE SOWER AND 
OTHER INCIDENTS.—Vv. 1-3. Minister- 
ing women; peculiar to Lk., and one of 
the interesting fruits of his industrious 
search for additional memorabilia of 
Jesus, giving us a glimpse into the way 
in which Jesus and His disciples were 
supported.—Ver. 1. év 7t@ KkaGeéqs, 
‘‘afterwards,” A. V., not necessarily 
“ soon afterwards,” R. V. (= év 6 €€ijs, 
vii. 11). The temporal connection with 
the preceding narrative is loose, but the 
connection of thought and sentiment is 
close. Lk. would show how penitent, 
suffering, sorrowful women who had 
received benefit in body or soul from 
Jesus went into peace and blessedness. 
They followed Him and served Him 
with their substance, and so illustrated 
the law: much benefit, much love.— 
Si@Seve: of this itinerant preaching 
ministry Lk. knows, or at least gives, no 
particulars. The one thing he knows or 


sin, little love. 


states is that on such tours Jesus had 
the benefit of female devotion. Probably 
such service began very early, and was 
not limited to one tour of late date.— 
Ver. 2. Mapta 7 x. MaySadnvi, Mary 
called the Magdalene, the only one of 
the three named who is more than a 
name for readers of the Gospel; since 
the fourth century, identified with the 
sinful woman of the previous chapter, 
the seven demons from which she is said 
to have been delivered being supposed 
to refer to her wicked life; a mis- 
taken identification, as in the Gospels 
demoniacal possession is something 
quite distinct from immorality. Koets- 
veld, speaking of the place assigned in 
tradition and popular opinion to Mary as 
the patroness of converted harlots, 
remarks: ‘All the water of the sea 
cannot wash off this stain from Mary 
Magdalene,” De Gelijkenissen, p. 366. 
The epithet May8Sadnv7 is usually taken 
as meaning “ of the town of Magdala”’. 
P. de Lagarde interprets it ‘“‘the Aair- 
curler,” Haarkiinstlerin (Nachrichten der 
Gesell. der Wissens., GOttingen, 1889, pp. 
371-375): 

Vv. 4-8. Parable of the sower (Mt. 
xiii. 1-9, Mk. iv. 1-9).—Ver. 4. OxAov: 
Lk., like the two other evangelists, pro- 
vides for the parable discourse a large 
audience, but he makes no mention of 
preaching from a boat, which has been 
forestalled in a previous incident (chap. 
Vv. 3).—xal tév Kara wéAwy, etc.: this 
clause simply explains how the crowd 
was made up, by contingents from the 
various towns. This would have been 
clearer if the xat had been left out ; yet it 
is not superfluous, as it gives an enhanced 
idea of the size of the crowd = even 





| 


EYATTEAION 


t—12. 

épayev attd. 6. nat erepov Emecev! éri thy wérpavy, Kal ouev 
efnpdvOn, Sia 1d ph Exew ixpdda. 7. Kal Erepov eweoev ev péow 
8. Kal 
éTepov Emecev ert ® thy yay thy dyadyy, Kal guév éroince xapmov 
ékatoytamAactova.” 


Tav dxavay, Kat cupdueioa at dxavOar dménvgay add. 


Tatta Adywr eddver, ““O Exwv Sta dxodew 
dxovérw.” 9. "Emnpdtav 8€ adrév of pabytal adtod, déyortes,? 
10. ‘O 8é eter, ““Ypiv SéSorar 
v@vat Ta puotppta THs Bacidelas rou Qeou: Tots BE Aortois ev 
y puorpia TH 


trapaBodais, iva Bdérovres ph Bdérwor, kal dxovovtes ph cuviaow. 


“Tis ely } wapaPodh adtyn*;” 


II. “Eott d€ atty } mapaBody- 6 owdpos éotiv 6 Adyos TOO Geos : 
12. ot 8€ mapa Thy 68dv eioly of dxovovtes,® etra epyerat 6 SidBodos 
kai aiper Tov Adyor dad THs KapSias adtay, tva ph moredoartes 


$19 


? So in ND = parall. 
2 es for ews in NABLE al. fl. 
3 Omit Aeyovres SBDLE verss., Orig. 


kateweoey in BLRE (Tisch., W.H.). 


“ SB 33 have tis avryn ety  (B om.) wag., changed into the smoother reading 


intake 
5 axovoavtes in SBI SZ. 


people from every city gathering to Him. 
—8.a wapaBodjs : Lk. gives only a single 
parable in this place.—Ver. 5. ‘dv 
omépoy a.: an editorial addition, that 
could be dispensed with.—é pév, one 
part, 6 neuter, replicd to by nal érepovw = 
érepov 8¢ in ver. 6.—Ver. 6. ¢vév, 2nd 
aorist participle, neuter, from édvny 
(Alex. form), the Attic 2nd aorist being 
épuv.—ixpada (ixpds), moisture, here 
only in N. T.—Ver. 7. év péow Tt. G.: 
Mt. has éart, Mk. els. Lk.’s expression 
suggests that the thorns are already 
above ground.—Ver. 8. éxarovramh\a- 
ctova, an hundredfold. Lk. has only 
one degree of fruitfulness, the highest, 
possibly because when 1roo is possible 
60 and 30 were deemed unsatisfactory, 
but an important lesson is missed by the 
omission. The version in Mt. and Mk. 
is doubtless the original. It was charac- 
teristic of Jesus, while demanding the 
undivided heart, to allow for diversity in 
the measure of fruitfulness. Therein 
appeared His ‘ sweet reasonableness”. 
This omission seems to justify the 
opinion of Meyer that Lk.’s version of 
the parable is secondary. Weiss on the 
contrary thinks it comes nearest to the 
original. 

Vv. 9-10. Conversation concerning 
the parable (Mt. xiii. 10-17, Mk. iv. 10- 
12).—Ver. 9. tls etn, what this parable 
might be. The question in Lk. refers 
nc tu the parabolic method, as if they 


had never heard a parable before, but to 
the sense or aim of this particular 
parable. It simply prepares for the in- 
terpretation following.—Ver. 10. The 
contrast between the disciples and 
others, as here put, is that in the case of 
the former the mysteries of the kingdom 
are given to be known, in that of the 
latter the mysteries are given, but only 
in parables, therefore so as to remain 
unknown. The sense is the same in 
Mt. and Mk., but the mode of ex- 
pression is somewhat different.—rois 82 
howrots, a milder phrase than the 
éxelvorg tots fw of Mk.; cf. &dov in 
chap. v. 29.—tva BAé¢sovres, etc.: this 
sombre saying is also characteristically 
toned done by abbreviation as compared 
with Mt. and Mk., as if it contained an 
unwelcome idea, Vide notes on Mt. 
Vv. «11-15. Interpretation of the 
parable (Mt. xiii. 18-23, Mk. iv. 13-20).— 
Ver. 12. of Gxovoavres: this is not a 
sufficient definition of the wayside 
hearers; all the classes described heard. 
The next clause, beginning with etra, 
must be included in the definition = the 
wayside men are persons in whose case, 
so soon as they have heard, cometh, 
etc.—6 8.dBodos: each gospel has a 
different name for the evil one; 6 
movnpos, Mt., 6 caravds, Mk.—tva ph 
mTiotevoavres swOao.v, lest believing 
they should be saved; peculiar to Lk., 
ead in expression an echo of St. Paul 


§20 KATA AOYKAN VIII. 

gwhdowr. 13. ol B€ éwt ris wérpas,! ot Stay dkodowor, peta yapas 

c again in. S€yovrat Tov Adyor, kal obrow* SiLav od Exouary, ot pds * Katpov 
bf or. Vil. 

5. WioTevougt, Kat év Kap wrepacpod dpioravrar. 4. Td d€ Eis Tas 


, , , ~ 
dxdvOas meodv, obtot etow ot dxodcavres, kal bad pepisvav Kal 


X / A 55 a a s ‘ Ls ‘ > 
TAOUTOU KGL OOVWY TOU Biou TWOPEVOPEVOL CULTVLYOVTAL, Kat OU 


teheopopodar. 


15. 1O 3é ev rH Kah yq, obTot elow oltiwves év 


kapdia Kadq Kal dyabf, dxodcaytes tov Adyov Karéxoum, Kat 


kaptopopovow év btromovy. 


16. “OdSeis SE AdXvov Gas Kahdarer adtdvy oKever, } dwoKdTw 


kAtyns TlOyow: Add’ ext Auxvlas écriOyow,> iva of eiotropeudpevor 


lem. tys mw. in BLA al. pl. (W.H. text). 


marg.). 
2 B has avtot (W.H. marg.). 


ewe thy w. in SYD al, (Tisch., W.H., 


389BLE have the simple te@now (D has 1161, apparently an incomplete word = 


wiOicty). 


and the apostolic age.—Ver. 13. pera 
xXapas: common to the three reports, a 
familiar and important feature of this 
type—emotional religion.—mpos katpov 
wiorevovoct, believe for a season, instead 
pf Mt.’s and Mk.’s, he (they) is (are) 
temporary.—év  kalp@ qTetpagpov: a 
more comprehensive expression than 
that common to Mt. and Mk., which 
points only to outward trial, tribulation, 
or persecution. The season of tempta- 
tion may include inward trial by dead- 
ness of feeling, doubt, etc. (Schanz).— 
Ver. 14. vd 8. There is a change 
here from the plural masculine to the 
neuter singular: from ‘‘those who” to 
“that which ’.—ropevépevor: the use of 
this word, which seems _ superfluous 
(Grotius), is probably due to Lk. having 
under his eye Mk.’s account, in which 
eloropevdpevat comes in at this point. 
Kypke renders: ‘‘illi a curis (t6 
pepivav kal w. Kal q. 7. B.) occupati 
sive penetrati’’ = they being taken pos- 
session of by, etc., the passive form of 
Mk.’s “‘ cares, etc., entering in and taking 
possession”. This seems as good an 
explanation as can be thought of.— 
Bornemann takes td = peta or ovy, 
and renders, they go or live amid cares, 
etc., and are checked.—ov teheoopovcr, 
they do not bring to maturity (here only 
in N. T.). Examples of this use in Wet- 
stein and Kypke from Strabo, Philo, 
Josephus, etc. Hesychius explains 
tehecpspos thus: 6 Teterdopay Kal? 
Spay Tovs kapirovs, 4 6 Tedelovs aitots 
dépwv.— Ver. 15. év xapdiq Kady Kat 
aya@j, in a noble and generous heart, 
an important contribution by Lk. to the 


explanation of the conditions of fruitful- 
ness. The former epithet points to a 
lofty aim or ideal, the latter to enthu- 
siastic whole-hearted devotion to the 
ideal, the two constituting a heroic 
character. The phrase was familiar to 
the Greeks, and Lk. may have been 
acquainted with their use of it ww 
describe a man comme il faut, but he 
brings to the conception of the Kadés 
Kaya0ds new moral elements.—éy tro- 
povy, in patience, as opposed to mpos 
katpov; and, it might be added, év 
eiAukptve(q as opposed to the thorny- 
ground hearers. ‘arop., again in xxi. 19, 
often in Epistles. 

Vv. 16-18. Those who have light 
must let it shine (Mt. v. 15, x. 26, Mk. 
iv. 21-25). Lk. here seems to follow 
Mk., who brings in at the same point 
the parable of the lamp, setting forth 
the duty of those who are initiated into 
the mysteries of the kingdom to diffuse 
their light. A most important comple- 
ment to the doctrine set forth in ver. 
10, that parables were meant to veil the 
mysteries of the kingdom.—Ver. 16. 
Gwas: Mt. has xalovow. Grew is the 
more classical word.—oxever: any 
hollow vessel instead of the more definite 
but less familiar pédvov in Mt. and Mk, 
—-«hivns, bed or couch, as in Mt. and 
Mk. Nobody puts the lamp under a 
vessel or a couch, as a rule ; it may be 
done occasionally when the light, which 
burns night and day in an eastern 
cottage, for any reason needs to be ob- 
scured for a while.—tva of elouropevd- 
pevot, etc., that those entering in may 
see the light. The light is rather for 





. 
| 


13—23. 


Brérwor 1d bs. 


EYALTEAION 


521 


17. ob ydp éot. xpumréy, 0 ob davepdy yery- 


A > 


weTar* obd€ dirdxpudoy, & oF yywoOncetar! Kai eis pavepdv EAOH 
18. Bdéwere ov w&s dxovete* Ss yap av? Eyn, SoOhceTa adta 
kal Os ay pi) Exn, Kal o Goxet exetv, dpOjceTar dw adtod.” 
1g. Napeyévovro® Sé mpds adtov 4 pyrnp* Kat ot ddedpoi adrod, 
kal obk 8uvavto * cuvtuxetv adTG Bid Tov OxAov. 20. kai danyyéAy d here only 
aitd, Neydvtwy,° ““H paryp cou Kat of adeApol cou éorKacw cE, ra 
iSeiv oe Oédovtes.”® 21. ‘O S€ doxpiOeis ele mpds adrtous, 
“Mityp jou Kal adeApot pou obroi etc, ot tov Adyov Tot Oeod 


a , ‘ A > , » Fi 
KOUOVTES KQL TOLOUYTES GAUTOP. 


22. Kai éyéveto® év pid Tay HpepGy, Kal adds évéBy eis motor 


Kat ot palytat adtod, kal ele mpds adtous, “ AréhOopey 
wépay THs Nipyns:” Kat dvixOnoov. 
kat xatéBn Aathap dyéwou eis Thy Aiprny,? 


*ddutvwce. 


> ‘ 
€is TO 
auTav 
ac 
Kal 


23. wredvrwv Se 
here only 
in N. 7 


1 For o ov yvwo@noerat found in many texts BLE 33 have o ov py yrwodn 


(Tisch., W.H.). 


2 For yap av in D al. BLE have ay yap. 


3 wapeyevero in BDX 50, 71 cop. 


* avrov after pytnp in SYD 60 (Tisch.). 


T.R. a grammatical correction. 


® For kat om. $3BDLE have an. Se, and omit Aeyovtwv (Tisch., W.H.). 


5 oe after eX. in BE (W.H.). 
S eyev. 8 in NABDL 1, 33, 69 al. 


7 Omit avrov NABDLAE al. 


* Ba have avepou after Aypwny (W.H. marg.). J. Weiss suggests that es 1. X. 


may be a gloss. 


the benefit of those who are within 
(rots év TH olkia, Mt. v. 15), the in- 
mates, Is Lk. thinking of the Gentiles 
coming into the church ?—Ver. 17. 
yevyjoerat: predictive = nothing hidden 
which shall not some day be revealed.— 
—yvwob7, Oy (NBL), the fut. ind. 
passes into aor. subj., with od pH for.ov 
=nothing hidden which is not bound to 
become known (Meyer).—Ver. 18 en- 
forces the duty thence arising, to be 
careful hearers; hearing so as really to 
know ; shortcoming here will disqualify 
for giving light. Jesus has inculcated 
the duty of placing the light so that it 
may illuminate; He now inculcates the 
prior duty of being lights.—6 Soxei 
€xeww: the Soxet may be an editorial 
explanatory comment to remove the 
apparent contradiction between py éxy 
and 6 éyet (Weiss, Mk.-evang., p. 157). 
Vv. 19-21. Mother and brethren (Mt. 
xii. 46-50, Mk. iii. 31-35). Given in a 
different connection from that in Mt. 
and Mk. The connection here seems 
purely topical: the visit of the friends of 
Jesus gives Him occasion to indicate 


who are they who represent the good, 
fruitful soil (ver. 21).—Ver. 19. 81a rdv 
6x\ov: a crowd seems unsuitable here 
(though not in Mt. and Mk.), for just 
before, Jesus has been conversing with 
His disciples in private.—Ver. 21. Lk. 
omits the graphic touches—looking 
around, and stretching out His hands 
towards His disciples, concerned only 
to report the memorable word.—oi tov 
Adyov tov Qeot, those hearing and 
doing the word of God. The expression 
here is somewhat conventional and 
secondary as compared with Mt. and 
Mk. Cf. chap. vi. 47, and Adyos tov 
Ocot, viii. 11. 

Vv. 22-25. The tempest on the lake 
(Mt. vili. 23-27, Mk. iv. 35-41). The 
voyage across the lake took place, 
according to Mk., on the day of the 
parables; it was an escape from the 
crowd, a very real and credible account. 
The whole situation in Lk. is different : 
no preaching from a boat, no escape 
when the preaching was over. It 
simply happened on one of the days 
(€v pig tov pepov).—Ver. 22. Tis 


§22 KATA AOYKAN Vull. 
24. mpooehOdvres Be Sujyerpay 
aitévy, Aéyovres, “’Emordra, émordra, Garohhupeba.” ‘O Be 


eyepOeis! eretipnoe 1G dvduw Kal 7d "KdUSwm Tod DSaros- Kal 


ft Cor. xv. owverAnpotvto, Kal ‘ éxuvSdvevor. 
30. 


g Jas. L 6. 

émavcavto, Kai éyévero yahyrn. 25. elie 5€ adtois, “Mod gory? 
 mlonts Spdv;” doBnOdvres S& Badpacav, déyorres mpds adQi}- 
hous, “Tis dpa obtdés éotw, St Kal tois dvépors emrdoce Kal To 
Wan, cal Smaxovoucw aire ;” 

26. KAI xatém\euoay eis Thy xdpav tay Fadapyvav,® Aris éorly 
dvtimépay* ris TadtAaias. 27. éfehOdvre Se ait emi thy yay, 
dmjyrycev aditd dvnp tis® éx ris wédews, ds etxe® Sadia ex 
Xpovav ixavdv, Kal ipdroy odx évebiBdcKeTo,? Kai év oikia odk 
Ewevev, GAN’ év Tois pyfjpaow. 28, iddy Sé tov "Ingoiv, xai® 
dvaxpd£as, mpooérecev adtd, xal wri peyddny etme, “Ti euot xal 
goi, “Ingo, uié tod Geod® rod swiorou; Séopat cov, py pe 


? SteyepOers in NBL 13, 33 al. (Tisch., W.H.). 


7 NABLX 1 al. omit eotww. 


* So in ARTAAN al. syr. verss. (including Sin.). Tepyeonvev in SLX= minusc. 6 


memph., etc. (Tisch.). 
reading (W.H.). 


* avtirepa in most uncials. 
® Omit avtw SBEE 33. 
® For og etxe $B 157 cop. have exov. 
7 For ex xpovey . 


B has ris avnp. 


Tepaonvey in BC*D vet. Lat. vulg.; the most probable 


D, while retaining avtw, omits tes 


. evediSuoxero SYBLE 1, 33, 131, 157 cop. al. have «at 
XPOvw Lkavw ovk evedvoato watioy (Tisch., W.H.). 


The true text is doubtful here, 


though I have assumed below that that adopted by Tisch. and W.H. is to be pre- 


ferred. 
8 Omit kat SBDLXE 33 al. 


Aipvys: no need for this addition in 
Mk., or even in Mt., where Jesus is re- 
presented as in Capernaum. Lk. does 
not tell us where Jesus was at the time. 
—Ver. 23. adimvwoe, went off to 
sleep, fatigued with heat and speaking ; 
the storm implies sultry conditions ; 
adutvovy means both to awake = 
adurvifey, and to go to sleep = xabvur- 
vouyv ; vide Lobeck, ad Phryn., p. 224. 
—xatéBn, came down, from the nills.— 
ouverAnpovyto, they (i.e., the boat) 
were getting full andin danger. Sea- 
men would naturally say, “we were 
getting full,’ when they meant the boat. 
Examples of such usage in Kypke.— 
Ver. 24. émiorata: Lk.’s word for 
master, answering to S.8dcKxode, Mk., 
and xupie, Mt.—r@ kAvdovi Tov UdSarTos, 
the surge of the water.—Ver. 25. ‘ov, 
etc., where is your faith? a mild rebuke 
compared with Mt. and Mk. Note: 
Lk. ever spares the Twelve. 


® Omit rov Geov DE 1 (W.H. in brackets). 


Vv. 26-39. The demoniac of Gerasa 
(Mt. viii. 28-34, Mk. v. 1-20).—Ver. 26. 
Katéwevoay els thy xedpav, “they 
sailed down from the deep sea to the 
land, put in,” Grimm; appulerunt ad 
regionem, Raphel, who gives numerous 
examples of the use of this verb (here 
only in N. T.) in Greek authors.— 
t. Tepaonvev, the Gerasenes, inhabi- 
tants of the town of Gerasa (Kersa, 
Thomson, Land and Book), near the 
eastern shore of the lake, a little south 
ot the mouth of Wadi Semach (Rob 
Roy on the ¥ordan, chap, xxiii.).—7Hrts 
éotiy, etc.: this clause answers to Mk.’s 
eis 7d wépay +. 6 By the relative 
clause Lk. avoids the double eis (J. 
Weiss in Meyer).—4avriwepa +. [Fak., 
opposite Galilee, a vague indication; an 
editorial note for the benefit of readers 
little acquainted with the country.— 
Ver. 27. ovip éx tas médews, a man 
of, or from, the city; he did not come 





Se EYAFTEAION 


$33 
Bacavions.~ 29. Mapyyyedde! ydp ro mvedpant 1G axabdpry 
efehOetv dd tod advOpdarou- aoAdois yap xpdvoig ouvnprdKer 
adtéy, Kai éSecpetto? Gdtceot Kal médats udacodpevos, Kat 
Stappicowy Ta Seopa HAavveto bd * toi Saipovos 4 eis Tas Eprpous. 
30 Emnputyce S€ adtédy 6 ‘Ingots, Aéywr,® “Ti cor éotiv dvoua®; * 
‘O B¢€ etre, “Aeyedv:” Ste Sayudvia moddd ecioHAOev™ cig adtév. 
31. kal wapexdder® adrdv iva py emrdéy abtois eis thy GBuccov 
dmehOeiv. 32. tv S€ exet dyéhn Xolpwr ixavav Bookopdvwr? év rH 
Gper- Kat mapexddouv!? adrov iva émitpébyn abtois €is éxeivous 
ceived Geir. 33- eGedOdvra Sé€ Ta Satpdvra 
Grd tod dvOpdmou eiondOev!! cis tods Xolpous: Kal Gpyynoev 3} 
ayéhn Kata Tod Kpynpvod eis THy Aipyny, Kal dwemviyy. 34. idSdvtes 
dE of Béokortes TS yeyernpévoy !? Epuyoy, Kai deh Odvtes !® amjyyerhay 
eis Thy md Kat Eis TODS dypous. 


Kat émétpepey adTots. 


35. efi Oov SE iSetv TS yeyovds - 
kat AAOoy mpds tov “Ingody, Kai edpov xadyjpevoy Tov avOowmov ad’ 





1 wapnyyetdey in BE 69 (W.H. marg.). 
2So in CD and other uncials. 


3 So in most uncials. 
$ Satpoviov in SBCDE (Tisch., W.H.), 


NBLXE 33 have «8acpevero. 
Seopevw are both rare (latter in Mt. xxiii. 4). 


B= have amo (W.H. text), 


Seopew and 


5 Omit Aeyov NB 1 al. vet. Lat. (W.H.) against CDL (Tisch.). 


5 ovopa eoriv in NBDLE 1, 33 al. 
8 wapexahouv in $BCDL minusc. 


7 eon Ger before Saiz. in SB. 


T.R. a correction. 


9 So in very many uncials, but BD have Booxopevn (W.H. text). 


10 rapexakeoav in BCLE 1, 33 al. 
12 yeyovos in RABCDLE al. pi. 


out of the city to meet Jesus.—éxev 
Saup., having demons, a plurality with 
reference to ver. 30.—ovx évedvcaro, 
etc. : the description begun here is com- 
pleted in ver. 29. Mk. gives it all at 
once (v. 2-5). Lk. seems to follow Mk. 
but freely—unclothed, abode among the 
tombs, the two facts first mentioned.— 
Ver. 29. ‘wapyyyedAey yap: the com- 
mand caused the cry of fear, and the 
fear is explained in the clause following, 
introduced by a second yap.—olhois 
xpovots, answers to wodAaxts in Mk. v. 
4, therefore presumably used in the 
sense: oftentimes, frequently. So Eras- 
mus and Grotius, and most recent com- 
mentators. Meyer and others take it = 
during along time. Schanz combines 
the two senses. The disease was of an 
intermittent character, there were 
paroxysms of acute mania, and intervals 
of comparative quiet and rationality. 
When the paroxysms came on, the 
demon (one in ver. 29) was supposed to 


11 etomAGoyv in most uncials. 
WB Omit awed8. all uncials. 


seize him (ovvnpmdxet). Then he had 
to be bound in chains and fetters, and 
kept under guard (pvAagadpevos, cf. 
A. V. and R. V. here), but all to no pur- 
pose, the demoniac force bursting the 
bonds and driving the poor victim into 
the deserts. The madman feared the 
return of an attack, hence his alarmed 
cry.—Ver. 30. drt eiondOer, etc.: Lk, 
gives this explanation of the name 
Legion ; in Mk. the demoniac gives it.— 
Ver. 31. eis Thy aBucgoy, into the abyss 
(of Tartarus) instead of .Mk.’s €&o 
THs x@pas, out of Decapolis.—Ver. 32. 
xotp. ixavav: for a large number, often 
in Lk.; his equivalent for Mk.’s 2000. 

Vv. 34-39. The sequel. Lk. tells the 
second part of the story very much as it 
is given in Mk., with slight stylistic 
variations. In ver. 36 he substitutes the 
expression 1@s éod0y 6 SapovicOeis, 
how the demoniac was saved, for Mk.’s 
‘how it happened to the demoniac, and 
concerning the swine,” suggesting the 


KATA AOYKAN VIII. 


524 
oS td Barpdvia EfeXnAVOe,) tnarcopévov Kal swhpovodrra, Tapa 
rods Wédag TOO "Ingod: Kal epoByOnoar. 36. damjyyerAav Se adtois 

8 


kal? ot tddvres Hs eowOn 5 Saronobe’s. 37. Kal Hpdtnoay 
adrév Gray 7d whiGos Tis weptxdpou tov FadapnvOv* dwedOeivy ar 
abtav, Ste pdBw peyddw ouvelxovro: adrds 8é eu Bas cis 135 
38. Beto 8€ adrod 6 dvhp dd’ of éfeAnrUOa 


Ta Satpdvia, elvar ody adra. 


motov Sréotpeper. 
éné&huce 8€ adtdv 5 "Inaois,® héyuv, 





39. ““Yirdotpede eis Tov otkdy cou, Kal Sinyod dca éroinoé cor! 6 


@eds.” Kal dijdOe, kad” SAnv Thy wodw Knpioowr doa éroinoey 


ee Uae =} ou 
auT® Oo Incous. 


40. “EFENETO 8€ év® 16 drroctpépar® rdv “Inoodv, dawedéfaro 
attov 6 Oxhos *, joay yap wdvtes mpocdoxaytes adtév. 


41. Kai idod, #ABev avip d Svowa “Iderpos, Kat adtds 1° Gpywv Tis 


guvaywyis Smipxe, kal weody Tapa Tods méSag Tod “Iyood, mapexdder 


| gEqA@ev in SB (Tisch., W-H.). 


2 Omit cat NBCDL 33, 69 al. 


* So in DL al., and, as more difficult, preferable. $§BC al. have the sing. (W.H.). 


4 Vide at ver. 26. 


5 &SBDL omit o I., an explanatory addition. 


5 Omit ro NBCL al. 
T vou errou. in SBBCDL minusc. 


8 eyev. Se ev in SCD and many other uncials (Tisch.), BL 33 al. have ev §e (W.H.). 


9 NB have vroctpedevv (Tisch., W.H ) 


idea that the destruction of the swine 
was a part of the cure. They had to be 
drowned that he might be restored to 
sanity.—Ver. 37. Lk. is very careful to 
involve the whole population in the 
request that Jesus would leave the 
country—the whole multitude of the 
district of Gerasa, town and country, 
citizens and farmers. And he gives as 
the reason, drt $6Bw peyadw cvvelxovro, 
they were possessed with a great fear, 
panic-stricken.—Ver. 38. é8éero, Ionic 
form of the imperfect of Séopar.. W. 
and H. prefer éSeiro, the reading of BL. 
The healed man’s request, though not 
granted, would gratify Jesus, as a con- 
trast to the unanimous petition of the 
Gerasenes that He would leave the place. 
—Ver. 39. wtmwéotpede: it was good for 
the man that he should return to his 
home and people, and tell them what 
had befallen him through the mercy of 
God (Sca éwolncev 6 Oeds). It was 
good for the people also. They needed 
a missionary greatly.—xa@’ SAnv thy 
wédty, over the whole city. Mk. says 
in Decapolis. 

Ver. 40. On the western side (Mk. v. 
21). Lk. still follows Mk. closely, 
mentioning the cordial welcome given 
Jesus on His arrival on the Galilean 


2 BD have ovros (W.H. text). 


shore, and proceeding to narrate the 
incidents of the woman with a flux, and 
Jairus’ daughter.—6 6yxXos, the crowd. 
This crowd is unexplained by Lk., who 
says nothing of a crowd when he intro- 
duces his narrative of thé voyage to the 
eastern shore (ver. 22). In Mk. the 
presence of a crowd is easily accounted 
for: Jesus had suddenly left the great 
congregation to which He had spoken 
in parables, and as His stay on the 
eastern side was cut short, when He 
returned to the western shore the crowd 
had hardly dispersed, or at least could 
reassemble on short notice. Mk. does 
not say the crowd, but a great crowd.— 
aweSefaro implies a cordial reception. 
Cf. Acts xv. 4. Raphel gives examples 
of this sense from Greek authors. 
Euthy. took it in this sense, giving as 
the reason for the welcome : ws evepyéryy 
kal owtijpa.—qmwpoodokavtes: the 
parables, not to speak of recent healings, 
account for the expectation. 

Vv. 41-42. The story of Fairus’ 
daughter begins (Mt. ix. 18, 19, Mk. v. 
21-24).—Gpywv Tis cvvaywyis instead of 
a&pxtovvaywyos (Mk.), as more intelligible 
to Gentile readers. But after having 
explained its meaning by the use of this 
phrase he employs the other in ver. 49. 





36- 48. EYATTEAION 

autoy eicehOety eis Tov oikov adTod: 42. St. Ouydtyp povoyerns Fy 
ait ws étdv Sddeka, Kal avtn Awébvyckey. “Ev Se 1G bmdyew 
aitév ot 6xhor cuvémviyov attév. 43. Kal yuvh otca év fice 
aipatos dd éray Sadexa, Hrts eis tatpods mpocavahdcaca Sov Tov 
Biov! odk icyucey Sw? odSevds OepamevOfvar, 44. mpoceQodca 
SmicGev, Hato Tod Kpaomédou Tod twatiou airoU’ Kal mapaypyya 
Eon H PUots TOO aipatos adTHs. 45. Kal elmev 6 ‘Inoois, “Tis 6 
dipduevds pou;” "Apvoupevwy Sé mavrwy, elmev 6 Métpos Kat ot 
pet adtod,® “’Emortdta, of Sxdou cuvéxouot ce Kai droG\tBouc, 
46. ‘O 8€ “Incods einev, 
5 


kat eyes, Tis 6 dipdpevds pout; ” 
““Hibatd pou tis: éyw yap eyvwy Suvapiw efehPodoay dr’ é400.” 
47- Wodoa Sé _ yuvi) Gre obK EAabe, to€pouca FAVE, kai mpooTe- 


an wn > ~ lal 
govoa alte, 0 fv aitiay HWato adtod diwyyyerkey atta ® évdmov 


mavTdés TOU Aaod, Kal ws iddn wapaxpyjya. 48. 6 Se eimey airy, 


“@dpoe,’ Oiyatep,® 4 miotis cou céowke ve* Topcvou els cipyyyy.” 


525 


1 From ets tatpous to Prov omitted in BD (W.H.) ; may be a gloss from Mk. 


2am in WBE. 


3 B some minusc. and verss. omit ot pet. avtov (W.H.). 


4 Omit Kat Aeyets . . 
5 efehnrvOuiav in NBL 33. 
6 eutw omitted in RABDLXE al. 


. pov SYBL minusc. verss. (Tisch., W.H.) ; comes from Mk. 


7 S8BDLE minusc. verss. omit @apoet, which may come from Mt, 
8 So in most uncials; BKL have @vyarnp (W.H.). 


—Ver. 42. povoyevns (as in vii. 12): 
peculiar to Lk. The name of the father, 
his rank, and the girl’s age (all lacking 
in Mt.) Lk. has in common with Mk. 
This feature he adds after his wont to 
enhance the benevolence of Jesus.— 
andéOvyoxev, was dying. Mk.’s phrase, 
éoxdtws €xer, is avoided as not good 
Greek. In Mt. she is already dead. 
—ovuvérviyov, were suffocating Him; a 
very strong expression. Mk.’s word 
is sufficiently strong (ovvéd:Bov, 
thronged), and if there was to be 
exaggeration we should hardly have 
expected it from Lk. But he uses the 
word to make Christ’s quick perception 
of the special touch from behind (ver. 
45) the more marvellous. 

Vv. 43-48. The woman with an issue 
(Mt. ix. 20-22, Mk. v. 25-34).—Ver. 43. 
awd; indicating the terminus aquo. Mk. 
uses the accusative of duration.— 
mpogavahwcaca (here only in N. T.), 
having expended in addition: to loss of 
health was added loss of means in the 
effort to gain it back.—Bfov, means of 
life, as in xv. 12, 30, xxi. 4.— ovx loxucev, 
etc., was not able to get healing from 


any (physician), a milder way of putting 
it than Mk.’s.—Ver. 44. KpaoméSov, 
the tassel hanging over the shoulder ; 
this feature not in Mk., a curious 
omission in so graphic a writer.—7apa- 
xp7jpa: Lk.’s equivalent for ev6ts5.— 
tory, the flow of blood (pvcus) stopped. 
toravat, the technical term for this 
experience.—Ver. 45. 6 Mlérpos: Mk. 
says ‘‘the disciples,” but one would 
speak for the rest, and Lk. naturally 
makes Peter the spokesman.—ovyvéyovgi 
oe, hem thee in.—amo6AiBovovy, squeeze, 
like grapes (Joseph., Ant., ii., v. 2).— 
Ver. 46. éya éyvwv: Lk. puts into the 
mouth of Jesus what in Mk. is a remark 
of the narrator. Vide notes on this in- 
cident in Mt. and Mk. 

Vv. 49-56. Previous narrative resumed 
(Mt. ix. 23-26, Mk. v. 35-43).—Ver. 49. 
Tis: one messenger, several in Mk.; one 
enough for the purpose.—7apa Tt. apx., 
from the ruler = belonging to his house. 
Vide Mk. iii. 21: ot wap’ avtov. Mk. has 
amd here.—Ver. 50. akovoas: Mk. has 
mapaxoveas, the message being spoken 
not to Jesus but to Jairus: He over- 
heard it.—pévoy wlorevooy, etc., only 


526 KATA AOYKAN VIII. 49—56. 
49. “Er. aitod Nadodrvros, Epxetat ms mapd rod dpx.ouvaydyou, 
héywr adtd,) “Or téOvykey 4 Ouydrnp cou: pi? onde Tdv 
SidcKnadov.” 50. ‘O S€ “Ingots dxotaas dmexpiby attd, Aéyov,? 
“Mh poBod- pdvoy mioteve,t Kai cwOjcerar.” 51. EicedOdy® be 
eis Thy oikiav, odk Adijxey eicedOeivy obddva,® ei ph Mérpov Kai 
"IdkwBov Kat "lwdvyny,’ kal tov watépa THs adds Kal Thy pytépa. 


2. Exdavov S€ mwavtes, Kal éxdarovto ality. 
’ TH 
otk ® awébavey, adda xabedder.” 


xXaleTe * 
adtod, eiddtes St. GréBavev. 
Kai? Kpatjgas THS XELpds 


éyelpou.” 10 


& Bé ele, “Mh 
53. Kal Kateyé\wr 
54. adrds 8é exBahoy éfw wdvras, 
aitys, épdynce, Aéyor, ““H traits 


55- Kat éméotpepe Td mvedpa adtis, nat dvéorn 
mapaxphpas Kat Siétragev adr SoOjvar payetv. 


56. nai é&€orn- 


gay ot yoveis adtas: & 8€ wapyyycidey adtois pydevi eiwety 4d 


yeyores. 


1 Omit avte (expletive) SEBLX= 1, 33 
2 unkete in NBD. 

> Omit Aeyev with NBLXAE 1, 33 al 
4 miotevcoy in BLE. 

5 e\@wy in most uncials and verss. 


6 For ovdeva BCDLX 33, 69 have tiva cvv avrw (Tisch., W.H.), 


7 lwav. before lax. in BCD and many other uncials. 
8 For ovk SBCDL have ov yap (W.H. 


T.R. = NL 33. 


. Tisch. = T.R.). 


° $$BDLX minusc. omit exBadov . . . kat; imported from Mk. 


20 eyerpe in NBCDX 1, 33 (W.-H). 


believe and she shall be saved—Paulinism 
in the physical sphere.—Ver. 51. In B 
and other MSS. the usual order of the 
three disciples—Peter, James, John—is 
changed into Peter, John, James. — Ver. 
53. eiddres Sti Gwéfavev: Lk. is care- 
ful to add this remark to exclude the 
idea that it was not a case of real death; 
his aim here, as always, to magnify the 
power as well as the benevolence of 
Jesus.—Ver. 55. 71d mvedpa, her spirit 
returned = Wvyx7 in Acts xx. 10.— ayetv: 
the order to give the resuscitated child 
food is not peculiar to Lk., but he places 
it in a more prominent position than 
Mk. to show that as she had been really 
dead she was now really alive and well; 
needing food and able to take it. Godet 
remarks on the calmness with which 
Jesus gave the order after such a 
stupendous event. ‘“‘As simply as & 
physician feels the pulse of a patient He 
regulates her diet for the day.” 

CHAPTER IX. THE CLOSE OF THE 
GaLILEAN MINISTRY. SETTING THE 
Face TowarpDs JERUSALEM.—VvV. 1-50 


contain sundry particulars which together 
form the closing scenes of the Galilean 
ministry: the mission of the Twelve, 
the feeding of the thousands, the con- 
versation on the Christ and the cross, 
the transfiguration, the epileptic boy, the 
conversation on ‘“ who is the greatest”. 
At ver. 51 begins the long division of the 
Gospel, extending to xviii. 14, which 
forms the chief peculiarity of Lk., some- 
times called the Great Interpolation or 
Insertion, purporting to be the narrative 
of a journey southwards towards Jeru- 
salem through Samaria, therefore some- 
times designated the Samaritan ministry 
(Baur and the Tubingen school), but in 
reality consisting for the most part of a 
miscellaneous collection of didactic 
pieces. At xviii. 15 Lk. rejoins the 
company of his brother evangelists, not 
to leave them again till the tragic end. 
Vv. 1-6. The mission of the Twelve 
(Mt. x. 1, 5-15, Mk. vi. 7-13).—Ver. 1. 
ovykakeodpevos 52: the 8 turns atten- 
tion to a new subject, and the part 
ovyxaX. implies that it is a matter of 





IX. 1-6, EYATTEAION 

TX. 1£. EYPKAAEZAMENOE 8€ ods SdSexa pabytds adrod,! 
wey adtois Sivapw Kal efovclay émt wdvta Ta Saiudvia, Kat 
2. kat dméoterdey adrods Kynpicoew Thy 
3. Kal etme 


vécous Sepamedeu - 
Bao.delay tod Ceod, Kat idobar tods dodevoivras.? 
mpds adtous, “Mydev aipete eis Thy Sdd6v- pte fdBdous,® pyre 
Tipay, pryte Gptov, pyre apyuptoy, pyre dva* duo xiTavas éxewv. 
4. Kat eis hv dv oixiay cicdhOnte, exei pevere, Kai éxeiOer eféoyxeabe. 
5. Kat Soor dy pi) Sébwvtar® Spas, efepxopevor awd Tis Todews 
2 , \6 a + x n 3a ean s 16 > 
éxelyns Kat® trav Kovoproy dd tov moddv byay dmotiwdtate,’ ets 


527 


U yee) > ,_» 
PapTuploy ém auToUS. 


6. *E€epydpevor S€ Sinpxovto Katd Tas 


k@pas, edayyeALdpevor kal Oepamevortes TavTaxod. 


1 Many uncials (BD, etc.) omit pad. 


atwooroAous. 


Some texts (NCL= al.) have 


avTov. 


2 B syrr. cur. and sin. omit tous ac. (Tisch., W.H.) 


3 paBSov in SBCDLE 1, 33, 69 al. 


4 Omit ava SBCLE; found in D and many other uncials. 


5 Sexwvrat in NABCLE. T.R. = Dal. 
6 Omit cat NECDLXE 1, 33 verss. 


7 aworwaocere in NB 1, 131, 157 (Tisch., W.H.). T.R. = parallels (aor.). 


importance: calling together the Twelve, 
out of the larger company of disciples 
that usually followed Jesus, including 
the women mentioned in viii, 1-3.— 
Svvapiv wal éfovoiay, power and right; 
power implies right. The man that can 
cast out devils and heal disease is 
entitled to do so, nay bound. This 
principle found an important application 
in St. Paul’s claim to be an apostle, 
which really rested on fitness, insight. I 
understand Christianity, therefore I am 
entitled to be an apostle of it. Lk. 
alone has both words to express un- 
limited authority (Hahn). Mt. and Mk. 
have étouciay.—émi wavra, etc., over all 
the demons, and (also power and 
authority) to heal diseases, the latter a 
subordinate function; thoroughly to 
quell the demons (wdavta emphatic) the 
main thing. Hence the Seventy on their 
return speak of that alone (x. 17).—Ver. 
2. This might have been viewed as an 
incidental mention of preaching as 
another subordinate function, but for the 
reference to healing (laqc@ar), which 
suggests that this verse is another way 
of stating the objects of the mission, 
perhaps taken from another source.— 
Ver. 3. The instructions in this and the 
next two verses follow pretty closely the 
version in Mk.—pyStv aipere els Thy 
45év: as in Mk., but in direct speech, 


while Mk.’s is indirect (iva p. atpwory.) 
—pyre paBdov: Lk. interprets the pro- 
hibition more severely than Mk. Nota 
staff (Mk. except a staff only).—apyvptoyv, 
silver, for Mk.’s yaAxdv: silver the 
common metal for coinage among the 
Greeks, copper among the Romans.— 
Svo xiT@vas, two tunics each, one on and 
one for change.—éxeww: infinitive, after 
aipere, imperative. It may be a case of 
the infinitive used as an imperative, of 
which one certain instance is to be found . 
in Phil. iii. 16 (orotyety = walk), or it 
may be viewed as a transition from 
direct to indirect speech (so most com- 
mentators). Bengel favours the first 
view.—Ver. 4. Thus far of material 
wants. We now pass to social relations. 
The general direction here is: stay in 
the same house all the time you are in a 
place; pithily put by Lk. = éxet pévere, 
ixeiOey ebépyerQe, there remain, thence 
depart, both adverbs referring to ol«fav. 
—Ver. 5. By omitting the adxovcwow 
ipav of Mk. Lk. gives the impression 
that non-receiving refers to the mission- 
aries not as preachers but as guests = It 
they will not take you into the house 
you select, do not try another house, 
leave the place (so Hahn). This would 
be rather summary action, and contrary 
to the spirit of the incident ix. 52-56,— 
Ver. 6. Brief statement, as in Mk.. as 


528 KATA AOYKAN IX. 

7. "Hxouce 8é “‘Hpddns 6 Tetpdpxns Ta ywdpeva dm’ adtou! 
wdvra> Kal Sinmdper, Bid 1d AéyecOar ond Ter, “Or “lwdvvns 
eyjyeptar? éx vexpav:” 8. dad tivwy 8é, ““Om ‘HXlas epavn -” 
Gdkwv 8¢, ““Ore mpodytys els® trav apxalwy dvéorn.” 9. Kat 
elrev 64 “Hpddns, “lwdvyny éyd drexepddioa: tis S€ dor odTos, 
Trept ob éya® dxodw roradta;” Kal éLijrer iSetv addy. 

10. Kat Gmootpéavtes of amdotoho. Sinyjoavto atta doo 
éroincay: Kat tapahaBay abtods, imexdpnoe Kar’ iSiav els témov 
Epnpov médews Kahoupévns® ByOcaidd. 14. of S€ Sxdor yrdvtes 
HKohovOnoay abtG~ Kat FSduevos? adtods, éddder adTois Wept THs 


, A cal 4 
Baciheias tod Geo, Kat tods xpelav Exovtas Oepameias ato. 


1 Omit ur avrovu NBCDLE 69 al, 
? nyepOy in NBCLE al. 
3 ris in NBCLXAE 1, 13, 33. 


* For xat eumey SBCDLE 1, 33 al. have evwevy 8e and SCD al. pI. omit o found 


in BL. 
5 SBCLE omit eyo. 


6 For ets T. ep. 7. kadoupevns BLX=E 33 sah. cop. have evs wokw xahoupevny, 
which seems inconsistent with retirement; hence the introduction of rotrov cojpov 
= the desert of the city (Tisch., W.H., follow BL, etc.). 


7 amodeé. in SBDLXE 33 al. 


to the execution of the mission, but 
wanting his reference to the uze of oil in 
healing. 

Hahn states that this mission was 
purely pedagogic, for the benefit of the 
Twelve, not of the people. This is a 
mere unfounded assertion. The train- 
ing of the Twelve by no means appears 
a prominent aim of Jesus in the pages of 
Lk. ; much less so than in Mt. and Mk. 

Vv. 7-9. Herod’s interest in Fesus (Mt. 
xiv. 1-2, Mk. vi. 14-16).—é tetpdpxns as 
in Mt., Baothets in Mk,—ra yivdpeva 
mavta, all the things which were 
happening, most naturally taken as 
referring to the mission of the Twelve, 
though it is difficult to believe that 
Herod had not heard of Jesus till then. 
—8inmépe, was utterly perplexed, in 
Lk.’s writings only.—d.a rd AdyerOar 
umd trav. What Lk. represents as said 
by some, Mt. and Mk., doubtless truly, 
make Herod himself say. Vide notes on 
Mt. and Mk.—Ver. 8. é avy, appeared, 
the proper word to use ef one who had 
not died, but been translated.—Ver. g. 
*l. éya aexepddtoa: the fact stated in 
the form of a confession by the crimi- 
nal, but the grim story not told.—éya, 
emphatic, the “I” of a guilty troubled 
conscience.—tts: he has no theory, but is 


simply puzzled, yet the question almost 
implies suspicion that Jesus is John re- 
turned to life. Could there be two such 
men at the same period ?—xai éfyjret 
iSeiv aitéy: this points forward tc 
xxiii. 8. ; 

Vv. 10-17. Feeding of the multitude 
(Mt. xiv. 13-21, Mk. vi. 30-44, John vi. 
1-14).—Ver. 10. The Twelve return 
from their mission and report what they 
had done; Mk. adds and taught.— 
tmexopynoe, withdrew, here and in vy. 
16, only, in N. T. The reason of this 
retirement does not appear in Lk.’s 
narrative, nor whether Jesus with His 
disciples went by land or by sea.—Ver. 
II. ot 6xAov: no particular multitude 
is meant, but just the crowds that were 
wont to gather around Jesus. In Mt. 
and Mk. Jesus appears as endeavouring (in 
vain) to escape from the people. In Lk. 
this feature is not prominent. Even the 
expression téaov épnov in ver. 10 is 
probably not genuine. What Lk. 
appears to have written is that Jesus 
withdcew privately into a city called 
Bethsaida.—amoSefdpevos, the more 
probable reading, implies a willing recep- 
tion ot the multitude. Vide viii. 40.— 
Ver. 12, «Alvery, the day began to 
decline; the fam is alluded to here, not 





7—18, EYATTEAION $29 
12. ‘H 8é fydpa Hpkato Nive: mpocedOdvtes Sé of Suidexa elroy 
abt, “’Addugoy Tdv dxAov, tva daedOdvtes! eis Tas KUKAW Kopas 
kat Tods dypots Katadicwct, Kal eUpwow eémaiticpdy: Ott Ode év 
€pype tomw éopéy.” 13. Elie S€ mpds attous, “ Adre adtots byes 
hayetv.”2 Oi Sé etwov, “Odx cioly Hpivy welow 7 wevte Gpto. Kat 
BUo ixOves, ef pat. woperOdvTes Huets dyopdowper eis wavTa Tor 
hadv todTov Bpspata.” 14. "Hoay yap doel dvdpes mevtaxioxidton. 
Eire 8é wpds tods pabytds adtod, ““KataxAivate adrols KAtoias 
dvd ® wevrjKorta.” 15. Kal érotnoay ovrw, cat dvéxhivay * daravtas. 
16. AaB 8é tods wévte Gptous Kal Tos SUo txOUas, dvaBAdWas cig 
tov odpaydy, edXédynoer attous, Kat Katéx\ace, Kai €SiS0u tots 
pabytais mapariddvar® 1 Sydw. 17. Kal Epayoy Kai éxopTdc- 
Onoav mdvtes’ Kai HpOn 1d wepiocedoay adtois KAacpdTwY KddtvoE 


dddexa. 


18. KAI éyévero év TO etvar adtdov mTpogeuxXspevoy KaTapdvas, 
rn , 
cuvijgav ait ot pabytal> Kat emypdtnsey aitous, héywv, “ Tiva 


1 wopevBevres in KSABDE al. 


2 payew vpers in B (Tisch., W.H., text), also with $8 aprot before mevre, and 


with SAC al. ryOves before Svo. 


5 woe. before ava in SBCDLRE 33 (W.H.). 


4 xatexAwvay in NBLE= 1, 33, 69 al. 
5 wapadevar in BCX 1. 


in a participial clause, but in an inde- 
pendent sentence, as bringing an un- 
welcome close to the beneficent labours 
of Jesus. He went on teaching and 
healing, but (8é) the day, etc.—xatadv- 
owot: the disciples in Lk. are solicitous 
about the /odging as well as the feeding 
of the people.—émiottiopdy, provisions, 
here only in N. T., but often in classics, 
¢.g., with reference to the provisioning 
of an army (commeatus).—Ver. 13. 
mieiov #: on the construction, vide 
Winer, § 58, 4 obs. 1.—el pyte.. . 
Gyopdcwpev, unless perhaps we are to 
buy, etc.; et with subjunctive is one of 
the forms of protasis in N. T. to express 
a future supposition with some pro- 
bability, el takes also present and future 
indicative. Vide Burton, M. and T., § 
252. That Lk. did not regard this pro- 
posal as, if possible, very feasible, appears 
from his mentioning the number present 
at this stage—ver. 14. Hence also he 
does not think it worth while to mention 
the amount of money at their disposal 
(200 denarii, Mk. vi. 37).—«A.cias, 
dining parties, answering to Mk.’s 
ouprwooi. Mk.’s mpacral, describing 
the appearance to the eye, like flower 


T.R. = DL al. 


beds, with their gay garments, red, blue, 
yellow, Lk. omits.—Ver. 16. evAdynoev 
avtovs, He blessed them (the loaves), 
and by the blessing made them sufficient 
for the wants of all. In Mt. and Mk, 
evAdyynoev has no object. This is the 
only trait added by Lk. to enhance the 
greatness of the miracle, unless the 
position of wavres after éxyoptacOnoav 
be another = they ate and were filled, 
all ; not merely a matter of each getting 
a morsel. 

Vv. 18-27. The Christ and the cross 
(Mt. xvi. 13-28, Mk. viii. 27-ix. 1). At 
this point occurs a great gap in Lk.’s 
narrative as compared with those of Mt. 
and: Mk., all between Mt. xiv. 22 and 
xvi. 12 and between Mk. vi. 45 and viii. 
27 being omitted. Various explanations 
of the omission have been suggested: 
accident (Meyer, Godet), not in the copy 
of Mk. used by Lk. (Reuss), mistake of 
the eye, passing from the second feed- 
ing as if it were the first (Beyschlag). 
These and other explanations imply that 
the omission was unintentional. But 
against this hypothesis is the fact that 
the edges of the opposite sides of the 
gap are brought together in Lk.’s 


34 


§30 


pe Aéyouow ot Sydor? elyar;” 
“"lodveny Tov Bawtioryy* dAdo 8, “HALav. 


tis TOV dpxatwv dvéorn.” 
héyere elvat ;” 


~ » 


Oeceou. 


KATA AOYKAN 


IX. 


1g. Ot 8€ dwoxpiWévres elrrov, 
Gdor 8é, Ste mpopyrys 


20. Elie Sé adrois, ““Ypets 8€ riva pe 
"AmoxpiOels B€ 5 Métpos? elie, “ Tdv Xprotdy Tod 
21. ‘O 8€ émitipyoas adtols maphyyede prydevi ciety? 


ToUTO, 22. etmmv, ““Orr Set Tov vidy Tod dvOpdmou wodha trabeiv, 


Kai dirodoxipacOAvat drd Tay mpecBuTépwy Kat dpxrepéwy Kat ypap- 


paréwy, Kal droxravOjvat, Kal rH TpiTy Hepa eyepOAvar.” 4 
23. “Edeye S€ mpds mdvtas, “Et tus Oéder drricw pou édOetv,! 


dwapyyncdc8w éautdv, Kal dpdtw tov otaupdv adtod Kad” Hpydpay, 


1 o& oxAot Aey. in NBLE 


I, 131 sah. cop, 


2 Terpos Se arrox. in NBCLE x sah. cop. 


3 Keyeww in NRABCDLE al. pl. 
* So in most uncials. 
epyer@ar in SBCDLE al. 


ACD minusc. have avaornvat (W.H. marg.). 
The important authorities are divided between 


arapyyncac8w and the simple apyno. (W.H. former in margin, latter in text). 


narrative at ix, 18: Jesus alone praying, 
as in Mt. xiv. 23, Mk. vi. 45-46, yet the 
disciples are with Him though alone 
(kata pévas ovvicayv a. of pabyral), and 
He proceeds to interrogate them. This 
raises the question as to the motives for 
intentional omission, which may have 
been such as these: avoidance of 
duplicates with no new lesson (second 
feeding), anti-Pharisaic matter much 
restricted throughout (ceremonial wash- 
ing), Jewish particularism not suitable in 
a Gentile Gospel, not even the appearance 
of it (Syrophenician woman).—«ara 
pévas, the scene remains unchanged 
in Lk.—that of the feeding of the 5000. 
No trace in this Gospel of Caesarea 
Philippi, or indeed of the great northerly 
journey (or journeys) so prominently 
recognised in Mk., the aim of which was 
to get away from crowds, and obtain 
leisure for intercourse with the Twelve 
in view of the approaching fatal crisis. 
This omission can hardly be without 
intention. Whether Lk. knew Mk.’s 
Gospel or not, so careful and interested 
an inquirer can hardly have been 
ignorant of that northern excursion. He 
may have omitted it because it was not 
rich in incident, in favour of the 
Samaritan journey about which he had 
much to tell. But the very raison d’étre 
of the journey was the hope that it might 
be a quiet one, giving leisure for inter- 
course with the Twelve. But this 
private fellowship of Jesus with His 
disciples with a view to their instruction 
is just one of the things to which justice 


is not done in this Gospel. Their need 
of instruction is not emphasised. From 
Lk.’s narrative one would never guess 
the critical importance of the conversa- 
tion at Caesarea Philippi, as regards 
either Peter’s confession or the announce- 
ment by Jesus of the coming passion.— 
Ver. 20. tov Xptoréy trot Oeod: even 
the form of the confession, as here given, 
hides its significance. Peter speaks the 
language of the apostolic age, the Christ 
of God, a commonplace of the Christian 
faith. Mk.’s Thou art the Christ, laconic, 
emphatic, is original by comparison, and 
Mt.’s form still more sounds like the 
utterance of a fresh, strong conviction, a 
new revelation flashed into the soul of 
Peter. 

Vv. 21-27. The cross and cross-bear- 
ing.—Ver. 22. eimav introduces re- 
ference to the coming sufferings of Jesus 
in a quite incidental way as a reason 
why the disciples should keep silence as 
to the Messiahship of their Master, just 
confessed. The truth is that the con- 
versation as to the Christ was a mere 
prelude to a very formal, solemn, and 
plain-spoken announcement on a pain- 
ful theme, to which hitherto Jesus had 
alluded only in veiled mystic language. 
Cf. the accounts in Mt. and Mk. (xvi. 
21, Viii. 31).—rt Sei, etc., the announce- 
ment is given in much the same words 
as in Mk.—Ver. 23. €Aeye 8¢ wpds 
mayvrTas: with this formula Lk. smoothly 
passes from Christ’s statement concern- 
ing His own Passion to the kindred 
topic of cross-bearing as the law of 





19—29. EYATTEAION 


kal dkohoudeirw por. 24. ds yap Av Ody Thy Wuxhy adtod caon, 
Grohéger adtiy: 85 8 av dokdon tiv Puxny atrod Evexey eno, 
obtos aoe altThy. 25. Ti yap adhedetrat GvOpwmos, Kepdijcas Tov 
Kéopov Sov, éaurdv S€ dwodécas 4 Cypiwlets; 26. os yap ay 
ératoxuvOy pe Kal Tods pols Adyous, TodToy 6 ulds Tou dvOpdiou 
ématoxuvOncetar, Stay EAOn év TH 86§n adTod Kal tov watpds Kal 
Tav dyiwy dyy&uv. 27. Adyw S¢ spiv ddnOds, elo twes TO O8e! 
éotyxdtuy, ot of ph yedoorvrar? Bavdrou, éws Gy wor Thy Bactheiay 
Tod Geod.” 

28. "Eyévero 5€ pera tods Adyous ToUTOUS woei Hepat Skt, Kai’ 
mapahaBav tov Métpov* Kat “lwdvyny Kal “IdxwBov, dvéBy €is 7d 
Spos mpocedgacOar. 29. Kal éyéveto, éy TH mpocedxecOar attdr, 


76 €lS0s TOG mpogwmou adtod Erepoy, kal 6 ipaticpds adtod euxds 


53! 


1 For we NBL= 1 have avrev, doubtless the true reading. Vide below. The 
same authorities have eotyxotev, while CD and many others have eorwtwy. 


? yevowvrat in most texts, including NBCDL. 
3 NB some verss. omit kat (W.H. relegate to margin). 


4 Omit toy before [1. all uncials. 


discipleship. The discourse on that 
theme is reproduced in much the same 
terms as in the parallel accounts. But 
it loses greatly in point by the omission 
of the Master’s rebuke to Peter for his 
opposition to the Passion. That rebuke 
gives to the discourse this meaning: 
you object to my suffering? I tell you 
not only must I suffer; it is the inevi- 
table lot of all who have due regard to 
the Divine interest in this world. Thus 
the first lesson Jesus taught the Twelve 
on the significance of His death was that 
it was the result of moral fidelity, and 
that as such it was but an instance of a 
universal law of the moral order of the 
world. This great doctrine, the ethical 
aspect of the Passion, is not made clear 
in Lk.—xa®’ nyépav, daily, in Lk. only, 
a true epexegetical addition, yet restrict- 
ing the sense, directing attention to the 
commonplace trials of ordinary Christian 
life, rather than to the great tribulations 
at crises in a heroic career, in which the 
law of cross-bearing receives its signal 
illustration. This addition makes it pro- 
bable that wdavras refers not only to the 
disciples, but to a larger audience: the 
law applies not to leaders only but to 
all followers of Jesus.—Ver. 25. éavrdv 
arohécas  (Cnyprwbels = losing, or re- 
ceiving damage in, his own self (Field, 
Ot. Nor.). The idea expressed by the 
second participle seems to be that even 
though it does not come to absolute loss, 


yet if gaining the world involve damage 
to the self, the moral personality—taint, 
lowering of the tone, vulgarising of the 
soul—we lose much more than we gain. 
—Ver. 26, év rq 56ép, etc., in the glory 
of Father, Son, and holy angels, a sort 
of trinitarian formula.—Ver. 27. &A70as 
= Gpnyv in parallels.—avrot, here = ddc 
in parallels.—tiv Bac. +. O., the King- 
dom of God, a simplified expression com- 
pared with those in Mt. and Mk., per- 
haps due to the late period at which Lk. 
wrote, probably understood by him as 
referring to the origination of the church 
at Pentecost. 

Vv. 28-36. The transfiguration (Mt. 
xvii. 1-13, Mk. ix. 2-13).—Ver. 28. Tovs 
Adyous tovTouvs: the words about the 
Passion and cross-bearing.—ocel hpépar 
éxré: no real discrepancy between Lk. 
and the other evangelists (after six days). 
—Mlérpov, etc., Peter, fohn and F¥ames, 
same order as in viii. 51 (BC, etc.).—els 
76 Spos: the mountain contiguous to the 
scene of the feeding, according to the se- 
quence of Lk.’s narrative.—mpoceviac- 
@as: prayer again (cf. ver. 18). In Lk.’s 
delineation of the character of Jesus 
prayer occupies a prominent place.— 
Ver. 29. dv te mpocedxerGar, while 
praying, and as the result of the exercise. 
—€repov, different; a real objective 
change, not merely to the view of the 
three disciples. Lk. omits épmpoodeyv 
atrav.—Aevxos may be viewed as an 


KATA AOYKAN 


$32 Ix, 


éEactpdrrwv. 30. Kal iSou, dvipes Bu0 cuvedddouv abt oiriwes 
joav Mworjs kal ‘HXlas: 31. ot dpOdvres ev Sdhq EAeyor Thy €Eodor 
adtod, Hv €wedde TAnpodr ey ‘lepoucadyp. 32. 6 Bé Mérpos Kai ot 
odv abit Foav PeBapnpévor Invw~ Siaypyyopyoartes Be elSov Thy 
Sdfav adtou, Kai Tods S00 dvSpas tods cuveor@ras adTd. 33. Kal 
éyévero év TO Staywpifecbar adrods dm’ abrod, elmev 6 Métpos pds 
Tov ‘Inoooy, “’Emordra, kaddv dor Huds Ode elvar Kal morjowper 
oxnvas Tpeis, piay got, Kal Mwoet piav,) Kai piay “Hdia-” ph 
eiSds 6 Kéyer. 34. Tadra S€ adrod Adyovtos, éydveto vedéAy Kat 
érecklacev ? adtots: époByOnoav Se ev TH exelvous etcehOetv 8 eis 


thy vebéAny. 35. Kat hwvh eyévero ek THs vedéAns, éyouga, 


> 


“ Odrds éot 6 vids pou 6 dyamnrés,* adtob a&Kouete.” 
ra yevésbar thy duwvyy, ebpébn 6° “Inoods pédvos. 


36. Kat év 
Kal adrol 


éolynoay, kal odSevi danyyetday év exeivais Tats myepais oddey dv 


éwpdxacw.® 


1 ntav before M. in all uncials. 


ADXA al. sah. 


3 erexialey in NBL; aorist (T.R.) from Mt. 
*\3BCL cop. have eve ery avtovs, which Tisch. and W.H. adopt. 


TRo= 


4 exeXeypevos in S$BLE sah. cop. (Tisch., W.H.). T.R. = CD ai. pi. 


5 Omit o very many uncials. 


§ ewpaxay in NABL al, pl. (Tisch., W.H.). 


adverb in function, qualifying éfartpan- 
twv (De Wette), but there is no reason 
why it should not be co-ordinate with 
ttae., kat being omitted = white, glister- 
ing.—étaorpamrev: in N. T. here only, 
flashing like lightning—Ver. 31. év 
56&): this is peculiar to Lk.—édeyov, 
were speaking about. Kypke thinks 
more is meant: speaking with praise 
(cum laude aliquid commemorare). One 
could have accepted this sense had 
Peter’s opposition been reported.—rqv 
étoSov, decease, death; so in 2 Peter i. 
15. Other words for death are é«Bacts 
Heb. xiii. 7), adtéis (Acts xx. 29), 
avaAvows (2 Tim. iv. 6). Perhaps the 
exodus here spoken of should be taken 
comprehensively as including death, re- 
surrection and ascension. (So Kypke, 
also Godet.) mAnpoty in that case will 
mean ‘pass through all the stages”. 
But against this wide sense is év ‘lepov- 
gadyp.—Ver. 32. BeBap. tarvy: this 
particular, in Lk. only, implies that it was 
a night scene; so also the expression év 
7a €&7s NeEpG, Ver. 37. The celestial 
visitants are supposed to arrive while the 
disciples are asleep. They fell asleep 
while their Master prayed, as at Geth- 
semane. — Staypnyopycavtes, having 





thoroughly wakened up, so as to be able 
to see distinctly what passed (here only in 
N.T.).—Ver. 33. While the two celestials 
were departing Peter made his proposal, 
to prevent them from going.—p7 eldas, 
etc., not knowing what he said; an 
apology for a proposal to keep the two 
celestials from returning to heaven.— 
Ver. 34. Itis not clear who were en- 
veloped by the cloud. If the reading 
éxelvous before eioedOetv were retained it 
would imply that the three disciples were 
outside ; avtovs, the reading of B, etc., 
implies that all were within.—Ver. 35. 
éxAeeypévos, the reading of BL, is to 
be preferred, because ayarnrtés, T. R., 
is conformed to that in the parallels ; here 
only in N. T.—Ver. 36. éolynoay, they 
were silent ; ‘‘ in those days,” it is added, 
implying that afterwards (after the re- 
surrection) they spoke of the experience. 
Lk. does not mention the injunction of 
Jesus to keep silence, nor the conversa- 
tion on the way down the hill about 
Elijah and John the Baptist. 

Vv. 37-43a- The epileptic boy (Mt. 
xvii. 14-21, Mk. ix. 14-209).—Ver. 38. 
éariBdéWar, to look with pity, as in i. 
48.—povoyevys, only son, as in vii. 12, 
viii. 42. to bring out the benevolence of 








30—46. 


EYAITEAION 


533 


37. Eyévero 8¢ dv! rq éfijs Hpépa, KateAOdvtwy abtav dwd Tod 


™” , 7 A ci , 
Opous, cuvivTngev adT@ Syxdos Todds. 
dxdou dveBdnoe,? Aeywr, “ Avddoxahe, 


38. Kat idou, dvip drs tod 
Séopat cou, émiBdepor ® emt 


Tov vidy pou, St. povoyevns éott port: 39. Kal i8ou, mvedpa 
apBdver adtév, Kat eLaidvns Kpdler, nal omapdoce. attov peta 


adppod, Kal poyis® droywpet dm adtod, auvtpiBov adtdér. 
edenOynv tov palytav aou, tva exBdddwou ® 


Onoar.” 


40. Kal 
aité, Kat ouK 7durn- 


41. "AmoxpiBets S€ 6 "Ingods elwev, “"Q yeved amortos 


Kal Sveotpapuevyn, Ews WéTe Eooat pds Suds, Kal dvéfonar dpav ; 


, a QA c ” 
mpocdyaye Ode Tov uidy gov. 


42. “Er. 8€ mpocepxopévou avtou, 


Zppngev aitév 7d Saipdviov kal cuveomdpatev: éwetipnoe Sé 6 


>? ~ lal , lol ‘ > a ~ A 
Incots TO mvedpatt TH Gka0dptw, Kal idoato tov Taide, Kat 


dmédwxey adtév TO Tatpl adtod. 


TH *peyaderdtyTe TOG Ocod. 


érolnaev 6 “Inaods,” ele mpds tods palntas aitod, 44. “ Odabe 


43. e&emAjooorto S€ mdvtes emi 
Ndvrwv S€ Oaupaldvrwy emi maou ots a Acts xix 


27 eR et 
L 16 


ipeis eis TA Gta Spay Tods Adyous ToUTOUS~ 6 yap uids Tou dvOpdmou 


udder mapadidocbar eis xetpas avOpdmwv.” 45. Ot S€ Hyvdouv Td 


ca an x, @ d , > 2 A a 4 6 
PNA TOUTO, KaL HY TAPAKEKGAULWEvoy ar QUTWVY, La ph atLoU@VYTaL 


> , A 3 A ~ ts A A cer , 
aité: Kat époBodvro épwrjcat adtévy tepit Tob pPrHyaTos ToUTOU. 


46. ElondOe S€ Stadoytopds ev adtois, 7d, Tis dy etn peilwy adray. 


1 SSBL omit ev. 


2 eBonogev in NBCDL. 


3 emtBAeWar in BCL. QD have -ov = T.R. 


$ wou eott in HABCDLX 33 verss. 


5 podts in B (W.H.); poyes in SCD (Tisch.). 


6 exBadwowy in most uncials. 


Not found elsewhere in N.T, 


7 For error. o |. S$$BDLE have simply ewoues (Tisch., W.H.). 


the miracle.—Ver. 39. xpdfet, he (the 
boy) crieth.—orapdoe, he (the demon) 
teareth him.—Ver. 42. Wpooepxopevov 
avrov, while the boy was approaching 
Jesus, in accordance with His request 
that he should be brought to Him, the 
demon made a final assault on his 
victim, rending and convulsing him. — 
Ver. 43. éwi ty peyadeérnti tr. Geod, 
the people were astonished at the majesty 
of God, revealed in the power that could 
work such acure. In Acts ii. 22 God is 
represented as working miracles through 
Jesus. So the matter is conceived here. 
But Lk. thinks of the majesty of God as 
immanent in Jesus. 

Vv. 43b-45. Second prediction of the 
Passion (Mt. xvii. 22-23, Mk. ix. 30-32). 
—advrev Bavpaoldvtwy, etc., while all 
were wondering at all the things which 
He did. ‘he reference is to the cure of 
the epileptic, which led the multitude to 


see in Jesus the bearer of the majesty or 
greatness of the Almighty.—elwe. Jesus 
spoke a second time of His approaching 
death, in connection with this prevailing 
wonder, and His aim was to keep the 
disciples from being misled by it. The 
setting in Mt. and Mk. is different. 
There Jesus speaks of His passion, while 
He with the Twelve is wandering about 
in Galilee, endeavouring, according to 
Mk., to remain unnoticed, and He speaks 
of it simply because it is the engrossing 
theme with which His mind is constantly 
preoccupied. Here, on the other hand, 
the second announcement is elicited by 
an external occasion, the admiration of 
the people.—Ver. 44. péAder wapadl- 
Socfat, is about to be betrayed. Lk. 
gives the specialty of the second pre- 
diction as in the parallels. Where he 
fails in comparison with Mt. and Mk. is 
in grasping the psychological situation 


$34 


KATA AOYKAN 


IX. 


47. 6 8é “Inoods (Sav! Tov Stadoyropdy Tis KapSias adray, émdaPd- 


pevos tratSiou,® éorncey aitd wap’ éauta, 48. Kal efmev adrois, 


“*Os édv 5€Entar todTo Td watSloy éml TG dvdpari pou, ewe Séxerat 


kai as édy ue Séfyrat, Séxerar tov dwootei\avrd pe. 


6 yap 


pixporepos éy maow buty drdpxwr obtos eotar® péyas.” 


49- “Awoxpieis S€ 5 “lwdvyns etwev, “Emordra, cidopév Tuva 


éri* TO dvdpart cou éxBdddovta Ta° Saipdvia: Kat exwAdcaper % 


1 «Sms in NB al. (Tisch., W.H., text). 


2 So in §\ and very many MSS. (Tisch.). 


Sev in CDLE (W.H. margin). 
BCD have mradiov (W.H.). 


3 eoriv in NBCLXE 1, 33 vet. Lat. vulg. D has eorat. 


4 w in NBLXAE 1, 33 al. (W.H.). 
5 Omit ta most uncials. 


ertin CD, etc. 


6 }8BLE have exwAvopev, which may be conformed to Mk. (Tisch. aor. = T.R., 


W.H. imp.). 


the emotional state of Christ’s mind. 
Cf. remarks on Mk., ad loc. Lk.’s Christ 
is comparatively passionless. 

Vv. 46-50. Who might be the greatest 
(Mt. xviii. 1-5, Mk. ix. 33-41).—Ver. 46. 
slo7nAOe Statoytopos, now there entered 
in among them (the Twelve) a thought. 
Lk.’s way of introducing this subject 
seems to show a desire, by way of 
sparing the future Apostles, to make as 
little of it as possible. It is merely a 
thought of the heart (ris xapdfas, ver. 
47), not a dispute as in Mk., and in- 
ferentially also in Mt. It came into 
their minds, how or why does not 
appear. Mk.’s narrative leads us to con- 
nect the dispute with Christ’s fore- 
boding references to His Passion. While 
they walked along the way (év rq 689), 
the Master thinking always, and speak- 
ing often, of His death, they, realising 
that a crisis of some sort was approach- 
ing but not knowing its nature, discussed 
the question tls pelLev ; so supplying the 
comic side of the tragic drama.—ro rls, 
etc., this, vis., who might be the greater 
of them, or, who might be greater than 
they. avtév may be taken either par- 
titively, or as a genitive of comparison. 
It is ordinarily taken in the former sense, 
whereby Lk.’s account is brought into 
line with the parallels; but Weiss (Mk.- 
Evang., also J. Weiss in Meyer) con- 
tends for the latter. His idea is that 
the Twelve, in Lk.’s view, were all con- 
scious of their common importance as 
disciples of Jesus, and wondered if any- 
body could be greater than they all 
were. He connects the “thought” of 
the Twelve with the exorcist incident 
(ver. 49) as evincing a similar self-im- 


portance. This view cannot be nega- 
tived on purely exegetical grounds.— 
Ver. 47. wap’ éavrg, beside Himself, 
not év péom avTa@v, as in Mt. and Mk., 
as if to say, here is the greater one.— 
Ver. 48. otro rd watdiov, this par- 
ticular child—not such a child, or what 
such a child represents, the little and 
insignificant—as in Mt. and Mk. Yet 
Lk.’s expression practically means that 
= this child, for example.—déEnrat: in 
Lk. the receiving of the little child is 
placed first in the discourse of Jesus, 
whereas in Mk. the general maxim that 
the man who is willing to be last is first, 
comes first. This position favours the 
view that not internal rivalry but a 
common self-exaltation in relation to 
those without is the vice in the view of 
Lk. Jesus says in effect: Be not high- 
minded ; an appreciative attitude towards 
those you are prone to despise is what 
I and my Father value.—év waow tpiv: 
this phrase, on the other hand, seems to 
point to internal rivalries. There had 
been a question among them as to 
greater and less, to which the Master’s 
answer was: the least one is the great 
one. Lk.’s version of this important 
discourse is, as De Wette remarks, in- 
ferior in point and clearness to Mt.’s.— 
Ver. 49. éxwAvoapev (T. R.), aorist, in- 
stead of Mk.’s imperfect ; the former im- 
plies successful repression, the latter an 
attempt at it. Vide notes on Mk., ad 
loc. —pe8” Hav: Phrynichus objects to 
this construction after axodov@etv, and 
says it should be followed by the dative. 
But Lobeck gives examples of the for- 
mer construction from good authors 
(vide p. 353). 





47—51. 


adtov, Ste odK dxodoudet pel” Hudv.” 


EYAITEAION 


535 


50. Kai eiwe! pds airy 


6 "Inaois, Mh xwAtete> bs yap odK ore Kad” Hpav,® Smrep jpay ? 


éorw.” 


51. EFENETO 8¢€ év r@ cupmAnpotabat tas Hpdpas THs dvaly pews 
aT00, Kal aités To Tedcwmoy attoi® Zarypife * Tod TopedeOar cis 


1 eure Se in NBCDLXE 33 al. 


2 yper bis in BCDLE vet. Lat. vulg. cop. syrr. cur. sin, (Tisch., W.H.), 
3 BLE 1, 239 c omit avrov after wpogwwow (W.H.). 


4 exrypicey in BCLXE 33 (Tisch., W.H.). 


Chapter ix., as Farrar remarks (C. 
G. T.), should have ended here, as with 
ver. 51 begins an entirely distinct, large, 
and very important division of Lk,’s 
Gospel. 

Vv. 51-56. Looking southward. 
Samaritan intolerance.—Ver. 51 forms 
the introduction to the great division, 
ix. 5I—xviii. 15. It makes all that 
follows up to the terminus ad quem 
stand under the solemn heading: the 
beginning of the end. From this time 
forth Jesus has the close of His earthly 
career in view. His face is fixedly set 
towards Jerusalem and—feaven. This 
conception of Jesus, as from this point 
onwards looking forward to the final 
crisis, suggests various reflections. 

1. The reference to the last act of the 
drama comes in at a very early place in 
Lk,’s history. 

2. The part of the story lying behind 
us does not adequately account for the 
mood of Jesus. We do not see why He 
should be thinking so earnestly of a 
final crisis of a tragic character, or even 
why there should be such a crisis at all. 
That the religious guides of Israel more 
or less disapproved of His ways has 
appeared, but it has not been shown 
that their hostility was of a deadly 
character. The dinner in Simon’s house 
speaks to relations more or less friendly, 
and the omission of the sharp encounter 
in reference to hand-washing, and of the 
ominous demand for a sign from heaven, 
greatly tends to obscure the forces that 
were working towards a tragic end, and 
had the cross for their natural outcome. 
It does not seem to have entered into 
Lk.’s plan to exhibit Christ’s death as 
the natural result of the opinions, prac- 
tices, prejudices and passions prevalent 
in the religious world. He contem- 
plated the event on the Godward, theo- 
logical side, or perhaps it would be more 
correct to say on the side of fulfilment 
of O. T. prophecy. The necessity of 


ND as in T.R. 


Christ’s death, the Set (ix. 22) = the 
demand of O. T. Scripture for fulfilment, 
vide xxiv. 26. 

3. In the long narrative contained in 
the next eight chapters, Jesus does not 
seem to be constantly thinking of the 
end. In Mk. and Mt. it is otherwise. 
From the period at which Jesus began 
to speak plainly of His death He appears 
constantly preoccupied with the subject. 
His whole manner and behaviour are 
those of one walking under the shadow 
of the cross. This representation is 
true to life. In Lk., on the other hand, 
while the face of Jesus is set towards 
Jerusalem, His mind seems often to be 
thinking of other things, and the reader 
of the story forgets about the cross as he 
peruses its deeply interesting pages. 

ovuptwAnpotaGas, etc., when the days 
of His assumption were in course of ac- 
complishment, implying the approach of 
the closing scenes of Christ’s earthly ex- 
perience; here and in Acts ii. 1, only, of 
time ; in viii. 23 in the literal sense.— 
a@vadyWeos a. His assumption into 
heaven, as in Acts i. 2. The substantive 
in this sense isa aw. Aey. in N. T. It 
occurs in the Test., 211. Paty. The verb 
occurs in a similar sense in various 
places in the Sept. The assumption 
into heaven includes the crucifixion in 
Lk.’s conception, just as the glorification 
of Jesus includes the Passion in the 
Johannineconception. ‘ Instabat adhuc 
passio, crux, mors, sepulchrum; sed per 
haec omnia ad metam prospexit Jesus, 
cujus sensum imitatur stylus evange- 
listae,”’ Bengel. The avaAnwts was an 
act of God.—_éorypioev, He made His 
face firm (from oripty§, akin to orepeds, 
Thayer’s Grimm), as if to meet some- 
thing formidable and unwelcome, the 
cross rather than what lay beyond, here 
in view. Hahn, who does not believe 
that Lk. is here referring to Christ’s 
final journey to Jerusalem, tones down 
the force of this werd so as to make it 


KATA AOYKAN IX. 


536 


‘lepoucahyp. 52. kat dwéorerdey dyyédous mpd mpood wou abtod - 
kal wopeuOévres cio Oov eis kop } Lapapertav, bore * éroisdoat 


53: 
Tropeudpevov eis ‘lepoucadyp. 


aiTa. kal odx éS¢favro adrévy, St. Td mpdcwmoy adtod Fy 
54- Wdvres S€ of pabynrai adtod * 

‘ldxwBos kat “lwdvyns elmov, “Kupre, Oéders eltrwpev wip spi 
b Gal. v. 15 dO Tod odpavod, Kat "dvahGoa adtots, ds Kat es érroinge * ;” 


- Thess. 


55: Irpadeis de erreTinnoey autots, Kal etrev, “ Odx oldatTe otou 


56. & ydp uids toi dvOpdrou otk Oe 
25 


Trrevpatés éore Gpets* 
Wuxds avOpdmwv drodkdoa, dA cdcat. Kel éropevO@ycay eis 
érépav Kopny. 

57- Eyévero 8€° wopevopévwy aitay, ev TH 684 elé tis mpds 
airéy, “"Axohou8jow cor Sou ay dwépyy, kupie.”7™ 58. Kai elrrer 
atT@ 6 “Ingots, “At dddtrexes pwheods Exouct, Kal Ta TeTELWa TOU 


ovpavod Katackynvicers* 6 S€ ulds Tod dvOpdmou odk exer mod Thy 


1 groktw in $*TA some minusc, (Tisch.). 
2So in CDL al, pl. (Tisch.). $§B some vet. Lat. codd, have ws (W.H.). 


5 4$B some minusc. omit avrov, 


4 S9BLE minusc. vulg. syrr. cur. sin. memph. omit ws wat H. erownoe, which is 


probably a gloss. 


5 From kat evmey (ver. 55) to akAa oworat (ver. 56) is probably also a gloss (found 


in FKMTLA al. pl. 


D has ov« o18. ot. wv. eore upers; also in many verss.). 


SABCLAE al. syr. sin., etc., omit the whole passage (Tisch., Trg., R.V., W.H.). 
6 For eyev. 8e SBCLXE 33 6 al. verss. have simply Kat. 
7 SQBDLE minusc. verss. omit xvpte (Tisch., W.H.) ; found in CA al, Fewer MSS. 


omit kvpte in ver. 59 (BDV 57, eit 
margin). 


express in Oriental fashion the idea of 
Jesus addressing Himself to a journey 
not specially momentous. 

Vv. 52-56. Samaritan intolerance.— 
cls kopnv Lapaperrey: this indicates an 
intention to go southward through 
Samaritan territory. Not an unusual 
thing. Josephus (Antiq., xx., vi. 1) states 
that it was the custom for Galileans 
going to Jerusalem to the feasts to pass 
through Samaria.—éroiwsdoat a., to pre- 
pare fer Him, t.e., to find lodgings for 
the night.— dere in view of the sequel 
can only express tendency or intention. 
—ovx é8¢avro a.: the aorist, implying 
“that they at once rejected Him, 
Farrar (C. G. T.).—8tt introduces the 
reason: Christ’s face was, looked like, 
going to Jerusalem. In view of what 
Josephus states, this hardly accounts for 
the inhospitable treatment. Perhaps 
the manner of the messengers had some- 
thing to do with it. Had Jesus gone 
Himself the result might have been 


. a 
‘ 


NCLE have it (Tisch. omits, W.H. put in 


different. Perhaps He was making an 
experiment to see how His followers and 
the Samaritans would get on together. 
In that case the result would make Him 
change His plan, and turn aside from 
Samaria into Peraea. If so then Baur’s 
idea of a Samaritan ministry is a mis- 
nomer.—Ver. 54. *ldxwBos cat ‘lwdyvns : 
their outburst of temper, revealed in 
their truculent proposal, probably indi- 
cated the attitude of the whole com- 
pany. In that case journeying through 
Samaria was hopeless.—xeraBjvat, in- 
finitive, instead of fva with subjunctive 
as often after elwretv.—Ver. 55 orpadeis ; 

an imposing gesture, as in Vii. Q, 44.— 
Ver. 56. els érépav xopny, to another 
village, probably in Galilee; both in the 
borderland. 

Vv. 57-62. New disciples.—ev rij 89 : 
the indication of time is not precise. It 
does not mean, on the way to the other 
village, mentioned just before aaa 
but on the way to Jerusalem (ver. 51). 





52—62. 


kepahty KXivy.” 


EYATTEAION 


537 


59. Eire Se mpds Erepov, “’Axohodber jhou.” 


‘O Be eine, “Kupre, emitpepdv por darehOdveTe mpadtov! Odwar tov 


, ”? 
Watépa pov. 


60. Etre S€ ait 6 “Inaods,? ““Ades tos vexpous 


Odor tobs EauTay vexpous: od BE drehOwy Sidyyedde thy Bacidelay 


“~ an 
Tou Qeou. 


61. Etme 8é kal étepos, “’AxohouOjow cor, KUpie- 


mpatov Sé émitpepovy por dwotdfacbar Tots eis Tov otKdy prov.” 


62. Ete 8¢ mpds adtév® 6 “Ingods, “Od8eis emBahov tiv yetpa 


auvod * én ° dpotpor, 
Baotdetav > tod Geos.” 


i wpwrov ameh@. in BD. 


, > “ 
kat Bhéwov eis Ta dtrigw, eUOeTds eotiy Eis THY c here only 


12 


2 Omit o I. SBDLE 33 a cop. 


® B omits wpos avtov (W.H. in brackets). 
«B minusc. and some codd. of vet. Lat. omit avrov. 


5 For ets thy B. SBLE 1, 33 vet. Lat. 


codd. have tm Baotdera (Tisch., W.H.). 


D and some vet. Lat. codd. invert the order of the clauses = looking back and 


putting his hand to the plough. 


Grotius thinks the connection is purely 
topical. ‘‘Visum est Lucae connectere 
7a dpoyevéa.” The first two of the three 
cases are reported by Mt. (viii. 19-22).— 
vis: Mt. (viii. 19) designates this cer- 
tain one a scribe.—émépxy implies a de- 
parture froma place. It would bea leav- 
ing of home for the disciple.—Ver. 58. 
This remarkable saying is given in iden- 
tical terms by Mt. and Lk. Vide on Mt. 

Vy. 59, 60. The second case (Mt. viii. 
21-22).—GKodovGer por. Jesus takes the 
initiative in this case. That He should 
not have done so in the first is intelli- 
gible if the aspirant was ascribe. Jesus 
did not look for satisfactory discipleship 
from that quarter.—ov 8@, but thou, em- 
phatic, implying that the man addressed 
is not among the dead, but one who 
appreciates the claims of the kingdom.— 
SiayyeAAe, keep proclaiming on every 
side the Kingdom of God ; that, thy sole 
business henceforth, to which everything 
else, even burying parents, must be 
sacrificed: seek first the kingdom. 

Vv. 61, 62. The third case, peculiar 
to Lk., and setting forth a distinct type. 
—dxorov§yow aot, I will follow Thee, 
implying that he also has been asked to 
do so, and that he is ready, but on a 
condition.—éritpepév pot: this is a 
type of man who always wants to do 
something, in which he is himself 
specially interested first (wp@tov), before 
he addresses himself to the main duty to 
which he is called.—émotagtac@ar: in 
this case it is to bid good-bye to friends, 
a sentimental business; that also charac- 
teristic.—tots eis Tov olkédy pov. The 


verb &2, is used in later Greek both with 
the dative of a person to denote ‘to take 
leave of,” and with the dative of a thing 
= to renounce (so in xiv. 33). Both 
senses are admissible here, as tots may 
be either masculine or neuter, but the 
first sense is the only one suitable to the 
character (sentimental) and to the re- 
quest, as property could be renounced 
on the spot; though this reason is not so 
conclusive, as some legal steps might be 
necessary to denude oneself of property. 
—Ver. 62. ovdeis értBaddy, etc.: the 
necessity of self-concentration inculcated 
in proverbial language borrowed from 
agricultural life. Wetstein cites from 
Hesiod, “Epy., ver. 443, the well-known 
lines: (Uetav avAak’ éAXavvor, Mnyxére 
manrtalvev ped’ SurAtkas, GAN’ érit Epyp 
Oupov €xav. The ambition to make a 
straight furrow has been common to 
ploughmen in all ages and countries, 
and it needs, like the highest calling, 
steady intention and a forward-cast eye. 
Furrer compliments the Palestine fellah 
on his skill in drawing a long straight 
furrow (Wanderungen, p. 149). His 
plough is a very inferior article to that 
used in this country.—etQetds, well 
fitted, apt; here and in chap. xiv. 35, 
Heb. vi. 7.—The first case is that of in- 
considerate impulse, the second that of 
conflicting duties, the third that of a 
divided mind. The incidents are re- 
lated by Lk., not so much possibly for 
their psychological interest as to show 
how Jesus came to have so many dis- 
ciples as chap. x. 1-16 implies, and yet 
how particular He was. 


538 


KATA AOYKAN 


X. 


X. 1. META 88 radra dvéBeckev 8 Kuptos cal? érépous éBSopr- 


Kovta,? 


wacav médtv Kai rémov ob epehev aitds EpyeoOar.” 


kai dnéorethey adtods ava 800 wpd mpoodrou adrod, eis 


2. "Eheyev 


ov ® apds attous, “‘O pev Oepropds odds, ot 8é epydrar ddlyou- 


SenOyre odv Tod Kupiou tod Oepropod, Saws exBaddn épydras * eis 


tov Gepiopoy adtod. 3. ‘Yadyere- iSod, éyo® dmooté\hw bpds os 


1 «at, found in QCD al. fl. verss. (Tisch.), is omitted in BLE 33 (W.H.). 


7So in NACLAE al. b, f, q (Tisch.). 
eB3. Svo (W.H. in brackets). 


BD a,c, e, 1, g vulg. syrr. cur. sin. have 


3 For ovy NBCDLE 1, 33, 69 verss. have 8e. 
4 epyaras exB.: this order in BDe. exBadn (aor.) in NABCDL3 al, 


® Omit eyw (from Mt.) SAB. 


CHAPTER X. THE SEVENTY. THE 
Goop SAMARITAN. MARTHA AND Mary. 
—Vv. 1-12. The Seventy sent forth, 
peculiar to Lk. Many questions have 
been raised as to this narrative, ¢.g., as 
to its historicity, as to the connection 
between the instructions to the new 
missionaries and those to the Twelve, 
and as to the time and place of their 
election, and the sphere of their mission. 
On these points only the briefest hints 
can be given here. As to the first, the 
saying about the paucity of labourers, 
found also in Mt. (ix. 38), implies that 
Jesus was constantly on the outlook for 
competent assistants, and that He would 
use such as were available. The cases 
mentioned in the closing section of last 
chapter confirm this inference. Whether 
He would send them out simultaneously 
in large numbers, twelve, or seventy, or 
piecemeal, one or more pairs now, and 
another small group then, is a matter 
on which it is precarious to dogmatise, 
as is done by W. Grimm when he says 
(Das Proemium des Lucas-Evang.) 
that Jesus did not send out twelve all at 
once, but two and two now and then, and 
besides the Twelve others of the second 
order, and that these piecemeal missions 
consolidated in the tradition into two 
large ones of twelve and seventy. As to 
the instructions :; there would be such in 
every instance, and they would be sub- 
stantially the same whether given once, 
twice, or twenty times, summed up in a 
few compact sentences, so racy and 
memorable as to be easily preservable 
even by oral tradition. It is, however, 
quite probable that versions of these in- 
structions were to be found in docu- 
ments, say in Mk. and in Mt.’s Logia; 
and Lk., as Weiss suggests, may have 
taken the instructions to the Twelve from 


the former, and those to the Seventy 
from the latter. Finally, as to time, 
place, and sphere, nothing certain can 
be determined, and there is room for 
various conjectures. Hahn, ¢.g., suggests, 
as the place of the appointment, 
Ferusalem; the time, the feast of 
tabernacles, mentioned in John vii. 2; 
and the sphere of the mission, the towns 
and villages of $udaea or southern 
Palestine. There was certainly need for 
a mission there. The mission of the 
Twelve was in Galilee. 

Ver. I. peta radra, after what has 
been narrated in ix. 51-62, but not 
necessarily implying close sequence.— 
aveSerdev (Qvadeinvupe). The verb means 
(1) to lift up so as to show, cf. the noun 
in Lk. i. 80; (2) to proclaim as elected, 
cf. Acts i. 24; (3) to elect, appoint, as 
here = designavit, Vulgate.—é6 Kuptos, 
the Lord, Jesus, here, as often in Lk. 
applied to Him in narrative.—érépovs, 
others, the reference being not to 
ayyéAous, ix. 52 (Meyer), but to rots 
SaSexa, ix, 1 = others besides the Twelve. 
—€Bdoprjxovra, seventy (seventy-two in 
B), representing the nations of the earth, 
the number consciously fixed by the 
evangelist to symbolise Christian uni- 
versalism—according to Dr. Baur and the 
Tubingen School; representing in the 
mind of Jesus the seventy Sanhedrists, 
as the Twelve were meant to represent 
the tribes of Israel, the seventy disciples 
having for their vocation to do what the 
Sanhedrists had failed to do—prepare 
the people for the appearance of the 
Christ—according to Hahn. 

Vv. 2-12. The instructions.—Ver. 2. 
6 pev Beptopds: preliminary statement 
as to the need of men fit to take part in 
the work of preaching the kingdom, as 
in Mt. ix. 38, vide notes there; a true 





I—11, EYAITEAION 

dpvas év péow AUKwv. 4. ph BaotdLlete Baddyriov, pi) mHpav, pyde 
Gmodjpata: Kat pydéva cata thy 68dv domdonobe. 5. Eis Hv 8 
ay oixiay eicépxnobe,! mpdrov déyere, Eipyyn 1 oiko rtovre. 
6. nai édv pev yf exet? vids ciphyns, éravamatcerar® er adrdy h 
cipyyy Spay: et Sé prye, ep Gas dvaxdpwer. 7. év airy d¢ TH 
oikia pévete, écbiovtes* Kai mivovres Ta Tap adtov- déLos yap 6 
€pydms Tod pico adrod éome®> ph petaBaivere 2& oixias eis 
oixiay. 8. Kai eis qv 8% av wédw elodpynade, kal S¢xwvrar Spas, 
éoOiere rd wapariOdpeva piv, g. Kat Oepamedete tods ev atta 
dobevets, al Aéyete adtois, “Hyyixev ép Spas 7 Bactdeta tod Ccod. 
Io. eis Hy 8 av wédw eicepynabe,” kal ph Sexarrar Suds, ée9dvtes 
eis Tas TWAaTElas adTis, ciate, 11. Kat Tov Kovoptov Tov KoAAnOEyTA 
Hpty éx THs TéAews Sudy > *dropaccdpeda Spiv> mAhy ToiTo ywde- 


539 


here only 
in N.T. 


} eeoeAOnre in NBCDLE 1, 13, 60. 
2 wev is found only in minusc. 


B places exes before y (W.H. text), 


5 SOB have eravarangerat, to be preferred as the rarer form. 


* BD have eo@ovres (Tisch., W.H.). 
6 Se is wanting in NBCDE& al. 


5 egret omitted in RBDLXE, 
7 aoedOnre in BBCDLE 1, 33 al. 


® After upav NBD have ets rovs wodas, adopted by modern editors. 


logion of Jesus, whensoever spoken.— 
Ver. 3. trdyere, go, whither? Mt.’s 
version of the instructions to the Twelve 
says: not to Samaria, but to the lost 
sheep of Israel only; this omitted by 
Lk. with the one word, “‘ go,” retained. 
—6s Gpvas, etc., as lambs among 
wolves ; sheep (wpéBata) in Mt. x. 16; 
pathetic hint as to the helplessness of 
the agents and the risks they run; not 
imaginary, as the recent experience at 
the Samaritan village shows.—Ver. 4. 
Baddvriov, a purse, in Lk. only, in 
N. T.; often in classics, spelt there, as 
in MSS. of N. T., variously with one or 
two As.—_pndtva aowdonobe: salute no 
one, to be taken in the spirit rather than 
in the letter; hyperbolical for: be ex- 
clusively intent on your business: 
‘“ negotio quod imposui vobis incumbite, 
praeterhabitis vel brevissimis obstaculis 
et moramentis,”’ Pricaeus. Weiss (Mt.- 
Evangel.) thinks the prohibition is 
directed against carrying on their mission 
on the way. It wasto be exclusively a 
house-mission (vide Mt. x. 12, where 
dondacacGe occurs).—Ver. 5. mpaTov 
Méyere: the first word to be spoken, 
peace, speech on the things of the king- 
dom to be prepared for by courteous, 
kindly salutations. A sympathetic heart 
is the best guide in pastoral visitation. 
The first word should not be: how is it 


with your soul?—Ver. 6. éaavawan- 
gerat (NB), a form of the 2nd fut. ind. 
passive, probably belonging to the spoken 
Greek of the period. Again in Rev. xiv. 
13.—Gvakdpwer: in any case the good 
wish will not be lost. If there be no 
‘¢son of peace”’ in the house to receive 
it, it will come back with a blessing to 
the man who uttered it.—Ver. 7. év 
ait] tT olxig: verbally distinct from év 
TI] airy, etc., but really meaning the 
same thing = ‘‘in that same house,” 
R. V.—ra tap’ aitév, eating and drink- 
ing the meat and drink which belong to 
them, as if they were your own: libere 
et velut vestro jure, Grotius.—dé.os yap 
assigns the reason: your food is your 
hire ; it belongs to you of right as wages 
for work done.—Ver. 8. éo@lete ta 
mwapatiéneva: not a repetition. It 
means, be contented with your fare: 
contenti este quamvis frugal apparatu, 
Bengel. Holtz. (H. C.) thinks Lk. has 
in view heathen houses, and that the 
meaning is: put aside Jewish scruples. 
—Ver. The functions of the 
missionaries briefly indicated = heal the 
sick, and announce that the kingdom is 
at their doors (jyytxev).—Vv. 10, 11. 
Direction how to act in case of churlish 
treatment.—é£edOdvtes els tas wrartelas 
a. Lk. expresses the action so as to 
make it vivid for Gentile readers to 


540 KATA AOYKAN . 
kere, Ott tyyixer ep’ Spas? 4 Baorhe(a trod Geos. 12. héyw dé? 
dpiv, Ste Loddopors ev rH ipepa exelvy dvextérepov ora, 4 TH Wde 
exeivy. 13. Odai oor, Xwpaliv, otal cor, Byboaidd-: dt ci ev Tépw 
kal L8G éyévovro® ai Suvdpercs at yevdpevar év Suir, mo&dar dv ev 
odkky Kal omodd Kabjpevar* petevdnoay. 14. wAhy Tépw Kal 
Lidave dvextérepov Eorar év TH Kpice, 7) bpiv. 15. kal oJ, Kamep- 
vaovp,  Ews Tod obpavod Spwletoa, ews adouv xaraP.Bacbijon.? 
16. ‘O dxovwy iudv éuod dxover- kat 6 dberav ipas eye Aberet- 6 
17. ‘Yaéorpeway Se 
ot éBdouyKovra feta xapds, éyortes, “Kupre, kai ra Satudna 


Se cue ABerav aberet tov daoorethavTd pe.” 


c sf < ben) > a 3 , » 
UTTOTAGOETAL TILLY EV To dvépatt gou. 


INBDLE 1, 13, 33 al. omit ep vpas. 


18. Etwe 5€ atrots, “’E0ed- 


2 $e in NDE (Tisch.) is omitted in BCL al. pl. verss. (W.H.), 


3 eyeynPnoay in NBDLE 13, 33, 69. 
* kafypevor in MABCLE al, 
‘For 7. - 


-at in D with many others. 
. vipwheroa SRBDLE vet. Lat. 5 syr. cur. have py... wpwbnon; 


for cataBiBacbnon (NYCLE al. pl. Tisch.) BD have naraByon (W.H.). 


whom the symbolic significance of the 
act was not familiar = go out of the 
inhospitable houses into the streets, and 
then solemnly wipe off the dust that has 
been taken up by your feet since you 
entered the town; wiping off (@wopac- 
oépe6a) is more expressive than shaking 
off (€xtivatere, Mt. x. 14, Lk. ix. 5), it 
means more thorough work, removing 
every speck of dust.—wAny, for the rest. 
The solemn symbolic act is to wind up 
with the equally solemn declaration that 
the Kingdom of God has come to them 
with its blessings, and that it is their 
own fault if it has come in vain, 

Vv. 13-16. Woe to thee, Choraxzin 
(Mt. xi. 21-24).—While the terms in 
which the woes on the cities of Galilee 
are reported are nearly identical in Mt. 
and Lk., the connections in which they 
are given are different. In Mt. the con- 
nection is very general, The woes 
simply find a place in a collection of 
moral criticisms by Jesus on His time: 
on John, on the Pharisees, and on the 
Galilean towns. Here they form part 
of Christ’s address to the Seventy, when 
sending them forth on their mission. 
Whether they properly come in here has 
been disputed. Wendt (L. J., p. 89) 
thinks they do, inasmuch as they indi- 
cate that the punishment for rejecting 
the disciples will be the same as that of 
the cities which were unreceptive to the 
ministry of the Master. J. Weiss (in 
Meyer), on the other hand, thinks the 


woes have been inserted here from a 
purely external point of view, noting in 
proof the close connection between ver. 
12 and ver. 16. It is impossible to be 
quite sure when the words were spoken, 
but also impossible to doubt that they 
were spoken by Jesus, probably towards 
or after the close of His Galilean 
ministry.—xaOyjpevor, after owod¢, is an 
addition of Lk.’s, explanatory or pic- 
torial.—Ver. 16 = Mt. x. 40, 41, only Mt. 
emphasises and expands the positive 
side, while Lk. with the positive pre- 
sents, and with special emphasis, the 
negative (6 dberay tas, etc.). 

Vv. 17-20. Return of the Seventy. No 
such report of the doings of the Twelve, 
and of their Master’s congratulations, is 
given in any of the Gospels (cf. Mk. vi. 
30, 31). It seems as if Lk. attached more 
importance to the later mission, as 
Baur accused him of doing under the in- 
fluence of theological tendency (Pauline 
universalism). But probably this report 
was one of the fruits of his careful re- 
search for memorabilia of Jesus: “a 
highly valuable tradition arising on 
Jewish-Christian soil, and just on account 
of its strangeness trustworthy” (J. 
Weiss in Meyer). Similarly Feine, and 
Resch, Agrapha, p. 414, note.—Ver. 17. 
cal 7a Saipdyvta, even the demons, sub- 
ject to our power; more than they had 
expected or been promised, hence their 
exultation (pera yapas).—Ver. 18. 
éGeapovv: their report was no news to 





EYATTEAION 


12—22, 


541 


pouv tov Zatavay Os dotpaiwyy ex Tod odpavoli weodvta. 19. idou, 
id A ~ 
BiSwp) Sutvy thy efouciay tod watety emdvw dhewy Kai oKoprioy, 


kai éml macay Thy Sdvapiy tod éxPpod- Kal oddev Spas od ph 


*aSixron?- 20. wiv ev TodTw pi xalpere, Ste Ta mvedpata Spiv b in the 
a n sense of 
Swordacetor yalpete 5é€ paddov® Sr 7a dvopata byady eypddy* to hurt 
2 _~ > a 39 > >a ~ > an UY here and 
év Tots odpayois.” 21. Ev atth TH Spa hyahAtdoato TG mvevpate several 
a a ~ times i 
5 “Ingods,® rai efmev, “"E€opodoyodpat aor, mdrep, Kipie tod Rev. 


oupavod Kal Tis ys, or dwéxpuipas Taito amd codGy Kai cuveray, 
kal diexddupas aitd wymiois’ vat, 6 matyp, Sts otTws éyéveto 
ed8oxia® éumpoabéy gov.” 22. Kat otpadeis mpds tos padntds 
etre,” “Mdvta wapedé0n por® bad tod watpéds pou Kai ovdels 


ywdoe tig éotw 6 vids, et pi) 6 warp, Kal tls got 6 watyp, 


1 SeSwxa in $BCLX 1, vet. Lat. vulg. (Tisch., W.H.). D has 8:8op1. 


2 So in BCXA al. (W.H. margin). a8ixqoe: in NDL 1, 13, 33 al. mul. (Tisch, 
W.H.., text). 


3 Most uncials and verss. omit paddov. 





4 evyeyparrat in $BLX 1, 33; most uncials as in T.R. 


5 $$BD= omit o |., and $BCDLXE 1, 33 al. add tw ayw to mvevpart. 


and W.H. adopt both changes. 


Tisch. 


® ev5. eyev. in BCLXE 33 some vet. Lat. codd. 


7 Kal oTpadets . . 


with ACA al. pl.). 
8 pov wapeso8y in most uncials. 


Jesus. While they were working He 
saw Satan falling. There has been 
much discussion as to what is meant by 
this fall, and why it is referred to. It 
has been identified with the fall of the 
angels at the beginning of the world, 
with the Incarnation, with the temptation 
of Jesus, in both of which Satan sus- 
tained defeat. The Fathers adopted the 
first of these alternatives, and found the 
motive of the reference in a desire to 
warn the disciples. The devil fell 
through pride; take care you fall not 
from the same cause (ver. 20).—ds 
aorparny, like lightning; the precise 
point of the comparison has been 
variously conceived: momentary bright- 
ness, quick, sudden movement, inevi- 
tableness of the descent—down it must 
come to the earth, etc.—sreodvra, aorist, 
after the imperfect (€ewpovv), fallen, a 
fact accomplished. Pricaeus refers to 
Acts xix. 20 as a historical exemplifi- 
cation of the fall—Satan’s kingdom 
destroyed by the rapid spread of Ghris- 
tianity.—Ver. 19 reminds one of Mk. 
xvi. 18.—rovd éx@pov, the enemy, Satan. 
—ovStv, may be either nominative or 
accusative = either, “‘ nothing shall in 


. ere Omitted in KYBDLE 1, 13, 22, 33 verss. (Tisch. retains 


any wise hurt you,” R. V., or “in no 
respect shall he (the enemy) hurt you”. 
—vVer. 20. wmdAnv has adversative force 
here = yet, nevertheless, The joy of 
the Seventy was in danger of becoming 
overjoy, running into self-importance ; 
hence the warning word, which is best 
understood in the light of St. Paul’s 
doctrine of the Holy Spirit, which laid 
much more stress on the ethical than 
on the charismatical results of His in- 
fluence = rejoice not so much in possess- 
ing remarkable spiritual gifts as in being 
spiritual men. This text may be put 
beside Mt. vii. 21-23 as bearing on the 
separability of gifts and graces (xapic- 
pata and xdpts). 

Vv. 21-24. The exultation of Fesus 
(Mt. xi. 25-27).—The settingin Mt. gives 
to this great devotional utterance of 
Jesus a tone of resignation in connection 
with the apparent failure of His ministry. 
Here, connected with the fall of Satan, it 
has a tone of triumph (jyaAAtadoaro).— 
éy TO wvetpats TH Gylm: it was an in- 
spired utterance, ‘‘ a kind of glossolaly,” 
J. Weiss (Meyer).—Ver. 21 is almost 
verbatim, as in Mt. xi. 25, only that Lk, 
has améxpuwas for Mt.’s éxpuas.— Ver. 


$42 KATA AOYKAN x. 


ai ph 6 vids, Kal S gdv BodAnrar 6 vids droKxaddpas.” 23. Kal 
otpadets mpds Tois pabntads Kat’ iSiav elie, “ Maxdpror of dpBarpoi 
oi Bdérrovtes & BXérere. 24. Aéyw yap Spiv, Ste wodAol mpopHrac 
Kat Bacthets HOAAnoay iBeiv & Gwets BAéwere, kal sodn elSov~ Kal 
dxodca & dkovete, Kat odK koucay.” 

25. Kat iS8ou, vopixds tis dvéotn, exwerpdlwy adrév, cal! Aéyuw, 
“A.iSdonahe, Ti woijoas Lwiy atdviov K\npovounow;” 26. ‘O Sé 
ele mpds adtév, “Ev TO vopw ti yéypatrat; ms dvayivdoxers ;” 
27. O 8€ drroxpibets etwev, “’Ayamyocers Kiptov tov Gedy cou, éf 
SAns Tis Kapdias gou, kat é& Sys THS Wuxis ou, nat ef Sdns Tis 
ioxdos gou, kal ef Sys Tis Stavoias? gou- Kal rév mAnoiov cou 


&s ceautév.” 


28. Elwe S€ adtd, “’OpOas dwexpibns: toiro totet, 


1 kat, found in ACD ai., is omitted in \QBLE e syr. cur. cop. 
2 Instead of e€ with gen. in this and the two preceding phrases S3BD= minusc. 


have ev with dative (D has ey all through). 


Stavoias. D omits this clause. 

22. This part of the devotional utterance, 
setting forth Christ’s faith in the pur- 
pose of His Father and the intimate 
fellowship subsisting between Father 
and Son, appears in some texts of Lk, 
as a declaration made to the disciples 
(otpadeis mpos Tt. p. a., T. R.). The 
gesture implies that a solemn statement 
is to be made.—rls éorw 6 vids, 6 
watyp: to know who the Son or the 
Father is = knowing the Son and the 
Father. The idea in Lk. is the same as 
in Mt., though the expression is 
different.—Ver. 23. orpadeis : a second 
impressive gesture, if that in ver. 22 be 
retained, implying that Jesus now more 
directly addresses the disciples. But the 
first orpadets is altogether doubtful.— 
etme: the word, spoken car’ l8iay to the 
disciples, is substantially = Mt. xiii. 16, 
there referring to the happiness con- 
ferred on the disciples in being privi- 
leged to hear their Master’s parabolic 
teaching.—Baotdets: in piace of Mt.’s 
Sikatot, which expresses an idea more 
intelligible to Jews than to Gentiles. 

Vy. 25-37. The lawyer’s question, and 
the parable of the good Samaritan. 
Many critics (even Weiss, Mk.-Evang., 
p. 400) think that Lk. or his source has 
got the theme of this section from 
Mt. xxii. 35 ff., Mk. xii. 28 ff., and 
simply enriched it with the parable of 
the good Samaritan, peculiar to him. 
Leaving this critical question on one 
side, it may be remarked that this story 
seems to be introduced on the principle 
of contrast, the vop.ixdés representing the 


pg BLE have ev with dative for €& o, tT. 


cool Kal cuverol, to whom the things 
of the kingdom are hidden as opposed ta 
the vymrot, to whom they are revealed, 
i.e., the disciples whom Jesus had just 
congratulated on their felicity. Simi- 
larly in the case of the anecdote of the 
woman in Simon’s house, vii. 36, vide 
notes there. J. Weiss remarks that this 
story and the following one about 
Martha and Mary form a pair, setting 
forth in the sense of the Epistle of James 
(ii. 8, 13, 14) the two main requirements 
of Christianity, love to one’s neighbour 
and faith (vide in Meyer, ad loc.).—Ver. 
25. Gavéorn, stood up; from this ex- 
pression and the present tense of dva- 
y'veokets, how readest thou now ? it has 
been conjectured that the scene may have 
been a synagogue.—rtl woujoas: the 
vonixds, like the Gpywy of xviii. 18, is 
professedly in quest of eternal life.—Ver. 
26. th yéypaw., was avayiv., how 
stands it written ? how readest thou? - 
double question with a certain empresse- 
ment.—Ver. 27. Lk. here puts into the 
mouth of the lawyer an answer com- 
bining as co-ordinate the religious and 
the ethical, which in the later incident 
reported in Mt. xxii. 34-40, Mk. xii. 28- 
34, is ascribed to Jesus. The unity of 
these interests is, as Holtz. (H. C.) re- 
marks, the achievement and characteristic 
of Uhristianity, and one may legitimately 
doubt whether a man belonging to the 
clerical class in our Lord’s time had 
attained such insight. Divorce of re- 
ligion from morality was a cardinal vice 
of the righteousness of the time, and we 





23—33. 


4 ia » 
kat Lyon. 
“Kal tis éoti ou wAnotov ; 


““AvOpwirds tis KaTéBatvey did ‘lepougaAtp eis ‘leptyd, kal AnoTats 
4 wepiémecey, ot kat €xSvcavtes auTSv, Kal TWAnyas embevres amqdOov, 


ddévres fprOavy tuyxdvorta.® 


katéBawwev év TH 686 éxeivy, Kal i8dy adrdy ‘ dvtimapHddev. 


EYAITEAION 


31. Kata *ouyKupiay Sé tepeds tis 


543 


29. ‘O S€ Pov Sixatody! Eaurdy ete wpds Tov Inooby, 
30. * YrokaBuy 52? 6 'incods eter, 


c here only 
in N.T. 
in sense of 
replying. 

d Acts xxvii. 
41. Jas. i. 


2. 
e here only 


in N.T. 
32° t here (bis) 


dpotws S€ kat Aeuitns, yevopevos* xatd tov térov, éXOay Kal idav only in 


dyriT@apy be. 


1 Stxar@oas in NBCDLXE. 
5 Omit trvyx. NBDLE 1, 33 al. 


see it exemplified in the following 
parable: priest and Levite religious but 
inhuman. In Lk.’s time the conception 
of religion and morality as one and in- 
separable had become a_ Christian 
commonplace, and he might have been 
unable to realise that there was a time 
when men thought otherwise, and so 
without any sense of incongruity made 
the lawyer answer as he does. But, on 
the other hand, it has to be borne in 
mind that even in our Lord’s time there 
were some in the legal schools who em- 
phasised the ethical, and Mk. makes the 
scribe (xii. 32, 33) one of this type.— 
ayamyoes, etc.: Deut. vi. 5 is here 
given, as in Mk. xii. 31, with a fourfold 
analysis of the inner man: heart, soul, 
strength, mind.—Ver. 29. Sxar@caré., 
to keep up his character as a righteous 
man, concerned in all things to do his 
duty. Hence his desire for a definition 
of “neighbour,” which was an elastic 
term. Whether Lk. thinks of him as 
guilty of evasion and chicanery is doubt- 
ful. It was not his way to put the 
worst construction on the conduct even 
of scribes and Pharisees.—mAyotov, with- 
out article, is properly an adverb = who 
is near me? But the meaning is the 
same as if 6 had been there. 

Vv. 30-37. The story of the good 
Samaritan, commonly called a parable, 
but really not such in the strict sense of 
natural things used as vehicle of spiritual 
truth ; an example rather than a symbol ; 
the first of several ‘‘ parables ”’ of this sort 
in Lk.—Gv@pwmds tis: probably a Jew, 
but intentionally not so called, simply a 
human being, so at once striking the 
keynote of universal ethics.—xatéBavvey, 
was descending; it was a descent in- 
deed.—A. wepiemecev, ‘fell among” 
robbers, A.’ and R. VV.; better perhaps 
‘fell in with,” encountered, so Field 
(Ot. Nor.). The verb is often joined 


33- Lapapetrns Sé tis SSedwv AOe kar abtév, Kal Wisd. 


XVi. IO.’ 


2 Omit 8 WBC. 
* Omit ye. BLXE 1, 38, 118. 


with a noun singular (aepiémwece xetport). 
Raphel cites from Polybius an instance 
in which robbers ‘ fall in with” the 
party robbed: tovrovs (legatos) Aqoral 
Ties Wepitecdyres dv TH wedayer Siép- 
Bepay (Reliquiae, lib. xxiv. 11).— 
fprbavy, half dead, semivivo relicto, 
Vulgate, here only in N. T.; he will 
soon be whole dead unless some one 
come to his help: cannot help himself 
or move from the spot.—Ver. 31. 
kata ovykuplay (ovykupia, from ovy- 
kupéw), rare, late Greek = kata ovvtuyiav 
(Hesychius, ovyxvpia, ovvtvxla), by 
chance; the probabilities against succour 
being at hand just when sorely wanted; 
still more improbable that three possi- 
bilities of succour should meet just there 
and then. But the supposition, duly 
apologised for, is allowable, as the story 
must go on.—iepevs : Schanz infers from 
Kara guy. that Jericho was nof a sacer- 
dotal city, as, since Lightfoot, has been 
usually taken for granted. But the 
phrase has its full meaning inde- 
pendently of this inference, vide above.— 
avrimapyAGev, variously rendered either 
= passed by simply, or = passed the 
opposite way (going up), Grotius; or 
passed with the wounded man in full 
view, staring him in the face, a sight fit 
to awaken compassion in any one 
(Hahn) ; or passed by on the other side 
of the road.—Ver. 32. dépolws Aevirns 
avrin., likewise a Levite . . . passed by, 
the repetition of dytumapyAdev has a 
thetorical monotony suggestive of the 
idea: such the way of the world—to pass 
by, ‘Cin nine cases out of ten that is 
what you may expect” (The Parabolic 
Teaching of Christ, p. 348).—Ver. 33. 
Zapape(rns, a Samaritan: will he 
a pai pass by? No, he does not, that 
the surprise and the point of the story. 
The unexpected happens.—éSevwv, here 
only in N. T., making a journey, pre- 


$44 


g here only (8 adrév! gomhayxvicGy - 


in N 


in N.T, K 
i Actes xxiii, mt Td (toy 


KATA AOYKAN 


» a 


34. eat mpocehOdv "xarddyce 1a 


b here only * tpadpara adtod, émyxéwv Edarov Kal olvov: émPiBdoas 5€ abrov 
‘«rhvos, yayer adrov eis ) ravSoyetov, kal émepehy 
™ “LH foal X vasa 


xv. 39. adTod. 35. Kal émt thy avptov éfehOdv,? exBaddv S00 Snvdpra 
Rev. xviii. 96 x re Nani a a Be P eet nite 
13. Ewxe TH wavdoxei, kal elwevy adrd,® "EmpedyOnte adtod- Kat o Te 


j here only - Ces Di mie ; h b 
in N.T, &¥ wpoodamavnons, eyo év TH éravépxerOal pe droddcw got. 
6 , 4 , ~ a a Devons , a 
36. Tis obv* rodTrwy tay tprdv BSoKxet gor wAnoiov” yeyovevat Tou 


éumecdvros €is Tos Anotds ;” 
Etrev obv® adtd & “Inaods, “ Mopevou, kai od 


Xeos pet auvtod.” 


, , » 
Tolet Guolws. 


. 


Ch. xix. 6 
Acts xvii. 


7. Jas. ii 
25. 


37. ‘O 8é etwev, ““O moujoas Td 


38. "EFENETO 8€ év’ 1@ wopederOar adrous, Kal adtds eiondOev 
eis KGpny Tid yurh Bé tes dvdpate Mapba *Gmedéfato abdtay eis 


1 Omit avrov NBLE 1, 33 vet. Lat. codd. : 
2 Omit e& WBDLXE 1, 33 al. B places eSwxev before Sv0 Syv. (W.H. margin). 
3 BDLE 1, 33, 80 al. vet. Lat. codd. omit aura. : 


‘ Omit ovy NBLE 1 verss. 


’ hyorov Sone. cot in NABCLE al. fl. D reads tia ovy Soxers mA. yeyovevat. 


6 Se for ovy in NBCDLXAZE al. verss. 


7 For eyev. Se ev. NBLE 33 syrr. cur. sin. have simply ev 8, and omit Kas after 


auTous. 


sumably longer than from Jerusalem to 
Jericho, fully equipped for a long journey 
(Hahn), and so in possession of means 
for help, if he have the will.—éowhay- 
xvio8y, was touched with pity. That 
sacred feeling will keep him from passing 
by, though tempted by his own affairs to 
go on and avoid trouble and loss of 
time, as ships may pass by other ships in 
distress, so deserving ever after to have 
branded on them ANTIMAPHAOEN.— 
Ver. 34. xarédynce, éemixéwv: both 
technical terms in medicine. —éAatov kai 
oltvoy: not separately, but mixed; in use 
among Greeks and Romans as well as 
Jews (Wetstein).—«xrivos = xtipa from 
xtdopat, generally a property, and 
specially a domestic animal: one’s 
beast.—2raySoyeiov (in classics wav8ox.), 
a place for receiving all comers, an inn 
having a host, not merely a khan or 
caravanserai like xaraéAvpa in ii. 7.—Ver. 
35. éxBadov, casting out (of his girdle 
or purse).—8vo Sny., two “ pence,” small 
sum, but enough for the present; will 
pay whatever more is needed ; known in 
the inn, and known as a trusty man to 
the innkeeper (r@ tavSoxet).—dri Gy, 
etc.: the speech of a man who in turn 
trusts the host, and has no fear of being 
overcharged in the bill for the wounded 
man.—éyo: with a slight emphasis 


which means: you know me.—éravép- 
xeo9at: he expects to return to the place 
on his business, a regular customer at 
that inn. This verb, as well as pooda- 
wavaw, is used here only in N. T.—Ver. 
36. Application ofthe story.—yeyovévat : 
which of the three seems to you to have 
become neighbour by neighbourly action? 
neighbour is who neighbour does.—Ver. 
37. 6 wowjoas, etc. If the lawyer was 
captious to begin with he is captious no 
longer. He might have been, for his 
question had not been directly (though 
very radically) answered. But the moral 
pathos of the “‘ parable” has appealed to 
his better nature, and he quibbles no 
longer. But the prejudice of his class 
tacitly finds expression by avoidance 
of the word ‘‘ Samaritan,” and the 
use instead of the phrase 6 woijoas 7d 
€Xeos pret’ avrov. Yet perhaps we do 
him injustice here, for the phrase really 
expresses the essence of neighbourhood, 
and so indicates not only who is neigh- 
bour but why. For the same phrase vide 
i. 58, 72. This story teaches the whole 
doctrine of neighbourhood: first and 
directly, what it is to be a neighbour, 
vis., to give succour when and where 
needed ; next, indirectly but by obvious 
consequence, who is a neighbour, wiz., 
any one who needs help and whom I 








34—42. 


EYATTEAION 


545 


tov otkov adtis.! 39. al rASe jy GdeApi) kaoupévy Mapia, 4 Kal 
wapakalicaca mapa tos 1é8as Tod ‘Ingod ? Hove Tov Adyov adTod. 
40.  8€ MdpOa mepicomarto wept TOAAHY Stakoviay> émoraga Sé 
ele, “Kupie, od peer cor Stu H adeApy pou pdvny pe xarédure 3 
Braxoveiv; ele 4 ov adrA iva por cuvavTtAdBntat.” 41. ‘Aroxpt- 
Qeis B€ eiwev abt 5 “Inaods,s “ MdpOa, MdpOa, pepipvas kat 
tupBdln® epi moddd 42. évdg SE gor xpeta’> Mapia 8&8 rhy 
dyabiy pepida efeddtato, Hris odk ddarpeOycerar ax’ 9 autis.” 


TSCLE 33 have evs Thy orkrav and KYLE om. avtns (Tisch.). 


after ureSeEato avtov (W.H. brackets). 


2 From 9 kat to Invov sundry variants occur: omit y SLE; 


B has nothing 


NABCLE have 


mwapaxalerGeroa ; for mapa $$BCLE have mwpos; and for Ingov these with D have 


KUPLOV. 


3 kateAecwev in ABCLE al. pl. 


*eurov in DLE 1, 33 (Tisch., W.H.); eure in ABC al. pl. 


5 For o I. NBL have o «vpuos. 


® BopuBaly in SBCDL 1, 33. 


7 For evos Se eos xpeta (Tisch.) BL 1, 33 have odtywv Se eote xpera 4 evos, 


which commends itself on reflection. 
omits all between Map@a and Mapta. 


8 yap in NBL. 


have opportunity and power to help, no 
matter what his rank, race, or religion 
may be: neighbourhood coextensive 
with humanity. 

Vv. 38-42. Martha and Mary.—Ver. 
38. év T@ wopeverOat, in continuation 
of the wandering whose beginning is 
noted at ix. 52; when, where, not in- 
dicated.—els kdpnv tiva: either not 
known, or the name deemed of no im- 
portance. When it is stated that He 
(autos) (Jesus) came to this village it is 
not implied that He was alone, though 
no mention is made of disciples in the 
narrative.—Map0a = mistress, feminine 


of \7D,—Ver. 39. Mapia, socially sub- 


ordinate (inferrible from the manner of 
reference), though the spiritual heroine 
of the tale.— wat: the force of the kat 
is not clear, and has been variously ex- 
plained. Grotius regards it as simply an 
otiose addition to the relative. Borne- 
mann takes it = adeo = tosuch an extent 
did Mary disregard the customary duty of 
women, that of serving guests, ‘‘ quem 
morem adeo non observat M. ut docenti 
Jesu auscultet”. Perhaps it has some- 
thing of the force of 8m = who, observe! 
serving to counterbalance the social sub- 
ordination of Mary; the less important 
person in the house, but the more im- 
portant in the Kingdom of God.—wapa- 


Vide below. 


D omits the clause. Syr. sin. 


° Omit aw BDL. 


xaGcoGetoa, first aorist passive participle, 
from mapakxa8eLopar, late Greek form = 
sitting at the feet of Jesus. Posture 
noted as significant of a receptive mind 
and devoted spirit.—rod Kvupiov, the 
Lord, once more for ¥esus in narrative 
(‘Incov in T. R.).—iKove tiv Adyov a., 
continued hearing His word, a conven- 
tional expression as in viii. 21.—Ver. 40. 
7 Sé€ Map., but Martha, 8é as if pév had 
gone before where «at is= Mary on the 
one hand sat, etc., Martha on the other, 
etc.—mepieomaro, was distracted, over- 
occupied, as if the visit had been un- 


expected, and the guests numerous. In 
use from Xenophon down. In Polybius 
with ty Savoia added. Holtzmann 


(H. C.) points out the correspondence 
between the contrasted picture of the 
two sisters and the antithesis between 
the married and unmarried woman in 
1 Cor. vii. 34, 35. The married woman 
caring for the world like Martha 
(meptpvas, ver. 41); the unmarried virgin: 
evmdpedpov T. Kupiw ameptomagtws.— 
émigtaga, coming up to and placing 
herself beside Jesus and Mary: in no 
placid mood, looking on her sister as 
simply an idle woman. A bustled worthy 
housewife will speak her mind in such a 
case, even though a Jesus be present 
and come in for a share of the blame.— 
guvavTiAaByrat, bid her take a hand 


35 


KATA AOYKAN xi. 


XI. 1. KA! éyévero év 16 elvar adtdv év témw Twit mpoceuxdpevor, 
Os émavoato, elré tis Tdv pabntdv adtod mpds adtdv, ‘ Kupte, 
Sidagov Ads mpogedxeoOar, Kabis Kat “lwdvyns €di8ake rods 


palytas avtoo.” 


2. Eltre 8€ atrots, ““Orav mpocedxnabe, déyeTe, 


Mdrep pay 6 év tots odpavots,! dyracOjtw Td Svond gous éhOéTw 
) Baowdela gous yernOyrw 1d O\npd gou, ds év odpavd, cal émi 


Iypev... 
doubtless from Mt. 


along with me in the work (cf. Rom. 
viii. 26).—Ver. 41. @OopvBaly (from 
OépvBos, an uproar; tvpBaly T. R., 
from tvpBy, similar in meaning, neither 
form again in N. T.), thou art bustled, 
gently spoken and with a touch of pity. 
—atrepi moda: a great day in that house. 
Every effort made to entertain Jesus 
worthily of Him and to the credit of the 
house.—Ver. 42. éAlywv S€é éoriv xpela 
4 évés. With this reading the sense is: 
there is need of few things (material) ; 
then, with a pause—or rather of one 
thing (spiritual). Thus Jesus passes, as 
was His wont, easily and swiftly from 
the natural to the spiritual. The notion 
that it was beneath the dignity of Jesus 
to refer to dishes, even as a stepping 
stone to higher things, is the child of 
conventional reverence.—rhy ayabhy 
pepiSa, the good portion, conceived of 
as a share in a banquet (Gen. xliii. 34). 
Mary, having chosen this good portion, 
may not be blamed (yap), and cannot be 
deprived of it, shall not with my sanction, 
in deference to the demands of a lower 
vocation. 

CHAPTER XI. LESSON ON PRAYER. 
Discourses IN SELF-DEFENCE.—VvV. 
I-13 contain a lesson on prayer, consist- 
ing of two parts: first, a form of prayer 
suggesting the chief objects of desire 
(vv. 1-4); Second, an argument enforc- 
ing perseverance in prayer (vv. 5-13). 
Whether the whole was spoken at one 
time or not cannot be ascertained ; all 
one can say is that the instructions are 
thoroughly coherent and congruous, 
and might very well have formed a 
single lesson. 

Vv. 1-4. The Lord’s Prayer with a 
historical introduction (Mt. vi. 7-15).— 
évy tém Tvl: neither the place nor the 
time of this incident is indicated with 
even approximate exactness. It is 
simply stated that it happened when 
Jesus was at a certain place, and when 
He was praying (mpomevxdpevov). Why 
the narrative comes in here does not 


ovpavors omitted in NBL 1, 22 al. Orig. Tert. syr. sin. ; comes in 


clearly appear. I have suggested else- 
where (The Parabolic Teaching of Christ, 
Preface to the Third Edition) that the 
parable of the Good Samaritan, the 
story of Martha and Mary and the 
Lesson on Prayer form together a group 
having for their common heading: ‘at 
school with Jesus,”’ exhibiting under three 
types the scholar’s burden, the Teacher’s 
meekness, and the rest-bringing lesson, 
so giving us Lk.’s equivalent for Mt.’s 
gracious invitation (chap. xi. 28-30). I 
am now inclined to think that Schola 
Christi might be the heading not merely 
for these three sections but for the whole 
division from ix. 51 to xviii. 14, the con- 
tents being largely didactic.—rt¢ T. pad. : 
a later disciple, Meyer thinks, who had 
not heard the Teaching on the Hill, 
and who got for answer to his request a 
repetition of the Lord’s Prayer, given 
by Mt. as part of the Sermon on the 
Mount. This conjecture must go for 
what it is worth.—xa@as Kal “lwavvys: 
the fact here stated is not otherwise 
known: no trace of a Johannine liturgy ; 
but the statement in itselfis very credible: 
prayer like fasting reduced to system in 
the Baptist’s circle—Ver. 2. Aéyere, 
say, but not implying obligation to re- 
peat regularly the ipsissima verba. The 
divergence of Lk.’s form from that of 
Mt., as given.in critical editions of the 
N. T., is sufficient evidence that the 
Apostolic Church did not so understand 
their Lord’s will, and use the prayer 
bearing His name as a formula, Inter- 
preters are not agreed as to which of the 
two forms is the more original. For my 
own part I have little doubt that Lk.’s 
is secondary and abbreviated from the 
fuller form of Mt. The very name for 
God—Father—without any added epithet 
is sufficient proof of this; for Jesus was 
wont to address God in fuller terms 
(vide x. 21), and was not likely to give 
His disciples a form beginning so 
abruptly. Lk.’s form as it stands in 
W.H. is as follows: 





= 








ne oy 


1—8. EYAIrTEAION 


THS yas! 3. Tv dprov yay Tov emovcrov BiSou fpiv 73 Kae? 
Hpépav- 4. Kat Ges fpiv tas Gpaprias yudy, cai ydp adtot 
Adienev? wayri Sheihovt. piv: nat ph cicevéyxyns pas els 
Tretpacpév, GANG fica: hds dad tod wovnpod.”® 5. Kal elie 
mpos adtous, “Tis é& suav efer pidov, Kal mopedcerat mpds adtav 
pecovuKtiou, kal ely abd, dide, xpiiodv por Tpets Gprous, 6. eed) 
idos pou mapeyévero é& 6800 mpds pe, nal odk exw 6 mapabijow 
ait: 7. Kdxelvos Ecwley dwoxpiBels ela, Mx pro. Kémous mdpexe ° 
Hn 4 OUpa Kékdevorat, kal Ta matdia pou pet’ epod eis Thy KolTny 
eigiv> ob Sivapar dvactds Boivat car. 8. Aéyw Spiv, et Kal of 
Sdoet adit dvactds, Sid 14 etvar adtod pidov,* Sid ye Thy dvaideray 


1 This petition, yevnOynre . . 
2 agtopey in RCABCD. T.R. as in $*L. 
adda... wovnpov omitted in BL 1, 22 al. pl. vulg. syr. sin. 


547 


. €@L THS YS, Omitted in BL 1, 22 vulg. syr. sin. 


These 


abbreviations in Lk.’s version of the Lord’s Prayer are accepted by most modern 


editors and scholars. 
4 ptdoy avrov in NBCLX 33 al 


Father! Hallowed be Thy name. 

Come Thy kingdom. 

The bread of each day give us 
daily. 

And forgive our sins, for we 
also forgive every one 
owing us. 

And bring us not into tempta- 
tion. 

The third petition: Thy will be done, 
etc., and the second half of the sixth: 
but deliver us from evil, are wanting.— 
Ver. 3. 1d nad? qyépay, daily, for Mt.’s 
oypepov, this day, is an alteration cor- 
responding to the xa@’ jpépay in the 
Logion concerning cross-bearing (ix. 
23).—8StSov, for 80s, is a change neces- 
sitated by the other.—Ver. 4. Gpap- 
wlas: for Mt.’s éevAnpara, but it is 
noticeable that the idea of sins is not 
introduced into the second clause. Lk. 
avoids making our forgiving and God’s 
parallel: we forgive debts, God sins. 
Whether the debts are viewed as moral 
or as material is not indicated, possibly 
both.—On the whole, vide Mt. 
Vv. 5-8. The selfish neighbour. This 
parable and that of the unjust judge 
(xviii. 1-8) form a couplet teaching the 
same lesson with reference to distinct 
spheres of life or experience: that men 
ought always to pray, and not grow 
faint-hearted when the answer to prayer 
is long delayed. They imply that we 
have to wait for the fulfilment of 
spiritual desires, and they teach that it 
is worth our while to wait: fulfilments 


will come, God is good to them that wait 
upon Him. 

Ver. 5. elev: the story is not called 
a parable, as the similar one in chap, 
xviii. is, but it is one. God’s ways in 
the spiritual world are illustrated by men’s 
ways in everyday life.—ris é& tay, etc. : 
the whole parable, vv. 5-8, is really one 
long sentence in which accordingly the 
construction comes to grief, beginning 
interrogatively (as far as ¢${Aov, ver. 5, 
or wapabijcw ave, ver. 6) and continu- 
ing conditionally, the apodosis beginning 
with Aéyw ipiv, ver. 8, and taking the 
form of an independent sentence.— 

govuxtiov, at midnight, a poetic word 
in classic Greek, a prose word in late 
Greek. Phryn. says: pecovixtiov roin- 
tuxédy, ov wodiTikdv. In hot climates 
travelling was largely done during night, 
therefore the hour was seasonable from 
the traveller’s point of view, while un- 
seasonable from the point of view of 
people at home. This is a feature in 
the felicity of the parable.—ypijaoyv, rst 
aorist active imperative, from x(xpypt, 
here only in N. T., to lend.—Ver. 6 
ovK €xw: this does not necessarily imply 
poverty: bread for the day was baked 
every morning. It is rather to be 
wondered at that a man with a family of 
children (ver. 7) had any over.—Ver. 7. 
wy pou, etc.: similar phrase in xviii. 5. 
Cf. Mt. xxvi. 10, Mk. xiv. 6. Here = 
don’t bother me !—xékXerorar, has been 
barred for the night, a thing done and 
not to be undone for a trifling cause.— 


548 


KATA AOYKAN xi: 


adrod, eyepBeis Bice. adtd Sow ypyter. 9. Kdyd Spiv déyo, 
Aiteite, kai So0jcetar Spiv: Lyretre, kal edpyoete> Kpovete, Kat 
dvotyjcetat! Spiv. 10. mas yap 6 atrdv AapBdver- Kal 6 Lytadv 
eipioxer* Kat TO Kpovovt: dvotyjoetat.! 11. Tiva 8€ Spay? Tov 
8 


tatépa aitnoe 6 vids dprov, pi A(Bov emBdcea adtd; ei Kat 


ixOuv, ph dvtl ixOvos Sp emBdce abta*; 12. H Kal dv aitnoy ® 
adv, ph emBdce. adT@ oxoptiov; 13. et odv duets movnpol bmdpxov- 


Tes oldate dyabd Sduata® BiSdvar tots tékvors Spav, méow paddov 


6 watip 6 é& odpavod Sdcet Nvedpa “Aytov tots aitodow adtéy ;” 


14. Kat fv éxBdddov Satpdviov, kal adtd jv? Kwhdv- éyévero Sé, 
Tod Satpoviou éfeOdvtos, éAdAnoey 6 Kwhds: Kai Pavpacay ot 


1 avory@. in many MSS. (Tisch.); avory. in BCL al. fl. (W.H.) may have 


come from Mt. (so Tisch.). 
avoiyetat (W.H. marg.). 


2 €£ vpwv in RABCDL. 


For the second avotynoetat (ver. 10) BD have 


3 From aprov to et kat is omitted in B verss. Orig. (W.H. text). 


4 avtw before emd. in BDL. 


5 S9BL 1, 13, 33 omit eav, and with CD al. have aityoe. 


before etd. 
6 Sou. ay. in SABCDL al. pl. 


els thv Kolrny: they have gone to bed 
and are now sleeping in bed, and he 
does not want to risk waking them 
(iva ph adurvicn attra, Euthym.).—od 
vvapat: ov @éAw would have been 
nearer the truth.—Ver. 8. A€yw tpiv: 
introducing a confident assertion.—8.a 
ye T. av., yet at least on account of, etc. 
He may give or not give for friendship’s 
sake, but he must give for his own sake.— 
avaiSeray (here only in N.T.), the total dis- 
regard of domestic privacy and comfort 
shown by persistent knocking; very 
indecent from the point of view of the 
man in bed (avalSecav=THy éripovny THs 
airjcews, Euthym.). 

Vv. 9-13. The moral of the story (cf. 
Mt. vii. 7-II).—Kay® tpiv, etc., and I 
(the same speaker as in ver. 8) say to 
you, with equal confidence. What Jesus 
says is in brief: you also will get what 
you want from God, as certainly as the 
man in my tale got what he wanted; 
therefore pray on, imitating his avatSe.a. 
The selfish neighbour represents God as 
He seems, and persistent prayer looks 
like a shameless disregard of His 
apparent indifference.—Vv. 9, 10 corre- 
spond almost exactly with Mt. vii. 7, 8. 
Vide notes there.—Ver. 11. Tiva 8: 
8€ introduces a new parabolic saying: 
which of you, as a father, shall his son 
ask? etc. In the T.R. Lk. gives three 


BL also omit py 


7 cat avTo ny omit SBL al. verss. 


examples of possible requests—Mt.’s 
two: a loaf, and a fish, and a third, an 
egg. Cod. B omits the first (W.H. 
put it on the margin).—«dv, wkoptiov: 
in the two first instances there is re- 
semblance between the thing asked and 
supposed to be given: loaf and stone, 
fish and serpent; in Lk.’s third instance 
also, the oxopmtos being a little round 
lobster-like animal, lurking in stone walls, 
with a sting in its tail. The gift of 
things similar but so different would be 
cruel mockery of which almost no father 
would be capable. Hens were not 
known in ancient Israel. Probably the 
Jews brought them from Babylon, after 
which eggs would form part of ordinary 
food (Benziger, Heb. Arch., p. 94).—Ver. 
13. 6 1m. 6 é& otpavov, this epithet is 
attached to watyp here though not in the 
Lord’s Prayer.—Mvetpa “Aytov instead 
of Mt.’s aya@a. The Holy Spirit is 
mentioned here as the summum donum, 
and the supreme object of desire for all 
true disciples. In some forms of the 
Lord’s Prayer (Marcion, Greg. Nys.) a 
petition for the gift of the Holy Spirit 
took the place of the first or second 
petition. 

Vv. 14-16. Brief historical statement 
introducing certain defensive utterances 
of Fesus.—Vv. 14, 15 answer to Mt. 
ix. 33, 34, xii. 22-24, and ver. 16 to Mt. 





eee ee eee 





= 9, ey 


9—23. 


dxhor. 15. tues S€ e& abtay eltoy, 
TOv Satpoviwy éexBddda TA Satpdna.” 


~ 2 > A 297 > 3 A 
onpElov Tap adtod éLytouv é& odpavod 


Ta *Stavonpata etwev adtois, “Maca Baowdela ep Eautiy Siapepic- a here 
Detoa epnpotdtar: Kal otKkos éml oikov, miner. 


EYATTEAION 


549 


“Ey BeedLeBodd apxovre! 


16. “Etepou S€ wetpaLovtes 
2. 17. Autos S€ Eidas adTav 
onl) 


in N. T. 


18. et 8€ Kal 6 (Is. lv. 9} 


Latavas ép éautov SrepepioOy, was otabjcetar 7 Bacthela adrod ; 


Ste Aeyete, ev BeehfeBovd exBaddew 


pe Ta Saindua. 19. et S€ 


éy> év BeedfeBodd exBdddw TA Saipdva, ot viol Suav év tin 


éxBdddouar ; 


Sta Todt KpiTal Spay adrol 


8 


€govTar. 20. et de ev 


SaxtUdw Ccod exPdddAw Ta Saipdvia, dpa EpOacey ef Spas F 


Bacideia tot Geos. 


21. “Otay 6 iayxupds Kawrdtopevos duddcoy 


A A A 
Thy EauTod addjy, év eipyyy éotl TA EMdpxovta adtod’ 22. éwdy Se 


64 isxupdtepos adtod émeMOdv viKyon 


aiper, ep y émetroiOer, kal Ta "oKUAa adtod S:adidwou. 


pee Lf s\ , > A 
GQuTOV, THY TavoTrAlay QuTOU 


23. 6 7) b here onh 
3- 9 pH seine 


a ai a win PY SES Ear EY eee s Bi sehvin , 
WY PET EMLOU KAT €¥.0u COTL* Kat O py TUVaYy@V PET EL0U okoptTriLet. 


1 tw apx. in $ABCL. 
3 auto. before kp. up. in BD (W.H.). 


xii. 38. The reproduction of these 
passages here is very summary: the 
reference to Israel, Mt. ix. 33, and the 
question ‘is not this the Son of 
David?” xii. 23, ¢.g., being omitted. 
Then, further, it is noticeable that the 
references to the Pharisees and scribes, 
as the authors of the malignant theory 
as to Christ’s cure of demoniacs and 
the persons who demanded a sign, are 
eliminated, the vague terms tives (ver. 
15) and érepo (ver. 16) being substituted. 
The historical situation in which Jesus 
spoke is wiped out, the writer caring 
only for what He said. 

Vv. 17-23. The Beelzebub theory (Mt. 
xii. 25-30, Mk, iii, 23-27).—Ver. 17. 
StapepicBeioa. Lk. has a preference 
for compounds; pepis8eioa in Mt.— 
Kal otkos él olkov mimre:, and house 
falls against house, one tumbling house 
knocking down its neighbour, a graphic 
picture of what happens when a kingdom 
is divided against itself. In Mt. kingdom 
and city are two co-ordinate illustrations 
of the principle. In Mk. a house takes 
the place of Mt.’s city. In Lk. the house 
is simply a feature in the picture of a 
kingdom ruined by self-division. Some 
(e.g., Bornemann and Hahn) render Lk.’s 
phrase: house upon house, one house 
after another falls. Others, in a har- 
monistic interest, interpret: a house 
being divided (Stayepic8els understood) 
against itseli (él oixov = éd’ éavtov) 


2 €£ ovp. eLytovy wap avtov in SABCDL 1, 33 al. 


« Omit o NBDL. 


falls.—Ver. 20. év SaxtidAm Ocov: 
instead of Mt.’s év mvevpartt Qeov, which 
is doubtless the original expression, 
being more appropriate to the connection 
of thought. Lk.’s expression emphasises 
the immediateness of the Divine action 
through Jesus, in accordance with his 
habit of giving prominence to the 
miraculousness of Christ’s healing acts. 
But the question was not as to the fact, 
but as to the moral quality of the miracle. 
The phrase recalls Ex. viii. 9.—ép8acev: 
$0dvw in classics means to anticipate, in 
later Greek to reach, the idea of priority 
being dropped out.—Ver. 21. 6rav: in- 
troducing the parable of the strong man 
subdued by a stronger, symbolising the 
true state of the case as between 
Beelzebub and Jesus, probably more 
original in Lk. than in Mt. (xii. 29).—- 
KadwrAtcpevos, fully armed, here onl, 
in N.T.—avAnyv, court, whose entrance 
is guarded, according to some; house, 
castle, or palace according to others 
(oixiav in Mt.).—Ver. 22. mwavomAtay, 
panoply, a Pauline word (Eph. vi. 11, 
13).—Sradsidworv, distributes the spoils 
among his friends with the generosity 
and the display of victory, referring 
probably to the extensive scale of Christ’s 
healing ministry among demoniacs.— 
Ver. 23 = Mt. xii. 30. 

Vv. 24-26. The parable of the unclean 
spirit cast out and returning : given by 
Mt. in connection with the demand for a 


559 


KATA AOYKAN 


XI. 


24. “Orav Td dxdBaptov mvedpa eféhOn dd Tod dvOparrou, Sidpyerar 
Se dviSpwv témwv, Lntody dvdmavow: Kal pi edpicxov déyet,! 


‘Yrootpépw eis Tov olkdv pou Sbev eé7AOov: 25. Kal edOdy eipioxer ? 


cecapwpévoy Kal Kexoopnuévor. 


26. Tore mopevetat Kat wapahap- 


Bdver éwrd Erepa mvedpata wornpdétepa éautod,® Kai eicehOdvta 


a a oY , » ~ , , , 
KaTOLKEl €xel* Kal yiveTat Ta EgxaTa TOU dvOpdrrou exeivou xeipova 


~ s » 
Tov TpdTwr. 


27. “Eyévero Sé€ év rO déyew adrdv taita, éwdpacd ms yuri) 


¢ here only wri * éx Tod Sxdou elev adta, “ Maxapia % kothia 4 ° Bactdcacd 


in this 
sense. 


oe, Kal pactot ols é@yAacas.” 


28. Autos S€ etme, “ Mevoovye® 


paxdptor ot dxovovtes Tov Adyov Tod Geod Kal guddovorres aitdy.” ® 


dhere only 29. Tdv S€ dxhwv *émabpoLopdvwy ApEaro Aéyev, ““H yeved adty’ 


in N. T 


' wovnpd éott* onpetoy émlytei,® kal onpetov of S0OqceTat abth, <i 


1 BLXE 33 prefix tore, which implies that kat pn evpiokeyv is to be joined to 


avarravo.y (W.H. marg.). 


2 BCL al. verss. insert cxoalovra, which may come in from Mt. (W.H. brackets). 


Ferra after eavtov in NBLE 13, 69 al. ; a most appropriate position of emphasis. 


* dwvnv before yuvy in NBL. A credible order, but apt to be altered by scribes 


into the smoother in T.R. 


° pevouvv in RABLAE; pevouvye in CDX al. 
The latter is found in Rom. ix. 20, x. 18. 


should be changed into the other. 
6 Omit avrov NaABCDLAE. 


There seems no reason why either 


7 yevea follows as well as precedes auty in SABDLXE (Tisch., W.H.)}. 


8 {nra in SABLE al. T.R. from Mt. 


sign (xii. 43 ff.). Lk.’s version differs 
from Mt.’s chiefly in minute literary 
variations. Two omissions are notice- 
able: (1) the epithet cxoAafovra in the 
description of the deserted house (a 
probable omission, the word bracketed 
in W. and H.), (2) the closing phrase of 
Mt.’s version: ottws gota: kal TH yeveg 
7. Tt wovnpg. On the import of the 
parable vide on Mt., ad loc. 

Vv. 27-28. The woman in the crowd. 
In Lk. only, though reminding one of 
Mt. xii. 46-50, Mk. iii. 32-35. It reports 
an honest matron’s blessing on the, to 
her probably unknown, mother of Jesus, 
who in this case, as in an earlier 
instance (viii. 19-21), treats the felicity 
of natural motherhood as entirely sub- 
ordinate to that of disciplehood.—Ver. 
27. wothla, pacrot: ‘ Mulier bene sentit 
sed muliebriter loquitur ” (Bengel).—Ver. 
28. pevoty might be confirmatory 
(utique) or corrective (imo vero), or a 
little of both ; the tone of voice would 
show which of the two the speaker 
meant to bethe more prominent. Correc- 
tion probably was uppermost in Christ’s 


thoughts. Under the -appearance of 
approval the woman was taught that she 
was mistaken in thinking that merely to 
be the mother of an illustrious son con- 
stituted felicity (Schanz). Viger (Ed. 
Hermann), p. 541, quotes this text as 
illustrating the use of pevotv in the 
sense of imo vero, rendering: ‘‘ Quin imo, 
vel imo vero, beati qui audiunt verbum 
Dei’’. Its position at the beginning of 
the sentence is contrary to Attic use: 
‘“‘reperitur apud solos Scriptores Mace- 
donicos,” Sturz, De Dial. Mac. el Alex., 
p- 203.—rdv Adyov +. ©., those who 
hear and keep the word of God, the 
truly blessed. Cf. ‘‘ His word”’ in x. 39 ; 
an established phrase. 

Vv. 29-32. The sign of Yonah (Mt. 
xii. 38-42).—T. 8. érabpoLopévey, the 
crowds thronging to Him. The heading 
for the following discourse has been 
anticipated in ver. 16; €repot weipalovres, 
instead of Mt.’s scribes and Pharisees, 
asking a sign. In Lk.’s narrative Jesus 
answers their question in presence of a 
gathering crowd supposed to be reterzed 
to in the expression 4 yevea airy. 





24-35, EYAITEAION 


55) 
i) TO ONpetov “lova tod mpopytou.! 30. kabds yap éyéveto ‘lwvas 
OnpElov Tots Nuveutrats,? obrws ~orat Kal 6 vids Tod avOpatrou TH 
yeved taury. 31. Bagidtooa vérou éyepOjcetat ev TH Kpioe peta 
Tav dvipGv Ths yeveds Tatrns, Kal KaTaxpivel adtods: Ste HAOev 
ek TOV Tepdtwy THs yis dkovcat Thy copiay Lohopavtos, Kat idou, 
Thetov Zcdopavtos ade. 32. dvdpes Nuivevi® dvaoryoovta: év TH 
Kpioe, peta Tis yeveds TavTys, Kal KaTaKpivotow autyy’ Ste 





petevdnoay eis TO Kpuypa “lwva, Kat iSou, mhetov lwva Obe. 


33+ ““ Oddels SE4 AUXVOV Gas Eis KpuMTov® TIBYOLY, OSE Ems Tov 


podiov, add’ gmt thy Auxviay, 
Biérrwow. 


c 


our? 6 


34. & Adxvos Tod 
ép8akuds cou admovs 


éotw: émav S€ wovnpds 4, Kal TO C@pd gou cKoTELvdr. 


cupatds é€otiv 6 dpOadpds 7 - 


9 € 2 , BY ? 6 
wa oL ELOTTOPEVO}LEVOL TO eyyos 


e 
oTayv 


q> Kat Gdov 76 cdud cou dwreivdv 


35. okomet 


1 Omit +t. wpod. (from Mt.) with S$BDLE codd. vet. Lat. 


2 onp. after Nw. in NBCLXE 33. 
4 Omit Se NBCD 33 verss. 


6 For deyyos in ALTA al. fl. (Tisch.). 
(W.H.). 


TRBCD have gov after 08. here also. 


éra@poifw occurs here only in N.T.— 
H yeved arn, etc., this generation is 
an evil generation; said in reference to 
the crowd supposed to sympathise with 
and share the religious characteristics of 
their leaders. The epithet potyadts 
(Mt. xii. 39) is omitted as liable to be 
misunderstood by non-Hebrew readers. 
—Ver. 30. The sign of Jonah is not 
further explained as in Mt. (xii. 49), and 
it might seem that the meaning intended 
was that Jonah, asa prophet and through 
his preaching, wasa sign to the Ninevites, 
and that in like manner so was Jesus to 
His generation. But in reference to 
Jesus Lk. does not say “is” but ‘‘shallbe,” 
tartar, as if something else than Christ’s 
ministry, something future in His ex- 
perience, was the sign. Something is 
obscurely hinted at which is not further 
explained, as if to say: wait and you 
will get your sign.—Vv. 31, 32 = Mt. 
xii. 41, 22, only that the men of Nineveh 
and the Queen of Sheba change places. 
Mt.’s order seems the more natural, the 
discourse so passing from the sign of 
Jonah to the Ninevites, who had the 
benefit of it. 

Vv. 33-36 contain parabolic utterances 
concerning the placing of a light, and 
the conditions under which the eye sees 
the light.—Ver. 33 repeats viii. 16 in 
slightly varied language, and vv. 34-36 


3 Nuevirar in BL. D omits ver, 32, 
5 kpumrny in all uncials. 
NBCDX al. have the more usual dws 


8 SSBDLA verss. omit ovv. 


reproduce what Mt. gives in his version 
of the Sermon on the Mount (vi. 22, 23). 
The connection with what goes before 
is not apparent.—Ver. 33. KpvUmrTny, a 
hidden place: crypt, vault, cellar, or 
press, to put a lamp in which is to make 
it useless.— Ver. 34. 6 Avxvos, etc., the 
lamp of the body is thine eye. This 
thought in connection with the foregoing 
one might lead us to expect some remark 
on the proper placing of the body’s 
lamp, but the discourse proceeds to 
speak of the single (amAovs) and the 
evil (wovnpds) eye. The connection lies 
in the effects of these qualities. The 
single eye, like a properly placed lamp, 
gives light; the evil eye, like a lamp 
under a bushel, leaves one in darkness. 
On these attributes of the eye vide re- 
marks on Mt. vi. 22, 23.—Ver. 35. A 
counsel to take care lest the light in us 
become darkness, answering to that 
suggested in the parable: see that the 
lamp be properly placed.—Ver. 36. This 
verse is very puzzling both critically and 
exegetically. As it stands in T.R. (and 
in W.H.) it appears tautological (De 
Wette), a fault which some have tried to 
surmount by punctuation, and some by 
properly placed emphasis—on édoy in 
the protasis and on gwrtewdv in the 
apodosis, giving this sense: if thy body 
be wholly lighted, having no part dark, 


552 


ody pi) Td @s Td €v gol oxdros éotiv. 


KATA AOYKAN 


XI. 


36. et ody To cHpd cou 


o , ‘ » ‘ , ™» ‘ @ < 
Shov pwrevdv, pi) Exov TL pépos oKoTeEwdy, EgTat dwrevov ddov, ws 


dtav 6 Adxvos TH dotpary pwrily ce.” } 


37- "Ev 8€ 7d Aadjoat, jpdta? adrtdv dapicaids tis? Strws 


dpiotion tap altd* eicehOav dé dvémecer. 


iSav €Bavpacey Str oF Tp@Tov €BartiaOy mpd Tod dpicrou. 


38. 6 Bé dapicatos 
39: 


ele Se 6 KUptos mpds attdév, “Nov Spets of Papicatar 1d ewhev 


Tod woTnpiou Kal Tod mivaxos KkabapiLete* 1d Sێ Eower Spdr yeper 


1 On ver. 36 vide below, and W.H. (appendix) on wv. 35, 36. 


2 epwra in NABM 69 al, 


then will it be lighted indeed, as when 
the lamp with its lightning illumines 
thee (so Meyer). Even thus the saying 
seems unsatisfactory, and hardly such as 
Lk., not to say our Lord, could have 
been responsible for. The critical 
question thus forces itself upon us: is 
this really what Lk. wrote? Westcott 
and Hort think the passage contains “a 
primitive corruption,” an opinion which 
J. Weiss (in Meyer, p. 476, note) en- 
dorses, making at the same time an 
attempt to restore the true text. Such 
attempts are purely conjectural. The 
verse is omitted in D, some Latin 
codd., and in Syr. Cur. The new 
Syr. Sin. has it in a form which Mrs. 
Lewis thus renders: ‘ Therefore also 
thy body, when there is in it no lamp 
that hath shone, is dark, thus while thy 
lamp is shining, it gives light to thee ’’— 
a sentence as dark as a lampless body. 
Vv. 37-54. In the house of a Pharisee ; 
criticism of the religion of Pharisees and 
scribes (Mt. xxiii.). This section con- 
tains a selection of the hard sayings of 
Jesus on the ‘righteousness of the 
scribes and Pharisees,” given with much 
greater fulness in Mt.’s great anti- 
pharisaic discourse, the severity of the 
attack being further mitigated by the 
words being thrown into the form of 
table talk. This is the second time 
Jesus appears as a guest in a Pharisee’s 
house in this gospel, speaking His mind 
with all due freedom but without breach 
of the courtesies of life. The effect and 
probable aim of these representations is 
to show that if it ultimately came to an 
open rupture between Jesus and the 
Pharisees it was their fault, not His.— 
Ver. 37. év 7@ Aadqoat, while He was 
speaking, as if it had been é. t. Aadeiv. 
éy goes most naturally with the present 
infinitive, but Lk., who uses éy with in- 
finitive much more frequently than any 


3 Omit tis NBL 1, 13, 69 al. (Tisch., W.H.). 


other N.T. writer, has év with the 
aorist nine times. Vide Burton (M. and 
T., § 109), who remarks in reference to 
such cases: ‘“ The preposition does not 
seem necessarily to denote exact co- 
incidence (of time), but in no case ex- 
presses antecedence. In 1 Cor. xi. 21 
and Heb. iii. 12 the action of the in- 
finitive cannot be antecedent to that of 
the principal verb.”—épioryjoy: the 
meal was breakfast rather than dinner. 
—Ver. 38. é8avpacev: the cause of 
wonder was that Jesus did not wash 
(¢Bartic@n) before eating. We have 
here Lk.’s equivalent for the incident in 
Mt. xv. 1 ff., Mk. vii. 1 ff., omitted by 
him. But the secondary character of 
Lk.’s narrative appears from this, that 
the ensuing discourse does not, as in 
Mt. and Mk., keep to the point in hand 
—neglect of ritual ablutions, but ex- 
patiates on Pharisaic vices generally.— 
Ver. 39. 6 Kuptos, once more this title 
in narrative.—vvv: variously taken as = 
igitur or = ecce, or aS a strictly temporal 
particle = now ‘“‘a silent contrast with a 
better mwadac” (Meyer). Hahn affirms 
that viv at the beginning of a sentence 
can mean nothing else than “now”’. 
But Raphel, in support of the second of 
the above senses (‘‘ admirationem quan- 
dam declarat”’), quotes from Arrian viv 
Suvaral tis whedAqoar Kal GAdous, pH 
avtds a@peAnpevos (Efict., lib. iii., cap. 
23, 1). Bengel cites 2 Kings vii. 6, 
Sept., where viv in the first position 


is the equivalent for 7} 5 71 (vide Sweet’s 


edition). Lo! ecce! seems best to suit 
the situation, which demands a lively 
emotional word. Godet happily renders: 
‘Vous voila bien! Je vous prends sur 
le fait.”"—+ivaxos for Mt.’s wapowidos 
(xxiii. 25).—1d éowSev tpav, your inside, 
instead of the inside of the dishes in 
Mt. The idea is that the food they take 





40. adpoves, obx 6 moijoas Td Ewhev Kal 
41. wiv Ta evdvta Sdte EXenpoodvny: Kal 


n , 
Gptayis Kal moynptas. 
ary oe > , 
TO E€owley erroince ; 
> A > n A 
i80U, wdvta Kabapa Spiv éotw. 42. GAN’ odal bpiv tots Papicatots, 
a > A a 1€. , ‘ ‘ , ‘ A x 
Ott dmodexaTouTe TO iSvoopov kalTs mHyavov Kal wav Adxavoy, Kat 
, ‘ , wen A A aA on aA 
mapépxeobe thy kplow kal Thy dydrny Tol cod > Tata edt worjoat, 
- ‘ ~ aA aA 
kdkeiva pi) ddrévar.! 43. odai dpiv tois bapicaiots, St. dyaTate 
Thy mpwtoxabedpiay év tais cuvaywyais, Kat Tods domacpods év 
Tats dyopais. 44. odai bpiv, ypappatets kal daproaion, droKpiTat,? 
OT €oTE WS TA pyHpELa TA Ady a, Kal ot GvOpwror ot mepiTatodvTeEs 
”? > ~ lol 
eTavw OUK oloacLy. 45. Atroxpibeis 8€ tis Tov vouikav héyet 
46. ‘O 8 


eitre, ““Kat uty toig vourxots ovat, St. hoptilete tTovs avOpurous 


Sean. NEG , a t Siar Sa , 2 
att@, “Addokahe, taita héywv Kal Huds bBpifers. 


goptia SucBdotakta, kai adtoi évi Tov SaxtUdwy Spar ob mpoowavere 


a s > \ .4 Lins @ > A 4 a a 
Tots optiots. 47. ovat Gyiv, OTL oikodopette Ta pyypeta Tay 


553 





1 wapewvat in BL 13 (Tisch., W.H.). 


2 -ypap. .. . vmokpitat omitted in BCL al. 


into their bodies is the product of plunder 
and wickedness (movnptas = adxpacias, 
Mt.).—Ver. 40. adpoves, stupid men! 
not so strong a word as pwpot (Mt. xxiii. 
17).—ovx 6 otjoas, etc.: either a 
question or an assertion. As an asser- 
tion = he that makes the outside (as it 
should be) does not thereby also make 
the inside; it is one thing to cleanse the 
Outside, another, etc. On this view 
mwoinoas has a pregnant sense = purgare, 
which Kypke and others (Bornemann 
dissenting) claim for it in this place. As 
a question the reference will be to God, 
and the sense: did not the Maker of the 
world make the inside of things as well 
as the outside? Why therefore lay so 
exclusive stress on the latter? The 
outside and inside are variously taken as 
body and spirit (Theophy., Euthy., etc.), 
vessel and contents (Wolf, Hofmann), 
vessel and human spirit (Bengel).—Ver. 
41. wAny, rather (instead of devoting 
such attention to the outside).—ra 
évévra, etc., give, as alms, the things 
within the dishes. Others render as if 
the phrase were xara 7. év.: according 
to your ability (Pricaeus, Grotius, etc.). 
Vv. 42-44. To this criticism of the 
externalism of the Pharisees, the only 
thing strictly relevant to the situation as 
described, are appended three of Mt.’s 
““woes”’ directed against their will- 
worship in tithing (Mt. xxiii. 23), their 
love of prominence (Mt. xxiii. 6, not 
formally put as a “ woe”’), and their 
hypocrisy (Mt. xxiii. 27),—arjyavoyv, rue, 


Probably imported from Mt. 


instead of Mt.’s avnBov, anise, here only 
in N.T.— wav Adyavov, every herb, 
general statement, instead of Mt.’s 
third sample, kvptvov.—rhy ayarny Tt. 
©., the love of God, instead of Mt.’s 
mercy and faith.—Ver. 43. Pharisaic 
ostentation is very gently dealt with 
here compared with the vivid picture in 
Mt. xxiii. 5-7, partly out of regard to 
the restraint imposed by the supposed 
situation, Jesus a guest, partly because 
some of the details (phylacteries, e.g.) 
lacked interest for Gentile readers. 
—Ver. 44. This “woe” is evidently 
adapted for Gentile use. In Mt. the 
sepulchres are made conspicuous by 
white-washing to warn passers-by, and 
the point is the contrast between the 
fair exterior and the inner foulness. 
Here the graves become invisible (aSyAa, 
in this sense here only in N.T.; cf. 1 Cor. 
xiv. 8) and the risk is that of being in 
the presence of what is offensive without 
knowing. Farrar (C. G. T.) suggests 
that the reference may be to Tiberias, 
which was built on the site of an old 
cemetery. 

Vv. 45-52. Castigation of the scribes 
present ; severe, but justified by having 
been invited.—Ver. 45. tis TOV vopiKkav: 
a professional man, the Pharisees being 
laymen; the two classes kindred in 
spirit, hence the lawyer who speaks felt 
hit.—Ver. 46. Jesus fearlessly proceeds 
to say what He thinks of the class.— 
Kal viv, yes! to you lawyers also woes. 
Three are specified: heavy burdens (Mt. 


$54 KATA AOYKAN XI. 48—54. 
48. dpa 


a ~ a ~ A @ 
paptupette? Kal cuveuSoKeite Tols Epyors Tay Tatépwy Spay: OTL 


mpodytav, olde 1 matépes Suav dwéxteway aurous. 


audrol péy dréxteway adtous, duets $¢ oixoSopeite adtay Ta prypeca.® 
49. 81d TodTo Kal 4 copia tod Geod elev, “Atooteh@ eis abtods 
mpoprytas Kat dwootdé\ous, Kal e& adtav droKtevoior Kal éxdiwé- 
ovow*t: 50. twa éxlyrnb{ 1d aipa mdvrwy tov mpopytay Td 
éxxuvdpevov® ard KaraBodijs xdopou awd Tis yeveds tadtys, 
51. dwd tod aipatos “ABeX Ews Tod alparos Zaxapiou toi 
drohopévou petagd Tod Suctactypiov Kal Tod oiKou~ val, héyw dpiv, 
éxLynmOyjcetar awd THs yeveds TadTys. 
Sri ypate Thy KAeida THS yroews: adtol odK eioyhOeTe, Kat Tods 
53- Adyovros 8€ attod taita mpds 


52. Odat duty tots vopKots, 





eicepxopévous exwhtcare.” 
> -§ 2 c ~ x e ~ b) ~ évé 

adtous,® Apgarvto of ypapparets Kat ol dapioaia dewas évdxer, 
kal dmootopatifew adtév mepl mAetdvwr, 54. evedpedovtes adror, 
kai Lytodvtes? Onpetcat te ex Tod otépartos auto’, va Katnyopy- 


> “8 
GWOLY GuUTOU. 


1 For ot Se NC have nat ot (Tisch.). 


Vide below. 


2 For paptuperte (ACDX al. fl.) NBL aeth. Orig. have paptupes eore. 


38QBDL codd. vet. Lat. omit avtev ta pvypera. 


4 SiwEovow in NBCLX al. (W.H.). 
8 For Aeyovtos .. . 


Vide below. 


5 exxexupevoy in B 33, 69 (W.H. text). 
mpos avtous, found in the Western type of text, NBCL 33 


have naxeilev efeAMovros avTov: two quite distinct prefaces to the new section. 
Tisch., W.H., prefer that of B (2) to that of D (1). 


TSQBL 1, 118, 131 al. omit wat {nTovvres (Tisch., W.H.). 


after eveSpevovres (Tisch.). 
® SSBL cop. aeth. omit wa. . 


xxiii. 3), tombs of the prophets (Mt. xxiii. 
29-31), key of knowledge (Mt. xxiii. 14). 
—oprifere (with two accusatives only 
in N.T.), ye lade men with unbearable 
burdens.—mpoowavere, ye touch, here 
only in N.T.—Ver. 47. Kal of warépes 
%., and your fathers. This reading of 
WC is to be preferred on internal grounds 
to of 8, as implying that the two acts 
were not contrasted but kindred = they 
killed, you build, worthy sons of such 
fathers.—Ver. 48 points the moral.— 
Gpa: perhaps with Schleiermacher we 
should write dpa, taking what follows 
as a question.—olxoSopeire, ye build, 
absolutely (without object, vide note 3 
above). Tomb-building in honour of dead 
prophets and killing of living prophets 
have one root: stupid superstitious rever- 
ence for the established order.—Ver. 49. 
% vodia tr. 8.: vide notes on Mt. xxiii. 
34.—atrooté\ovs, apostles, instead of 
wise men and scribes in Mt.—éx8iwéov- 
ow, they shall drive out (of the land), in 


NX omit also evrov 


. avrov (a gloss imitating Mt. xii. 10). 


place of Mt.’s oraupwoete.—Ver. 50. 
ex{y776q, ‘(a Hellenistic verb used in 
the sense of the Latin exquivo,” Farrar 
(C. G. T.).—Ver. 51. Tod a&modopévou 
who perished, in place of the harsher 
whom ye slew of Mt.—rov ofkov = 
Tov vaow in Mt., the temple.—Ver. 52. 
Final woe on the lawyers, a kind of anti- 
climax. Cf. Mt., where the pathetic 
apostrophe to Jerusalem follows and 
concludes the discourse.—riy «Acida THs 
yreoews, the key which is knowledge 
(genitive of apposition) admitting to the 
Kingdom of God. Many take it = the 
key to knowledge. 

Ver. 53. The foregoing discourse, 
though toned down as compared with 
Mt., was more than the hearers could 
stand. The result is a more hostile 
attitude towards the free-spoken Prophet 
than the classes concerned have yet 
shown, at least in the narrative of Lk. 
They began Seas évéxerv, to be sorely 
nettled at Him (cf. Mk. vi. 19). Euthy. 








RIL, 14. 


EYATTEAION 


555 


XII. 1. "Ev ofs émouvayPercav tay pupiddwy rod Sydou, ote 
Katamatety GAAjdous, yp§ato Aéyery mpds Tods padntas adTod 
mpatov, ““Mpocdxere Eautots dmd THs Luuns Tov dapicaiwy, ATXIs 


.Y 
€otiy birdéKptors.} 


a&wokahuPOncerat, Kat KpuTTdv, & oF yvwoOxjcerat. 


2. odSev 8€ cuyKekahuppevoy dotiv, & obdK 


3- av® dy 


Soa év tH okoTia elmate, év TO putt dxovcOynceTat- Kal 5 mpds 7d 
* > , > = Le , 22 SN a 

ols é\ahyoare év Tots Taopetors, KnpuxOyoerar emt Tov Swpudtov. 
4. Aéyw S€ Spiv tots pidors pou, Mi poByOATe amd Tay dwoKTevdvTwv 
TO GGpa, Kal peta Tata pi éxdvTwy mepiocdtepdy Te worjoar. 


Latis . .. viox. before r. Gap. in BL e (W.H.). 


gives as equivalents éyxoreiv, dpy(Ler Gat. 
The Vulgate has graviter insistere, to 
press hard, which A.V. and R.V. 
foliow. Field (Ot. Nor.) decides for the 
former sense = the scribes and Pharisees 
began to be very angry.—amrocropa- 
wife: Grimm gives three meanings— 
to speak from memory (awd ordparos) ; 
to repeat to a pupil that he may commit 
to memory ; to ply with questions so as 
to entice to offhand answers. In this 
third sense the word must be taken here 
as it is by Theophy. (and by Euthy.: 
Gmatetv avtocyediovs Kal dvemurKer- 
Tous awoxploets épwrnpatwv Sodepav = 
to seek offhand ill-considered answers to 
crafty questions).—Ver. 54 really gives 
the key to the meaning of awootopartiferv 
(here only in N.T.). 

CHAPTER XII. MiscELLANzEous DIs- 
COURSES.—Vv. 1-12. Exhortation to 
fearless utterance, addressed to the 
disciples (cf. Mt. x. 17-33).—év ols, in 
these circumstances, i.e., while the 
assaults of the Pharisees and scribes 
on Jesus were going on (xi. 53).— 
pupiddwv: a hyperbolical expression for 
an ‘‘innumerable multitude,” pointing, 
if the words are to be taken in earnest, 
to the largest crowd mentioned any- 
where in the Gospels. Yet this immense 
gathering is not accounted for: it does 
not appear where or why it collected, 
but the év ols suggests that the people 
had been drawn together by the en- 
counter between Jesus and His foes.— 
mpo@tov from its position naturally 
qualifies mpooéyere, implying that 
hypocrisy was the first topic of discourse 
(Meyer). But it may also be taken 
with pa@nras, as implying that, while 
Jesus meant to speak to the crowd, He 
addressed Himself in the first place to 
His disciples (Schanz, J. Weiss, Holtz- 
mann). Bornemann points out that 
while Mt. places mporov after im- 


peratives, Lk. places it also before, as 
In ix. 61, x. 5.—amrd THs Cupns tr. %.: 
this is the logion reported in Mt. xvi. 6 
and Mk. viii. 15, connected there with 
the demand for a sign ; here to be viewed 
in the light of the discourse in the 
Pharisee’s house (xi. 37 f.). In the two 
first Gospels the warning expresses 
rather Christ’s sense of the deadly 
character of the Pharisaic leaven; here 
it is a didactic utterance for the guidance 
of disciples as witnesses of the truth.— 
Artis éotiv trdxpiois: not in Mt. and 
Mk.; might be taken as an explanatory 
gloss, but probably to be viewed as part 
of the logion. Hypocrisy, the leading 
Pharisaic vice = wearing a mask of 
sanctity to hide an evil heart ; but from 
what follows apparently here to be taken 
in a wider sense so as to include dis- 
simulation, hiding conviction from fear 
of man as in Gal. ii. 13 (so J. Weiss in 
Meyer). In Lk.’s reports our Lord’s 
sayings assume a form adapted to the 
circumstances of the writer’s time. 
Hypocrisy in the sense of Gal. ii. 13 was 
the temptation of the apostolic age, 
when truth could not be spoken and 
acted without risk.—Ver. 2 = Mt. x. 26, 
there connected with a counsel not to 
fear men addressed to persons whose 
vocation imposes the obligation to speak 
out. Here = dissimulation, concealment 
of your faith, is vain; the truth will out 
sooner or later.—Ver. 3. av@’ dv, either 
= quare, inferring the particular case 
following from the general statement 
going before, or = because, assigning a 
reason for that statement. This verse 
= Mt. x. 27, but altered. In Mt. it is 
Christ who speaks in the darkness, and 
whispers in the ear; in Lk. it is His 
disciples. In the one representation the 
whispering stage has its place in the 
history of the kingdom; in the latter it 
is conceived as illegitimate and futile. 


KATA AOYKAN XI, 


556 
§. dwodeigw Se Spiv tiva phoByOijre* poPyOnTe Tov peta 1d drro- 
KTeivar éfouciay €xovta ! éuBadeiv eis Thy yéevvar- val, Aéyw duty 
rodtor poPyOnre. 6. Odyi wévte otpovBia mwdeitar? docopiwy 
Svo; nai év €& adtav odx Eotw émdednopevoy evaitriov Tod Geo’ - 


BH 


8. A€yw d€ spty, 


7. &AAG Kal al tplixes THs KEhadiis Spav wacar HplOpnvTa. 

obv® poBeiobe: mokddv otpoudiwy biadépere. 

e For suoa. Mas bg av *Spodoynon * év enol Epmpoodev Tay dvOpuTrwy, Kal 6 ulds 
Me. er Tou 


with @eod- -g. 6 BE dpynocdperds pe évimov tov dvOpdtwv drrapyyOyceras 


GvOpdmrou Spodoyyjce ey ait Epmpoobey tay dyyéhwv Tov 
évitriov Tav dyyéAwv TOO Ged. 10. Kal mas 85 épet Adyor sis Tov 
vidvy Tod dvOpdrrou, dpeOyoetar adit@+ TH BE Eis Td “Ayvov Mvedpa 
II. Grav 8€ mpoopéepwor ® Spas 
6 


Bracdynpnoavts otk dpeOjoetar. 





émi Tas guvaywyds Kal Tas dpxds kal Tas efoucias, ph pepipvarte 

~ a , , , ™” a x ¢ a 
was 7 Ti dwodkoynonobe, H Ti eitnTes 12. TO yap Aytov Mivedpa 
Siddter Spas ev adith TH Gpa, & Sei eimeiv.” 


t exovra efovgiay in BDL, etc., verss. 
2 For mwwetat (a cor., as usual, neut. pl. nom.) SB 13, 69, 346 have wwdovvras. 


3 BLR 157 codd. vet. Lat. omit ovv. 
4 So in NL al. pl. (Tisch.). 
5 aodepwor in NBLX 1, 33 al, 


BDA al, have opodoyynoet (W.H.). 


6 peptpynoynte in NBLQRX 1, 13, 33, 69. D and codd. vet. Lat. syr. cur., etc., 


omit 4 Tt after wws (W.H. brackets). 


What you whisper will become known 
to all, therefore whisper not but speak 
from the housetop.—Ver. 4. Aéyw &é, 
introducing a very important statement, 
not a mere phrase of Lk.’s to help out 
the connection oi thought (Ws., Mt.- 
Evang., 279).—7tots ¢idors pov, not a 
mere conventional designation for an 
audience, but spoken with emphasis 
to distinguish disciples from hostile 
Pharisees = my comrades, companions 
in tribulation.— py poByOyre, etc., down 
to end of ver. 5 = Mt. x. 28, with varia- 
tions. For Mt.’s distinction between 
body and soul Lk. has one between now 
and hereafter (pera tavta). The positive 
side of the counsel is introduced not with 
a simple “fear,” but with the more 
emphatic ‘1 will show ye whom ye shall 
fear’. Then at the end, to give still 
more emphasis, comes: ‘ Yea, I say 
unto you, fear him”. Who is the un- 
named object of fear? Surely he who 
tempts to unfaithfulness, the god of 
this world!—Ver. 6. wévre, five, for 
two farthings, two for one in Mt. (x. 29) ; 
one into the bargain when you buy a 
larger number. They hardly have a 
price at all!—éwtdeAnopevov, forgotten, 


for Mt.’s ‘‘ falls not to the ground with- 
out’; the former more general and 
secondary, but the meaning plainer.— 
Ver. 7. ‘ptOpnvrar, they remain 
numbered, once for all; number never 
forgotten, one would be missed. 

Vv. 8-12. Another solemn declara- 
tion introduced by a Aéyw S€ = Mt. x. 
32, 33-—€pmpocbev tav ayyéAwv Fr. 9.: 
in place of Mt.’s ‘‘ before my Father in 
heaven”. In ver. 6 “God” takes the 
place of “your Father” in Mt. It seem 
as if the Christian circle to which Lk. 
belonged did not fully realise the signifi- 
cance of Christ’s chosen designation for 
God.—Ver. 10. was ds épei, etc.: the 
true historical setting of the /ogion con- 
cerning blasphemy is doubtless that in 
Mt. (xii. 31), and Mk. (iii. 28), where it 
appears as a solemn warning to the 
men who broached the theory of 
Beelzebub-derived power to cast out 
devils. Here it is a word of encourage- 
ment to disciples (apostles) to this effect : 
blaspheming the Holy Spirit speaking 
through you will be in God’s sight an 
unpardonable sin, far more heinous than 
that of prejudiced Pharisees speaking 
evil against me, the Son of Man, now.— 





EYATTEAION 


5—21. 557 
13. Etre 8é ng adta@ ex tol dxdou,! “ AvddokaXe, etme TO GdeXOa 

pou pepicacGat pet éuo0 Thy KAnpovopiay.” 14. ‘O Sé etrev atta, 

“"AvOpwme, tis pe KatéoTnce Sixacthy? 4 pepiorhy ef Spas ;” 

15. Etmwe 5€ mpds adrods, ““Opate nal guddocecbe amd tis ® 

mAeovetias> Ste ovK ev TH Teptocevew Tiwi H Lwh adtod éotw éx 


4 16. Etwe 8€ mapaBohhy mpds adtous, 


Tay Stapydvrwv aitou.” 
héywr, “"AvOpdmrou tiwds mAougiou edpdpnoev  xdpa> 17. Kal 
StedoyiLero év éautd,® Adywv, Ti moujow, Str odK exw Tod cuvdtw 
tods KaptroUs pou; 18. kal ele, Toto towujow: Kabedo fou Tas 
GroOjKas, Kai welLovas oixodopnow, Kat ouvdgw éxet mévta Ta 
yernpard ® pou, kat ta dya0d pou, 19. Kal épd TH WuxA pou, Yuxn, 
Exets TOAAG Gyabd Keiweva eis ETH WOAAG Gvamradou, dye, mle,’ 
eddpaivov. 20. etme S€ ait@ 6 Oeds, “Appwry tary TH vuKtl Thy 
Wuxnvy gov damratotow’ dmd aod: & S€ Hrotpacas, tim, €ota; 


21. ottws 6 OncaupiLwv éauTd, Kai pi eis Oedv mAouTay.” 9 


lex T. ox. avTw in NBL 33. 2 xpiTny in NBDL 1, 13, 33 al. 
3 For tns mA. SBDL al. verss. have waons mH. (Tisch., W.H.). 
4 avrw in BD preferred by Tisch., W.H., to avrov (T.R. = SLA ail. /i.). 








5 ey autw in BL. 


6 For ta yevnpata BL and some verss. have tov ovrov (W.H. text). 


7 elpeva... 


8 So in NDA, etc. (Tisch.). 


arte is wanting in D, codd. vet. Lat., and bracketed in W.H. 
BLQT 33 have atrovowy (W.H.). 


9 D a, b omit ver. 21, which is therefore bracketed in W.H.’s text. 


Ver. 11. Tas dpxas nal ras éfouclas: 
a general reference to heathen tribunals 
in place of Mt.’s ovvedSpta (x. 17). 
“Synagogues,” representing Jewish 
tribunals, retained.—Ver. 12. 710 “Aytov 
Mvetpa: their utterances always in- 
spired by the Holy Ghost (hence to 
contradict their word blasphemy), and 
specially when they are on their defence. 

Vv. 13-21. An interlude leading toa 
change of theme, in Lk. only.—Ver. 13. 
Tis €k TOU dxAov: the crowd now comes 
to the front, and becomes the audience 
for at least a few moments.—eimeé here 
takes after it the infinitive, instead of fva 
with subjunctive.—pep(cac@at, to divide, 
presumably according to law, one-third 
to the younger, two-thirds to the elder 
(Deut, cd: 17)-) 9 bnew references) to 
tribunals in ver. 11 may have suggested 
this application to Jesus.—Ver. 14. 
GvOpwire, man! discouraging, no sym- 
pathy with the object (cf. Rom. ii. 1, ix. 
20).—kpityy, a judge, deciding the right 
or equity of the case; pepioryy, an 
arbiter carrying out the judgment (here 
only in N.T.). The application was the less 


blameworthy that appeals to Rabbis for 
such purposes seem to have been not in- 
frequent (Schanz).—Ver. 15: the moral 
pointed = beware of covetousness !— 
ovK év TH Teptooeverv, etc.: the ex- 
pression here is peculiar and the mean- 
ing somewhat obscure, but apparently 
the idea is; not in the abundance enjoyed 
by any man is (consists) his life—not in 
(of) his possessions. Two ways ot 
saying the same thing, the second a 
kind of afterthought. If life, true life, 
meant possessions, then the more the 
better, but it means something far higher. 

Vv. 16-21. Parable of the rich fool, 
simply a story embodying in concrete 
form the principle just enunciated: 
teaching the lesson of Ps. xlix., and con- 
taining apparent echoes of Sirach xi. 
17-19.—Ver. 16. evpdpyoe, bore well; 
late and rare (here only in N.T.). 
Kypke gives examples from Josephus 
and Hippocrates.—ypa, estate, farm = 
aypés (ix. 12), so in John iv. 35.—Ver. 
18, Tov oitov (or Ta yevypara): may 
refer to the fruits (kapmovs, ver. 17) of 
the season, ta ayaa to the accumulated 


KATA AOYKAN XII, 


558 
22. Ele 8€ mpds tods pabyntds adrod, “ Avda tovTo bpiv Aéyw, pr 

pepiuvare TH Puxs Spay,! ri pdynre> pydSe 1 cdpani, ri evddonode. 

23. 2 wuxh wreidy dom ris Tpopis, Kal Td cHpa Tod évddparos. 

24. Katavojoate rods xépaxas, Sti ob ® omeipoucw, ode ® Oepifou- 

ow: ols odx €or Tapetov oS droOyKny, Kal 6 Oeds Tpéper adTous ° 

25. tis Se é§ Spay 


pepysvav Stvatar mpoodetvar éml thy HAtkiay abrod mixuv éva,* 


mwéow paddov dpets Siapdpere Tay werervay ; 


26. et obv otte® EXdyxtorov Sivacbe, Ti mept TOY howdy pepipvate ; 
27. Karavohoare Ta Kpiva, mas adfdver: oF Kom, oddé vibe -° 
héyw Sé dpiv, ob8€ Zodopdy ev doy Ti 3dby adrod wepreBddero ds 
ty toUrwv. 28. et Se tov xdprov ev Ta dypo onpepov Svta,” Kai 


adpiov ets KhiBavov Badddpevov, & O€ds obtws dudidvvucr,® méow 


paddov duds, ddrydmoror ; 


1 Omit vpew NABDLQ al. 

3 ov, ovde in B (W.H. text). 

“NBD omit eva (Tisch., W.H.). 
text). 

5 ovde in NBLQ 1, 33 al. 


6 For wus avgave . 


29. Kat Gpeis ph Lntetre ti pdynte, 


24 yap in NBDLX (Trg., W.H.). 
ove, ovte in NDLQ e (Tisch., W.H., marg.), 
B places mpoo@evat just before rnxvv (W.H. 


. - wnOer D a syrr. cur. sin. have mws ovre vyOet ove vdaives 


(Tisch., W.H., marg.; ‘ worth considering,” J. Weiss). 
7 SQBL have ev aype Tov yop. ovra onpepov (Tisch., W.H.). 


® audieler (-afe. B) in BDLT. 


possessions of bygone years.—Ver. Ig. 
avatravov, etc., rest, eat, drink, be jolly: 
an epicurean asyndeton.—Ver. 20. ele 
82 a., but God said to him, through 
conscience at the death hour (Euthy.).— 
amattovct, they ask thy life = thy life is 
asked.—rtlvt €orat, whose ? Not thine 
at all events.—Ver. 21. eis Oedv wAovTay, 
rich with treasure laid up with God. 
Other interpretations are: rich in a way 
that pleases God, or rich in honorem Dei, 
for the advancement of God’s glory. 
The last sense implies that the riches 
are literal, the first implies that they are 
spiritual. 

Vv. 22-31. Dissuasives against earthly 
care (Mt. vi. 25-33). The disciples again 
become the audience.—Ver. 23. Wuxi 
and o@pea are to be taken in the physical 
sense, the suggestion being that God 
has given us these the greater things, 
and therefore may be expected to give 
us food for the one and raiment for the 
other, the smaller things.—Ver. 24. 
xépaxas, the ravens, individualising, for 
Mt.’s were.va.—é Oeds for 6 waThp ipey 
in Mt.—Ver. 26. éAdytorov: the 
application of this epithet to the act of 
adding a cubit ért thy nAckiay at first 
appears conclusive evidence that for 


Lk. at least 4Auxla must mean length of 
life: as to add a cubit to one’s stature is 
so great a thing that no one thinks of 
attempting it (Hahn, similarly Holtz- 
mann, H. C.). But adding to one’s 
stature a cubit or an inch is of minimum 
importance as compared with lengthen- 
ing our days. Yet it must be owned 
that Lk.’s éAdx.torov puts us off the track 
of the idea intended, if we take jAtkla 
= stature. The point is, we cannot do 
what God has done for all mature 
persons: added a cubit at least to the 
stature of their childhood, and this is 
the greater thing, not the least, greater 
than giving us the means of life now 
that we have reached maturity. Vide 
notes on Mt.—Ver. 29. petewpifeae : 
a Gr. Xey. in N.T. and variously 
rendered. The meaning that best suits 
the connection of thought is that which 
finds in the word the figure of a boat 
tempest-tossed, but that which is best 
supported by usage points rather to high- 
mindedness, vain thoughts. The Vulgate 
renders nolite in sublime tolli = lift not 
yourselves up to lofty claims (Meyer); 
do not be ambitious, be content with 
humble things, a perfectly congruous 
counsel. Still the rendering: be not as 








22—35. 


ql ti wintes Kat ph perewpilecde. 


EYATTEAION 


559 


30. taita ydp mdvta Ta €Ovy 


TOU KOopou émiLyret?- Gpav S€ 6 warnp older Sr xpyLete ToUTwr: 


31. wAhvy Lntetre thy Bacthelavy tod Ccod,® Kai tadta wdvta! 


tmpocteOncerar ptr. 


> (e < ‘ L3 ~ Let .3 sos) ‘ , 
edddxnoev 6 tatip bpav Sodvar Sutvy Thy Baordeiay. 
Ay c LA c A ‘ , > , 
Ta Gmwdpxovta Spay, kat Sdéte éAenpoouvny. 


32. ph ood, Td pixpdv qolprov. dre 


33- Nwdyjeate 
Towngate éauTois 


Baddvria pi) madaodpeva, Qnoaupoy dvéxevwrov év tots odpavois, 


Sou Khéwrns ovK eyyiLer, ob8€ ons SiapGeiper- 34. Sou ydp éotw 


6 Oncaupds Spav, éxet Kal H Kapdia Suav eorar. 


1 kat in NBLT. 


35- Eotwoav 


2 For eme{nre: (a cor., neut. pl. nom.) BLT 13, 33, 69 al. have emufynrovery. 


Savrov for tr. 0. in BDL. 


tempest-tossed vessels, vexed with care, 
is a finer thought and more what we 


expect. Hahn renders: do not gaze 
with strained vision heavenwards, 
anxiously looking for help. Pricaeus: 
‘ex futuro suspendi”. Theophylact 


gives a paraphrase which in a way 
combines the two senses. He defines 
meteorismus asdistraction (wepromwacpoy), 
and a restless movement of the mind, 
thinking now of one thing now of 
another, leaping from this to that, and 
always fancying higher things (ae ra 
tWrnAdtrepa davraLopévov).—Ver. 30. 7. 
é. Tov kdopov, the nations of the world ; 
this addition is peculiar to Lk., the 
expression here only in N.T., but 
frequent with the Rabbis (Lightfoot, ad 
loc.) ; meaning with them the peoples of 
the outside world as distinct from the 
Jews; here probably all (Jews included) 
but Christians. On the thought vide 
on Mt.—Ver. 31. mwAny, much rather 
(Schanz, Hahn).—{nreire, etc.: In his 
version of this great word of Jesus Lk. 
omits wp@rov and thy Sixarocvvny, so 
that it takes this simple and absolute 
form: seek His (the Father’s) kingdom : 
very probably the original form. As 
temporal things are added (wpoore61- 
getat) they do not need to be sought, 
Mt.’s final word about not caring for 
to-morrow Lk. omits, either deeming it 
superfluous, or giving what follows as a 
substitute. 

Vv. 32-34. The little flock, in Lk. only. 
—mtoipytoy (contracted from qTOLLEVLOY), 
a fiock (of sheep), a familiar designation 
of the body of believers in the apostolic 
age (Acts xx. 28, 1 Pet. v. 3); pucpov 
adds pathos. That Jesus applied this 
name to His disciples is very credible, 
though it may be that in the sense of 


‘ Omit wavta SQBL al, verss. (from Mt.). 


the source from which Lk. drew, the 
little flock is the Jewish-Christian Church 
of Palestine subject to persecution from 
their unbelieving countrymen (J. Weiss 
in Meyer). The counsel “ fear not” is 
Mt.’s ‘‘ take no thought for to-morrow,” 
but the “to-morrow” refers not to 
temporal but to spiritual things ; hence 
the declaration following. Paraphrased 
= Fear not future want of food and 
raiment, still less loss of the kingdom, 
the object of your desire. Your Father 
will certainly give it.—Ver. 33 counsels 
a heroic mood for which apprehension 

as to future temporal want has become 

an impossibility, such want being now 
viewed as a means of ensuring the one 

object of desire, eternal riches.— 

mwiyoarte, etc.: the special counsel to. 
the man in quest of eternal life generalised 
(cf. xviii. 22).—Baddvra, purses: con- 

tinens pro contento (De Wette).— 

mahatovpeva: in Heb. viii. 13 applied 

to the Sinaitic covenant. Covenants, 

religions, wax old as well as purses, — 

avéxXeurrov, unfailing. Cf. éxAtrp, xvi. 

g, in reference to death: ‘ vox rara, sed 

paris elegantiae cum altera avexAurys, 

quam adhibet auctor libri Sapient., vii. 4, 

viii. 18, ubi habes O@naavpos avexAtwns et 

mdovtTos avekAurys,” Wolf. There is 

poetry in this verse, but also some think 

asceticism, turning the poetry of Jesus 

into ecclesiastical prose. I prefer to 

believe that even Lk. sees in the words 

not a mechanical rule, but a law for the 

spirit.—Ver. 34 = Mt. vi. 21, with gov 

turned into tpov. 

Vv. 35-38. Loins girt, lamps burning. 
Connection with what goes before is not 
apparent, but there is a latent affinity 
which makes the introduction of this 
logion here by Lk. or his source in- 


560 KATA AOYKAN XII. 
Spav at dopves mepreLwopévar, Kal of Adxvor Katduevors 36. Kal 
Speis Sporor dvOpamois mpocdexopevors Tov KUptoy éauTay, wre 
évadice! éx tay ydpwv, tva, éXOdvtos Kal Kpodcavtos, edEws 
dvoigwow abT@. 37- pakdpror ot Soddor éxetvor, ods EXOD 6 KUptos 
eiprjcer ypnyopodvras. dyhy Aéyw Gyiv, Sr mepiLdcerar kai 
dvakuvet adtods, Kal mapehOdv Siaxovycet adtots. 38. Kal édy 
EOy ev TH Seutépa pudaxy, Kal év tH tpiry pudaky EAP, Kal 
eJpn olrw,? paxdprot eiow ot Soddor? exeivor. 39. ToiTo Sé 
6 Khémtys EpxeTat, 
éypnyépycev dv, Kal odk Gv* adie Siopuyqvar® Tov olkov adrod. 
40. Kal dpets ody ® yivesOe Erowpors Ste 7 Gpa od Boxetre, 6 ulds 


ywdoxere, Stt ei Wer 5 oikodeomdTys Toia dpa 


tod Gv@pwmou Epxerat.” 


mpos pas Thy mapaBodhy tavtyy héyeis, 7 


41. Etwe 8€ att@™ & Meértpos, “Kupte, . 


» 
7] KQL pos TavTas ; 


1 avadvoyn in $ABDL and many others (Tisch., W.H.), 


2 For the words kateav... 


ovtw NBLT 33, 131 have kav ev ty Sevt. kav ev 


™ Tpit. pvA. €XOn kat evpy ovtws (Tisch., Trg., W-H.). 


3 o. SovAor omit NaBDL syrr. cur. sin., 


4 For eypny- +--+: 
marg.). 


etc. (W.H.). 


S{* omits exetvor (Tisch.). 


ovx av ND e, i syrr. cur. sin. have simply ov« av (Tisch., W.H., 


5 SitopuxOnvar in NBL 33 (Tisch., W.H.). 


6 Omit ovy NBL minusc. 


telligible. The kingdom the summum 
bonum ; all to be sacrificed for it; its 
coming (or the King’s) to be eagerly 
waited for.—Vv. 35, 36 contain the germ 
of the parable of the Ten Virgins (Mt. 
xxv. 1 f.). So De Wette, J. Weiss, 
Holtzmann, Schanz,_ etc. — doves 
mepteLwopévat, loins girt, for service.— 
Avxvot Katdpevor, lamps burning, for 
reception of the master expected to 
return during the night. In the spiritual 
sphere the loins girt point to a noble 
purpose in life, and the burning lamp to 
the spirit of hope.—Ver. 36. dvadvop, 
when (aéte = 6rdte) he shall return ; 
the figure is taken from sailors making 
the return voyage to the port whence 
they had sailed, Beza (vide Phil. 1. 23, 
2 Tim. iv. 6).—éAOovtos kal kpovoavtos: 
the participles in the genitive absolute, 
though the subject to which they refer, 
avr@, is in the dative.—Ver. 37. paxdpror: 
here as always implying rare felicity the 
reward of heroic virtue.—apyv: the 
Hebrew word retained here contrary to 
custom, introducing a startling thought, 
the inversion of the relation of master 
and servants, lord and slaves, through 
joy over their fidelity. For the other 
side of the picture vide Lk. xvii. 7-10.— 
Siaxovyce: avtois; the master, in genial 


7 Omit avrw (in $$ = Tisch.) BDL 33 (W.H.). 


mood, turns servant to his own slaves; 
makes them sit down, throws off his 
caftan, girds his under-garments, and 
helps them to portions of the marriage 
feast he has brought home with him, as 
a father might do for his children (De 
Wette, Koetsveld, p. 244). There is 
not necessarily an allusion either to the 
last supper (xxii. 27) or to the Roman 
Saturnalia (Grotius, Holtzmann, H. C.). 
—Ver. 38. év TH Sevrépq, etc., second 
and third watches named as the times at 
which men are most apt to be overtaken 
with sleep (Hahn), the night being 
probably supposed to consist of four 
watches, and the first omitted as too 
early, and the last as too late for the 
return. 

Vv. 39-40. The thief (Mt. xxiv. 43, 44). 
A new figure is now employed to give 
pictorial embodiment to the counsel: be 
ever ready. The master returning from 
a wedding is replaced by a thief whose 
study it is to come to the house he 
means to plunder at an unexpected time. 
This logion is reproduced by Lk. sub- 
stantially as in Mt. with only slight 
stylistic variations. 

Vv. 41-46. A question by Peter and a 
reply (Mt. xxiv. 45-51). Some look on 
Peter’s question as a literary device of 





30—47. EYATTEAION 561 


42. Elwe 8€1 6 Kuptos, “Tis dpa éoriv 6 motds otxovdpos Kal? 
ppovipos, Sy Katactyicet 6 KUptos éwt Ths Pepametas adtod, TOU 
43. paxdptos 6 S00dos exetvos, 
44- adnBds 


SiBdvar ev karp@ 7O% oitroperproy ; 
dv €\Oav 6 KUptos adtod ebpycet torodvta oUTus. 
héyo Spiv, Stu éwl mao tois imdpxovow attod katacticet adTdv. 
45. Edv 8€ etary & SodX0s éxeivos év TH Kapdia adtod, Xpoviter 6 
kUpids rou épyeoOor: Kal dpéyrar tumrew Tols maidas Kai Tds 
maidiokas, éoOiew te kai mive Kai peOUoKxeoOar’ 46. get 6 KUptos 
Tod SovNou exelvou év *pépa wy od mpoodoKd, nal év dpa y od 
ywdoker: kai SxoTrounoe. adtéy, Kai TO pépos atTod peTa Tay 
drtotwv Ojoe. 47. Exetvos S€ 6 S0dX0s 6 yvods Td O€Anpa Tod 
xuptou éautod,* Kat py) éToipdoas pydé° moijoas mpos 7o OAnpa 


1 cat evrev in NBDL 1, 13, 33, 69 al. 
2 For cat (NL, etc.) read o with BD, ete, 





3 BD 69 omit ro (W.H. brackets). 
‘avrov in NBDL. 


the evangelist either to connect his 
material (Weiss in Meyer; x. 29, xi. 45 
cited as similar instances), or to give 
what follows a special relation to the 
Apostles and to Peter as their head 
(Holtzmann, H.’C., the passage thus 
becoming in his view a substitute for 
Mt. xvi. 18, 19).—Ver. 41. Peter’s 
question reminds us of Mk. xiii. 37: 
“What I say unto you, I say unto all, 
watch’’.—Ver. 42. 6 Kuptos, the Lord, 
in narrative.—rls dpa, etc.: in Mt. this 
is connected immediately with the 
thought in ver. 40, so that Peter’s inter- 
pellation appears as an interruption of a 
continuous discourse. Some variations 
from Mt.’s text are noticeable in Lk.’s 
version: oikovépos for So0tAos, Kata- 
oryjoe (future) for xatéotyoev (aorist), 
Bepareias for olxeteias, ovropéetptov for 
tpopyv. These changes, according to 
Weiss and Holtzmann (H. C.), are due 
to the parable being connected with 
the Apostles, and one can see some 
plausibility in the hypothesis so far as 
the first two variations are concerned. 
The question: who then, etc., is sup- 
posed to answer itself: who but each of 
you apostles, who especially but you 
Peter ?—Ver. 42. otropeérpiov, the due 
portion of food; a word of late Greek. 
Phryn., p. 383, forbids the use of 
oitopetpeioOat, and enjoins separation 
of the compound into its elements: otrov, 
petpetaGar. The noun occurs here only ; 
the verb in Gen. xlvii. 12 and occasionally 
in late Greek authors.—Ver. 44. a@AnOas 


® For pyde NB 33 have q. 


here, as usual, for Gpnv (ver. 37 an ex- 
ception).—Ver. 45. éay $€: introducing 
supposition of an abuse of power, con- 
ceived possible even in the case of an 
apostle, of a Peter. Let no proud 
ecclesiastic therefore say, Is thy servant 
a dog ?—xpovifer: a delayed mapovola, 
a prominent thought in our Lord’s later 
utterances. The delay may possibly be 
long enough to allow time for the 
utter demoralisation of even the higher 
officials. Vide on Mt.—rotvs atdas, 
etc., the men- and maidservants, instead 
of cuvSovAous in Mt.—8yoTopryoer: the 
retention of this strong word by Lk., who 
seems to have it for one of his aims to 
soften harsh expressions, is noticeable, 
especially when he understands it as 
referring to the Apostles, and even to 
Peter. It makes for the hypothesis that 
the word means not to cut into two as 
with a saw, but either to lash unmerci- 
fully, to cut to pieces in popular parlance, 
or to separate from the household 
establishment (Beza, Grotius, etc.).— 
peta Tov ariotwy points to degradation 
from the confidential position of oixovépos 
to a place among the unfaithful; dis- 
missed, or imprisoned, or set to drudging 
service. 

Vv. 47, 48. Degrees of guilt and 
punishment, in Lk. only, and serving as 
an apology for the severity of the punish- 
ment as described in ver. 46. That 
punishment presupposes anger. The 
statement now made is to the effect: 
penalty inflicted not as passion dictates 


36 


562 


KATA AOYKAN 


XII, 


abrod, Saphoera: woddds: 48. 5 82 ph yvous, momjoas Be déia 


wAnyGv, Sapyoetar ddlyas. 


mavtt S€ & €860n Todd, wodkd LytnOH- 


getar Tap attod: Kal @ mapeOevto mod, mepiocdtepov aityaouow 


aurdv. 

bacta dvi On 5 
PART 5. €ws 00 ? reheo OF ; 
c here only Tf} Ya ; 


obxt, A€yo piv, GAN F ° Srapepropdy. 


49. Mop AABov Badeiv cis! thy yay, Kal ti Ow et HS5q 
50. Bawtiopa dé exw BanticOAvat, kal mas cuvéxopat 
51. Soxeite Ste eipyyny wapeyevouny dodvar év 


52. €govTat yap 


~ lol A“ , 
dm Tod viv wévte év otkw Evi> Srapepepropevor, tpets emi Sucl, kal 


Svo éwi tpiot. 


mwatpi* pytyp éml Ovyarpi,® Kat Ouydrnp emi pytpi°- 


, ‘ 273 ta .Y ey ee) 
53+ StapeproOncetar* mwatip ep uid, Kal ulds émt 


wevOepa é 


Thy vopbny adtis, Kal vopdy emt Thy wevOepdv adris.” © 


1 emt in NABL (ets in D), 
3 evi ovxw in BDL. 


2 ews orov in NABDL. 
4 StapeprcOyoovrar in BDL minuse, 


5 S$BDL minusc. have @vyarepa, pytepa with or without the article. 


6 Omit avtns NBDL. 


but as principle demands.—é Soddos 6 
yvouts, etc.: describes the case of a 
servant who knows the master’s will 
but does not do it (pS wotjoas), nay, 
does not even intend or try to do it (pq 
érousagas), deliberately, audaciously 
negligent.—Sapyoerat roAAds (awAnyas) : 
many stripes justly his portion.—Ver. 
48. 6 8& pH yvovs: the opposite case is 
that of one who does not know. What 
he would do if he did know is another 
question ; but it is not to be gratuitously 
supposed that he would neglect his duty 
utterly, like the other, though he does 
commit minor faults. He is a lower 
servant in the house to whom the master 
gave no particular instructions on leav- 
ing, therefore without special sense of 
responsibility during his absence, and 
apt like the average servant to take 
liberties when the master is away from 
home.—travti 8é @ €866n, etc. : a general 
maxim further explaining the principle 
regulating penalty or responsibility (cf. 
Mt. xxv. 15 ff.). 

Vv. 49-53. Not peace but division 
(Mt. x. 34-36). This section is intro- 
duced by no connecting particle. Yet 
there is a certain affinity of thought. 
Strict fidelity demanded under penalties, 
but fidelity not easy; times of fierce 
trial and conflict awaiting you. I fore- 
warn you, that ye may be forearmed.— 
Ver. 49. wtp: the fire of a new faith, 
or religion, a burning enthusiasm in 
believers, creating fierce antagonism in 
unbelievers ; deplorable but inevitable.— 
Badetv, used by Mt. in reference to peace 
and war, where Lk. has Sotvar.—ri 0€Aw 


el, etc., how much I wish it were already 
kindled; ti = as and ei after 6é\w to 
express the object of the wish, as in 
Sirach xxiii. 14 (@eAjoets et py EyevvyOys, 
you will wish you had not been born),— 
Ver. 50. Bamricpa: before the fire can 
be effectually kindled there must come 
for the kindler His own baptism of blood, 
of which therefore Jesus naturally speaks 
here with emotion.—1@s ouvvexopat, how 
am I pressed on every side, either with 
fervent desire (Euthy., Theophy., De 


Wette, Schanz, etc.), or with fear, 
shrinking from the cup (Meyer, J. 
Weiss, Holtzmann, Hahn).—Ver. 51. 


Stapepropdv : instead of Mt.’s payatpay, 
an abstract prosaic term for a concrete 
pictorial one ; exactly descriptive of the 
fact, however, and avoiding possible 
misapprehension as to Christ’s aim = 
Jesus not a patron of war.—Ver. 52. 
Tpets emt Suoly, etc.: three against two 
and two against three; five in all, not 
six though three pairs are mentioned, 
mother and mother-in-law (pytyp and 
aevOepa) being the same person. This 
way of putting it is doubtless due to Lk. 
—émi with dative = contra, only here 
in N.T.; xara with genitive in Mt. 

Vv. 54-59. A final wird to the crowd 
(cf. Mt. xvi. 2 f., v. 25 f.).—rots SxAots : 
in Mt. Jesus speaks to the Pharisees and 
Sadducees, in reply to their demand for 
a sign, which gives a more definite 
occasion. But the words might quite 
appropriately have been addressed to the 
people at large. The weather-skill 
ascribed to the audience is such as any 
one might possess, and all Jews needed 





48—59. 


EYATPTEAION 


563 


54. “Edeye 8€ kal trois SxNots, ““Oray iSyte thy! vedeAny dvatdr- 
houcay dé ? Susteaes edGéws Néyere,® ““OuBpos Epxerar> Kal yiverau d here only 
N.T. 


ouUTw. 
yiverat. 


oldare Soxipdtew~ tov 5ێ Karpov ToUTov WHs od SoKipdlere 4 ; 
Se Kal dd’ éautay od Kpivete Td Bixarov ; 


55- Kat Otay vérov mvéovta, AéyeTe, “OT. katowv Eorar: 


in 
Kal 


56. Smoxpital, TO Tpdawirov THS yis Kal Tou ovpavod 


fore 
58. ds yap bmdyers peta 


Tod dytiSikou cou ém dpxovta, év TH 654 B65 épyaciay dmpdAdyOar 


Gm adtoo: 
6 


lol n A 
mapadse° tO *mpdktopi, Kat 


59. héyw aor, od ph Ons exeibev, ws 08 ® kal 13 Ecxatov emrov 


ar0das.” 


1 Omit thy NABLXA 1, 33, 69 al. 
Jem in NBL 64. 
3 ort after Aeyete in HABL, etc. 


6 mpdktwp ce Boddy * 


pymwote Katacupy ve mpds Tov KpLTHY, Kal 6 KpiTHS ce 


eis udaknyp. e here, only 


4 For Soxipalere (ADA al.) BLT verss. have ovx o8are Soxipafery (W.H.). 


5 wapadwoet in SBD minusc. (L = T.R.). 


BaddAn. 
§ Omit ov NBL 1 Orig. 


the warning. The precise circumstances 
in which this logion was spoken are un- 
certain.—-émt Svcpay, in the west, the 
region of the setting sun, and of the 
Mediterranean. A cloud rising up from 
that quarter meant, of course, rain (1 
Kings xviii. 44, 45). "_Ver. 55- Kavowy, 
the sirocco, a hot wind from the desert, 
blighting vegetation (Jas. i. II), equally 
a matter of course.—Ver. 56. waroxpitat 
seems too strong a term to apply to the 
people, and more appropriate to a 
Pharisaic or professional audience (Mt. 
xvi. 3). Raphel, after Erasmus Schmidt, 
translates harioli, weather prophets, 
citing a passage from Lucian in support 
of this sense. This is certainly one 
meaning of the word (vide Passow), but, 
as Hahn remarks, the usage of the N.T. 
does not support it here.—Ver. 57. ad’ 
éavrov, from or of yourselves (sua sponte, 
Palairet); without needing any one to 
tell you the right; implying that the 
persons addressed were destitute of the 
average moral insight (cf. Lk. xxi. 30).— 
Ver. 58. ws yap: introducing a legal 
scene from natural life to illustrate a 
similar situation in the moral world. It 
is implied that if they had the necessary 
moral discernment they would see that 
a judgment day was at hand, and under- 
stand that the duty of the hour was to 
come to terms with their adversary by 
timely repentance. That is hew they 
would all act if it were an ordinary case 


The same authorities have BaXeu for 


of debtor and creditor.—8ss épyaciav 
(phrase here only): usually interpreted 
give diligence, give thine endeavour = da 
operam,aLatinism. Theophylact renders 
it: give interest (of the sum owed); 
Hofmann, offer work, labour, in place of 
money.—kataovpy (here only in N.T.), 
lest he drag thee to the judge, stronger 
than Mt.’s wapad@ (v. 25), realistic and 
not exaggerated.—t@ mpadxropt, the man 
whose business it was to collect the 
debts after the judge had decreed pay- 
ment, or to put the debtor in prison till 
the debt was paid. Kypke defines 
mMpaxtopes: ‘‘exactores qui mulctas 
violatorum legum a judice irrogatas 
exigunt,”’ citing an instance of its use 
from Demosthenes.—Ver. 59. Aemrov, 
the half of a xo8Spavrns (Mt.’s word), 
making the necessity of full payment in 
order to release from prison still more 


emphatic. 
CHAPTER XIII. JUDGMENT TO COME. 
This chapter continues the sombre 


judicial strain of xii. 54-59. Beginning 
with a general reference to the impend- 
ing doom of Israel, as foreshadowed by 
a reported tragedy which had befallen 
certain individuals, it ends with a specific 
prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem 
similar to that which closes the great 
anti-Pharisaic discourse in Mt. xxiii. 
The dramatic effect of the prediction 
there is entirely lost in Lk.’s narrative, 
which in subsequent chapters continues 


564 


KATA AOYKAN 


XHI. 


XIII. 1. MAPHEAN 8€ ries év adtS 1TH xaipO drayyAdovres 
adté wept trav Tadthalwv, dv rd afua Muddros epige peta tov 


Ouciav abtay. 


2. kal dtroxpiGels 6 Incods} elev adrois, “ Aoxeite, 


Sre of FadtAator obto: dpaptwAot mapa mdvtas tods TadtAalous 


évovro, Stt Tovadta ? wemdvOacw ; 
> > 
pA) petavonte, mdvres doattws® drodeicbe. 


3. obxt, Aéyw piv GAN’ édy 


4. % €xetvor ot Séka 


nai dxrw, ep’ ots Ewevey 5 tUpyos év TO Xihwdp, Kal GwéKTewvev 


adtous, Soxeite, Ste obo Sperdérar eyévovro mapa mdvtas dvOpd- 


mous Tods KaTotkourtas év® 


1 SBLT verss. omit o L. 
F opowws in NBDLT 1, 13, 33, 69 ab. 
S avrot in NABKLT 33, 69 al. 


its report of the teaching of Christ as if 
the end were still a great way off. 

Vv. 1-5. The Galilean tragedy, 
peculiar to Lk., as is the greater part of 
what follows, on to xviii. 14.—Ver. I. 
mapyoay Sé, etc.: The introduction to 
the gruesome story naturally implies a 
temporal connection between what 
follows and what goes before: i.e., some 
present when Jesus spoke as reported in 
xii. 54-59 took occasion to tell Him this 
piece of recent news, recalled to their 
minds by what He had said about judg- 
ment and how to avert it. There is no 
good reason to suppose that the connec- 
tion is merely topical, and that the 
preface is simply a literary device of Lk. 
—rtév Fak.: the article implies that the 
story was current.—déyv 76 ata, etc.: So 
the story was told among the horrified 
people: the blood of the poor Galilean 
victims ruthlessly shed by Pilate while 
they were in the very act of offering 
sacrifice. Perfectly credible in those 
times under such a ruler, and in reference 
to such victims, Galileans, free in spirit, 
restive under the Roman yoke. Similar 
incidents in Josephus, though not this 
precise occurrence.—Ver. 2. amoxpwbeis: 
Jesus answered to an implied question. 
Those who told the story expected Him 
to make some remarks on it; not such 
doubtless as He did make.—Soxeire, 
think ye; probably that was just what 
they did think. The fate of the Galileans 
awakened superstitious horror prone to 
impute to the victims special criminality. 
—Tapa wavtas t. [., in comparison 
with all Galileans. To make the point 
more vivid the victims are compared 
with men of their own province, dis- 
position, and temptations.—éyévovrTo, 
became, were shown to be.—remdv@act, 


‘lepoucadnp; 5. odxl, Adyw spiv- 


8 saute in NBDL. 
Omit cat NBDL. 
* BDLX al. omit ev. 


have suffered, an irrevocable fact.— Ver. 3. 
ovx{, an emphatic ‘‘no,” followed by a 
solemn “I say to you”’. The prophetic 
mood is on the speaker. He reads in the 
fate of the few the coming doom of the 
whole nation.—épotws, in a similar way. 
ooavtws, the reading in T.R., is stronger 
=in the same way. Jesus expresses 
Himself with greater intensity as He 
proceeds = ye shall perish likewise ; nay, 
in the same way (ver. 5, avavrTws), your 
towers and temples falling about your 
ears.—Ver. 4. Jesus refers to another 
tragic occurrence, suggesting that He 
was acquainted with both. His ears 
were open to all current news, and His 
mind prompt to point the moral. The 
fact stated, otherwise unknown to us.— 
ddetkérat, word changed, in meaning the 
same as Gpaptwdot, moral debtors pay- 
ing their debt in that dismal way. 
The utterances of Jesus on this 
occasion do not bear on the general 
question: how far may lot be viewed 
as an index of character ? which was not 
then before His mind. He assumed that 
the sufferers in the two catastrophes 
were sinners and even great sinners, so 
acquiescing in the popular view, because 
He wanted to point a lesson for the 
whole nation which He regarded as fast 
ripening for judgment. From the say- 
ing in the Teaching on the Hill con- 
cerning the Father in Heaven giving 
sunshine and rain to evil and good alike, 
it is evident that He had risen not only 
above popular current opinion, but even 
above the O.T. view as to the connec- 
tion between physical and moral good 
andevil. That saying implies that there 
is a large sphere of Divine action within 
which moral distinctions among men are 
overlooked, that good may come to bad 


{-—1I0. 


EYATTEAION 


565 


&\N’ dy ph peravoire,! mdvres Spolws? daodeiobe.” 6. “Eheye S€ 
rautny Thy wapaBodny: “ XuKhy elxé tus év TH GprehOve adTod 
meputeuperny >> Kai 7AOe Kapwov LntOv* év adtH, Kat obx cdpey. 


7. ele 8€ mpds tov Gpmedoupydy, “IS0U, tpia Ern® Epxopar Lntay 


Q > a ~ , ‘ > en 2, ” 2 er ue, , 
KapTrov €v TH oUK?) TaUuTy, KGL OUX ECUPLOK® , exkowov GQuTv* Late 


kal Thy yy KaTapyet ; 


8. 6 8ێ daoxpiBeis Ayer atta, Kupre, ddes 


aithy Kal todto Td étos, é€ws Grou oxdw wept adtTyy, Kat Badw 


koTpiav®: 9. Kav pév moumjon Kapmdév: ei Sé prye, eis TS wéAdov! 


exkoers adTHy.” 


10. "Hy S€ SidSdoxwr év pid tay cuvaywyav év rots cdBBacre 


1 peravononre in DLT. 
3 weput. before ev Tw aut. in RBDLX. 


5 After ern NBDLT have ad ov (Tisch., 
6 xompta in NABLT al. pl. (Tisch., W.H.). 


marg.). 


2 wravtes in NBLM 1, 33 al. (vide below) 


4 fntwv Kaprov in all uncials. 
D has xogivoy Kompiwy (W.H, 


7 aug To peAAov before «t Se pyye in BLT 33, 69, a better arrangement. 


men and evil to good men. To our Lord 
it would not have appeared impossible 
that some of the best men in Israel 
might be involved in the two calamities 
here mentioned. 

Vv. 6-9. Parable of the barren fig 
tree, peculiar to Lk., probably extem- 
porised to embody the moral of the 
preceding narratives; takes the place in 
Lk. of the cursing of the fig tree in Mt. 
and Mk.—Ver. 6. Zvuxfv elxév Tis: a 
fig tree, quite appropriate and common in 
corners of a vineyard, yet not the main 
plant in such a place; selected rather 
than a vine to represent Israel, by way 
of protest against assumed inalienable 
privilege. ‘‘ Perish,” Jesus had said 
once and again (vv. 3 and 5). Some 
hearers might think: What! the Lord’s 
elect people perish? Yes, replies Jesus 
in effect, like a barren fig tree cast out 
of a vineyard, where at best it has but a 
subordinate place.—Ver. 7. apredoupyésv, 
the vine-dresser (Geos, épyov) here 
only in N.T.—t8ov, lo! as of one who 
has a right to complain.—rpta érn, three 
years, reckoned not from the planting of 
the tree (it is three years after planting 
that it begins to bear fruit), but from the 
time that it might have been expected in 
ordinary course to yield a crop of figs. 
Three years is not a long period, but 
enough to determine whether it is going 
to be fruit-bearing, the one thing it is 
there for. In the spiritual sphere in 
national life that cannot be determined 
so soon, It may take as many thousand 


years.—€pyopat, I keep coming, the 
progressive present. The master comes 
not merely once a year, but again and 
again within the year, at the seasons 
when fruit may be found on a fig tree 
(Hahn). Cf. SovAetw in xv. 29.—ovx 
evp(oxw, I do not find it. I come and 
come and am always disappointed. 
Hence the impatient éxxowpoy, cut it out 
(from the root).—tva rf nat: xai points 
to a second ground of complaint. 
Besides bearing no fruit it occupies 
space which might be more profitably 
filled.—katapyet (here and in Paui’s 
epistles), renders useless; Vulgate, 
occupat, practically if not verbally the 
right rendering. A barren fig tree 
renders the land useless by occupying 
valuable space.—Ver. 8. tovto Td Eros, 
one year more; he has not courage to 
propose a longer time to an impatient 
owner.—xémpia (neuter plural from 
adjective xdémptos), dung stuffs. A 
natural proposal, but sometimes fertility 
is better promoted by starving, cutting 
roots, sO preventing a tree from 
running to wood.—Ver. g. els 7d 
peddov: if it bear the coming year—well 
(ed €xet understood).—éxkéwers, if not, 
thou shalt cut it down—thou, not I. It 
depends on the master, though the vine- 
dresser tacitly recognises that the de- 
cision will be just. Hesympathises with 
the master’s desire for fruit. Of course 
when the barren tree is removed another 
will be planted in its place. The parable 
points to the truth taught in ver. 29. 


566 KATA AOYKAN xI} 


II. wat iSod, yur) fv) mvedpa exouca dobevetas Eryn Béxa Kai? 
éxTH, Kal Fv ouyKdmrouca, Kai pi) Suvapdvn dvaxdipar eis Td 
mwarvtehés. 12. iSdv Sé adthy 6 “Incods mpocepuvynce, kal elev 
13. Kat éwéOnKev 
avTy Tas xelpas* Kal tapaxpypa dvwpbdOn, Kal €bdfale tov Gedy. 


adth, “Févar, drokd\uca ths dobevetas cod.” 


14. “Atroxpilels S€ 6 dpxtouvdywyos, dyavaxtay St TO caBBarw 
€epdmevcey 6 “Inoods, EXeye TO Sxdw,° “"EE Hpepar eiaiv, ev ats 
Set EpydLeobar- ev tavtats* odv épydpevor Oepamredeobe, kai pi) TH 
Hpépa Tod caBBdtou.” 15. “AmexpiOn otv® atta 6 Kuptos, kai 
eimrev, ““Yrroxpitd,® éxactos tpav TH caBBdtw od Aver Tov Body 
adtod 7 Tov Svov awd Tis dtrys, Kal dmayayav’ worile; 16. 
tauTyy 8€, Ouyatépa “ABpadp otcav, Hv ESnoev 6 Latavas, idod, 





Séxa Kal dxTW Eryn, odk Eder AvOFAvar dd Tod Secpod tovTou TH 


1 Omit nv NBLT 33 al. verss. 

8 After oxAw NBL insert ort. 

5 For ovy NBDL 1, 69 al. have 8. 
7 WL have ataywv (W.H. text). 


Vv. 10-17. Cure in a synagogue on a 
Sabbath day, peculiar to Lk.—Ver. 1o. 
éy rots odBBaot: may mean on Sabbaths 
(Hahn, who refers to the discriminating 
use of singular and plural in Lk.) and 
imply a course of instruction in a 
particular synagogue for weeks.—Ver. 
II. mvevpaaofeveias: the Jews saw the 
action of a foreign power in every form 
of disease which presented the aspect of 
the sufferer’s will being overmastered. In 
this case the woman was bent and could 
not straighten herself when she tried.— 
ovykimtovoa, bent together, here only 
in N.T.—els 1d mavtekés goes with 
évaxvwat, and implies either that she 
could not erect her head, or body aé all, 
or entirely. The former is more in keep- 
ing with the idea of bondage to a foreign 
spirit (Schanz). Similar use of the 
phrase in Heb. vii. 25.—Ver. 12. 
mpocepovynge : Jesus, ever prompt to 
sympathise, called her to Him when 
His eye lit upon the bent figure.— 
arokéA\voat: perfect for future, the 
thing as good as done; spoken to 
cheer the downcast woman while she 
approaches. The cure was consum- 
mated by touch when she came up to 
Jesus (ver. 13), whereupon the eighteen 
years’ sufferer burst into praise: éd6&afe 
tov Oedy. A lifelike moving scene.— 
Ver. 14. But religious propriety in the 
person of the ruler of the synagogue is 
once more shocked: it is a Sabbath cure. 


2 Omit kat NBT 1, 209. 
*autats in NABLT. 
§ vroxpttat in NBLT, etc. 


—€heye TO OxdAwm: He spoke to the 
audience at Jesus—plausibly enough ; 
yet, as so often in cases of religious zeal, 
from mixed motives. Christ’s power and 
the woman's praise annoyed him.—Ver. 
15. vmoxpitat: plural less personal than 
the singular (T.R.), yet severe enough, 
though directed against the class. The 
case put was doubtless according to the 
prevailing custom, and so stated as to 
make the work done prominent (Ave, 
looses, that one bit of work: amayov, 
leading the animal loosed to the water, 
that another, vide Bengel).—orife, 
gives him drink, at least to the extent of 
drawing water from the well, if not of 
carrying it to the animal’s mouth (the 
former allowed, the latter disallowed in 
the Talmud, vide Lightfoot andWinsche). 
—Ver. 16. The case of the woman 
described so as to suggest a parallel 
and contrast: a daughter of Abraham 
versus an ox or ass; bound by Satan, 
not merely by a chain round the neck; 
for eighteen years, not for a few hours. 
The contrast the basis of a strong a 
fortiori argument. The reply is 
thoroughly in the spirit of Jesus, and 
the whole incident, though peculiar to 
Lk., is a credible reminiscence of His 
ministry; whether placed in its true 
historical setting is a matter of minor 
moment.—Ver. 17. The religious leaders 
and the people behave according to their 
character ; the former ashamed, not ag 





EYATTEAION 


11—22, 
a » A a 
ipépa rob caBBdrou;” 17. Kai tatta A€yovtos attod, natnoxu- 
, A A 

vovTo Tdvtes ot dvTiKeipevor AUTO: Kal mas 6 dx)os Exatpev emt 
TGot Tors evddfors Tots yrvowévors Gm adtoo. 

18. “EXeye 8é,! “Tive dpota éotiv 7 Baciteia tod Geod; Kat 
, , 
tive duoudow adtyy; 9. ‘Opota éoti Kdxkw awdtews, dy AaBov 
»” »” > lol c a ‘ m” A > , > 
GvOpwros eBadey eis KyTov EauToU- Kat nUEnoce, Kal éyéveto eis 


Sévdpov péya,? Kal Ta meted Tod odpavod KaTecKHvwoev ev TOIS 


KAddots adToo.” 
Tou Qeou ; 


20. Kal mau etme, “Tin dpoudaw tiv Bacidelay 


21. dpota éoti Lupn, fv AaBouca yuvy evexpuper > eis 


Gdevpou odta Tpia, €ws ob eLupwon ddov.” 


22. KAI Sveropeveto Kata moders Kal Kwpas Bi8doKwv, Kal 


1 For Se NBL 1, 13, 69 al. have ovv. 


* NBDLT codd, vet, Lat. syr. cur. omit peya, added by scribes in a spirit of 


exaggeration. 


3 expuwev in BL minusc. (Tisch., W.H.). 


convinced but as confounded, the latter 
delighted both by the works and by the 
words of Jesus. 

Vv. 18-21. The parables of the mustard 
seed and the leaven (Mt. xiii. 31-33, Mk. iv. 
30-32). Lk. may have introduced these 
parables here either because the joy of 
the people was in his view the occasion 
of their being spoken, Jesus taking it as 
a good omen for the future, or because 
he found in his source the two things, 
the cure and the parabolic speech, re- 
corded together as incidents of the same 
meeting in the synagogue. In either 
case it is implied that the parables were 
spoken in a synagogue, in the latter case 
as a part of a regular synagogue address. 
This is the interesting feature in Lk.’s 
report of these parables. It is the only 
instance in which parables are con- 
nected with synagogue addresses as 
their occasion. The connection is every 
way credible, both from the nature of 
the two parables, and from the fact that 
Jesus was wont to speak to the people 
in parables. How many unrecorded 
parables He must have spoken in His 
synagogue addresses on His preaching 
tour through Galilee, e.g. (Mk. i. 39).— 
Ver. 19. «mov, garden, more exact in- 
dication of place than in Mt. and Mk.— 
Sévdpov, a tree; an exaggeration, it 
remains an herb, though of unusually 
large size.—Ver. 20. The parable of the 
leaven is given asin Mt. The point of 
both is that the Kingdom of Heaven, in- 
significant to begin with, will become 
great. In the mind of the evangelist 
both have probably a reference to 
Gentile Christianity. 


Vv. 22-30. Are there few that be 
saved? This section is a mosaic of 
words found dispersed in the pages of 
Mt.: the strait gate (ver. 24) in Mt, vii. 
14; the pleading for admission (vv. 26, 
27) recalls Mt. vii. 21-23; the exclusion 
from the kingdom (vv. 28, 29) reproduces 
Mt. viii. 11, 12; the apothegm in ver. 30 
= Mt. xix. 30, xx. 16. The parabolic 
word concerning the master of the house 
(ver. 25) seems to be an echo from the 
parable of the ten virgins. The question 
as to the number of the saved introduc- 
ing the group need not be an artificial 
heading furnished by Lk. or the compiler 
of his source. 

Ver. 22 is a historical notice serving to 
recall the general situation indicated in 
ix. 51. So again in xvii. 11. “ Luke 
gives us to understand that it is always 
the same journey which goes on with 
incidents analogous to those of the pre- 
ceding cycle,” Godet. Hahn, however, 
maintains that here begins a new division 
of the history and a new journey to 
Jerusalem, yet not the final one. This 
division extends from this point to xvii. 
10, and contains (1) words of Jesus on 
the way to Jerusalem (xiii. 22-35), (2) 
words spoken probably in Jerusalem (xiv. 
1-24), (3) words spoken after the return 
to Galilee.—8i8dcKxwy, teaching; the 
main occupation of Jesus as He went 
from village to village. The long section 
from ix. 51 to xviii. 14 is chiefly didactic 
in contents, though an occasional heal- 
ing is recorded.—kat mop. trot., the rat 
is epexegetic = and at the same time; 
His face set towards Jerusalem as He 
taught. 


568 


, , sue Pent 
Topetay movovpevos eis ‘lepoucadyp. 
“Kdpte, et ddtyor of owldpevor ; 


ee? 


24. 


héyw Spiv, LyrHcouow eicedOetv, kal odx icxcoucw. 


KATA AOYKAN 


XIII. 


> 2A 
23. elwe Sé€ Tig adTd, 


‘O 8 ele mpds adrtous, 


AywvileoOe cicehOety 81d tis orevijs mUAnS?* Ste odAol, 


25. "Ad ob 


dy éyepOy 6 oixodeomdtys, Kai dirokdelon Thy Odpav, kal dpfyoba 


Ew éotdvat Kal Kpovew Thy Odpav, Aéyovtes, KUpre, Kupte,® avortov 


piv: Kal GtmoKxpwleis épet bpiv, OUK oida tpas, wé0ev éoté- 26. tdTe 


apteobe* Aéyerv, “Epdyouer éveimidy cou Kat émlopev, kal éy Tats 


1 lepowoAvpa in NBL. 


? @vpas in NBDL 1, 131 Orig. 


3 Omit second kup. NBL 157 Lat. and Egypt. verss. 
4B has apteoOe (Tisch., W.H., text), but $;3DLT and many more have opfnobe 


(W.H. marg.). 


Vv. 23-24. eb 4A. of cowf.: at intro- 
duces a direct question as in Mt. xii. ro 
and Lk. xxii. 49: are those who are 
being saved few ?—mpds avtovs, to them, 
not to the questioner merely but to all 
present, as the reply was of general 
concern.—Ver. 24. aywvileoOe ecis.: 
stronger than Mt.’s eloéAGere, suggest- 
ing the idea of a struggle or prize-fight 
(x Cor. ix. 25) in which only a few can 
win, so virtually answering the question 
in the affirmative—8a +t. o. Ovpas, 
through the narrow door (rvAys, gate, in 
Mt.): no interpretation of the door here 
any more thanin Mt. But the connec- 
tion suggests repentance (vv. 23, 25). 
The Kingdom of Heaven is here conceived 
of as a house.—roAXol: the idea is that 
many shall desire admission and shall 
not obtain it, The reason in the parable 
is the narrowness of the door, making it 
impossible for so many to get in in a 
short time. All are in earnest; no stress 
is to be laid on {qryeoverv, shall seek, 
as if it meant something less than 
a@ywvilerQe (Godet). All strive, but 
success is for the strongest who can 
push the weaker aside. So in the 
parable. In the interpretation the one 
point to be insisted on is: be in dead 
earnest. 

Vv. 25-27. Here begins a new 
parable and a new sentence, though 
some (Beza, Lachmann, W. and H.) 
connect with what goes before, putting a 
comma after ioxtcovgw. Against this 
is net only the change from the third 
person to the second (épfyoGe), but the 
fact that the cause of exclusion is 
different: not the narrowness of the 
door, but coming too late. The case 
put now is that of the master of a house 
who is giving an entertainment. He 


waits for a certain time to receive his 
guests. At length, deeming that all are, 
or ought to be, present, he rises and 
shuts the door, after which no one can 
be admitted. Some, however, come later, 
knock at the door, and are refused ad- 
mission. The moral of this parable is 
distinct; of the former parable it was: 
be in earnest ; of this it is: be not too 
late.—éordvar kal kpovew: both verbs 
depend on apénobe: ye begin to stand 
without and to knock. Some take 
éotdvat as = a participle, but it is better 
to take it as denoting a first stage in the 
action of those arriving late. At first 
they expect that the door will be opened 
soon as a matter of course, and that they 
have nothing to do but to stepin. By- 
and-by they find it will be necessary to 
knock, and finally, being refused ad- 
mission even when the door is opened, 
they are fain to plead (ver. 26).—xat 
aoxptOels: the kat here has the force 
of then. The sense would have been 
clearer had it been omitted. Here 
properly begins the apodosis of the 
sentence and the close of the parable 
proper = then he answering will say: 
I do not know you.—wd0ev éorté: 
these added words rather weaken than 
strengthen the laconic ovi« oiSa tpas of 
Mt. xxv. 12 = you must be strangers, not 
of those invited.—Ver. 26. This verse 
is viewed by many as the apodosis of a 
long sentence beginning with ad’ ot 
(ver. 25), and the emotional character of 
the passage, in which parable and moral 
are blended, goes far to justify them. 
But it is better on the whole to find here 
a new start.—évwmudv cov, before thee, 
either, as thy guests or hosts (Capernaum 
feast, dinners in the houses of Pharisees), 
i.e., with thee; or. under thine eye—in- 





23—3I1. 


mrareiats tpay édiSatas. 


EYATTEAION 


569 


27. wat épet, Adywo! Spiv, odk ofda 


ipds,? wé0ev éoté- dadornte dm enod mdvtes of? épydrar ris? 


aduKklas. 


28. éxet éorat & KAavOuds Kal 6 Bpuypds Tay d8dvTuv, 


Stav dyobe* *ABpadp Kai “loadk Kat “laxoB kal mdvtas Tods 
mpodytas év tH Bacteia tod Oeod, Spas Sé exBaddopevous eéw- 
29. Kal qfouow dws dvatohGv Kal Sucpav, Kal dd Poppa Kat 


vyétou, kal dvakdOyoovrar év TH Bacidela Tod Ocod. 


30. kat idou, 


2.) » a» A Aes a a» » » 
€LOLWW ETKATOL OL EGOVTAL TIPWTOL, KAL ELOL TPWTOL OL EDOVTAL EDXATOL. 


31. "Ev adth TH huépa® mpoonhOdy twes Papicator, AéyorTes 
attd, “"Efeh@e kal mopedou évtei0ev, Str “Hpwdys Per oe arro- 


1 For Aeyw BT have Aeywv (W.H.). 


3 SSBDL al. omit ot, and SBLR omit rhs. 


4 oWeoGe in BDX 60 al. 


volving a claim simply of neighbour- 
hood. The former is the more likely, 
because it puts the case more strongly in 
their favour.—Ver. 27. ovx ol8a, etc.: 
the same answer, iteration cum emphasi 
(Bengel).—améornve, etc.: nearly as in 
Mt. vii. 23. This answer goes entirely 
out of the parable into the moral sphere. 
In the parable exclusion is due to arriving 
too late; in the spiritual sphere to 
character.—a8ixlas, Mt. has dvoptay, 
lawlessness. Against the tendency- 
criticism Schanz remarks: ‘ dvop{a in 
Mt. is Jewish-Christian but not anti- 
Pauline, adix(a Pauline but not anti- 


Jewish”. 
Vv. 28-30. Concluding reflections.— 
Ver. 28. éket, there ; then, according to 


Euthy. Zig. (réte, év éxelvw TO Katpo). 
Kuinoel also takes it as an adverb of 
time in accordance with Hebraistic 
usage, and Bornemann cites instances 
from Greek authors of the same use of 
adverbs of place as adverbs of time. But 
there is not only verbally correct, but 
graphic: there, outside the door of the 
house where patriarchs and prophets 
feast, shall the excluded weep and gnash 
their teeth, all the more because they 
think they have a right, as belonging to 
the chosen race, to be within.—Ver. 29 
points to an aggravation of the misery 
of the outcasts: men coming from every 
quarter of the globe to join the festive 
company and finding admission. The 
shut door and the too late arrival are 
now out of view, and for the private 
house of the parable is substituted the 
Kingdom of God which it represents. It 
is needless to ask whether Mt. or Lk. 
has given this saying in its true place. 
Perhaps neither has The important 


2? Omit vpas BLRT minusc, 
So D also, but with avop.as. 


® wpa in SBDLX al. (Tisch., W.H.). 


point is their joint testimony to the say- 
ing as a true utterance of Jesus.—Ver. 
30. The same remark applies to this 
saying. As it stands here it refers to 
Jews as the first who become last, and 
to Gentiles as the last who become first, 
and the distinction between first and last 
is not one of degree, but absolute = 
within and without. 

Vv. 31-33. Warning against Herod 
by Pharisees, peculiar to Lk., but Mk. 
(iii. 6, viii. 15) has prepared us for com- 
bined action of court and religious 
coteries against Jesus similar to that 
against Amos (vii. 10-13), both alike 
eager to be rid of Him as endangering 
their power.—Ver. 31. €€eAOe: xvii. 11 
shows that Lk. did not attach critical 
importance to this incident as a cause of 
Christ’s final departure from Galilee.— 
@éXer we Groxtetvat: was this a lie, an 
inference, a message sent by Herod in 
order to intimidate, or a fact which had 
somehow come to the knowledge of the 
reporters? It is impossible to ascertain. 
The answer of Jesus seems to imply 
that He regarded the Pharisees as 
messengers, and also innocent tools of 
the crafty king. But He answers 
according to the ex facie character of 
the message, that of friends warning 
against a foe, while probably having His 
own thoughts as to where the craft and 
the enmity lay. The one thing certain 
is that there was low cunning some- 
where. The king was using the 
Pharisees, or the Pharisees the king, or 
perhaps they were both playing the same 
game. Possibly the evangelist viewed 
the Pharisees as friends.—Ver. 32. 
T] GAdmext. tatty, this fox; the fox 
revealed in this business, ostensibly the 


KATA AOYKAN XIII. 32—35, 


§7° 


kTeivat.” 32. Kal elev adrtots, “ MopeuOévtes eimare TH GAuiwene 
tauty, “ISov, ekBdddw Satpdvia kal idcers éwtteAG! orjpepor Kal 
aupioy, kal TH Tpity TeAetodpar. 33. wAy Set pe ovjpepov Kat 
aUpiov Kal TH é€xouévy mopeverPar: Ste odK evdexeTar mpopryTHy 
GrodhécOar Efw ‘lepovoadyjp. 34. ‘lepoucadryp, ‘lepougadrp, 7 
Groxteivouca Tols mpodyjtas, Kal AGoBododca tods dmeotahpevous 
Tpdos adtiy, Toodkis 70éAnoa émouvdgar Ta Téxva gou, dv TpdTrov 
Opis Thy EauTHs voooidy bwd Tas mrépuyas, Kal odx HOeAjoate. 
35. Sou, adleTat 


ote* oF py pe® 


piv 6 otkos Spay Epnpos?- dpiy Sé Aéyw ® Sptv, 
inte Ews Av Hen, Ste etwyte, EdAoynpévos 6 


€pxdpevos ev dvduate Kupiou.” 


1 aroteAw in NBL 33, 124 (Tisch., W.H.). 
2 SABKL al. verss. omit epnpos, found in DXA 33 al. 
* Neyw Se (for anv Se Aey. in minusc.) in BDX al. (W.H. with Se in brackets). 


Simply Aeyw in KL (Tisch.). 
* Omit ort NBDL (W.H.). 


® For pe tSyte NB have tSyte pe; for 
ote, which may be conformed to Mt. 


king, but in a roundabout way the 
would-be friends may be hit at (Euthy. 
Zig.). The quality denoted by the name 
is doubtless cunning, though there is no 
clear instance of the use of the fox as the 
type of cunning in the Scriptures else- 
where.—o7pepoyv, etc.: this note of time 
is not to be taken strictly. Jesus is in 
the prophetic mood and speaks in 
prophetic style: to-day, to-morrow, and 
the third day symbolise a short time.— 
Tehetovpar as to form may be either 
middle or passive. If middle it will 
mean: finish my healing (and teaching) 
ministry in Herod’s territory (Galilee 
and Peraea). This meaning suits the 
connection, but against it is the fact that 
the verb is never used in a middle sense 
in N.T., and very rarely in classics. 
Taken passively it will mean: I am 
perfected by a martyr’s death (Heb. xi. 
40, xii. 23). Commentators are much 
divided between these meanings.—Ver. 
33. amdny, for the rest, or, on the other 
hand, introducing the other side of the 
case = I must work still for a little space, 
yet I must keep moving on southwards, 
as the proper place for a prophet to die 
is Jerusalem, not Galilee. The second 
note of time (orjpepov) coincides with 
the first: work and moving southwards 
go hand in hand.—ov« évddyerat, it is 
not fitting (here only in N.T., cf. xvii. 1). 
John was murdered in Machaerus, but 
that was an offence against the fitness of 


ews av BDL have ews; $WBL omit neq 


things. The reply of Jesus is full of 
dignity and pathos. In effect He says: 
I am not to be driven out of Galilee by 
threats. I will work till the hour comes. 
Nevertheless keep your minds easy, 
princes and Pharisees! I must soon 
endure a prophet’s fate, and not here. 
I go to meet it in the proper place, 
though not in fear of you. 

Vv. 34, 35. Apostrophe to Ferusalem 
(Mt. xxiii. 37, 38), suitably introduced 
here as in sympathy with the preceding 
utterance, though not likely to have 
been spoken at this time and place, as 
indeed it is not alleged to have been. 
It is given nearly as in Mt.—tiv vooo.av 
(for ta voooia in Mt.) =a nest (nidum 
suum, Vulgate), hence the young in the 
nest. Vide remarks on Mt., ad loc. 

CHAPTER XIV. TABLE TALK AND A 
ConciIo AD PopULUM.—VV. I-24 contain 
a digest of sayings of Jesus at the table of 
a Pharisee, this being the third instance 
in this Gospel of such friendly inter- 
course between Him and members of the 
Pharisaic party. The remaining part of 
the chapter consists of solemn words on 
self-sacrifice and on counting the cost 
represented as addressed to the people. 

Vv. 1-6. The dropsical man healed, 
with relative conversation, in Lk. only 
(cf. Mt. xii. g-14).—Ver. 1. év T@ éGeiv, 
etc.: the indication of place and time is 
very vague so as to lend plausibility to 
the suggestion that the introduction is 





XIV. 1—6. 


EYATTEAION 


57% 


XIV. 3. KAI éyévero év TO EOetv adtév eis otkdy Tivos Tay 


dpxdvTwv tov dapicaiwy oaBBdtw dayeiv dprov, Kat adtol Aoay 


Tapatnpovpevor autor. 


2. Kat idSoU, GvOpwrds tis Fv GSpwiixds 


€umpoobey adtoi- 3. Kat dmokpiBels 6 “Incods ele mpds Tovs 


vouikods Kat dapioatous, héywv, “Ei! efeortt TO oaBBdtw Bepa- 


trevewy 2 ;” 
Kal dwé\uoe. 
5 


4. Ot 8€ Hodxacav. Kal émAaBdpevos idoato adtdv, 


‘ 2 \.3 A 3 ‘ ». “cc , ( ery... 
5. KaL étroKpibeis Tpos QuUTOUS eEttre, “ Tivos Up@y 


” a (ad ‘ 
vos * 3) Bods eis ppeap euwecetrar” kal otk e0éws dvaotdce adtov 


év 1H ° Hpépa tod caBRdrou ; ” 


att@ ! mpds TadTa. 


I NBDL 59 omit e. 


6. Kat otk ioxuoay dvramoKprOjvas 


2 NBDL 1, 13, 69 al. codd. Lat. vet. add n ow after Oepameveww (Tisch., W.H.). 


3 BDL omit amoxp.bets. 


4 For ovos (N9LX 1, 33) B al. have wos. 
Vide below. 


three: vios n Bovs q ovos (Baethgen). 
5 weoertat in WABL 1, 13, 69 al. 
§ Omit Tm NB. 


extracted from the parabolic speeches, 
vv. 7-24 (Holtzmann, H. C.).—apydvtwv 
+. ., the house is described as that of 
one of the rulers of the Pharisees, an 
inexact expression, as the Pharisees as 
such had no rulers, being all on a level. 
Omitting the article before $ap. (as in B) 
we might take this word as in apposition 
and render: one of the rulers, Pharisees ; 
rulers meaning the Sanhedrists, and 
Pharisees denoting their religious 
tendency (so Grotius, who therefore 
thinks the scene was in Jerusalem).— 
oaBBarw dayetv Gprov: feasting on 
Sabbath was common among the Jews, 
ex pietate et religione (Lightfoot), but the 
dishes were cold, cooked the day before. 
—xai, introducing the apodosis, and the 
main fact the suspicious observation of 
Jesus by those present at the meal 
(avtol). Altogether a strange situation: 
Jesus the guest of a great man among 
the Pharisees, as if held in honour, yet 
there to be watched rather than treated 
as a friend; simple-hearted geniality on 
one side, insincerity on the other. 

Vv. 2-6. USpwmixds (VSpwy): here only 
in N.T., asolitary instance of this disease 
among the healing acts of Jesus. Nocon- 
ceivable reason for its being mentioned 
except that it was a fact.—éyumpoobev 
avtov, betore Him, so that He could not 
fail to see him; how there—as guest, 
as brought by the Pharisees to tempt 
Jesus, come there of his own motion in 
hope to be cured, though not asking out 


D has wpoBarov. Syr. cur. has all 


7 Omit avtw SBDL minusce. 


of reverence for the Sabbath and in fear 
of its strict guardians (Euthy. Zig.)—not 
indicated.—Ver. 3. amoxpieis: Jesus 
addresses Himself to the double situa- 
tion ; on the one hand a sick man dumbly 
appealing for help, on the other jealous 
religionists aware of His free habit and 
expecting eccentric speech and action 
open to censure.—éfeorwy, etc.: first He 
asks a question as to the legality of 
Sabbatic healing in a tone which amounts 
to an affirmative assertion, allowed to 
pass uncontradicted (novyacav); then 
He proceeds to answer His own question 
by healing the man (ver. 4), and finally 
He offers an apology for the act.—Ver. 5. 
tlyos tpov, etc.; an awkward Hebraistic 
construction for tls tpav od, etc.—vids 
4 Bots, a son or (even) an ox, in either 
case, certainly in the former, natural 
instinct would be too strong for artificial 
Sabbatic rules.—¢péap, a well, or cistern, 
an illustration as apt to the nature of the 
malady as that of the ox loosed from the 
stall in xiii. 15 (Godet).—ei6éws, at once, 
unhesitatingly, without thought of 
Sabbath rules. The emphasis lies on 
this word.—Ver. 6. ovx to. ayra- 
moxp.Oynvat (again in Rom. ix. 20): 
silenced but of course not convinced. 
The difference in the way of thinking 
too great to be overcome in a moment. 
Luke has three Sabbath cures. The 
present one has no very distinctive 
features. The accumulation may point 
to a desire to help weak Christians to 


$72 

a Acts iii. 5. 
1 Tim. iv. 
16. 


KATA AOYKAN 


XIV. 


7. "Edeye Sé mpds tods KexAnpévous wapaBodry, *éméxwv mas Tas 
mpwroxdicias éfehéyovto, Aéywr mpds adtous, 8. “"Orav Kd Pas 


bad tuos eis ydpous, pr) KaTaxdcOfjs eis Thy MpwrokAolay* pryrrote 
évripdtepds cou F KekAnpévos bm abrod, g. Kat éhOdy 6 oe Kal 


airdy Kadéoas épet cor, Ads TodTw téwovs Kal téTe dpfy pet 


aisxuvns Tov Eoxatov Témov KaTéxew. 


ro. G&AX’ Stay KAnOijs, 


mopeubets dvdweoov! eis tdv Eoxaroy térov: iva, drav EAOy 6 


b here only 
in N.T. 


cot Séfa évdmiov® tay cuvavaxerpévwv coi. 


KekAnkus oe, Ely? aor, dire, "mpocavdBybt dvatepov: téTe EoTar 
1 ’ nN ’ > p y p 


Il. OTe was 6 Sav 


‘ »> 
éautév tarrewwwOjceTar* Kai 6 Tameway éauTdv bpwOAceTar. 


™” Q ‘ ~ , ee 2 cc®@ ” ~ 
12. “EXeye S€ Kat TO KexAnkdTe attov, “ Otay morfjs dpiotov 7H 


Setrvov, pi) paver tods pious cou, pydé tods AdeAdpods gou, pyde 


Tos cuyyeveis gou, pd yeitovas mAoucious: pijToTe Kai adTol ce 


1 avarece in $YB al. 


2 epe. in NNBLX minusc. 


3 qavrwy after evwriov in SABLX verss. 


get above their scruples by an appeal to 
the Master (Schanz). In the first and 
second cases the principle of Christ’s 
defence is indicated: it is lawful to do 
good (vi. 9); you may do for a man, a 
fortiori, what it is lawful to do for a 
beast (xiii. 15). In the present case it is 
not indicated. It may be: you may do 
for another what you all do for your 
own, son or ox (Meyer, J. Weiss) ; or if 
need is a valid plea in any case, it is 
valid in all cases (Schanz). 

Vv. 7-11. Take the lowest seat. Here 
begins the table talk of Jesus, consisting 
of three discourses. The first addressed 
to the guests in general is really a parable 
teaching the lesson of humility pointed 
in ver. 11. ‘‘ Through the medium of a 
counsel of prudence relating to ordinary 
social life He communicates a lesson of 
true wisdom concerning the higher 
sphere of religion” (The Parabolic 
Teaching of Christ).—Ver. 7. éméxwv, 
observing. Euthy. renders: pepodpevos, 
blaming, in itself a legitimate meaning 
but not compatible with wos. The 
practice observed—choosing the chief 
places—was characteristic of Pharisees 
(Mt. xxii. 6), but it is a vice to which all 
are prone.—Ver. 8. ydpovs, a marriage 
feast, here representing all great social 
functions at which ambition for distinc- 
tion is called into play.—évtipdérepds 
gov: this does not necessarily denote 
one of known superior social standing, 
but may mean simply one held in more 
honour by the host (Hahn).—Ver. 9g. 
éhOay 6, etc. : the guests are supposed to 


have taken their places before the host 
comes in.—a@péy: the shame would be 
most acutely felt at the beginning of the 
movement from the highest to the lowest 
place (Meyer).—r. écyxatov 7., the 
lowest place just vacated by the honoured 
guest, who is humble in spirit though 
highly esteemed, who therefore in his 
own person exemplifies the honour and 
glory of being called up by the host from 
the lowest to the highest place.—Ver. ro. 
mporavaBnOt avwtepov : ‘go up higher,” 
ARN) cand) Reals Detter ae COMe MED 
higher,” which gives effect to the mpds. 
The master invites the host to come 
towards himself. So Field (Of. Nor.).— 
Ver. 11: the moral of the parable; a 
great law of the Kingdom of God dear to 
the heart of the Pauline evangelist, re- 
curring in xviii. 14. 

Vv. 12-14. A word to the host, also 
parabolic in character in so far as it 
gives general counsel under a concrete 
particular form (Hahn), but not parabolic 
in the strict sense of teaching spiritual 
truth by natural examples.—Ver. 12. 
gwveiv used for xadety in Hellenistic 
Greek (Farrar, C. G. T.), denoting formal 
ceremonious invitation as on a great 
occasion (Hahn).—rovs ¢idous, etc.: 
four classes likely to be asked on 
ordinary social grounds are named— 
personal intimates, brethren, relations 
(these two form one category), and rich 
neighbours. The epithet mAovoious 
belongs to the last class alone. Friends 
and relatives are called because they 
are such. Mere neighbours are called 





EYAITEAION 573 


éytixahéowor,! Kai yévntal cor °dvtamddopa.2 13. add’ Stray Tous © Rom. xi. 9. 
Soxnv,? Kdder mrwxous, dvamjpous, ywdous, tupdovs: 14. 
paxdpios €on* Ste odK Exouow dyTaTodobvat gor: dvtamrodobijcerat 


bY a 19. 
Kai 


ydp cot év TH dvaotdce Tay Bikaiwv.” 

15. “Akovoas 8€ tis TOY cuvavakepevwv taita elmey aiTa, 
“Maxdptos, 85% pdyetar dptov év tH Baciheia Tod Geos.” 16. ‘O 
Sé etrrev atTd, “"AvOpwirds tis erroinoe* Setmvov péya, Kai éxddeoe 
WoNhous* 17. kat dwéoterke Tov Soddov adtod TH Spa Tod Selmvou 
eimely Tots KekAnpevots, “EpxeoGe, Ste Sy EToipd eomr® mdvra.§ 
18. Kal 7ptavto dd puds tapartetobar mdvtes.’ 6 mp@tos cimev 
att&, “Aypov jyépaca, Kat éxw dvdykny éfehOerv kal ® idetv adtdv- 
€pwt@ oe, Exe pe Tapytypevoy. 19. Kai Etepos ele, Zevyn Body 
Hyspaca mwévte, Kai mopevouat Sokipdoar aitd: épwrd ae, éxe pe 





1 ge after avrixaX. in S$BDLR 1, 69 al., and oor after avraw. 


2 S8B have Soxny rrotys. 
3 ootis in NaBLPRX 1, 13, 69 al. 


‘ emoter in NBR 1x. 


Se.ou in NLR (Tisch., W.H., marg.); eo (T.R.) in BDX (W.H. text). 


6 Omit wavta WBLR. 


7 ravtTes Tapa. in SBDLRX 1 verss. 


5 For efeXOerv kat SEBDL have simply efeA8ov. 


only because they are rich, or, more 
generally, socially important.—pyrore, 
lest, presenting return invitations (avrt- 
xahetv, here only in N.T.) as an object 
of dread, a fear unknown to the world. 
(Hic metus mundo ignotus, Bengel.)— 
Ver. 13. 8oxnv, the same word used by 
Lk. in reference to the feast in Levi’s 
house, which was a gathering of the 
sort here recommended by Jesus.— 
paxaptos, here and always denoting rare 
virtue and felicity = the pleasure of doing 
a kindness not to be repaid, except at 
the resurrection of the just, or by the 
joy that every really beneficent action 
brings now.—rév Sixalwv: in specifying 
the righteous as the subjects of the 
resurrection the Speaker has no intention 
of indicating an opinion as to the un- 
righteous: whether they rise at all, or 
when. 

Vv. 15-24. The great feast (cf. Mt. 
xxii. I-14), very naturally introduced by 
the pious reflection of a guest whose 
religious sentiment had been touched by 
the allusion to the resurrection-felicity 
of the just. Like many other pious 
observations of the conventional type it 
did not amount to much, and was no 
guarantee of genuine godliness in the 
speaker. The parable expresses this 
truth in concrete form, setting forth that 
many care less for the Kingdom of God 


and its blessings than they seem to care, 
and teaching that these will be offered 
to those who do care indeed. 

Vv. 16-20. ékddevev: it was a great 
feast and many were asked, with a 
long invitation.—Ver. 17.  elmetv rots 
KexArpévots : a second invitation accord- 
ing to Eastern custom still prevailing 
(Rosenmiller, Morgenland, v. 192 ; Thom- 
son, Land and Book, vol. i. chap. ix.). 
—Ver. 18. amd pias (supply yvopuns, 
Wux7s, Gpas, or some such word im- 
plying with one mind, or at one time, or 
in the same manner, here only in Greek 
literature), with one tonsent.—apat- 
reioQar: not to refuse, but in courteous 
terms to excuse themselves.—6 tp@ros, 
the first; of three, simply samples, by no 
means exhausting the list of possible 
excuses.—aypov 7ydpaca: a respectable 
excuse, by no means justifying absence, 
but excellently exemplifying preoccupa- 
tion, the state ofmind commontoaill. A 
man who has purchased a farm is for a 
while very much taken up with it and 
makes himself very busy about it; every- 
thing else for the moment secondary.— 
éx@ avayxnv : no fewer than three Latin- 
isms have been found in this sentence; 
this, the use of épwr@ in the sense of vogo, 
and éxe pe apirmpdvay (Grotius), But 
parallels can be found in Greek authors 
for the first. Kypke cites an instance of 


574 KATA AOYKAN XIV, 


4 ™” ° a ™» ‘4 A A 
Tapnmpevov. 20. Kal Etepos ele, Tuvatka Eynpa, kat Sid TolTo 
od Suvapar €XOetv. 21. Kal mwapayevdpevos 6 BodXos éxeiyos! dar 
nyyetde TO Kupiw adtod tadta. Tdte dpyroels 6 oixodeomdrns elie 
TO SovAw adtod, "EfeMWe Taxéws eis Tas TAaTelas kal pupas THS 
médews, Kal Tos WrwXOds Kal dvamHpous Kal xwdods Kal Tupads 7 
ciodyaye Ode. 22. Kal elev 6 SodXos, Kupte, yeyover ds * éwétagas, 
‘ »” , > , 2 « U 4 ‘ “A 
Kal €tTt Témog éoTl. 23. Kat elwev 6 KUptos mpds Tov BSov)ov, 
“EfeNOe eis Tas S80ds Kal ppaypous, Kal dvdyKacov cicehOetv, iva 


yepioy 6 otkds pou.4 


24. Aéyw yap Spty, drt obdels Tay dvdpav 


> , a , F- , A , » 
EKELYVWVY TWV KekAnMevav yevoeTat pou TOU Seitrvou. 


1 Omit exervos NABDL al. 
3 For ws NBDLR i, e, etc., have o. 


the second from Josephus. The third, 
if not a Latinism (Meyer and J. Weiss 
say no, Schanz and Hahn yes), is at 
least exactly = excusatum me habeto.— 
—Ver. 19. €repos, another ; his excuse 
is also highly respectable, though nothing 
more than a decent excuse; the pre- 
occupation very real, though the apology 
lame. Five yoke of oxen a very important 
purchase in the owner’s eyes.—Ver. 20. 
yvvaika €ynpa: most presentable excuse 
of all, therefore offered sans phrase ; 
preoccupation this time intense, and 
surely pardonable? In the natural 
sphere these are likely forms of pre- 
occupation, but not necessarily either 
the only, or even the chief in the spiritual 
sphere, or those which kept the lawyers 
and Pharisees from accepting the teach- 
ing of Jesus. Their prepossessions were 
religious and theological. 

Not only these three but all decline to 
come. In the natural sphere this is 
highly improbable and unexampled. 
Jesus, from no fault on His part as a 
parable artist, had to make improbable 
suppositions to exemplify the fact in the 
spiritual sphere, which in this instance 
was that the bulk of the Jewish people 
were indifferent to the Kingdom as He 
presented it. On the other hand, in the 
parables spoken in justification of His 
own conduct, the case put has the 
highest measure of probability. Vide, 
¢.g., those in next chapter. 

Vv. 21-24. The sequel.—Ver. 21. The 
servant has done his duty and returns to 
make his strange report.—épytoGeis, 
enraged ; no wonder.—égehOe taxéws, go 
out quickly ; no time to be lost, as all 
things are ready; but the thing chiefly 
to be noted is how the word answers 
to the master’s mood —zAateias Kai 


2 rud. kat yor. in NBDL, ete. 
4 pov o oixos in NRABDLX 157 e cop. 


pvpas, broad streets and narrow lanes 
(Mt. vi. 2,q.v.); all sorts of people to be 
met with there and many of them: in- 
vitation to be broadcast, no one to be 
shunned however poor or unsightly ; the 
poor, maimed, blind, and halt rather to 
be preferred, therefore expressly named 
—such is the master’s mood in his 
disgust at the behaviour of the well-to-do, 
propertied, happy classes—a violent but 
natural reaction.—Ver. 22. €tt Témos 
éoti, yet there is room, places for more ; 
many more, else the servant would hardly 
think it worth while to mention the fact, 
though he quite understands that the 
master wants the banqueting hall filled, 
were it only to show that he can do 
without those saucy recusants. Room 
after such a widespread miscellaneous 
invitation speaks to a feast on a grand 
scale, worthy emblem of the magnificence 
of Divine grace.—Ver. 23. 6800s Kat 
paypods, “ highways and hedges ”’; the 
main roads and the footpaths running 
between the fields, alongside of the 
hedges (Hahn); these, in the country, 
answering to the streets and lanes in the 
town. ‘The people to be found there are 
not necessarily lower down socially than 
those called within the city, perhaps not 
so low, but they are without, represent- 
ing in the interpretation the Gentiles.— 
avayxagov, compel; reflects in the first 
place the urgent desire of the master to 
havean absolutely full house, in the second 
the feeling that pressure will be needed 
to overcome the incredulity of country 
people as to the invitation to them being 
meant seriously. They would be apt to 
laugh in the servant’s face.—tva yepio7 : 
the house must be full, no excuse to be 
taken; but for a curious reason.—Ver. 
24. StL ovdels, etc.: to keep out the 





20-—28. 


EYATTEAION oils 


~ , 
25. Zuverropevovto $€ ata Sxdor Tohdoi Kal orpadels etme mpds 
> , 6 ce * , ‘ > ay , ¢ ~}j 
atrous, 26. “ Eitis epxeTat mpds pe, KL OU poet Tov TaTépa EauTOD, 
‘ ‘ , \ ‘ te ‘ x 4 “ > , 
KGl THY pyNTEpa, Kal Thy yuvaika, Kal Ta Tékva, Kal TOUS ddeAdous, 
kal Tas GdeXpds, Ere S€ Kal? thy Eautod Wuxyy, of Btvatai pou 


pabyths eitvar.2 27. nai dotts ob BaotdLer tov otaupdv aitod,* 


No. ae AF. > , , > , 
kat Epxetar dmriow pou, oF Sdvatat pou etvar palymys. 
ef spay, Gdwv wupyov oikodopioat, obxi mpOTov Kabicas * Wyoite 


1 So in BL al. (W.H.). 


order. 


d Rev. xiii. 
18 (to ex- 
plain by 
counting). 


28. tis yap 


NWDX, etc., 1, 13, 69 al. have avrov (Tisch.). 
2 ert Se kat in WD (Tisch.); ere re kat in BLRA (W.H.). 
3 evar pov pad. in NBLMRX (Tisch., W.H.). 


Vide below. 
In ver. 27 SBL have the same 


4Soin§DL._ B has eavtev (Tisch., W.H.). 


first invited in case they should change 
their minds. Of course this is spoken by 
the master, and is no comment of Jesus, 
though we read tpiv where we expect 
gou, the application to the hearers of the 
parable intruding itself at this one point. 
The reason of the master for wishing 
his house filled is not a high one. But 
the ethics of parables belong to this 
world. They must not be transferred 
into the spiritual sphere. 

Vv. 25-35. Concio ad populum. Jesus 
now appears on the way, and followed 
by ‘‘many multitudes” (6xAot wodXoi, 
ver. 25) to whom He speaks. Thus 
sayings which in Mt. and Mk. form part 
of disciple-instruction (88ayy) assume 
the character of popular preaching, as in 
the case of the Sermon on the Mount (in 
Lk.), though the subject is the conditions 
of discipleship. 

Vv. 26-27. The requirements of true 
discipleship (Mt. x. 37-39).—Ver. 26. 
épxeTat mpds pre, Cometh to me, with a 
view to close and permanent discipleship. 
—ptoei: a stronger word than that 
used in Mt., where it is a question of 
loving less; surprising in Lk., whose 
general habit is to soften hard sayings. 
But the Jogion is presented in different 
lights in the two Gospels. In Mt. itisa 
question of being a disciple worthy of 
the Master (@&os); in Lk. of being an 
effective disciple (od Svvarat). Love ot 
friends makes discipleship difficult or 
impossible; on the other hand, hatred 
makes it easy. It is easy to be devoted 
to a master or cause when you hate all 
rival masters or interests. Therefore 
‘‘hates”” is the appropriate word here, 
but the practical meaning is love less, 
which in experience signifies: hating 
other objects of affection in so tar as 
they present themselves as hindrances to 


the supreme love of the Master.—rnv 
yvvaika, (notin Mt.): tobe most ‘‘ hated” 
just because most loved, and excercising 
the most entangling influence.—ét. re 
kai, and moreover. The re (BL) binds 
all the particulars named into one 
bundle of renuncianda.—vxyv, life, 
oneself, most loved of all, therefore 
forming the climax, and also determin- 
ing the sense of pioet. The disciple is 
to hate friends as he can hate himself— 
‘“‘secundam eam partem, secundum 
quam se ipsum odisse debet, a Christo 
aversam”’ (Bengel). This last item in the 
list of things to be hated represents the 
idea contained in Mt. x. 39.—Ver. 27 = 
Mt. x. 38, with the idea of ability sub- 
stituted for the idea of worth. 

Vv. 28-33. Parables illustrating the 
need of counting the cost, peculiar to 
Lk., but intrinsically probable as sayings 
of Jesus, and thoroughly germane to the 
foregoing discourse. The connection is: 
It is a serious thing to be a disciple, 
therefore consider well before you begin 
—the renunciations required, the cross 
to be borne—as you would, if wise, con- 
sider before building a tower or engaging 
in battle.—Ver. 28. §éAwv: conditional 
participle, ‘‘ifhe wish” ; with the article it 
would = who wishes.—rvpyov, a tower ; 
need not be magnified into a grand house 
with a tower. Doubtless, as Bengel 
remarks, Christianity is a great and 
arduous affair, and is fitly compared cum 
rebus magnis et arduis. But the great- 
ness of the undertaking is sufficiently 
represented by the second parable: the 
first emblem may be allowed to be less 
ambitious and more within the reach of 
ordinary mortals. A tower of observa- 
tion in a vineyard (Mt. xxi. 33) or for 
refuge in danger, or for ornament in a 
garden may be thought of.—«xaGioas: 


576 


Thy Samdvyy, et Exe Ta mpds! draptiopdr ; 


KATA AOYKAN 


XIV. 29—35. 


29. tva pore 


c here only Oévrog aUTod Oenédtovy, Kat ph loxvovtos *éxrehdoar, mavtes ob 


in N.T. 


(bis).  Gewpoovtes Aptwvrar epraiLew adtd,? 30. Aéyovtes, “Ort obtos 6 


GvOpwros Apsato oikodopety, Kat obx toxucev extehéoat, 


31. °H tis 


F bere bole Bactheds topeudpevos *oupBadeivy érépw Bacrhet® eis wédepov obxt 


in N.i. 


insense KaSioas mp@tov Boudederar* ei Suvatds éotw ev Séxa xidtdow 


of fighting. 


dmavtigar® TO peta elkoor xihiddwv epyonévy ém abrév ; 


32. et 


Sé pnye, Ett adtod wéppw Svros, mpecBeiav daoorethas épwra ta ® 


mpos €ipyyyy. 


33. oUTws obv was é& Suav, &5 obx dwordocera 


A a é it s > 8d , > 7 , 
Tact TOL QUTOU UTTAPXOUCLY, OU UVaATQ@L pou evar pabytns. 


34. Kahdv® 7d Gdas?- 
oeTat ; 
Baddouow abrtd. 


1 For ta wpos BDLR 225 have simply ets. 


2A 
€av OE 


10 75 Ghas® pwpavly, év tiv. dptub- 


35: oUTe eis yi, olTe eis Kompiav eUOerdv ot: fw 


‘O éxwv dra dxovew dkoudtw.” 


2 avTw eur. in NABLX al. 


* erepw Bac. ovpB. in NABDLRX 33, 157 al. 
“Soin D; BovAevoetrar in SYB codd. vet. Lat. (Tisch., W.H.). 


5 Soin L al. 


vmavr. in NABDRXA 1, 33, 69, 346. 


° B omits ra and reads ets. $ omits ta and reads arpos (W.H. wpos in text with 


els V. Ta pos in marg.). 
7 ewat pov in NBLR. 
9 akas in BLR unc. and minuse. #1. 
10 cay Se eat in MBDLX al. 


the attitude appropriate to deliberate, 
leisurely consideration.—damavynv, the 
cost, here only in N.T.—et €yeu eis a., if 
he has what is necessary for (ta SéovTa 
understood).—4amapticpéy = for comple- 
tion, here only in N.T. and in Dion. 
Halic.; condemned by Phryn., p. 447. 
Cf. é&qpticpévos in 2 Tim. iii. 17.—Ver. 
2g. éumatfery, to mock; an unfinished 
tower is specially ridiculous: height is 
essential.—otros, etc., this man, con- 
temptuously ; ‘‘ this ’’ stands for a proper 
name, ‘‘ Vulgo ponunt N. N.,’’ Bengel. 
Jesus here appeals with characteristic 
tact to one of the most sensitive feel- 
ings of human nature—shrinking from 
ridicule. Who would care to be spoken 
of all his days as the man who com- 
menced a tower and could not finish it? 

Vv. 31-33. The king going to fight. 
This is the affair of the few, a parable to 
be laid to heart by men aspiring to, or 
capable of, a grand career.—ovpPakeiv 
eis wéAepov, to encounter in war (R.V.). 
or perhaps better ‘“‘to fight a battle” 
(Field, Ot. Nor.). méAepov is so rendered 
in 1 Cor. xiv. 8, Rev. ix. g, in A.V. 
(altered in R.V. into “war”), In 
Homer the idea of battle prevails, but in 


8 Add ovy to cakov NBLX 69 al. 
ND have ada (Tisch.). 


later writers that of war.—év &éxa, in, 
with, in the position of one who has 
only 10,000 soldiers at comma d.—pera 
etkogt: to beat 20,000 with 10,000 is 
possible, but it is an unlikely event: 
the chances are against the king with 
the smaller force, and the case manifestly 
calls for deliberation. The implied truth 
is that the disciplé engages in a very un- 
equal conflict. Cf. St. Paul, ‘we 
wrestle against principalities,” etc., Eph. 
vi. 12. A reference in this parable to 
the relations between Herod Antipas (the 
‘‘fox’’) and Aretas, his father-in-law, 
is possible (Holtzmann, H. C.).—Ver. 
33 gives the applicatio of the parable. 
Hofmann, Keil, and Hahn divide the 
sentence into two, utting a full stop 
after tpadv and rendering: ‘So then 
every one of you! (do the same thing, 
i.¢., consider). He who does not re- 
nounce all he hath is not able to be a 
disciple of mine.” This is very effective ; 
it may have been what Jesus actually 
said; but it is hardly how Lk. reports 
His words. Ha_ he meant the sentence 
to be read so }e would have put yap 
after és. He runs the two supposed 
sentences into one, and so the counsel 


— 


XV. I—2. 


EYATTEAION 


577 


XV. 1. "HEAN 8€ éyyiLovres adtG! mdvtes of TeAGvar Kal ot 


dpaptwdoi, dxovew ato. 


Kal ot ypappatets, Aéyortes, “Ort obTos GpapTwrods ” wpocddxeTat, 


Javtw eyy-in NAB. D has eyy. a. 


to deliberate is left out or latent in the 
requirement of renunciation, which is the 
reason for deliberation. 

Vv. 34-35. The saying concerning 
salt (Mt. v. 13, Mk. ix.50). This logion 
may have been repeatedly uttered by 
Jesus, but it does not seem to be 
so appropriate here as in its place in 
Mk. In this place the salt appears to 
denote disciples and the idea to be: 
genuine disciples are an excellent thing, 
valuable as salt to a corrupt world, but 
spurious disciples are as utterly worth- 
less as salt which has lost its savour.— 
Ver. 35. ovte cis yiv ote eis Kompiav, 
neither for land nor for dung (is it fit, 
ev@erov as in ix. 62). The idea seems to 
be that savourless salt is neither earth 
nor manure.—t&# is emphatic = out 
they cast it, as worthless, good for 
nothing, mere refuse, a waste substance. 

CHAPTER XV. PARABLES TEACHING 
THE JOY OF FINDING THINGS LOST. 
Nothing is gained by insisting anxiously 
on historical connection here. The in- 
troduction of these beautiful parables of 
grace at this point is a matter of tact 
rather than of temporal sequence, so far 
as the conscious motive of the evangelist 
is concerned. They are brought in asa 
set-off to the severe discourse in the 
closing section of the previous chapter, 
in which Jesus seems to assume a re- 
pellent attitude towards those who 
desired to follow Him. Here, in happy 
contrast, He appears as One who 
graciously received the sinful, regardless 
of unfavourable comments. The parables 
of the Lost Sheep, the Lost Coin, and 
the Lost Son are here given as a self- 
defence of Jesus against Pharisaic fault- 
finding. Whether they were first spoken 
in that connection, or uttered in that 
connection alone, cannot be determined. 
So far as their main drift is concerned 
they might have been spoken to any 
audience; to critical Pharisees, to 
disciples (the first is given in Mt. xviii. 
I2-14 as spoken to the Twelve), to 
synagogue audiences, or to a gathering 
of publicans and sinners like that in 
Capernaum (Lk. v. 29-32) ; controversial, 
didactic, or evangelic, as the case might 
be. Quite possibly the original setting 
of these parables was a synagogue dis- 


a Ch. xix. 7. 


2. kal “SteydyyuLoy ot? dapicator b Rom. xvi. 


2. Phil. 
ii. 29. 


2 a te &. in WBDL. 


course, or better still the address to the 
Capernaum gathering. That they are 
all three authentic utterances of Jesus 
need not be doubted. The first has 
synoptical attestation, being found in 
Mt. also; the second has value only as a 
supplement to the first, and was hardly 
worth inventing as an independent 
parable; the third is too good to have 
been an invention by Lk. or any other 
person, and can only have proceeded 
from the great Master. Wendt (L. J.) 
accepts all three as authentic, and taken 
from the Logia of Mt. 

Vv. 1, 2. Historic introduction.— 
Foav éyyilovres: either were in the act 
of approaching Jesus at a given time 
(Meyer), or were in the habit of doing 
so. The position of atta before 
éyyilovres in $¥B favours the latter 
(Schanz). On the other hand, it is not 
improbable that the reference is to the 
Capernaum gathering. We may have 
here, in fact, another version of that 
story taken from the Logia, the occasion 
slightly described, the words spoken 
carefully reported. Inthat case we may 
take wavtes following somewhat strictly, 
and not as a mere exaggeration of the 
evangelist’s. There were many at the 
feast. The aim was to have all the out- 
casts of the town present (vide on Mt. 
ix. g-13). True, they came to feast 
according to the other report, whereas 
here stress is laid on the hearing 
(dkove.v). The festive feature is referred 
to in the complaint of the Pharisees 
(ovveoGier, ver. 2). Of course there 
would be hearing as well as eating, and 
probably what the guests heard was just 
these same parables in slightly different 
form. In that case they served first as a 
gospel and then as an apologia.—Ver. 2. 
Steydyyvfov: the Sra conveys the idea ot 
a general pervasive murmuring. This is 
probably not an instance illustrating 
Hermann’s remark (ad Viger., p. 856) 
that this preposition in compound verbs 
often adds the notion of striving 
(Stamlverv, certare bibendo).—ot te ®.: 
the re (NQ9BL) binds Pharisees and scriber 
together as one: as close a corporation 
as ‘‘publicans and sinners”’ (equivalent 
to ‘sinners’ in their conception, 
GpaptwAovs, ver. 2). Note the order, 


37 


578 


c Acts x. 41; 
Tice. ox 
Cor. v, 11. 
Gal. ii. 12. 


KATA AOYKAN XV. 


kat “ouveoOier atrois.” 3. Elme S€ mpds adtods thy tapaBodhy 
tattny, Aéywv, 4. “Tis avOpwros ef Spay exwv éxatdy mpdBara. 
1 


‘ , a > > A > , A > , ~ 
kal dtoéoas Ev €f adtav,' ob katTahette: TA evvevnKovtaevvea év TH 


€pypw, Kal wopeverar emt Td drodwhds, ews cipy adtd; 5. kal 
eipwv emitiOnow emi tos Gpous éautod? yxatpwy, 6. Kat eNO eis 
Tov olkoy, cuyKadet Tod aN L tod ( hé UTOL 
, Tuykahet Tods pidous kal tods yetTovas, héywv adrots, 
7. héyo 


9 = 8) Ek nw 
€mt €vt GpapTwrh@ peta~ 


Luyxdpyté prot, Ste eUpov 7d mpdBardvy pou TO drrohwhds. 


a a oa AQ ” > a > A 3 
Opty, OTL OUTW yxapd EgTaL Evy TH oUpava 


‘ > 


voourtt,  €mt evvevynKovtaevvéa SiKalous, olTUES OU xpElay ExouoL 
> 


1 For ev e& a. SBD 1, 69 al. have e& avtwv ev. 
2 The texts are divided between eavtov (AEMA, etc.) andavrov($$BDL;: Tisch., 


3 ev T. ovpavw eorat in NBL 33, 157. 


Pharisees and scribes; usually the other 
way. Pharisees answers tosinners, scribes 
to publicans; the two extremes in charac- 
ter andcalling: the holiest andunholiest; 
the most reputable and the most disreput- 
able occupations. And Jesus preferred 
the baser group !—mpooSexerat, receives, 
admits to His presence; instead of re- 
pelling with involuntary loathing.—kat 
ouveoGier: not only admits but also eats 
with them. That was the main surprise 
and offence, and therefore just the thing 
done, because the thing which, while 
offending the Pharisees, would certainly 
gain the “sinners”. Jesus did what the 
reputedly good would not do, so winning 


their trust. 

Vv. 3-7. The first parable (cf. Mt. 
xviii. 12-14).—Ver. 3. tHv wapaf. 
tauTny: the phrase covers the second 
parable (Lost Coin) as well as the first. 
The two are regarded as virtually one, 
the second a duplicate with slight varia- 
tions.—Ver. 4. é§ tpav, what man of 
you. Even the Pharisees and scribes 
would so act in temporal affairs. Every 
human being knows the joy of finding 
things lost. It is only in religion that 
men lose the scent of simple universal 
‘ruths.—éxatov mp.: a hundred a con- 
siderable number, making one by com- 
parison insignificant. The owner, one 
would say, can afford to lose a single 
erring sheep. Yet not so judges the 
owner himself, any owner. Losing only 
one (&& aira@v év) he takes immediate 
steps to recover it.—év Tq épyjpe, in the 
untilled, unfenced pasture land; but of 
course not so as to run the risk of losing 
the whole flock: it is left under the care 
of an assistant, the master taking the 
more arduous task to himself.—émi after 
mopevetat indicates not only direction 
but aim: goeth after in order to find. 












(Schanz; Kypke remarks that émt with 
verbs of going or sending often indicates 
“‘scopum itionis’”? and is usually pre- 
fixed to the thing sought. Similarly 
Pricaeus.)—€ws evpy: the search not 
perfunctory, but thorough; goes on till 
the lost one be found, if that be possible. 
—Ver. 5. émtibnow, etc., he places 
the found one on his shoulders; not in 
affection merely or in the exuberance of 
his joy, but from necessity. He must 
carry the sheep. It cannot walk, can 
only “‘ stand where it stands and lie where 
it lies” (Koetsveld). This feature, pro- 
bable in natural life, is true to the 
spiritual. Such was the condition of the 
mass of Jews in Christ’s time (Mt. ix. 
36, cf. “‘ when we were without strength,” 
Rom. v. 6).—yaipwv: the carrying 
necessary, but not done with a grudge, 
rather gladly ; not merely for love of the 
beast, but in joy that a thing lost has 
been found, making the burden, in spite 
of the long way, light. He is a very 
poor shepherd that does not bear the 
sheep that stands still, unable to walk 
(vide Zech. xi. 16, margin).—Ver. 6. 
ovyxahet: the point here is not the 
formal invitation of neighbours to sym- 
pathise, but the confident expectation that 
they will. That they do is taken for 
granted. Sympathy from neighbours 
and friends of the same occupation, 
fellow-shepherds, a matter of course in 
such a case. This trait hit the Pharisees, 
and may have been added to the original 
parable for their special benefit—Ver. 7. 
év T@ ovpava, in heaven, that is, in the 
heart of God. Heaven is a synonym for 
God in vv. 18 and 21.—% = more than, 
as if mAéov had preceded, so often in 


N.T. and in Sept. = Hebrew eB The 
comparison in the moral sphere is bold, 


3—I0. 


EYAITEAION 


Lie) 


petavotas. 8. "H tis yuvh “Spaxpds exouga Béxa, dav drodéond here only 
Spaxpiy play, obxt Gmrer AUxvov, Kat capot Thy oixiay, Kat Lyret (thrice), 


*émeh@s, Ews Stou! evpy ; 


gikas Kat tas? yeltovas, Aéyouca, Luyxdpyté por, or. ebpoy rip 


Spaxpiyy jv dmddeoa. 


‘ G a a 2 ‘ 
Q- Kat eUpotca ouykadettar? tise here only 


Neds 


a A 
10. oUtw, éyw piv, xapa yiveta: + évdauoy 


tay dyyehwy Tod Ceod em Evi GuaoTwA@ petavoourts.” 


1 For orov S$BLX al. have ov (W.H.). D has simply ews. 
7Soin D. ovveade in SBKLXA al. (Tisch., W.H.). 


® SBL omit this second ras. 


but the principle holds true there as in 
the natural sphere, even if the ninety- 
nine be truly righteous men needing no 
repentance. It is rational to have 
peculiar joy over a sinner repenting, 
therefore God has it, therefore Christ 
might haveit. This saying is the third 
great word of Christ’s apology for loving 
the sinful. For the other two vide on 
Mt. ix, g-13 and Lk. vii. 36-50. 

Vv. 8-10. The second parable, a pen- 
dant to the first, spoken possibly to the 
Capernaum gathering to bring the ex- 
perience of joy found in things lost home 
to the poorest present. As spoken to 
Pharisees it is intended to exemplify the 
principle by a lost object as insigni- 
ficant in value as a publican or a sinner 
was in their esteem. A sheep, though 
one of a hundred, was a comparatively 
precious object. A drachma was a piece 
of money of inconsiderable value, yet of 
value to a poor woman who owned only 
ten drachmas in all; its finding therefore 
a source of keen joy to her.—Ver. 8. 
ante. X., lights alamp. The verb used 
in this sense in N.T. only in Lk. No 
windows in the dwellings of the poor: 
a lamp must be lighted for the search, 
unless indeed there be one always burn- 
ing on the stand.—oapot: colloquial and 
vulgar for owatper, vide on Mt. xii. 44.— 
{nret émipekas: the emphasis in this 
parable lies on the seeking—amre., 
oapot, (ytet; in the Lost Sheep on the 
carrying home of the found object of 
quest.—Ver. 9. ovyxadet: this calling 
together of friends and neighbours (femi- 
nine in this case, Tas . kal Tas y.) pe- 
culiarly natural in the case of a woman; 
hence perhaps the reading of T.R., ovy- 
xaXeitat, the middle being more subjec- 
tive. The finding would appeal specially 
to feminine sympathies, if the lostdrachma 
was not part of a hoard to meet some 
debt, but belonged to a string of coins 
worn as an ornament round the head, 
then as now, by married women in the 


4 yueTat xapa in SBLX 33. 


East, as Tristram suggests (Eastern Cus- 
toms in Bible Lands, p. 76). This view, 
favoured by Farrar, is ignored by most 
commentators.—Ver. 10 repeats the 
moral of ver. 7, but without comparison 
which, with a smaller number, would 
only weaken the effect.—évamov tay 
ayyéAwy Tt. @.: the angels may be referred 
to as the neighbours of God, whose joy 
they witness and share. Wendt (L. F., 
i., Ig1) suggests that Luke uses the ex- 
pression to avoid anthropopathism, and 
because God has no neighbours. 

Vv. 11-32. The third parable, rather 
an example than a parable illustrating by 
an imaginary case the joy of recovering 
a lost human being. In this case care is 
taken to describe what loss means in the 
sphere of human life. The interest in 
the lost now appropriately takes the form 
of eager longing and patient waiting for 
the return of the erring one, that there 
may be room for describing the repent- 
ance referred to in vv. 7 and 10, which 
is the motive for the return. Also in the 
moral sphere the subject of the finding 
cannot be purely passive: there must be 
self-recovery to give ethical value to the 
event. A sinning man cannot be brought 
back to God like a straying sheep to the 
fold. Hence the beautiful picture of the 
sin, the misery, the penitent reflections, 
and the return of the prodigal peculiar to 
this parable. It is not mere scene-paint- 
ing. It is meant to show how vastly 
higher is the significance of the terms 
“lost” and “found’’ in the human sphere, 
justifying increased interest in the find- 
ing, and so showing the utter unreason- 
ableness of the fault-finding directed 
against Jesus for His efforts to win to 
goodness the publicans and sinners, Jes 
sus thereby said in effect: You blame in 
me a joy which is universal, that of 
finding the lost, and which ought to be 
greater in the case of human beings just 
because it is a man that is found and not 
a beast. Does not the story as I tell it 


580 


KATA AOYKAN XV. 


11. Etre 8é, ““AvOpwds tis elxe SUo viods* 12. Kal elmev 6 vew- 
Tepos adtav TG wartpi, Mdrep, 55s por TS emuBdANov pEpos THs ovatas. 


fx Cor. xii.xat! *Sretkev adtots tév Biov. 
ouvayayav Gtravta 6 vewTepos utds dmedjpnoev eis Xdpav paKpav, 


Il. 


kat éxet Steoxdpmice thy ovatav adtod, fav dodrus. 


13. Kat pet oF Todds *pepas 


14. Satan- 


cavtos 8€ adtod mdvta, éyéveto Aids ioxupds? Kata Thy xwpay 


2 4 ‘ on ea a 
éxelyyy, kat adtos pgato botepetobar. 


15. Kal mopeubels Exohh1Oy 


a“ lal lol > A 
évl tOv modiTOv THs xdpas exelvns: Kal Ereppey atToy Els TOUS 


dypots adtod Bécokeww xoipous. 


g here only 
in 


16. kat éreOdper yeploat Thy Kowniay 


wn ~ A vi 
NT. adtod ® drd4 tov SKepatiwy dv jobrov ot xoipor- Kat oddels edid0u 


hereand , ,~ 
in ver. 19, UT®. 


17. Eis éautévy Sé eXOdv etre,® Mécor ” piobror tod matpds 


1 For kat (ND, Tisch.) BL cop. have o S¢(W.H.). 


2 wrxvpa in NABDL 1, 33, 131. 
3 yeproar . 


. avtov in APQXTAAN, etc., codd. vet. Lat. vulg. syr. (Peshito) 


sin. (Tisch.). xoptac8yvat in $BDLR minusc. de f syr. cur. (R.V., W.H., text). 


4 ex in texts which have xoprag@nvat. 
5 SSBL 13, 69 al, have edn. 


rebuke your cynicism and melt your 
hearts? Yet such things are happening 
among these publicans and sinners you 
despise, every day. 

Vv. 11-13. The case put. 8vo viovsy: 
two sons of different dispositions here as 
in Mt. xxi. 28-31, but there is no further 
connection between the two parables. 
There is no reason for regarding Lk.’s 
parable as an allegorical expansion of 
Mt.’s Two Sons (Holtzmann in H. C.).— 
Ver. 12. 6 vedrepos, the younger, with 
a certain fitness made to play the foolish 
part. The position of an elder son pre- 
sents more motives to steadiness.—ré 
émtBaddov pépos, the portion falling or 
belonging to, the verb occurs in this sense 
in late authors (here only in N.T.). The 
portion of the younger when there were 
two sons would be one third, the right of 
the first-born being two portions (Deut. 
xxi. 17).—8tetAev: the father complies, 
not as bound, but he must do it in the 
parable that the story may go on.—Btov 
=ovoetav, asin Mk. xii. 44, Lk. viii. 43.— 
Ver. 13. pet’ od moddas Huépas: to be 
joined to dmeSypnoev: he went away as 
soon as possible, when he had had time 
to realise his property, in haste to escape 
into wild liberty or licence.—paxpav: the 
farther away the better.—aowtws (a pr. 
and o@fw, here only in N.T.), insalvably ; 
the process of reckless waste, free rein 
given to every passion, must go on till 
nothing is left. This is what undis- 
ciplined freedom comes to. 


Vv. 14-19. The crisis: recklessness 
leads to misery and misery prompts re- 
flection.—Ver. 14. Atpos, a famine, an 
accident fitting into the moral history ot 
the prodigal ; not a violent supposition ; 
such correspondences between the physi- 
cal and moral worlds do occur, and there 
is a Providence in them.—ioxvpa: the 
most probable reading if only because 
Auzds is feminine only in Doric and late 
Greek usage.—torepetoOar: the result 
of wastefulness and prevalent dearth com- 
bined is dire want. What is to be done? 
Return home? Not yet; that the last 
shift.—Ver. 15. é«oAAr6m, he attached 
himself (pass. with mid. sense). The 
citizen of the far country did not want 
him, it is no time for employing super- 
fluous hands, but he suffered the wretch 
to have his way in good-natured pity.— 
Béoxewv xolpouvs: the lowest occupation, 
a poor-paid pagan drudge; the position 
of the publicans glanced at.—Ver. 16. 
érreOuper, etc., he was fain to fill his belly 
with the horn-shaped pods of the carob- 
tree. The point is that he was so poorly 
fed by his new master (who felt the pinch 
of hard times, and on whom he had small 
claim) that to get a good meal of any- 
thing, even swine’s food, was a treat. 
yepiorat t.., though realistic, is redeemed 
from vulgarity by the dire distress of the 
quondam voluptuary. Anything to fill 
the aching void within |—ovSeis é{Sov, 
no one was giving him: this his ex- 
perience from day to day and week 


EYATTEAION 


1I—22, 


18. dvactas 
mopevcopar mpds Tov TaTépa pou, Kai épd adtd, Ndtep, Hpaptor eis 
Tov odpavdy Kat évimidy gous 19. Kat® odkére eipi détos KAnOAvac 


pou teprocedouow ! dptwv, éyd Sé€ Aid? dardddupat ; 


vids gou- roingdvy pe ds eva TOv proBiwy cov. 20. Kal dvactas 


HAO pds Tov watépa EauToU. “Et. S€ adtod paxpdy dméxovtos, 
A , 
eldev abtév 6 wathp abtod, kal éomdayxvicOy, Kat Spapydmy éwémecer 


émi tov tpdxndov adto’, Kal Katedidnoey adtdy. 21. ele d€ abt 


5 vids,t Mdtep, fpaptov eis tov ovpavéy Kal evwmidy cou, Kat® 
ovKeTt cipl Gétos KAnOAvar vids gov. 22. Etre Sé€ 6 mwatip mpds 
Tods Sotvdous adtod, “Etevéyxate™ thy otodiy thy mpatyy, Kal 


évSuoate adtéy, kai Sdéte SaxtUALoy eis THy XEtpa adTod, Kal brod7- 


581 


1 So in NDL, etc. (Tisch.). 
2 After Atpm NBL have wBe. 
409 vos before avrw in BL 1, 131 al. 


6 SSBD add rroiqgov pe ws eva Tav picbiwy cov (W.H. brackets). 


mepigoevovtat in ABP 1, 94 (W.H.). 


8 Omit kat NABDL and many others. 
5 kat omitted here also in RABDL, ete. 
Vide below. 


7 sBL prefix the expressive taxv (D taxews) and omit +qv before oroAny. 


to week. Giving what? Not the pods, as 
many think, these he would take without 
leave, but anything better. His master 
gave him little—famine rations, and no 
other kind soul made up for the lack. 
Neither food nor love abounded in that 
country. So there was nothing for it 
but swine’s food or semi-starvation—or 
home |—Ver. 17. els éavtdv éXov = 
either, realising the situation ; or, coming 
to his true self, his sane mind (for the use 
of this phrase vide Kypke, Observ.). Per- 
haps both ideas are intended. Heat last 
understood there was no hope for him 
there, and, reduced to despair, the 
human, the filial, the thought of home 
and father revived in the poor wretch.— 
meplooevovTat: passive, with gen. of the 
thing; here only in N.T.=are provided to 
excess, have more given them than they 
can use.—Ver. 18. avaoras: a bright 
hope gives energy to the starving man; 
home! Said, done, but the motive is not 
high. It is simply the last resource of a 
desperate man. He will go home and 
confess his fault, and so, he hopes, get at 
least a hireling’s fare. Wellto be brought 
out of that land, under home influences, 
by any motive. It is in the right direc- 
tion. Yet though bread is as yet the 
supreme consideration, foretokens of true 
ethical repentance appear in the premedi- 
tated speech :—Ildrep: some sense of the 
claims that long-disused word implies— 
jpaptov, I erred; perception that the 
whole past has been a mistake and folly 
—els tov ovpavdy, against heaven, God 


—évwomidy gov, in ihy sight, in thy judg- 
ment (Hahn)—he knows quite well 
what his father must think of his con- 
duct; what a fool he must think him 
(Ps. Ixxiii. 22)—otxeére eipl, etc. (ver. 
19), fully conscious that he has forfeited 
all filial claims. The omission of kat 
suits the emotional mood. 

Vv. 20-24. Return and reception.— 
HAGev, etc., he came to his father; no 
details about the journey, the fact simply 
stated, the interest now centring in the 
action of the father, exemplifying the joy 
of a parent in finding a lost son, which 
is carefully and exquisitely described in 
four graphic touches—etéev: first recog- 
nition at a distance, implying, if not a 
habit of looking for the lost one (Gobel, 
Schanz, etc.), at least a vision sharpened 
by love—éordayxvic6y: instant pity 
awakened by the woful plight of the 
returning one manifest in feeble step, 
ragged raiment possibly also visible— 
Spapoy, running, in the excitement and 
impatience of love, regardless of Eastern 
dignity and the pace safe for advancing 
years—kateditnoev: kissing fervently 
and frequently the son folded in his arms 
(cf. Mt. xxvi. 49, Lk. vii. 38, 45). All 
signs these of a love ready to do anything 
to recover the lost, to search for him to 
the world’s end, if that had been fitting 
or likely to gain the end.—Ver. 21. The 
son repeats his premeditated speech, with 
or without the last clause; probably with 
it, as part of a well-conned lesson, re- 
peated half mechanically, yet not insin- 


582 KATA AOYKAN xv. 


i here, three pata eis Tods wédas° 
times. 


jv, kal dvélyoe: 


edppaiverBar. 


hee oy Kal @s EpXopevos nyytoe ™H oikia, jkouge } cupdwvias Kat 


in 


kat dmokwhds Fy,” Kal edpébn. 


23. Kal évéyxavtes! tov pdcyxov Tdv ' ovreuTor 
Odcate, Kal paydvtes edpavOaper - 


24. Sti obros 6 vids pou veKpos 
Kai pgavro 


25. "Hv S€ 6 ulds adtod 6 mpeoBitepos év aypo- 


¥ yopav . 


k here only 26. Kat mpookahecdpevos Eva tOv taiSwy adtod,® émuvOdvero tit 
in N 


ein TatTa. 


27. 6 Se etwev atta, “Or. & GSeXdds cou Heer: Kal 


€Bucev 6 watyp gou Tov pooxoy Tov aiteuTdy, STL Gyratvovra adTov 


a&méhaBev. 


28. ’Apyicly Sé, Kai ob HOedev eivedGetv, 


6 ow? 


1 depere in $$ BLRX, more suitable to emotional speech. 


2 For kat am. nv NBL have nv an. without kat, which D also omits. 


§ Omit avtov all uncials. 


47. avin Bal, (W.H.). 


5 For o ovww NABDLRX 1, 33 al. have o 8e. 


cerely—as if to say: I don’t deserve this, 
I came expecting at most a hireling’s 
treatment in food and otherwise, I should 
be ashamed to be anything higher.—Ver. 
22. SovAovs: their presence conceivable, 
the father’s running and the meeting 
noticed and reported by some one, so 
soon drawing a crowd to the spot, or to 
meet the two on the way to the house. 
To them the father gives directions which 
are his response to the son’s proposed 
self-degradation. He shall not be their 
fellow, they shall serve him by acts sym- 
bolic of reinstatement in sonship.—rayxv, 
quick! a most probable reading (NBL), 
and a most natural exclamation; obliter- 
ate the traces of a wretched past as'soon 
as possible; off with these rags! fetch 
robes worthy of my son, dressed in his 
best as on a gala day.—éfevéyxare, bring 
from the house—eroAjv tT. mpatny, the 
first robe, not in time, formerly worn 
(Theophy.), but in quality; cf. the second 
chariot, Gen. xli. 43 (currus secundus, 
Bengel).—SaxrvAvoy (here only in N.T.): 
no epithet attached, golden, e.g. (Wolff, 
golden ring for sons, tron ring for slaves) ; 
that it would be a ring of distinction 
goes without saying.—imo8ypara, shoes; 
needed—he is barefoot and footsore ; and 
worn by sons, not byslaves. Robe, ring, 
shoes: all symbols of filial state.—Ver. 
23. Tov pécyov Tov aitevTév: always 
one fatten for high-tides; could not 
be used on a better occasion.—Ver. 24: 

reason for making this a festive day.— 
ovTos, etc.: the father formally calls him 
his son, partly by way of recognition, and 
partly to introduce him to the attendants 
in case they might not know him.—vex- 
pos, dead, ethically ? or as good as dead? 
the latter more probable in a speech to 


slaves.—atroAwAds, lost; his where- 
abouts unknown, one reason among 
others why there was no search, as in 
the case of the sheep and the coin. 

Vv. 25-32. The elder son, who plays 
the ignoble part of wet blanket on this 
glad day, and represents the Pharisees in 
their chilling attitude towards the mission 
in behalf of the publicans and sinners.— 
Ver. 25. év aypo, onthe farm; of course 
there every day, doing his duty, a most 
correct, exemplary man, only in his wis- 
dom and virtue so cold and merciless 
towards men of another sort. Being at 
his work he is ignorant of what has 
happened : the arrival and what followed. 
—€pxoevos, coming home after the day’s 
work is over, when the merriment is in 
full swing, with song and dance filling 
the air.—Ver. 26. ti Gv ein Tatra, not 
contemptuous, ‘“‘ what all this was about” 
(Farrar, C. G. T.), but with the puzzled 
air of a man in the dark and surprised = 
what does this mean?—Ver. 27. In 
simple language the servant briefly ex- 
plains the situation, showing in his words 
neither sympathy nor, still less, the re- 
verse, as Hofmann thinks.—vtytatvoyra, 
in good health; home again and well, 
that is the whole case as he knows it; 
no thought in his mind of a tragic career 
culminating in repentance, or if he has 
any suspicion he keeps it to himself; 
thoroughly true to nature this.—Ver 
28. @pyioby, he was angry, a very 
slight description of his state of mind 
into which various bad feelings would 
enter: disgust, chagrin that ail this merri- 
ment had been going on for hours and 
they had not thought it worth while to 
let him know—an impolitic oversight; a 
sense of wrong and general unfair treat- 








23—32. 


matip avtod éfeMOdv mapexdher adtdv. 


EYATTEAION 


583 


29. 6 8€ droxpibels eire 


lal es a 
7 watpi,’ “I8ot, tooaita ern Soudedw cor, Kat odSdmote evrohiy 
gou TapiOoy, Kat enol obddmote ESwxas Epidoy,” iva peta Tav hihwv 


pou edpavbda. 


30. Ste S€ 6 vids cou olTos 6 Katapaydy cou Tov 


, X A a 
Biov peta tropvdv? FOev, COucas abtH tov pécyov Tov ovTeuTdy.4 


€ ee ~ A 
31. 6 8€ elev adtG, Téxvoy, ob mdvtote pet epod et, Kal mévTa Ta 


éua od éotwy. 


32. ebppavOjvar Sé kal xapivar eSer, dt 6 adeAdSs 


gou cuTos veKpds Hy, kai dvélnce®- Kal dtohwdds jv,® kal edpeOn.” 


1 BD add avrov (W.H.), wanting in many copies (Tisch.). 


2 B has epigtoy (W.H. marg.). 


* twv mop. in ADL (W.H. marg.). mopvev in $B (Tisch., W.H., text). 
‘ rov out. pooxov for T. poo tT. ott. in NBDLOQR. 


> efyoev in SBLRA. T.R. =D, etc. 


§ For «at atroh. qv $8DX 1, 13, 60, etc., 


have simply arrokwdws ; with these BLR 


omit yy but retain kat before amok. (Tisch. has amoXk., W.H., kat azrod.), 


ment of which this particular neglect was 
but a specimen.—é6 8é wart, etc.: the 
father goes out and presses him to come 
in, very properly; but why not send for 
him at once that he might stop working 
on the farm and join in the feasting and 
dancing on that glad day? Did they all 
fear he would spoil the sport and act 
accordingly? The elder son has got a 
chance to complain, and he makes the 
most of it in his bitter speech to his 
father.—Ver. 29. €pidov, a kid, not to 
speak of the fatted calficpeta tav pidov 
pov: he would have been content if there 
had been any room made for the festive 
element in his life, with a modest meeting 
with his own friends, not to speak of a 
grand family demonstration like this. 
But no, there was nothing but work and 
drudgery for him.—Ver. 30. otros: con- 
temptuous, this precious son of yours.— 
peta topvav: hard, merciless judgment ; 
the worst said and in the coarsest way. 
How did he know? He did not know; 
had no information, jumped at con- 
clusions. That the manner of his kind, 
who shirk work and go away to enjoy 
themselves.—Vv. 31, 32. The father 
answers meekly, apologetically, as if 
conscious that the elder son had some 
right to complain, and content to justify 
himself for celebrating the younger son’s 
return with a feast; not a word of re- 
taliation. This is natural in the story, 
and it also fits well into the aim of the 
parable, which is to illustrate the joy of 
finding the lost. It would serve no pur- 
pose in that connection to disparage the 
object of the lesser joy. There is peculiar 


joy over one sinner repenting even though 
the ninety-nine be truly righteous, and 
over a prodigal returned even though the 
elder brother be a most exemplary, blame- 
less, dutiful son. 

CHAPTER XVI. Two ADDITIONAL 
PARABLES ON THE RIGHT USE oF 
WEALTH. ‘These two parables, the un- 
just steward and Dives, bear such a 
foreign aspect when compared with the 
general body of Christ’s teaching as to 
give rise to a doubt whether they have 
any claim to a place in an authentic 
record of His sayings. One at first won- 
ders at finding them in such company, 
forming with the preceding three a group 
of five. Yet Luke had evidently no sense 
of their incongruity, for he passes from 
the three to the two as if they were of 
kindred import (€\eye 8€ kat). Doubt- 
less they appealed to his social bias by 
the sympathy they betray for the poor 
(cf. vi. 20, xi. 41), which has gained for 
them a place among the so-called Ebion- 
itic sections of Luke’s Gospel (vide Holtz. 
manninH.C.). In favour of the authen- 
ticity of the first of the two parables is 
its apparently low ethical tone which has 
been such a stumbling-block to commen- 
tators. Who but Jesus would have had 
the courage to extract a lesson of wisdom 
from conduct like that of the unright- 
eous steward? The literary grace of the 
second claims for it the same origin and 
author. 

Vv. 1-7. The parable of the unjust 
steward,—Ver. 1. €deye S@ kat: the 
same formula of transition as in xiv. I2, 
The wat connects with €dcye, not with 


584 


KATA AOYKAN 


XVI. 


XVI. 1. "EAEFE 8€ Kai mpds tods pabytas abrod,! ““AvOpwids 
Ts Fv WAovoros, bs eixev oixovdpov Kal obtos SreBAHOn abtd ds 


if ”~ 

SiackoptiLwy Ta Smdpxovta adtou. 
> A , a , ‘ - 

aitTa, Ti ToUTO dKouvw TeEpi god ; 


gou- 


a Rom. xi. 
27 (mid.) Sle oes Te 
am €pod ; 


> ‘ by A 2 ad > A 
ov yap uynon €TL OLKOVOLELY. 


okdmrew ox icydw, émattety aioxvvopat. 


2. Kal dwyyoas adtov elev 
dmd8o0s Tov Adyoy Tis oikovopias 
3. Elwe 8€ év éautd 6 


> , ‘ : J < , , a f=) s > s 
OLKOVOLLOS, TL TroLnoWw, OTL 6 KUpLOS pou “dhaipetTat THY OlKOvOpLay 


4. Eyvov ti 


, . 2 ~ 3 aA > , , , > 
Toijow, iva, Otay petacta0a® tis oiKovopias, SéEwvrat pe Els TOUS 


» > i 
OLKOUS GUTWY. 


5. Kat mpooxaheoduevos Eva ExacTov Tay xpew- 


A ~ , c “~ ~ , 4 nn 
getketav Tod Kupiou éautod, Eheye TO TmpwTw, Mdcoy dpeihers 7 


1 Omit avrov NBDLR. 


2 So in L and many others; S{BDP have Svuvy, 
3 $8BD 1, 69 al. have ex after peracradw. 


*eauvTwy in BPRX. avtev in DL, 


mpos 7. palmtas, and points not to 
change of andience (disciples now, Phari- 
sees before) but to continued parabolic 
discourse.—pabntas, disciples, quite 
general ; might mean the Twelve, or the 
larger crowd of followers (xiv. 25), or the 
publicans and sinners who came to Him 
(xv.1,so Schleiermacher, etc.).—8reBAOn, 
was accused, here only in N.T., often in 
classics and Sept.; construed with 
dative here; also with eis or pos, with 
accusative. The verb implies always a 
hostile animus, often the accompaniment 
of false accusation, but not necessarily. 
Here the charge is assumed to be true.— 
@s S:ackopmifwy, as squandering, that 
the charge; how, by fraud or by ex- 
travagant living, not indicated; the one 
apt to lead to the other.—Ver. 2. rl 
tTovutTo, etc. ti may be exclamatory = 
what! do I hear this of thee? or in- 
terrogatory: what is this that I hear of 
thee? the laconic phrase containing a 
combination of an interrogative with a 
relative clause.—tév Adyov : the reference 
may be either to a final account previous 
to dismissal, already resolved on (so 
usually taken), or to an investigation into 
the truth or falsehood of the accusation 
= produce your books that I may judge 
for myself (so Hahn). The latter would 
be the reasonable course, but not 
necessarily the one taken by an eastern 
magnate, who might rush from absolute 
confidence to utter distrust without 
taking the trouble to inquire further. 
As the story runs, this seems to be what 
happened.—Ver. 3. elwe é€v €&: a 
Hebraism, ds in Mt. iii. g, ix. 3. The 
steward deliberates on the situation. He 


sees that his master has decided against 
him, and considers what he is to do 
next, running rapidly over all possible 
schemes.—okatretv, émateiv: these 
two represent the alternatives for the 
dismissed: manual labour and begging ; 
digging naturally chosen to represent the 
former as typical of agricultural labour, 
with which the steward’s position brought 
him much into contact (Lightfoot), But 
why these two only mentioned? Why 
not try to get another situation of the 
same kind? Because he feels that dis- 
missal in the circumstances means degra- 
dation. Who now would trust him ? 
émrattety = mpocattety (Mk. x. 46, John 
ix. §).—Ver. 4. €yvwv: too weak to dig, 
too proud to beg, he hits upon a feasible 
scheme at last: I have it, I know now 
what to do.—éyvwy is the dramatic or 
tragic aorist used in classics, chiefly in 
poetry and in dialogue. It gives greater 
vividness than the use of the present 
would.—8&égwvrat: his plan contemplates 
as its result reception of the degraded 
steward into their houses by people not 
named; probably the very people who 
accused him. Weare not to suppose 
that permanent residence in other 
people’s houses isin view. Something 
better may offer. The scheme pro- 
vides for the near future, helps to turn 
the next corner.—Ver. 5. va gxacrov: 
he sees them one by one, not all 
together. These debtors might be 
farmers, who paid their rents in kind, or 
persons who had got supplies of goods 
from the master’s stores; which of the 
two of no consequence to the point of 
the parable.—r@ wpwrg, the first, in the 





c—8. 


, 
KUpL® jLOU ; 


EYATTEAION 


6. “O 8€ eimwev, “Exatév Bdrous édaiou. 


585 


Kat! etiey 


aitd, Adgat cou 75 ypdppa,? kai kalicas Taxéws ypdpoy mevTijKovTa. 


4. “Emeta érépw etre, £0 S€ mécov dheidets ; 


KOpous aitou. 


< , 


dydorkovTa. 


8. Kat émyvecev 


e b , > , c] eV We DAN tA , , 
OTL Ppovipws eTTOLN oEV * OTL OL ULOL TOU ALWYOG TOUTOU Ppovipwrepor 


1 For kat SABLR al. have o Se. 


“O S€ ettev, “Exatdov 


‘ 8 , > ~ , A , 4 ‘ S 
Kat? Néyer atta, Afar cou Td ypdppa,* Kat ypdwpov 
6 KUptos Tév oikovdpor THs ddiKias, 


b here only 
in N.T. 


2 ra yoappara in SBDLR 1 (Tisch., W.H.). 
3 Omit kat BLR 13, 69 al. (Tisch., W.H.). 


4 Again ta ypappata in $BDLR. 


parable = to one. Two cases mentioned, 
a first and a second (étépw), two, out of 
many; enough to exemplify the method. 
It is assumed that all would take ad- 
vantage of the unprincipled concession ; 
those who had accused him and those 
who had possibly been already favoured 
in a similar manner, bribed to speak well 
of him.—Ver. 6, ta ypdappara: literally, 
the letters, then a written document; 
here a bill showing the amount of in- 
debtedness. The steward would have 
all the bills ready.—ypawov, write, 7.e., 
write out a new bill with fifty in place of 
a hundred ; not merely change a hundred 
into fifty in the old bill.—rayéws, no 
time left for reflection—‘“‘is this right ?”’ 
Some think that the knavery had come 
in before, and that fifty was the true 
amount. That might be, but the steward 
would keep the fact to himself. The 
debtors were to take it that this was a 
bond fide reduction of their just debt.— 
Ver. 7. dySorKovra, eighty, a small re- 
duction as compared with the first. Was 
there not a risk of offence when the 
debtors began to compare notes? Not 
much; they would not look on it as 
mere arbitrariness or partiality, but as 
policy: variety would look more like a 
true account than uniformity. He had 
not merely to benefit them, but to put 
himself in as good a light as possible 
before his master. 

Vv. 8-13. Application of the parable. 
There is room for doubt whether ver. 8 
should form part of the parable (or at 
least as far as dpovipws érotyeeyv), or the 
beginning of the application. In the 
one case 6 kUptos refers to the master of 
the steward, in the other to Jesus, who 
is often in narrative called Lord in Lk.’s 
Gospel. On the whole I now incline to 
the latter view (compare my Parabolic 
Teaching of Christ). It sins rather 
against natural probability to suppose 


the steward’s master acquainted with his 
new misconduct. The steward in his 
final statement, of course, put as fair a 
face as possible on matters, presenting 
what looked like a true account, so as to 
make it appear he was being unjustly 
dismissed, or even to induce the master 
to cancel his purpose to dismiss. And 
those who had got the benefit of his sharp 
practice were not likely to tell upon him. 
The master therefore may be supposed 
to be in the dark; it is the speaker of 
the parable who is in the secret. He 
praises the steward of iniquity, not for 
his iniquity (so Schleiermacher), but for 
his prudence in spite of iniquity. His 
unrighteousness is not glozed over, on 
the contrary it is strongly asserted: 
hence the phrase tév o. THs abukias, 
which is stronger than +. 0. Tov a8ukov. 
Yet however bad he still acted wisely for 
himself in providing friends against the 
evil day. What follows—6rt ot viol, 
etc.—applies the moral to the disciples = 
go ye and do likewise, with an implied 
hint that in this respect they are apt to 
come short. The counsel would be 
immoral if in the spiritual sphere it were 
impossible to imitate the steward’s 
prudence while keeping clear of his 
iniquity. In other words, it must be 
possible to make friends against the evil 
day by unobjectionable actions. The 
mere fact that the lesson of prudence is 
drawn from the life of an unprincipled 
man is no difficulty to any one who 
understands the nature of parabolic in- 
struction. The comparison between men 
of the world and the “sons of light” 
explains and apologises for the pro- 
cedure. If you want to know what 
prudent attention to self-interest means 
it is to men of the world you must look. 
Of course they show their wisdom suo 
more, in relation to men of their own 
kind, and in reierence ‘9 worldly matters 


KATA AOYKAN XVI 


bmép tods ulods Tod wtds Eis Thy yevedv THY éauTav ctor. 9. Kayo 
ipivy A€yw, Mowjoate éautois! pihous ek Tod papwva Tis ddiKlas, 
To). 


mists é€oTt, Kal 6 év éhaxlore 


iva, Stay €xdiryte,” S€fwvTar pas eis Tas aiwvlous oKHVAS. 
Moros év €haxiorw Kal év wohhG 
GSixos kal €v TWOANG GSixds €or. II. €t obv ev TA ABikwW prapwva 
mato. obK eyévecbe, Td GAnOwov Tis Spiv moredoer; 12. Kal Et év 
TG Gddotpiw MoTol obK éyéverOe, TO Spetepoy® tis duty Sdcer*; 
13. OdSels oikéTys Buvatar Suoi Kuplors Soudevew: H yap Tov eva 
plonoel, Kal Tov ETepov dyamyoer’ H évds GvOéFerar, cat Tod érdpou 


, 
KaTappovncet. 


1 eavrois before morqoate in NBLR. 


of Suvacbe Ocd Soudeve Kat papwvd.” 
t 


2So in NcaFPUFA, etc., latt. (vet. vulg.) several Fathers; S*AB*DLRX syr. 
cur. sin. have exAury (Tisch., W.H., and modern editors generally). 


3 So in RADA al. verss. Fathers. 
4 Sacer vpiv in NDLR 33 a be, etc. 


(this the sense of eis +. yevedv, etc.). 
Show ye your wisdom in your way and 
in reference to your peculiar generation 
(eis t. yeveav, etc., applicable to both 
parties) with equal zeal. 

Ver.g. éya: the use of the emphatic 
pronoun seems to involve that here 
begins the comment of Jesus on the 
parable, ver. 8 being spoken by the 
master and a part of the parable. But 
j. Weiss (in Meyer) views this verse as a 
second application put into the mouth of 
Jesus, but not spoken by Him, having 
for its author the compiler from whom 
Lk. borrowed (Feine’s Vork. Lukas). He 
finds in vv. 8-13 three distinct applica- 
tions, one by Jesus, ver. 8; one by the 
compiler of precanonical Lk., ver. g ; and 
one by Lk. himself, vv. 10-13. This 
analysis is plausible, and tempting as 
superseding the difficult problem of find- 
ing a connection between these sentences, 
viewed as the utterance of one Speaker, 
the Author of the parable. Ver. 9 ex- 
plicitly states what ver. 8 implies, that 
the prudence is to be shown in the way 
of making friends.—d¢idovs: the friends 
are not named, but the next parable 
throws light on that point. They are 
the poor, the Lazaruses whom Dives did 
not make friends of—to his loss. The 
counsel is to use wealth in doing kind- 
ness to the poor, and the implied doctrine 
that doing so will be to our eternal 
benefit. Both counsel and doctrine are 
held to apply even when wealth has been 
ill-gotten. Friends of value for the 
eternal world can be gained even by the 
mammon of unrighteousness. The more 


BL have npetepov (W.H. text). 
B as in T.R. 


ill-gotten the more need to be redeemed 
by beneficent use; only care must be 
taken not to continue to get money by 
unrighteousness in order to have where- 
with to do charitable deeds, a not un- 
common form of counterfeit philanthropy, 
which will not count in the Kingdom of 
Heaven. The name for wealth here is 
very repulsive, seeming almost to imply 
that wealth per se is evil, though that 
Jesus did not teach.—éxAfarg, when it 
(wealth) fails, as it must at death. The 
other reading, éxAtwnre (T.R.), means 
‘““when ye die,” so used in Gen. xxv. 
8.—aiwviovs oKyvas, eternal tents, a 
poetic paradox = Paradise, the poor ye 
treated kindly there to welcome you! 
Believing it to be impossible that Jesus 
could give advice practically suggesting 
the doing of evil that good might come, 
Bornemann conjectures that an ov has 
fallen out before woujeere (fut.), giving 
as the real counsel: do not make, etc. 
Vv. 10-13. These verses contain not 
so much an application as a corrective 
of the parable, They may have been 
added by Lk. (so J. Weiss in Meyer, 
and Holtzmann, H. C.) to prevent mis- 
understanding, offence, or abuse, so 
serving the same purpose as the addition 
“unto repentance”’ to the saying, “I 
came not to call,” etc. (v. 32); another 
instance of editorial solicitude on the 
part of an evangelist ever careful to 
guard the character and teaching of 
Jesus against misunderstanding. So 
viewed, their drift is: ‘‘ the steward was 
dishonest in money matters; do not 
infer that it does not matter whether you 








g-18 


EYATTEAION 


587 


14. “Hxovoy 8¢ taéta wdvta Kat! of bapicaior piidpyupor imdp- 


xovtes, Kat éfepuxtypiLov avrov. 


15. Kat etwev adtots, “ “Yueis 


€ote of Sixarodvres EéauTods evidmiov Tav avOpdmwv, 6 Sé Ocds 
yvdoKer Tas Kapdias tpav- Ste 7d ev avOpdmrors Snddv PSéAuypa 


é€vomiov Tou Oeo0 éotw?- 


16. “O vopos Kal ot mpopftar ews % 


"lwdvvou: amd tote h Bacidcia Tod Oeod edayyeAtLeTar, Kal mas 


eis adtiy BidLetou. 


yiv wapehOetv, 7 Tod vépou pilav kepalay treceiv. 


17. Edxotétepov 8¢ éote tov odpavéy Kal Thy 


18. Mas 6 


Gtroktwy thy yuvaika adTod Kat yapdv érépay poryeder’ Kal mas 4 


1 Omit xa: SBDLR 157. 


2? Omit eor_y NABDL al, 


® For ews (in D al.) $BLRX 1, 13, 69 al. have pexps (Tisch., W.H.), 


* Omit was here BDL 67, 69 al, verss. 


be honest or not in that sphere. It is 
very necessary to be faithful even there. 
For faithful in little faithful i much, un- 
faithful in little unfaithful in inuch. He 
who is untrustworthy in connection with 
worldly goods is unworthy of being en- 
trusted with the true riches; the unjust 
administrator of another’s property will 
not deserve confidence as an adminis- 
trator even of his own. In the parable 
the steward tried to serve two masters, 
his lord and his lord’s creditors, and by 
so doing promoted his own interest. 
But the thing cannot be done, as even 
his case shows.” ‘This corrective, if not 
spoken by Jesus, is not contrary to His 
teaching. (Ver. 10 echoes Mt. xxv. 21, 
Lk. xix. 17; ver. 13 reproduces verbally 
the logion in Mt. vi. 24.) Yet as it 
stands here it waters down the parable, 
and weakens the point of its teaching. 
Note the epithets applied to money: the 
little or least, the unjust, and, by impli- 
cation, the fleeting, that which belongs to 
another (t@ &ddorplw). Spiritual riches 
are the ‘‘ much,” the “‘ true ” 76 a\nOuvov, 
in the Johannine sense = the ideal as 
opposed to the vulgar shadowy reality, 
“our own”? (4perepoy). 

Vv. 14-18 form a ‘‘ somewhat heavily 
built bridge” (H. C.) between the two 
parables, which set forth the right and 
the wrong use of riches.—Ver. 14. 
iAdpyvpor: an interesting and very 
credible bit of information concerning 
the Pharisees (2 Tim. iii. 2).—éepuxr- 
yprlov (éx and puxrnp, the nose), turned 
up the nose at, in contempt, again in 
xxiii, 35.—Ver. 15. éva@miov 7. a: cf. 
the statements in Sermon on Mount (Mt. 
vi.) and in Mt. xxiii. 5.—8rT., etc.: a 
strong statement, but broadly true; con- 
ventional moral judgments are very often 


the reverse of the real truth: the con- 
ventionally high, estimable, really the 
low; the conventionally base the truly 
noble.—Ver. 16 = Mt. xi. 12 and 13, in- 
verted, introduced here in view of ver. 
31.—Ver. 17 = Mt. v. 18, substantially. 
Ver. 18 = Mt. v. 32. Its bearing here 
is very obscure, and its introduction in a 
connection to which it does not seem to 
belong is chiefly interesting as vouching 
for the genuineness of the logion. J. 
Weiss suggests that its relevancy and 
point would have been more apparent 
had it come in after ver. 13. On the 
critical question raised by this verse, vide 
J. Weiss in Meyer. 

Vv. 19-31. Parable of the rich man 
and Lazarus. This story is hardly a 
parable in the sense of illustrating by an 
incident from natural life a truth in the 
spiritual sphere. Both story and moral 
belong to the same sphere. What is the 
moral ? If Jesus spoke, or the evangelist 
reported, this story as the complement of 
the parable of the unfaithful steward, then 
for Speaker or reporter the moral is: see 
what comes of neglecting to make friends 
of the poor by a beneficent use of wealth. 
Looking to the end of this second 
‘‘ parable,” ver. 31, and connecting that 
with ver. 17, we get as the lesson: the 
law and the prophets a sufficient guide 
to a godly life. Taking the first part of 
the story as the main thing (vv. 19-26), 
and connecting it with the reflection in 
ver. 15 about that which is lofty among 
men, the resulting aim will be to exemplify 
by an impressive imaginary example the 
reversal of positions in this and the next 
world: the happy here the damned 
there, and vice versd. In that case the 
parable simply pictorially sets forth the 
fact of reversal, not its ground. If with 


588 


5 drodeAupévny awd dvips yapav porxever. 


KATA AOYKAN 


XVi1, 


19. “AvOpwros 8€ Tis 


chereand Fy wAodotos, Kal évediSdcKeto tmoppipay Kal ° Buagor, edpparvdpevos 


in Rev. 


xviii. 12 kad” ijpépay Aaptmpas. 


20. WTwxds Bé tis Fv! dvdpar. AdLapos, 


(T.R.). py a a c ~ 
d here only ds * €BEBANTO pds Tov TWUAGVa adTod *HAKwpévos® 21. Kat @mbupdv 
mN.i. 


xoptacOhvar dd Tay Weylwv 4 Tov murrévtwy dd Tis Tpawélyns Tob 
mAougious GAAG Kai of KUves Epxduevor dméderxov © Ta EXky adTod. 


22. éyéveto S€ dmo8avety Tov mrwxdv, Kal drevexOqvar adtov bwd 


tav dyy&wv eis Tov KédtTrOv TOUS "ABpadw- dréBave SE Kat 6 


1 tis without ny in RBDLX 33, 157, etc. 


2 Omit os NBDLX 33, 157. 


4 Omit rwv Wrytwy NBL verss. (Tisch., 
6 Omit tov all uncials. 


5 ereXetxyov in NABLX 33. 


some (Weizsacker, Holtzmann, Feine, 
J. Weiss) we cut the story into two, an 
original part spoken by Jesus and an 
addition by a later hand, it will have two 
morals, the one just indicated, and 
another connecting eternal perdition with 
the neglect of the law and prophets by a 
worldly unbelieving Judaism, and eternal 
salvation with the pious observance of 
the law by the poor members of the 
Jewish-Christian Church. On this view 
vide J. Weiss in Meyer. 

Ver. 19. GvOpwrros S82, etc.: either 
there was a certain rich man, or acertain 
man was rich, or there was a certain 
man—vich, this the first fact about him. 
—tkat introduces the second, instead of 
és, after the Hebrew manner.—ropdvpay 
kat Buoooy: his clothing of the costliest : 
‘“‘ purple without, Egyptian byssus under- 
neath” (Farrar in C. G. T.).—Aapaad@s 
(from Adprw), splendidly, characterising 
his style of living ; life a daily feast ; 
here only in N.T.—Ver. 20. Adfapos 
gives the impression of a story from real 
life, but the name for the poor man is in- 
troduced for convenience in telling the 
tale. He has to be referred to in the 
sequel (ver. 24). No symbolic meaning 
should be attached to the name.—mpés 
Tov wuA@va avTov: Lazarus is brought 
into relation with the rich man. This 
favours the view that the moral is the 
folly of neglecting beneficence. If the 
story were meant to illustrate merely the 
reversals of lot, why not describe 
Lazarus’ situation in this world without 
reference to the rich man? Is he placed 
at his ‘door s'mply that he may know 
him in the next world ?—ethxwpevos: 
covered with ulcers, therefore needing to 
be carried to the rich man’s gate; 
supposed to be a leper, hence the words 


8 e.Ax. in NABDL and many more, 


W.H.). 


lazaretto, lazar, etc.—Ver.21. émiSupayr, 
desiring, perhaps not intended to suggest 
that his desire was not gratified. Suppose 
morsels did come to him from the rich 
man’s table, not meant for him specially, 
but for the hungry without, including 
the wild street dogs, would that exhaust 
the duty of Dives to his poor brother ? 
But the trait is introduced to depict the 
poor man’s extreme misery rather than 
the rich man’s sin.—éa@AAa@ kat: no 
ellipse implied such as that supplied by 
the Vulgate: et nemo illi dabat. Borne- 
mann supplies: ‘‘ not only was he filled 
with the crumbs,” etc., but also, etc. (ow 
povoyv éxoptagOn ard Tov ryiwv— 
aovatov, adda, etc.).—aAAa simply in- 
troduces a new feature, and heightens 
the picture of misery (so Schanz) = he 
was dependent on casual scraps for his 
food, and moreover, etc.—émédetyoy, 
licked (here only in N.T.) ; was this an 
ageravation ora mitigation? Opinion is 
much divided. Or is the point that dogs 
were his companions, now licking his 
sores (whether a benefit or otherwise), 
now scrambling with him for the morsels 
thrown out? The scramble was as 
much a fact as the licking. Furrer speaks 
of witnessing dogs and lepers waiting 
together for the refuse (Wanderungen, 
p- 40).—Ver. 22. The end comes to the 
two men.—artrevexOqvat: the poor man 
dies, and is carried by angels into the 
bosom of Abraham ; the man, body and 
soul (so Meyer), but of course this is 
poetry. What really happened to the 
carcase is passed over in delicate re- 
serve.—étagy : of course Dives was 
buried with all due pomp, his funeral 
worth mentioning. (‘It is not said that 
the poor man was buried because of the 
meanness of poor men’s burial, but it is 





I9—26. 


TAouatos, kat érdpy. 


EYATTEAION 


589 


23. Kat év TO adn emdpas Tods dpOahpods 


attol,imdpxwv év Bacdvois, dpa tov! “ABpadp amd paxpdbey, kat 


AdLapoy év tots KéAtrots adToU: 24. kal altos pwvyjoas etme, Mdtep 


"ABpadp, édénodv pe, Kal méupov AdLapoy, iva Bay Td dxpov Tob 


SaxtUdou adtod USatos, kai Katapuéy Thy yAdoody pou: Sti Gduva- 


par év TH pdoyt Tatty. 


25. Etwe 8€ “ABpady, Téxvov, pyjoOnte 


6tt dréhaBes ob? Ta dyabd cou ev TH Loh cou, kat AdLapos dpolws 


Ta Kaka: viv dé 68e° wapakadettar, od Sé d8uvacar. 


26. kat ém4 


TGou ToUTo.s, peTagy Hav Kal Guay xdopa péya éoTHprKTal, OTrws 
ot Oddovtes Sia BAvar evtedOev® mpdos Spas, ph Sdvwvrar, pnde ot © 


1 Omit Tov NBDLX. 
2 Omit ov NBDL, etc., verss. 
3 oS only in minusc. 


w9de is the approved reading. 


4 ev mao. T. in NBL bec d f and vulg. cop. (Tisch., R.V., W.H.), 


5 evdev in NABLX al. D omits. 
6 Omit ot before exelbev SBD (W.H.). 


said expressly of the rich man, 81a 16 
modutTedes THS TOV WAovgiwy Tad7js.” 
Euthy. Zig.) 

Vv. 23-26. In the other world.—év 
7@ G8y: from the O.T. point of view 
Hades means simply the state of the 
dead. Thus both the dead men would 
be in Hades. But here Hades seems = 
hell, the place of torment, and of course 
Lazarus is not there, but in Paradise.— 
amd paxpd0ev: Paradise dimly visible, 
yet within speaking distance; this is 
not dogmatic teaching but popular de- 
scription ; so throughout.—év tots «éd- 
mots: plural here (cf. ver. 22); so often 
in classics.—Ver. 24. [ldtep °A.: the 
rich man, like Lazarus, is a Jew, and 
probably, as a son of Abraham, very 
much surprised that he should find him- 
self in such a place (Mt. iii. 8, 9), and 
still hoping that the patriarch can do 
something for him.—katawv&q (kata- 
wWixo, here only in N.T.): surely that 
small service will not be refused! Ifthe 
flames cannot be put out, may the pain 
they cause not be mitigated by a cooling 
drop of water on the tip of the tongue ? 
—a pathetic request.—Ver. 25. Tékvov: 
answering to Mdtep, introducing in a 
kindly paternal tone a speech holding 
out no hope, all the less that it is so 
softly and quietly spoken.—ra ayaba 
gov, Ta kaka: you got your good things 
—what you desired, and thought you 
had a right to—Lazarus got the ills, not 
what he desired or deserved, but the ills 
to be met with on earth, of which he had 


a very full share (no atrod after kaxd).— 
vov dé, but now, the now of time and of 
logic: the reversal of lot in the state 
after death a hard fact, and equitable. 
The ultimate ground of the reversal, 
character, is not referred to; it is a mere 
question of fairness or poetic justice.— 
Ver. 26. The additional reason in this 
verse is supplementary to the first, as if 
to buttress its weakness. For the tor- 
mented man might reply: surely it is 
pressing the principle of equity too far to 
refuse me the petty comfort I ask. Will 
cooling my tongue increase beyond what 
is equitable the sum of my good things? 
Abraham’s reply to this anticipated ob- 
jection is in effect: we might not grudge 
you this small solace if it were in our 
power to bring it to you, but unfortu- 
nately that is impossible.—év (él, T.R.) 
maou Tovros, in all those regions: the 
cleft runs from end to end, too wide to be 
crossed; you cannot outflank it and go 
round from Paradise to the place of tor- 
ment. With émt the phrase means, “in 
addition to what I have said”.—ydopa 
péya, a cleft or ravine (here only in N.T.), 
vast in depth, breadth, and length; an 
effectual barrier to intercommunication. 
The Rabbis conceived of the two divisions 
of Hades as separated only by a wall, 
a palm breadth or a finger breadth 
(vide Weber, Lehre des Talmud, p. 
326 f.).—6mws implies that the cleft 
is there for the purpose of preventing 
Bae either way; location fixed and 
nal 


§90 


éxeiOev mpds yds SramepHov. 


KATA AOYKAN 


XVI. 27-31. 


27. Elie 8€¢, Epwrd ody oe,! watep, 


iva wéupys adtiv eis Tov ofkov tod matpds pou, 28. exw yap TévTe 
ASekgods+ Srws Stapaptépytar adrois, tva ph Kal adtol EhOwouy 
eis tov témov toiToy THs Baodvou: 29. Adyar adt@? “ABpadp, 


“Exouot Maoéa Kat Tods mpopytas: dkovodtwoav abtév. 


30. 0 Se 


elev, Odyi, wdrep “ABpad: GAN édv tis dvd vexp&v mopev0A mpds 


abtous, peTavorcouct. 


31. Etwe S€ adr@, Ei Mwodws Kat tay 


tmpopyntav obk dKovouow, obdé, édv tig ex vexpOv dvacTy, meio Oy- 


» 
goyTat, 


1 For ovv oe (SLX, etc., Tisch.) ABD 69 al. have oe ovv (W.H.). 
2 Many authorities (BDL, etc.) add Se after Aeyes, and S$BL omit avtw. D 


has eutrev. 


Vv. 27-31. Dives intercedes for his 
brethren. —Ver. 27. ovv=if no hope for 
me, there may be for those still dear to 
me. Possibility of transit from Paradise 
tocarthisassumed. ‘That this is desired 
reveals humane feeling. No attempt to 
show that Dives is utterly bad. Is such 
a mana proper subject for final damna- 
tion ?—Ver. 28. a8eAdovs, brothers, in 
the literal sense. Why force on it an 
allegorical sense by finding in it a refer- 
ence to the Pharisees or to the Jewish 
people, brethren in the sense of fellow- 
countrymen? Five isarandom number, 
true to natural probability ; a large enough 
family to make interest in their eternal 
well-being on the part of a deceased 
member very intelligible.—8:apaptvpy- 
ro., urgently testify to, telling them how 
it looks beyond, how it fares with their 
brother, with the solemn impressiveness 
of one who has seen.—Ver. 29. Magéa, 
etc. : cf. xviii. 20, where Jesus refers the 
ruler to the commandments. Moses, or 
the law, and the prophets = the O.T., 
the appointed, reguiar means of grace. 
Ver. 30. ovxt, a decided negative = nay! 
that is not enough; so he knew from his 
own experience; the Scriptures very good 
doubtless, but men are accustomed to 
them.—tis a@m%6 vexpov: something un- 
usual, the preaching of a dead man 
returned to life, that might do.—Ver. 31. 
etre S¢: Abraham does not plead im- 
possibility as in reference to the first 
request ; he simply declares his unbelief 
in the utility of the plan for converting 
the five. The denizens of Paradise set 
little value on the unusual as a means 
of grace. Abraham does not say that a 
short-lived sensation could not be pro- 
duced; he does say that they would not 
be persuaded (meto8yjcovrat), i.¢., to re- 





pent (Hahn), By taking wevoOyoovrar 
as meaning something less than pera- 
voyjcovotv, and emphasising the differ- 
ence between é« vexpov avaory and amo 
vexpOv wopev0q (ver. 30), Trench (Notes 
on the Parables) makes this point: “A 
far mightier miracle than you demand 
would be ineffectual for producing a far 
slighter effect’. It is doubtful if the 
contrast be legitimate in either case; 
certainly not as between ‘‘repent” and 
‘““be persuaded”. In the other case 
there may be the difference between an 
apparition and a resurrected man. It 
may be noted that the resurrection of 
Christ and of Christians is spoken of as 
éx vexpov (vide Lk. xx. 35), while the 
general resurrection is y dvac. tav vex- 
pov (e.g., I Cor. xv. 42). 

CuHaPTER XVII. A COLLECTION oF 
SAYINGS, INCLUDING THE PARABLE OF 
ExTRA SERVICE. This chapter gives the 
impression of being a group of fragments 
with little connection in place, time, or 
topic, and nothing is gained for exegesis 
by ingenious attempts at logical or topi- 
cal concatenation. If we view the group 
of parables in chaps. xv., xvi. as a mass 
which has grown around the parable 
of the Lost Sheep as its nucleus, and 
reflect that that parable with the say- 
ings in xvii. 1-4 is found in Mt. xviii., 
we may with some measure of confidence 
draw the inference that the discourse 
on humility at Capernaum was the 
original locus of at least these elements 
of Luke’s narrative. That they are 
mixed up with so much matter foreign 
to Mt.’s record speaks to extensive 
transformation of the tradition of our 
Lord’s words by the time it reached 
Lk.’s hands (vide Weizsacker, Unter- 
suchungen, p. 177). 





XVII. 1—5. 


EYAITEAION 


591 


XVII. 1. EINE 5€ mpds tods pabytds,! “Avévdextév €ote Tod ph} 


éhOety ta oxdvdaha2- odat Se? 8’ of EpXeTau. 


2. Auattehet abTa, 


> , > x , ~ 
et pUAogs dvixds * wepikertat wept Tov Tpdxndov abTod, Kal EppuTTat 


> ~ ~ 
eis tiv Oddhaccar, H iva ckavdadion eva Tov puKpdv ToUTw.? 


3. Mpoo€xete EauTois. 


A 3 


, ~ ~ 
EMLTiNNOOV AUTG* Kal €dy peTavonon, ahes atTa. 


c 


édv Sé dudpty eis ce 6 adeAdds gov, 


a 
4. Kal éay 


ENTAKLS Th c , , it 2 , ‘ c , lol c , 8 
NS NpEepas Gpdpty' els od, kal EmtdKis THS Hpepas 
emotpéepy emt oé,° Néywv, Metavod, adycers ait.” 


‘ > c , an ~ 
5. Kat etmov ot dmdotoho. tH Kupiw, “Mpdobes piv mote.” 


LSSABDL al. verss. add avrov. 


* For py eX. va ox. (conformed to Mt.) SBLX e have ra ox. py AO. Tov is 


omitted in minusc. 
F arAny ovat in S$BDL al. (W.H.). 


* For pwd. ovixos, the true reading in Mt. and Mk., read AtOos puAukos with 


SBODL ail. yerss. (Tisch., W.H.). 


? TOV PLKP. TOUTwY eva in KYBL (Tisch. 


Vide below. 
, W.H.). 


° eav apapty without Se and es oe in BL (Tisch., W.H.). DX 33 omit 8¢, 


and A I, 42; 131, etc., omit ers oe. 


7 apaptyoy in ABDLXA al. (Tisch., W.H.). 


5 Omit ths npepas SBDLX verss, 
° arpos ge in RABDLX al. 


Vv. 1-4. Concerning offences and for- 
giving of offences (cf. Mt. xviii. 6, 7 ; 21, 
22).—davévdextov: here only in N.T. and 
hardly tound in classics; with éort = ovxK 
évdexerar (xiii. 33), it is not possible.— 
Tov py éA@civ: the infinitive with the 
genitive article may depend on avévSex- 
tov viewed as a substantive = an im- 
possibility of offences not coming exists 
(Meyer, J. Weiss), or it may be the sub- 
ject to éott, avey. being the predicate = 
that offences should not come is impos- 
sible (Schanz; Burton, M.and T.., inclines 
to the same view, vide § 405).—Ver. 2. 
AvotteXet (A¥w, TéAos), it profits or pays; 
here only in N.T. = oupdéper in Mt. 
xviil. 6.—At@os puArkds, a millstone, not 
a great millstone, one driven by an ass 
(utAos dvixos, T.R.), as in Mt.: the 
vehement emphasis of Christ’s words is 
toned down in Lk. here as often else- 
where. The realistic expression of Mt. 
is doubtless truer to the actual utterance 
of Jesus, who would speak of the offences 
created by ambition with passionate ab- 
horrence.—mepixetrat = perf. pass. of 
mepitiGnpt in sense = has been placed; 
with €ppirrat, another perfect, suggest- 
ing the idea of an action already complete 
—the miscreant with a stone round his 
neck thrown into the sea.—eis tHv 8ddac- 


MIR, Sth 


emt oe chiefly in minusc. 


oav: here again a subdued expression 
compared with Mt.—7 tva cxavdaXion, 
than to scandalise; the subj. with tva =the 
infinitive. Vide Winer, § 44, 8.—Ver. 3. 
mpocexete €, take heed to yourselves 
(lest ye offend), a reminiscence of the 
original occasion of the discourse: ambi- 
tion revealing itself in the disciple-circle. 
—Ver. 4. émTdK.s THS HpEpas, seven 
timesaday. The number recalls Peter’s 
question (Mt. xvili. 21), and the phrase 
seven times a day states the duty of 
forgiving as broadly as Mt.’s seventy 
times seven, but not in so animated a 
style: more in the form of a didactic 
rule than of a vehement emotional utter- 
ance ; obviously secondary as compared 
with Mt. 

Vv. 5-6. The power of faith (cf. Mt. 
xvii. 20).—ot améorodor instead of ua8y- 
rai. Ver.1I. 7@ kuplw: these titles for 
Jesus and the Twelve betray a narrative 
having no connection with what goes 
before, and secondary in its character.— 
apdo0es Hiv miotiv, add faith to us, 
This sounds more like a stereotyped peti- 
tion in church prayers than a request 
actually made by the Twelve. How 
much more life-like the occasion for the 
utterance supplied by Mt.: ‘“* Why could 
not we cast him out ?’’—Ver. 6. et éyere. 


592 


KATA AOYKAN 


XVIL, 


6. Ele 8€ & Kuptos, “Ei elyete! miotw, ds xdkxoy owdtrews, 
edéyete Ov TH ouKapivw tatty, “ExpiLdOyr, nal gutedOnte év TH 


Bardoon: Kal dajKougey dy duty. 


7. Tis Sé && budv Soddov Exwv 


ar Cor. ix." dpotptavra # motpaivoyta, Ss ceive OdvTe ex Tod dypod épet,” EdOdws 
Io. ‘ “ a 
bCh. xxii. mapehOdy dvdmeoat®- 8. Add’ odxl epet adt@ “Eroipagoy ti ° SecT- 


20. 1 Cor. 


xi.25. Rev. vo, Kal TepiLwodpevos Srakdver por, Ews Pdyw kal iw: Kal peTa 


iii. 20. 


Sr. éroince TA Statayévra adt@,® od Soxa.® 
| Xx 2 


A ‘ , U 
U t L £ 
TavTa ddyeat Kat Tievat ou ; 


Q- Mh xdpu Exer*t 7H Soddw exeivw,® 


10. oUTw Kai dpets, 


Stay Toujonte mdavta Ta StatayOdvTa piv, Azyere, “OTe Soddor 


&xpetot éoper - étu7 6 


II. KAl éyévero év TO topeveoOar adrov® 


1 exere in SABLXA al. fl. (Tisch., W.H.). 


27 SSBDLX al. verss. add auto. 
Savamece in SBD al. T.R. = Lal. 


~ , » 
8 Sheihopev trovjoa: memo Kapey. 


cis ‘lepoucahnp, Kat 


evxera in D al, 


4 exer xapwy in SRBDL 124. 


5 Omit exerww NAA BDLX, and SABLA al. omit avtw after datayOevra. 
® SSBLX 1, 28, 118, 131 al. verss. omit ov Soxw (Tisch., Trg., text, R.V., W.H.). 


7 Omit ott here NABDL al. verss. 


el with pres. in protasis, the imperf. in 
apodosis with av. Possession of faith 
already sufficient to work miracles is here 
admitted. In Mt. the emphasis lies on 
the want ofsuch faith. Another instance 
of Lk.’s desire to spare the Twelve.— 
ovxapivy, here only in N.T. = ovko- 
popea, xix. 4, the fig mulberry tree (vide 
there). A évee here, a mountain in Mt. ; 
and the miraculous feat is not rooting it 
out of the earth but replanting it in the sea 
—a natural impossibility. Pricaeus cites 
a classic parallel: té méAayos mpdtepov 
olcet Guredov. 

Vy. 7-10. The parable of extra service, 
in Luke only. For this name and the 
view of the parable implied in it see my 
Parabolic Teaching of Christ. Itis there 
placed among the theoretic parables as 
teaching a truth about the Kingdom of 
God, viz., that it makes exacting de- 
mands on its servants which can only be 
met by aheroic temper. ‘‘ Christ’s pur- 
pose is not to teach in what spirit God 
deals with His servants, but to teach 
rather in what spirit we should serve 
God.”—Ver. 7. ev@éws: to be connected 
not with épet but with wapehOav a4. = he 
does not say: Go at once and get your 
supper.—Ver. 8. GAN’ ody: adda im- 
plies the negation of the previous sup- 
position.—fws aye, etc., ‘till I have 
eaten,” etc., A.V.; or, while I eat and 
drink.— Ver. 9. ph €xet xapiv, he does 
not thank him, does he ? the service taken 
as a matter of course, all in the day’s 


§ Omit avtov NBL. 


work,—Ver. 10. ottws, so, in the King- 
dom of God: extremes meet. The ser- 
vice of the Kingdom is as unlike that of 
a slave to his owner as possible in spirit ; 
but it is like in the heavy demands it 
makes, which we have to take as a matter 
of course.—8.tataySévra, commanded. 
In point of fact it is not commands but 
demands we have to deal with, arising 
out of special emergencies. — SotAor 
&xpetor: the words express the truth in 
terms of the parabolic representation 
which treats of a slave and his owner. 
But the idea is: the hardest demands of 
the Kingdom are to be met in a spirit of 
patience and humility, a thing possible 
only for men who are as remote as pos- 
sible from a slavish spirit: heroic, gener 
ous, working in the spirit of free self- 
devotion. Such men are not unprofitable 
servants in God’s sight; rather He ac- 
counts them “good and faithful,” Mt. 


xxv. 21. Syr. Sin. reads simply ‘“‘ we are 
servants”. 
Vv. 11-19. The ten lepers——Ver. 11. 


els ‘lep.: the note of time seems to take 
us back to ix. 51. No possibility of 
introducing historic sequence into the 
section of Lk. lying between ix. 51 and 
XViii. 15.—awttdés, He without emphasis ; 
not He, as opposed to other pilgrims 
taking another route, directly through 
Samaria (so Meyer and Godet).—&a 
pécov = dia péecov (T.R.), pesov being 
used adverbially as in Philip. ii. 15 = 
through between the two provinces 





6—19. 


autos Sinpyeto a pécou } Yapapetas Kal Tadthalas. 


eigepyopevou adrou eis Ta KOpyY, amnyTHCAY 


EYATTEAION 


593 
12. Kal 


7 ait § Séxa empot 


GvBpes, ot Eotnoav* méppwlev* 13. Kai adtot Apay dwvyy, A¢yovTes, 


cee a“ 2 , enhé Gat) 
yoou, ETLOTATa, € enaov Nas. 


nw ~ é) 
“ MopeuOévtes emdeigate EauTods Tots tepetor.” 


€ > , > 4 
imdyew atitous, éxabaptoOncar. 


\ ra 
14. Kal (Sav etirevy adrots, 


A A 
Kat éyéveto ev TO 


15. els S€ €§ adtav, idav or idOn, 


iméotpee, peta hwvis peydhys SofdLov tiv Ocdv- 16. kai erecev 


> A , AA AY , 

emi mpdowroy mapa Tods 1Odas 
qv Lapapeitys* 17. dro p.bels 
1oU ; 


éxadapicOnaav; ot S€° évvea 


Wartes Soivar SdEav TO Ged, et pH 


< 


eimev adT@, ““Avactds Tropevou: 4 


> A > la 3 A ‘ ees | 
QUTOU, EUKAPLOTWY aQuTa@ * KQ@L QUTOS 


S€ 6 “Ingods etirey, “ Odxt® of Sexo 


18. ox ebpébyoav bTrootpé- 


6 ddhoyevs obtos;” 19. Kat 
WiSTLS TOU TETWKE OE. 


1 $a perov in NBL (D peoov alone) 1, 13, 69 al. ava perov. 


2 So in ABX al. (W.H. text). 
marg.). 
3 BL omit avtw (W.H.). 


4 BF 157 have aveotyoav (W.H. text). 


5 ovx in BLS 131. 


varnvt. in SL 1, 13, 69, 131 al, (Tisch., W.H., 


6 Omit & AD ¢(Tisch., W.H., brackets), found in QBLX, ete. 


named, on the confines of both, which 
explains the mixture of Jews and 
Samaritans in the crowd of lepers.—Ver. 
12. 8éka empot: ten, a large number, 
the disease common. Rosenmiiller (das 
A. and N. Morgenland) cites from 
Dampier a similar experience; lepers 
begging alms from voyagers on the river 
Camboga, when they approached their 
village, cryirig to them from afar. They 
could not heal them, but they gave them 
a little rice.—Ver. 13. émordta: this 


—Ver. 15. S0gafwv 7. O.: general state- 
ment, exact words not known, so also in 
report of thanksgiving to Jesus.—Ver. 
16. Lapapeirys : oa with the comment 
of Jesus, the point of interest for Lk.— 
Ver. 17. ovx (ovxt, T.R.): asking a 
question and implying an affirmative 
answer. Yet the fact of asking the 
question implies a certain measure of 
doubt, No direct information as to 
what happened had reached Jesus pre- 


sumably, and He naturally desires _ex- 
word is peculiar to Lk., which suggests planation of the non-appearance_of 
editorial revision of the story._—ééenoov: but one. Were not all the ten (oi Séxa, 
a very indefinite request compared with now a familiar number) healed, that 
that of the leper in v. 12 f., whose you come back alone ?—+rov: emphatic 
remarkable words are given in identical position: the nine—where ? expressing 
terms by all the synoptists. The interest the suspicion that not Tac i 
wanes here.—Ver. 14. émidelEare €.: but Tac TW 
the same direction as in the first leper the nine.— Ver. 18. ov evpeOnoay, etc., — 
narrative, but without reason annexed.— best taken as another question (so R.V.). 
iepetou: plural, either to the priests of —dAAoyevys, here only, in N.T.; also 





their respective nationalities (Kuinoel, J. 
Weiss, etc.) or to the priests of the 
respective districts to which they be- 
longed (Hahn).—év 1@ twayewv, etc., on 
the way to the priests they were healed. 
Did they show themselves to the priests ? 
That does not appear. The story is 
defective at this point (“negligently 
told,” Schleier.), either because the 
narrator did not know or because he 
took no interest in that aspect of the 
case. The priests might not be far off. 


in Sept. = GAASpvAos and ddAoeOvajs in 
classics, an alien, Once more the Jew 
suffers by comparison with those without 
in res of genuine religious feeling— 


1 
ae gratitude. It is not indeed said that 


all the rest were Jews. What is certain 


is that the one man who came back was 


not a Jew.—Ver. 19. avaoras mopevov: 
that might be all that Jesus said (so in 
B), as it was the man’s gratitude, natural 
feeling of thankfulness, not his faith, that 
was in evidence. But Lk., feeling that 


38 


594 


KATA AOYKAN 


XVII. 


20. "Erepwrybets Sé bad tay bapicatwy, mére Epyerar f Pacrdela 


“~ A , “~ , ~ 
ToU O€od, Hees adtots, Kat elev, “ Odx Epxetat 4 Baothela Tod 


chere only QeoU preta ° Tapatyprcews * 
in N.T. 
eKel. 


idod ydp,  Baowela tod Ceod evtds Spar eotiv.” 


21. od8€ épodow, “180d Se, 7, i800} 


22. Ettre 


Sé mpds Tods pabytds, “’EXedoovrar tpépar, Ste emOupyoere play 


1 The second iSov in D and many other uncials is omitted in NBL 157. 


it was an abrupt conclusion, might add 
q wlotts o o- o to round off the 
sentence, which may therefore be the 
true reading. 

Vv. 20-37. Concerning the coming of 
the Kingdom and the advent oy the Son of 
Man. In this section the words of 
Jesus are distributed between Pharisees 
and disciples, possibly according to the 
evangelist’s impression as to the audience 
they suited. Weiffenbach (Wéieder- 
kunftsgedanke Fesu, p. 217) suggests 
that the words in vv. 20, 21 were 
originally addressed to disciples who 
did not yet fully understand the inward 
spiritual character of the Kingdom of 
God. I am inclined to attach some 
weight to this suggestion. I am sure at 
any rate that it is not helpful to a true 
understanding of Christ’s sayings to lay 
much stress on Lk.’s historical introduc- 
tions to them. 

Vv. 20, 21. peta maparnpycews : 
there is considerable diversity of opinion 
in the interpretation of this important 
expression. The prevailing view is that 
Jesus meant thereby to deny a coming 
that could be observed with the eye 
(‘not with observation”). The older 
interpretation “not with pomp” (pera 
mepipavetas avOpwrivys is the gloss of 
Euthy. Zig.) is closely related to this 
view, because such pomp alone would 
make the kingdom visible to the vulgar 
eye. J. Weiss (Meyer) contends that it 
is not visibility but predictability that is 
negated. Maparrpyots, he remarks, ‘is 
used of the observation of the heavenly 
bodies, from whose movements one can 
calculate when an expected phenomenon 
will appear. In a similar way the 
apocalyptists sought to determine by 
signs the moment when the kingdom 
should be set up. That was what the 
Pharisees expected of Jesus with their 
méteé€pxetar. And itis just this that Jesus 
declines. The Kingdom of God comes 
not so that one can fix its appearing by 
observation beforehand.’”? The assump- 
tion is that when it does come the 
kingdom will be visible. It does not 
seem possible by mere verbal interpreta- 


tion to decide between the two views. 
Each interpreter will be influenced by 
his idea of the general drift of Christ’s 
teaching concerning the nature of the 
kingdom. My own sympathies are with 
those who find in Christ’s words a 
denial of vulgar or physical visibility. 
—Ver. 21. ovSé épotor, nor will they 
say ; there will be nothing to give occa- 
sion for saying: non erit quod dicatur, 
Grotius.—de, éxet, here, there, implying 
a visible object that can be located.— 
évros tpov, within you, in your spirit. 
This rendering best corresponds with 
the non-visibility of the kingdom. The 
thought would be a very appropriate one 
in discourse to disciples. Not so in dis- 
course to Pharisees. To them it would 
be most natural to say ‘‘among you” = 
look around and see my works: devils 
cast out (Lk. xi. 20), and learn that the 
kingdom is already here (€p0acev 颒 
tpas). Kindred to this rendering is that 
of Tertullian (c. Marcionem, L. iv., 35): 
in your power, accessible to you : in 
manu, in potestate vestra. The idea 
‘“‘among you” would be more clearly 
expressed by 78 év per tpav. Cf. 
John i. 26. péoos b. orryjket, etc., one 
stands among you whom ye know not— 
cited by Euthy, to illustrate the meaning 
of our passage. Field (Ot. Nor.) con- 
tends that there is no clear instance ot 
éyros in the sense of ‘‘ among,” and cites 
as an example of its use in the sense of 
“within ”’ Ps. ciii. 1, wavra Ta 2v7ds pov. 
Vv. 22-25. The coming of the Son of 
Man (Mt. xxiv. 26-28).—2pos T. padntas: 
so in Mt., but at a later time and at 
Jerusalem; which connection is the 
more original cannot be decided.— 
éAc¥oovrat Hepat, there will come days 
(of tribulation), ominous hint like that 
in v. 35.—plav tT. q, etc., one of the 
days of the Son of Man; not past days 
in the time of discipleship, but days to 
come. ‘Tribulation will make them !ong 
fer the advent, which will put an end to 
their sorrows. One of the days; why 
not the first, the beginning of the 
Messianic period? Hahn actually takes 
play as = first, Hebraistic fashion, as ia 





EYAITEAION 


20—30. 595 
TOV Hwepdy Tod utod Tov dvOpwmou idetv, Kat odk Spee. 23. Kal 

€podow duiv, 180d dde, 7, iBod exet!- ph dwdAOyre, pnde? Sidénre. 

24. Sonep yap i dotpam) 4° dotpdwrovca ex Tis bw’ obpaviy é Eis 

tiv bw odpavéy Adware, obtws Eotar Kat® 6 ulds tod dvOpdmou ev 
TH pepo adtod.© 25. mpHtov S€ Set adtév wodhd mabeiy, Kal 
drodoKkipacOjvar awd Tis yeveds TavTys. 26. Kai Kabds éyévero 
év Tais Hpepats Tod’? N@e, obTws EoTat Kal év Tais Huepats TOO viod 
to avOparou. 27. naO.ov, Emwor, éydpouv, ébeyapiLovto,® aypu As 
hpépas eloqOe NGe eis thy KiBwrdv, kal AOev 6 KaTaxducpds, 
éyéveTo év Tats 


kal dawdecey Gravtas. 28. dpolws Kat ds ® 


hpepats Abt: YoO.ov, Emvov, Hydpalov, émddouv, Epitevoy, «kodd- 
pouv: 29. 4 Sé tpéepa eémhOe AWT Gd Lodduwv, EBpete wip Kai 


Oetov dm’ odpavod, kai dwheoey Gwavtas’ 30. Kata Taira !° goras 


1 For t80v we n Bou exer some copies have v8ov wie tSou exer (DXM), some iBov 
exer Sov wde (L). Some have this order of exet, wSe, but retaining » (B). §§ bas «au. 





2 Omit awedOnte pyde B 13, 69 (W.-H. brackets). 


3 Omit this y SBLXT 169 al. 
4 vio tov ovp. in SBD al. 
5 Omit kat NABLX al. 


6 BD 220 a b €i omit ev rH Hp a (W.H. text), 


7 Omit tov all uncials. 
8 eyap. in NBDLX al. 
9 kat ws in D al. 
10 kara ra avta in BDX al. 


Mt. xxviii. 1, Mk. xvi. 2.—otk« dere, 
ye shall not see, not necessarily an 
absolute statement, but meaning: the 
vision will be deferred till your heart 
gets sick ; so laying you open to tempta- 
tion through false readers of the times en- 
couraging delusive hope.—Ver. 23. éxet, 
Se: cf. the more graphic version in Mt. 
xxiv. 26, and notes thereon.— py Siwénre, 
do not follow them, give no heed to them. 
—Ver. 24. é« Tis, xepas understood, 
so also y#pay after eis thy = from this 
quarter under heaven to that. Here 
again Mt.’s version is the more graphic 
and original = from east to west.—Ver. 
25. @wpatov Se Set, etc.; the Passion 
must come before the glorious lightning- 
like advent. What you have to do 
meantime is to prepare yourselves for 
that. 

Vv. 26-30. The advent will be a sur- 
prise (Mt. xxiv. 37-41).—Ver. 27. 7o0Q.ov, 
etc.: note the four verbs without con- 
necting particles, a graphic asyndeton; 
and note the imperfect tense: those 
things going on up to the very hour of 


xa8ws in SBLRX 13, 69 al. 
T.R. = $WLA al. 


the advent, as it was in the days of 
Noah, or in the fateful day of Pompeii. 
—Ver. 28. Gpoiws: introducing a new 
comparison = similarly, as it was in the 
days, etc.—so shall it be in the day of, 
etc. (ver. 30). Bornemann ingeniously 
connects 6polws with dwavras going 
before, and, treating it as a Latinism, 
renders perdidit omnes pariter.—7jc8vov, 
etc. ; again a series of unconnected verbs, 
and a larger, six, and all in the imperfect 
tense. This second comparison, taken 
from Lot’s history, is not given in Mt. 
The suddenness of the catastrophe makes 
it very apposite—Ver. 29. ¢Bpete 
(Bpéxw): an old poetic word used in late 
Greek for tev, to rain. Bpoxy is the 
modern Greek for rain (vide Mt. v. 45). 
—Ver. 30. «Kata Ta ara, etc., the 
apodosis of the long sentence beginning 
ver. 28. 

Vv. 31-34. Sauve qui peut (Mt. xxiv. 
17,18; Mk. xiii. 15, 16). The saying in 
ver. 3I is connected in Mt. and Mk. 
with the crisis of Jerusalem, to which in 
this discourse in Lk. there is no allusion. 


KATA AOYKAN XVII. 31—37 


596 


W fwepa 8 vids rod avOpdwou Aroxahdmrerar. 31. ev exetvy TH 
Hepa, Ss ora emt tod Sdparos, kal ra oKedn adrod ev TH otKigs 
ph KataBdrw apa aitd: Kal 6 év 7H! dypG dpolws pi) emotpepdtw 
33: 85 édv 
Inmjion Thy Wuxhy adtod odo, drodécea airy: Kal ds édv® 


cis Ta Srrigw. 32. pynpovedeTe THS yuvatKds Adr. 


dmohdon abtiy,* Lwoyoryoer adtyy. 34. héyw Spiv, tadTy TH vuKTL 
Zoovrat Suo emt KAivyns pds 5+ 6% els rapaypOrcerat, kal 6 ETEpos 
ddeOjoerar. 35. SUo Eoovrar? GAnBoucm emi rd aitd: pia’ 
mapadynOycetat, Kai % érépa apeOycetar.” 37. Kai daoxpbévtes 


‘oO 8€ elev adtois, ““Omou 7d 
10 


A >» 
héyousw ada, “Mob, xupte ; 


~ a , c so 
oGpa, éxet cuvaxOijoovTat ot detot. 


1 Omit rw NBL 13, 69, 346. 
2 For sweat (§ al.) BL vet. Lat. (4) have weptrornoaofa: (Tisch., W.H.). 


2 9g § av in WBL 69 al. 

4amrodeoy in BD. 
autny after amok. 

5 B omits pras (W.H. brackets). 

6 All uncials except B omit o. 


7 egovtat Svo in SaBDL a cop. syr. cur. 


8 y pra in NaBDR 1, 69. 
® For cat 4 (D al.) $aBLR have n &e. 


10 For ovvax. ot aero. NBL have kat o1 aeror emiovvay8yoovrar (Tisch., W.H.). 


The connection in Mt. and Mk. seems 
the more appropriate, as a literal flight 
was then necessary.—Ver. 32. pvnpovev- 
ete, etc.: the allusion to Lot’s wife is 
prepared for by the comparison in ver. 
28. It is not in Mt. and Mk,, being 
inappropriate to the flight they had in 
view. No fear of looking back when an 
invading army was at the gates. Lk. 
has in view the spiritual application, as 
is shown by the next ver., which repro- 
duces in somewhat altered form the 
word spoken at Caesarea Philippi con- 
cerning losing and saving life (ix. 24). 
—f{woyovjoet, will preserve alive, used 
literally in this sense in Acts vii. I9. 

Vv. 34-37. The final separation (Mt. 
xxiv. 40, 41).—Ver. 34. 7. T. vuKrt, on 
that night ; day hitherto, the Jewish day 
began with night (Hahn), and the refer- 
ence to night suits the following illustra- 
tion. No need to take night metaphori- 
cally = imago miseriae (Kuinoel).—émt 
wAtyns p., in one bed; in the field in Mt. 
—Ver.35. ad7Poveatémt ro atrd, grind- 
ing at the same place; in the mill, Mt. 
Proximity the point emphasised in Lk.— 
near each other, yet how remote their 
destinies |—Ver. 37. o@pa, the carcase = 


awokeoe: in SQL (Tisch., W.H.). 


SBD 1, 33, 131 omit 


x7Opa, Mt. xxiv. 28; so used in Homer, 
who employs 8épas for the living body. 
CHAPTER XVIII. 1-14. THE Para- 
BLES OF THE UNJUST JUDGE AND THE 
PHARISEE AND THE PUBLICAN.—VvV. I- 
8. The unjust judge, in Lk. only.—Ver. 
I. wapaBoAnv: the story is a parable in 
so far as it teaches by an incident in 
natural life the power of perseverance 
with reference to the spiritual life.—2pés, 
in reference to, indicating the subject or 
aim of the parable—de (so Kypke, with 
examples).—mdvrore: not continuously, 
but persistently in spite of temptation to 
cease praying through delayed answer 
= keep praying, notwithstanding delay. 
The whole raison d’étre of the parable is — 
the existence of such delay. 


between God and the judge is that He 
does not delay. Itisnotso. Godislike 
the judge in this, only His delay has not 
the same cause or motive. The judge 
represents God as He appears in Provi- — 

dence to tried faith—éxxaxetv: a Pauline 
word (Gal. vi.g; 2 Thess. iii. 13, etc.), 
This introduction to the parable is pro- 
bably due to Lk., who, it will be observed, 
takes care to make the lesson of general 





Some fail 
to see this and think that the difference 





XVIII. 1—6, 


EYATTEAION 


597 


XVIII. 1. “EAETE 8€ xat! wapaBodtv adtois mpds 1d Seiv 
mdytote mpocedxeoOon,? Kal pi) ékkakety, 2. Kéywv, “Kpitijs tis 


> ” aN Q a x , Nae 6 wD) s 
ny €v Tue ToAeL, Tov Ody py poPovjevos, Kal GvOpwroy ph évtpeTd- 


[evos. 


HOAnoer 3 


Qcov ob hoBodpat, kai dvOpwmov odk 


éml xpdvov’ peta S€ tatTa 


3- xnpa Se qv év TH moder éxelvy, kal jpxeTo Tpds adrdv, 
héyouga, *"ExSdixnodvy pe dnd tod dytiBixou pou. 
4 
5 


4. Kat odka Rom. xii. 


a , ‘ ta , > , > , 9 > 
TOpEXeLy LoL KOTTOY THY XNpay TaUTHY, EKdiKHow adTHy, tva ph ets 


tédos épxop.évy brady pe.” 


= > c A > 4 Q 2 Cor 
elmev ev cauT@, Et kat TOY x.6. Rev 
1.10, 
€vtpémopar: 5. Sid ye TO xix 2 
bi Cor. ix 


6. Ete S€ 6 Kuptos, “*Akotoate ay, 


1 Omit kat BLM 13, 69, 131 al. it. (4) cop. 


7 avtous after mpomevy. in NBL al. 
3 nBedev in NABDLX al. 
4 peta tTavta Se in BLO (W.H.). 


T.R=WND al. (Tisch.). 


5 For cat av@. ove (D al. pl.) NBLX 157 it. (8) vulg. have ovSe avOpwmoy. 


application, though the 8 after édeye 
and the concluding reflection in ver. 8 
imply that the special subject of prayer 
contemplated both by Lk. and by our 
Lord was the advent referred to in the 
previous context. 

Vy. 2-5. The parable.—rov Qeédy, etc.: 
a proverbial description for a thoroughly 
unprincipled man ecaraples from classics 
in Wetstein).—évrpemépevos, having re- 
spect for, with accusative, as in late 
Greek; in earlier writers with genitive.— 
Ver. 3. xpa, a widow, such a suppliant 
tests a man’s character. Her weakness 
appeals to a generous, noble nature, and 
is taken advantage of by an ignoble.— 
“pxeto, presumably used in a frequenta- 
tive sense = ventitabat (Grotius), though 
not necessarily meaning more than ‘‘be- 
gan to come,” with possibility of recur- 
rence.—ékdixyody pe, give me redress 
or satisfaction. ‘‘ Avenge me” is too 
strong.—Ver. 4. él xpdvov, for a con- 
siderable time. Per multum tempus 
(Vulgate) may be too strong, but it is in 
the right direction. The scope of the 
parable and the use of the word xpdvos 
in a pregnant sense implying moAvs (vide 
examples in Kypke) demand a time suf- 
ficient to test the temper of the parties.— 
év €auT®, within himself. The characters 
in Lk.’s parables are given to talking to 
themselves (Prodigal, Unjust Steward).— 
Ver.5. 81a ye, etc.: similar expression in 
xi. 8. The parable before us is a com- 
panion to that of the Selfish Neighbour. 
The two should be studied together—vide 
The Parabolic Teaching of Christ.— 
xémov: the power of the petitioner in 
both parables lies in their ability and 


determination to disturb the comfort of 
those they address. The neighbour and 
the judge are both selfish, care only for 
their own ease, and it is that very quality 
that gives the suppliants their oppor- 
tunity. They can annoy the reluctant 
into granting their requests—success cer- 
tain.—eis réAos: interpreters differ as to 
the meaning of this phrase, and whether 
it should be connected with épxopévn or 
with trwmdly. The two ways of ren- 
dering the last clause of ver. 5 are: lest 
coming continually, she weary me to 
death, or lest coming and coming, she at 
last give me black eyes; of course meant 
in a humorous sense. The latter render- 
ing does more justice to the humour of 
the situation, but the other seems more 
in harmony with the scope of the parable, 
which is to enforce persistence in prayer 
—continual coming. The present tense 
in participle and verb also seems to de- 
mand the first rendering: it points to a 
process in the coming and in its effect on 
the judge, the two keeping pace with each 
other. As she keeps coming, he gets 
more and more bored. [Ifa final act, the 
use of fists (seriously or humorously 
meant) were pointed at by trwm., the 
aorist would have been more suitable. 
(So Field in O¢. Nor.) The philological 
commentators differ in regard to the sense 
of eis téAos, some taking it = perpetuo, 
indesinenter (Grotius, Kypke); others = 
tandem (Palairet) ; others = omnino 
(Raphel) ; all citing examples. 

Vv. 6-8. The moral.—kpuris 7. dduxias, 
cf. oixovépov +. G., xvi. 8.—Ver. 7. ov 
7 woujoy, etc., will not God avenge, 
etc,, the question implying strongly that 


KATA AOYKAN XVIII. 


598 
ti S xpirhs THs Adixias Néyer: 7. 5 S€ Ceds oF ph worjoe!? rhy 
exSixnow Tov ékNextav adtod Tav Bodvtwy mpds adrdv? hpépas Kai 
vukTos, Kal paxpobupay§’ éw adtois; 8. Aéyw pty, Ome Tojoe Thy 

exSikyow abtav év tdxe. Ady 6 vids Tod dvOpmmou eMdv dpa 

edpijoer Thy Tlotw ém THs yis;” 

g. Elire 8€ kal mpds tivas Tods memorOdras ef EauTois St eiot 
Sixarot, Kat efouBevodvtas tods Aotmods, Thy mapaBodhy tadTHy: 
10. “"AvOpwiror S00 dvéBnoay eis Td lepdv mpocedEacOar- 6* ets 
apisatios, Kal 6 étepos Teddyns. II. & Papioatos otabeis mpds 
éautov taita® mpoontxeto, ‘O Ocds, cbxapioTd oor, Str odK cipi 


Gomep® of Aourol tay avOpdrwv, apmayes, GBixkot, porxol, H kal ds 


* So in L al. 
2 autw in NBLQ. 


moinasy in NBDQXA al. pl. 


8 paxpoduper in RABDLQXN 1, 157, 209 (modern editors). 


40 evs in NALQ, etc. (Tisch.). 


5 ravra before mpos e. in BL 1, 131 e vulg. (W.H. text). 


omit wpos eavtov (Tisch.). 
6 So in ${AB al. (Tisch., W.H., text). 


He will, but the emphasis is rendered 
necessary by appearances to the contrary, 
which strongly try men’s faith in His 
good will—long delays in answering 
prayer which wear the aspect of in- 
difference.—tav éxXext@v a., His elect: 
standing in a close relation, so named to 
support the previous assertion. But in 
the dark hour of trial it is difficult to ex- 
tract comfort from the title. Then the 
doubt arises: is the idea of election not 
adelusion? What are we to the far-off 
Deity ?—rév Boovtwv : from these words 
down to the end of the sentence (ém’ 
avtois) is a single clause meant to define 
the situation of ‘the elect”. They are 
persons who keep crying to God day and 
night, while He seems to pay no heed to 
them, but delays action in their case, and 
in their interest. The words down to 
vuktés describe the need of Divine inter- 
ference ; those which follow describe the 
experience which tempts to doubt whether 
succour will be . forthcoming.—paxpo- 
Ovpet: this verb means to be slow, 
leisurely, unimpulsive in temper, whether 
in punishing or in succouring, or in any 
other form of action. Instances of the 
use of the verb in the first-mentioned 
occur in 2 Maccab. vi. 14 (cited by 
Pricaeus) and Sirach xxxv. 22 (od ph 
Bpadivy 0888 pH paxpoPupyoe én’ 
avtots, frequently quoted). In James 
v. 7 it is applied to the husbandman 
waiting for harvest. Here it is applied 


evs in BDRX (W.H. text and in marg.). 


SS and codd. Lat. vet. 


DLQ al pauc. have ws (W.H. marg.), 


to God’s leisureliness in coming to the 
help of tried saints. The construction 
kat pakpoOvpet is of the Hebraistic 
type.—Ver. 8. év tdaxet, quickly, quite 
compatible with delay; quickly when 
the hour comes = suddenly.—Anp, yet; 
in spite of the alleged speed, the time 
will seem so long that, etc.—épa, so to 
be taken (not apa), as-bearing a major 
force of reasoning, andinterrogative. The 
two words are one in essence, but dpa 
has more emphasis in utterance, and 
therefore the first syllable is lengthened, 
and it stands at the beginning of a sen- 
tence, here before etpyjoer; cf. Gal. ii. 17. 
On the two particles vide Klotz in Dev., 
p- 180.—mioriw: not absolutely, but in 
reference to the second coming, hope 
deferred making the heart sick. 

Vv. 9-14. The Pharisee and the pub- 
lican.—Ver. 9. mpés TLvas, with reference 
to certain persons; who not indicated, 
of what sort definitely described. This 
introduction is doubtless an editorial 
heading extracted from the story. It is 
true, but not necessarily the whole truth. 
The story may have been spoken to pub- 
licans to encourage them to hope in 
God’s mercy—at the Capernaum gather- 
ing, ¢.g.—aapaBodny: it is not really a 
parable, but simply an imaginary inci- 
dent within the sphere to which its 
moral belongs.—Ver. 11. oraeis, having 
taken his stand; fidenter loco solito 
(Bengel); “a sign less of confidence 








7—15. 


odtos 6 rehdvns. 
Soo KTOpat. 


abtod, Méywv, ‘O Geds, idoOyTi por TO dpapTwdd. 


kateBy obtos Seditkarwpevos eis Tov otkov aitod, 7 exetvos.® 


EYATTEAION 


599 


12. vnoTedw Sis Tod caBBdrou, drodexata! wdvra 
13. Kat 67 tedavns paxpdley Eotas otk Oedev obde 
tods db9adpovs eis Tov odpavdy érrapar ® 


- GAN Etumtev cist 7d oT 790s 
14. A€yw opty, 
ott 


was 6 GWar éautéy tamewwljcerar: 6 S€ taTewdy EauTdy dywbh- 


> 
CETQL. 


15. Mpocépepov S€ adt@ Kai Ta Bpdpy, iva adtav amtyTaL- 


1 arrodexatevew in NB. 


2 For cat o (ADQX al.) ${BGL 60 al. have o Se. 
3 emapat eis T. ovp. in BLOX 33 verss. 


‘ Omit this ets HBDLQX it. vulg. 


5 For y exetvos (found in minusc.) APQXA al. have y yap ex. (Tisch.). 


NBL 1 


94 al. sah. cop. Orig. have wap exetvov (Alf., Trg., W.H.). 


than of self-importance” (J. Weiss in 
Meyer). Probably both qualities are 
aimed at.—mpos éavtév: whether these 
words should be taken with oradeis or 
with wpoonvxeto is disputed. If the 
position of tatta before mpés é in 
BL be accepted, there is no room for 
doubt. Hahn contends that the proper 
meaning of ampos € wWpoonvyxero is 
‘prayed to himself,” and that there is no 
instance of the use of mpés é. in the 
sense of “ with himself”. Godet takes 
the phrase as = to himself, and regards 
the so-called prayer as simply self-con- 
gratulation in God’s presence.—ot Aovrol 
7. @.: not necessarily all mankind, rather 
all the Jewish world outside his coterie 
=am haarez.—Gpmwayes, etc.. these 
hard words recall the elder brother’s 
peta topvav (xv. 30).—% Kal, or even, 
the publican pointed at as the ne plus 
ultra of depravity: the best foil to 
Pharisaic exemplariness.—Ver. 12. Sis 
7. 0, twice in the week: voluntary fasts 
on Mondays and Thursdays, ultra-legal 
in his zeal.—datrodexat-@ (-edw, W. and 
H.) = Sexatevw in Greek writers : tithing 
a typical instance of Pharisaic strictness. 
—mavra, all, great and small, even 
garden herbs, again ultra-legal.—krépat, 
all I get (R.V.).—Ver. 13. 6 TeXovys: 
the demeanour of the publican is drawn 
in vivid contrast to that of the Pharisee ; 
he stands aloof, not in pride but in acute 
consciousness of demerit, does not dare 
to lift his eyes towards the object of 
prayer, beats upon his breast in pungent 
grief for sin.—T@ a4paptwAQ, the sinner ; 
he thinks of himself only and of himself 
as the sinner, well known as such, the 
one fact worth mentioning about him, as 


one might speak about the drunkard of 
the village. Koetsveld remarks: ‘“‘ The 
publican might see his own picture in 
the prodigal son; no doubt many a son 
out of a good house took to a publican’s 
trade as a last resort”.—Ver. 14, SeSixar- 
wpévos, justified (here only in Gospels), 
a Pauline word, but not necessarily used 
in a Pauline sense = pardoned.—-ap’ 
éxeivov (4 éxetvos, T.R.), in comparison 
with that one (the Pharisee). The read- 
ing # yap éxetvos (QX) would have to be 
taken as a question—or was that one 
justified? The publican was the justi- 
fied man; you would not say the other 
one was ?—6rtu, etc.: 67. introduces a 
moral maxim which we have met with 
already at xiv. 11. It stands here as the 
ethical basis of ‘‘ justification”. It is a 
universal law of the moral world, true 
both of God and of men, that self- 
exaltation provokes in others condemna- 
tion, and self-humiliation gentle judg- 
ment, 

CHAPTER XVIII. 15-43. Some SyNop- 
TICAL INCIDENTS OF THE LATER TIME. 
Lk., who has for some time followed his 
own way, now joins the company of his 
brother evangelists. The section follow- 
ing is skilfully connected with what goes 
before, the link being the supreme value 
of humility. 

Vv. 15-17. The little ones brought to 
Fesus (Mt. xix. 13-15, Mk. x. 13-16).— 
7a Bpepyn: for watdta in parallels = 
infants, sucklings, often in Lk.’s writings; 
the kal preceding naturally means 
‘‘even,”’ suggesting the notion of great 
popularity or great crowding, and per- 
haps hinting an apology for the Twelve. 
The article before Bpepn means the in 


KATA AOYKAN XVIII. 


600 
16, 6 8€ “Inoois 
Tpookaheadwevos atta eliev,? ““Adete Ta tmatdia EpyxerOar mpds 
pe, Kal ph KwUeTE adTd. 


iSdvres S€ of pabytal émetipnoav! adtots. 


Tay yap tovoltwr éotiv 4} Bacdela Tob 
@cod. 17. dphy Aéyw dpiv, Os edv ph SéfnTar Thy Baordelay rod 
Beod ds matdiov, oF py eloeAOy cis adtHy.” 

18. Kat émnpdtycé tis abtov dpxwv, héywr, “ Arddoxade dyabe, 


c 


tli tomoas Lwiy aidvoy KAypovoprjow;” 19. Etre S€ atta 6 


"Ingods, “Ti pe Aéyers dyabdv; otS8eis dyads, ei pi ets, 6° Oeds. 
20. Tas evTohds oldas, Mi potyedons: pr) povedons* pi Keys: 
py) WeuvSomaptupyoyns: Tina Tov tatépa cou Kal Thy pytépa cou.” 4 
21. ‘O 8€ etme, “Taita mdvta epudagdpny® éx vedtntds pou.” ® 


22. Akotoas Sé tadta” 


cord a cs > nA 6c* oe P 
6 ‘Inoots ettev adte, “"Ett €v cor dettrer: 
\ “ ‘ 
Tdvta doa exerts THAHGOY, Kal Siddos TTwxXOIS, Kal ELers Onoaupody 
c ~ 
8. 23. 0 S€ dxovous TaiTa 


24. [Sav S€ aitov 


év oupava >> kat Sedpo, dxohodOer por.” 
t 


mepihumos éyéveto®+ Fy yap mAovaros opddpa. 


1 ereripov in NBDGL 1, 13, 69 al. 
2 NBL a have mpovexadeoato avta heywv. 


3 Omit o NB (Tisch., W.H., brackets), 


> epvdaga in SSABL 1, 209. 

7 Omit tavta SWBDL 1, 33, 69, 131 al, 
8 ev ovpavots in NABDLR ail. ae cop. 
9 eyevn Oy in SBL. 


fants of those who brought them = their 
infants.— Ver. 16. mpooexahéoato, called, 
speaking to those who carried the infants. 
Lk. omits the annoyance of Jesus at the 
conduct of the Twelve, noted by Mk. 
Decorum controls his presentation not 
only of Jesus but of the Twelve. He 
always spares them (Schanz).—rév 
to.tovtwy, of such ; does this mean that 
children belong to the kingdom, or only 
that the childlike do so? Bengel, De 
Wette and Schanz take the former view, 
J. Weiss and Hahn the latter. Schanz 
says: “ TovovTouwith the article means not 
similarity but likeness with respect to 
something going before or following 
after. Therefore the children as such 
are recognised by Jesus as worthy of the 
kingdom.”—Ver. 17, as in Mk. x. 15. 
With this reflection Lk. ends, his interest 
being mainly in the didactic element, 
humility the door into the kingdom. 
Vv. 18-23. The young ruler (Mt. xix. 
16-22, Mk. x. 17-22). From a didactic 
point of view this narrative is closely 
connected with the two preceding. The 
three set forth conditions of entrance 
into the Kingdom of God—self-abase- 


4 Omit this second wav BDILX al. 
§ Omit pov BD, 


BD have also rots after ev. 


ment, childlikeness, and single-minded- 
ness.—Ver. 18. Gpxwv, a ruler; this 
definite statement in Lk. only.—rt 
mroiyoas instead of ri mowjow.—Ver. 20. 
pe potxevons: the Seventh Com., first 
in Lk., the Sixth in Mt. and Mk. (W. 
H.). Mk.’s ph amoctepyoys and Mt.’s 
ayaryoces tT. wAyoioy cov, etc., are 
not found in Lk.—Ver. 21. & oo. 
Aetrer: Ev o. torepet in Mk. Aelmer 
= falss)Ssoy in, Wut.) 16 To Verne 2or 
movovos oddpa, very rich. Lk.’s ex- 
pression differs from that of Mt. and Mk. 
(Av €x@v kTHpata woAAd). Lk. follows 
Mk. in the most important points—the 
words first spoken by the ruler to Jesus: 
good Master, etc., and the reply of Jesus 
to him: why callest thou me good? but 
he agrees with Mt. in omitting some 
vivid traits found in Mk.: the placing of 
the incident (‘‘ going forth into the 
way’), the action of the man as he 
approached Jesus (wpocSpapav, yovvie- 
tHoas), the title Su8ac0Kade (Mk. x. 20), 
and, most remarkable feature of all, the 
statement in Mk. x, 21: épBAdwWas atta 
Hyaarnoev avtov, which so clearly ex- 
cludes the notion entertained by many 





16—31. EYATTEAION 


601 


6 "Inaois t 


mepihutrov yevdpevov? efre, “Mads BucKddws of Ta 
XpHypara Exovres eicehedoovtar® cig thy PBacihelay Tod Geod. 
25- Euxowmtepov ydp éo7t, kdundov Sid tpupadtas fadidos 4 
eicehOeiv, 4 mAovotov eis Thy Baoidelay Tod Qeod eivehOeiv.” 26. 
Etrroy 8€ ot dxovoaytes, “Kal tis Suvatar cwOhvar;” 27. ‘O Sé 
cime, “Ta ddvvata Tapa dvOpdmos Suvard got, wapd Td Geo.” * 
28. Etmwe 8€ 6 Mérpog, “"ISou, Hpets adyjkopey mdvta, Kat ® 
HKodovOjoapey cou.” 29. “O 8é etmev adtots, “’Auhy déyw piv, 
Ott oddels éotiv ds adijKer oikiay, % yovels,  adeAhous, 4 yuvaika,” 
# Tékva, évexev THs Bacthetas tod O€od, 30. bs od ph amoddBy ® 
Todhathagtova év TH Katp@ TovTw, Kal év TO aidr. TH epxopevw 
lw aidvioy.” 

31. NAPAAABON 8€ tods Sddexa, ele mpds adtods, “licd, 


dvaBaivopev cis ‘lepocdAupa,® Kai tedecOjoetar Tdvta TA yeypape 





1 o before I. is wanting in B (W.H. in brackets). 
* NBL 1, 131 al. omit weptd. yev. (a gloss); found in ADIA al. 


* euomopevovtar in BL and after tow Oeov. 


in the same position, 


NDR 124 al. have evozhevoovrat, but 


* tpnpartos Behovns in SED 49. L has tpurnparos with BeAovyns. Assimilation 
to parall. has been at work in producing the T.R. 


> eore after Gew in BDL 1, 28, 131 al. 


§ For adykapev wavra kat NCBDL 1, 13, 69 al. have adevtes Ta vSia. 
7 NBL have this order: yuv. adeAd. yovets. 
8 ovxe py in NBL 1 al., and AaBy in BD al. (Tisch. adopts former, W.H. both, 


but AaBy in text with azoX. in marg.). 
91...Anp in NBDLR, 


that the man was a _ self-complacent 
Pharisee. I am glad to find Hahn 
decidedly repudiating this view (vide 
notes on Mt. and Mk.). Vide Mt. 

Vv. 24-30. Ensuing conversation (Mt. 
xix. 23-30, Mk. x. 23-31).—Ver. 24. 
elomropevoyrar: present, not future, as 
in parallels, indicating not what will 
happen but what is apt to happen from 
the nature of riches.—Ver. 25. tpyjparos 
BeAdvys: each evangelist has his own 
expression here.—tpfpa from titpao, 
titpnur (or Tpdw), to pierce, bore 
through; hence tpavys, penetrating, 
clear ; BeAévy, the point of a spear.— 
Ver. 26. ot dxovwavres, those hearing, 
a quite general reference to the company 
present. In Mt. and Mk. the words are 
addressed to the disciples.—xat rls 8. o.: 
as in Mk., vide notes there.—Ver. 27. 
Ta advvara, etc. Mk. and Mt. have 
first a particular then a general state- 
ment. Lk. gives the general truth only: 
the impossibles for men possible for God. 


—Ver. 28. Peter’s remark about leaving 
all, as in Mk., without the question, 
what shall we have? appended to it in 
Mt.—Ver. 29. yvvaixa: as in xiv. 26, 
not in parallels.—yovets : parents, for 
father and mother in parallels ; the latter 


more impressive.—Ver. 30. moA\am\a- 
otova, as in Mt. Mk. has the more 
definite éxarovytramAactova. The read- 


ing éwtamwAactova (D, W.H., margin), 
though little supported, has intrinsic pro- 
bability as toning down an apparent 
exaggeration (hundred fold! say seven 
fold). Cf. émrdxts in xvii. 4. 

Vv. 31-34. Third prediction of the 
Passion (Mt. xx. 17-19, Mk. x. 32-34). 
Vide notes on the account in Mk., which 
is exceptionally realistic—Ver. 31. 
teheoOycetat, shall be fulfilled. With 
this verb is to be connected 76 vi@ r. 4, 
(not with yeypappéva). The sense is 
not ‘shall be fulfilled by the Son of 
Man”. So Bornemann (Scholia), ‘a 
dei filio perficientur, i.¢., satisfiet pro: 


KATA AOYKAN XVIII. 


602 


péva 81d tOv mpopytav TO vid Tod dvOpamou. 32. wapadobjcerat 
yap tots €bveot, kat éprarxOyoetat, kai bBproPjoerat, Kal éuatuaby- 
OETA, 33. Kal paoTitywoavTes droKTevodow attév: Kal TH iEpa TH 
tpity dvacrjoetar.” 34. Kal adrol odSév tovtwy cuviKay, Kal Ay 


76 fijpa TodTo Kexpuppévoy dm” adtdy, Kal obk éyivwoKov Ta heyd- 


peva. 


35: “Eyévero 8€ év 1G éyyilew adrdv eis ‘lepiyd, tupdds tis 


éxdOnto Tapa Thy 6Sdv mpogattav. 
évou, éruvOdveto ti? ein TodTo. 
pevou; uy 


> ~ c cal , » 
Ingots 6 NaLwpatos tapépxetat. 


vié AaBid, éhénody pe.” 


1 36. dkodoas S€ 6xou Starropevo- 


37- amyyedtav Sé abta, “"On 
38. Kal éBonoe, héyar, ‘’Inood, 


‘ c , > , ete 
39- Kat ov TTPOGYOVTES CTTETLL@V QuTwW wa 


swoon ®: abtds B€ woAh@ pGArov Expalev, “Vie AaBid, edenody 


1 ewattov in BDL Orig. 
3 etyyon in BDLPX 245 al. 


phetarum vaticiniis a dei filio”. Nor is 
it necessary to insert év before tr. 4. 7. d. 
The meaning is: all things shall happen 
to the Son of Man as written in the 
prophets.—vredeio Gar stands for yiveo ban, 
being used because of the prophetic 
reference (in Lk. only). So Pricaeus: 
“ reheto bat hic esse quod Marc. xi, 23, 24 
elvat, quod 1 Cor. iv. 5 yiveo@at, quod 1 
Pet. v. g émiteAcioOat”. In all these 
places the verb is followed by the dative. 
—Vv. 32, 33. The details of the Passion 
are the same as in Mk., except that no 
mention is made of the Jewish rulers, 
and that other particulars are given in a 
somewhat different order.—Ver. 34. This 
is peculiar to Lk. A similar statement in 
ix. 45 with the same curious repetition. 
“An emphatic prolixity”” is Meyer’s 
comment. J. Weiss (Meyer) from the 
facts that this verse repeats ix. 45 and 
that Lk. avoids repetition infers that the 
words must have been in his source, I 
rather think that we have here an effort 
on Lk.’s part to compensate by a general 
statement about the ignorance of the 
Twelve for the instructive narrative 
about the two sons of Zebedee which 
comes in at this point in Mt. and Mk., 
and which Lk. omits, doubtless by way 
of sparing the disciples an exposure. 
The iteration (same thing said three 
times) is in Lk.’s manner (Acts xiv. 8), 
but it is significant here. The aim is by 
repetition of a general statement to con- 
vey the impression made by the con- 
crete story—an utter impossibility. No 
wonder Lk. labours in expression, in 
view of that humiliating proof of 
ignorance and moral weakness! But 


* tu av in DL (W.H. marg.). 
T.R. conforms to paral. 


the attempt to express the inexpressible 
is interesting as showing that Lk. must 
have had the sons of Zebedee incident in 
his mind though he does not choose to 
record it. The omission of this incident 
carries along with it the omission of the 
second and most important saying of our 
Lord concerning the significance of His 
death. Lk.’s gospel contains hardly any 
basis for a doctrine on that subject (cf, 
Mt. xx. 28, Mk. x. 45). 

Vv. 35-43. The blind man at Fericho 
(Mt. xx. 29-34, Mk. x. 46-52).—trudAds 
wis: the blind man is not named, from 
which J. Weiss (Meyer) infers that the 
name cannot have been in Lk.’s source. 
A very precarious inference. Lk. deviates 
from the tradition in the parailels as to the 
place of the incident : connecting it with 
the entrance into Jericho instead ot the 
exit from the town.—éqatt@v as in xvi. 
3.—Ver. 36. akovoas: in Lk. what he 
hears is the multitude passing through, 
which he would have seen if he had not 
been blind. In the parallels what is heard 
is that it was Jesus around whom the 
multitude had gathered, which even a 
seeing man might have had to learn by 
the ear. Lk. is careful to bring out the 
fact of blindness.—8.azropevop.evov is an 
instance of a participle serving as the 
object of a verb. What was heard was 
the passing of the crowd.—rl ety T., 
the optative without av in an indirect 
question makes the question definite (cf. 
ili. 15, viii. 9, xv. 26).—Ver. 37. Nal- 
wpaies: the usual form in Lk., an 
exception in iv. 34.—Ver. 38. éBdncev: 
aorist, he cried out once.—Ver. 39. of 
mpoayoytes, those in front, nearest him. 





32—43. XIX. 1—4 


pe. 


EYATTEAION 


603 


40. Erafets S€ 61 “Incois exedevcey adtiv dyxOAvar mpds 


aitév: éyyicavros 8é adtod émnpdtyngey atrdév, 41. Aéywy,? “Ti 


go. Géhers Troujow ; ” 


O Sé ete, “Kupie, iva dvaBAdpw.” 


42. 


Kai 6 ‘Inoois etmev adta, “’AvéBdepov: 4 miotis cou cécwxé oe.” 
43- Kai mapaxpipa dvéBhepe, cat HeodovGer adtd SoédLwy Tdv 
Gedy: Kal Tas 5 hads dav 2Swxev alvov TO Oc. 
XIX. 1. KAI eicehOdy Sijpxeto Thy ‘lepixd> 2. Kai iSou, avip 
évopuat. Kahoupevos Zaxyatos, Kat aitds fv *dpyxitehdvys, KGL a here only 


= > , a a 
ottos Hv ® wdovoos: 3. Kal Lyte. ideiv Tov “Inoody, Tis éotL, Kal 


obx 7S0vato amd too SyxXou, Sti 


a 


| 


in N.T. 


HAtkia pikpds Fy. 


4. kal 


Tpodpapay eumpocbey* dvéBy emt cuxopwpatay, iva tidy adtdy- 


1 Omit o BD (W.H.), found in SL (Tisch.). 


2 Omit Aeyoy NBDLX 57 e. 


FNL 245 omit ovros (Tisch.). Breads cat avros without nv (W.H. text, with 


Kat nv in marg.). 


4 els TO exp. in KBL. 


He would hear the sound of the crowd 
before it came up to him; when it was 
close to him he would make inquiry rt 
ety.—oryyjo7n: only in Lk. and St. Paul, 
showing editorial overworking of the 
source.—ékpaley: a stronger word than 
éBénoev and imperfect, kept shouting 
louder than before.—Ver. 40. dy @7vat, 
to be led to Him; Lk. again careful to 
bring out the fact of blindness, all the 
more noticeable when his narrative is 
compared with parallels. The omission 
of the interesting particulars in Mk., wv. 
49, 50, has been remarked on (Hahn) as 
proving that Lk. did not know Mk. 
Again a precarious inference. It is Lk.’s 
habit to magnify the miracle, therefore 
he tells the story so as to bring out that 
it was a case of total blindness, which 
does not clearly appear in Mk., vide 
ver. 50.—Ver. 41. «vtpte: in Mk. 
‘PaBBovl.—Ver. 43. aivov, praise, a 
poetical word in Greek writers = (I) a 
saying, (2) a word of praise, frequent in 
Sept. 818dvat atvoy, instead of atvety, is 
Hellenistic. 

CHAPTER XIX. ZACCHAEUS. PARABLE 
OF THE POUNDS. ENTRY INTO JERU- 
SALEM.—Vv. I-10. The story of 
Zacchaeus, in Lk. only, apparently 
derived from an Aramaic source—note 
the abundant use of kat to connect 
clauses—but bearing traces of editorial 
revision in the style (xa@dét1, ver. g).— 
Ver. 1. Stypxeto: the incident occurred 
when Jesus was passing through Jericho, 
precisely where, not indicated.— dvépart 


kaXovpevos, Called by name, as in i. 61 ; 
a Hebraism, évépart superfluous.—Zax., 
apxit., WAovoros: name, occupation, 
social standing. Zacchaeus = the pure 
one, but not so intended; chief publican; 
probably a head man or overseer over 
the local collectors of taxes, of whom 
there might be a goodly number in 
Jericho, with its balsam trade, and traffic 
from the eastern to the western side of 
Jordan.—Ver. 3. é{rjrer: imperfect, im- 
plying continuous effort, for a while un- 
successful, because of (aro) the crowd, 
too dense to penetrate, and not to be 
seen over by him, being short of stature 
(fAukiqg as in Mt. vi. 27).—iSetv tov *L. 
tis tor. = i8eiv Tis éori 6 “Ingois, to 
see who Jesus is = de facie cognoscere 
(Kuinoel); ‘fama notum vultu noscere 
cupiebat”’ (Grotius).—Ver. 4. eis 1d 
éumpocbev, in front of the crowd, to 
make sure; stationed at any point 
opposite the crowd he might miss his 
chance.—oveopopatay, a fig mulberry 
tree, as many think = ovKdptvos in xvii. 
6; but why then not use the same word 
in both places, the only two places in 
N.T. where they occur, both used by 
the same writer? To this it has been 
replied: ‘‘ Although it may be admitted 
that the sycamine is properly and in Lk. 
xvii. 6 the mulberry, and the sycamore 
the fig mulberry, or sycamore fig, yet the 
latter is the tree generally referred to 
in the O.T. and called by the Sept. 
sycamine, as 1 Kings x. 27, 1 Chron. 
xxvii. 28, Ps. Ixxvili. 47, Am. vii. 14. 


604 KATA AOYKAN XIX, 
dre Be" exetvns! Hpedde SrepxeOar. 5. Kal ds HAPev emt Tov Tdrrov, 
dvaBAdpas 6 “Incods eldev adtév, nal? ele mpds aitdv, “ Zaxxate, 
onevoas KatéByOc- onjpepoy yap év tO olkw cou Set pe petvar.” 
6. Kat omedoas katéBy, kal tweddéato adtév xalpwy. 7. kal 
iSdvres Gmavtes Sreydyyulov, héyortes, “OTL mapa dpaptwrO dvSpt 
elon Oe kataddoa.” 8. Erafels S€ Zakyxatos etre mpds Tov Kuptov, 
180d, Ta Hpton ® Tay SrapxdvTwr pou,* KUpte, Sidwpe Tots WrwXors > * 
g. Ete 
82 mpds adtov 6 “Ingots, “OT: ovpepoy awrynpia TO otkw ToUTw 


b Ch. iii. 14. Kal et tuvds Te” eouxohdytnoa, aodiSwp. ° teTpaTody.” 
c here only 
in N.T. 


éyéveto, Kabdte Kal adtds vids "ABpadp éorw.® 10. WAVE yap 6 


utds Tod dvOpdrrou Lytioat Kal cGoat Td dmohwhds.” 


1 exeryys without & in SABLQR al. 


2 evSey avTov Kat omitted in NBL 1, 13x al. 

3 This word variously spelt, npisera in $BLQ 382. 

4 pov before twv um. in HBLQ 1, 209 al. 

5 rors (B omits) rrwxots S:8opt in BBDLQ 1, 33, 209. 

6 Omit eativ S§LR (Tisch.) ; found in BDQ al. (W.H. brackets), 


Dioscorides expressly says ZLuKépopov, 
éviot 8 Kal TovTO cuKdwivoy A€youvct, 
lib. i., cap. 180” (Smith’s Dictionary of the 
Bible, s. v. Sycamore). ‘This is in effect 
to say that through the influence of the 
Sept. and following common usage Lk. 
used the two words indifferently as syno- 
nyms.—éketvyns: supply 6803, cf. qrotas, 
v. I9.—Ver. 5. Zarate: Jesus knows 
his name, how not indicated.—_omevoas, 
etc., uttered in cordial tone as if He were 
speaking to a familiar friend whom He is 
glad to see and with whom He means to 
stay that day. What a delightful sur- 
prise that salutation, and how irresistible 
its friendly frankness, ver. 6 shows. 
—Ver. 7. Gmwavres: general muttered 
dissent (not even the Twelve excepted), 
which Jesus anticipated and disregarded. 
Note His courage, and how much pre- 
judice the uncommon in conduct has to 
reckon with.—aGpaptwA@: no reason to 
think with some ancient and modern 
commentators that Zacchaeus was a 
Gentile, a son of Abraham only in a 
spiritual sense. They thought him unfit 
to be Christ’s host because he was a 
“sinner” (Grotius). A sinner of course 
because a publican, a great sinner because 
a chief publican.—Ver. 8. oraeis: like 
the Pharisees (xviii. rr) but in a different 
spirit—in self-defence, not self-laudation. 
J. Weiss thinks the word indicates the 
solemn attitude of a man about to make 
a vow (Meyer).—p. 7. trapxdvtwy, the 
half of my goods, earnings, not of my 


income (ot rpdécoSot) as Godet suggests. 
—8(Swpt, dwodSiSwpt: presents, probably 
expressing not past habit but purpose 
for the future. This is the regenerating 
effect of that generous, brave word of 
Jesus. It has made a new man of him. 
Yet the desire to see Jesus, of whom he 
had heard as the publicans’ friend, shows 
that the germ of the new man was there 
before. A “sinner” doubtless in the 
way indicated, as the et tt mildly admits, 
but by no means, even in the past, a type 
of the hard, heartless, unscrupulous 
publican.—rerpamdoty, four fold, as in 
cases of theft (Exodus xxii. 1, four or five 
fold).—Ver. 9. mpds aitév, to him or 
with reference to him; probably both; 
the words meant for the ears of 
Zacchaeus and all who might be there 
to hear, or perhaps spoken half as a 
soliloquy.—xa@671, inasmuch as; a word 
of Lk.’s; in his writings only in N.T.— 
ulds ’A., a son of Abraham in the natural 
sense, a Jew; a protest against popular 
prejudice, for which a publican was as a 
heathen. The more radical reason, un- 
expressed, but present doubtless to the 
mind of Jesus, was: because he also is a 
son of man, a human being.—Ver. tro, 
A great key-word to Christ’s idea of His 
own mission—a Saviour.—ré arrows, 
the lost, a pathetic name for the objects 
of Christ’s quest; its shades of meaning 
to be learned from the parables in Lk. 
xv.: lost as a sheep, a coin, a foolish 
son may be lost. Here the term points 





2 aS 


II. 


Sd 1d éyyds adrdv etvar ‘lepoucadyp,} 


XpHpa wedrer y Baortela tod cod SdvadalverOar: 12. elwev ody, 


EYATTEAION 


605 


"AKOYONTON S€ abtév raita, wpocGels etre tapaBodiy, 


‘ a J 
kal Boxety attods Sri mapa-dActs xxi.s 
e Acts xvil. 

11. 1 Cor, 


2 2 a fad 20, 
““AvOpwmds tis * etyevts erropevby eis xdpav paxpdv, haBeiv Equr@ f here 


Baovtelay, kal brootpedar. 


13. kahéoas S€ Ska Sovdous EauTod, 


(seven 
times) 
only in 


» > r=) , f lal ‘ > x > , , 
EdwKev avtois Séka *pvas, Kai elwe mpds atrous, Mpaypatedcacbe NT. 


leyyvus ervat |. avtoy in BL 157. 


to the social degradation and isolation of 
the publicans. They were social lepers. 
With reference to the conduct of Jesus 
in this case Euthy. Zig. remarks: “ It 
is necessary to despise the little scandal 
when a great salvation comes to any one 
and not to lose the great on account ofthe 
little” (xp yap Tov pexpot oxavddhou 
Katadpovety, eva peydkyn owrnpia tivi 
mpooytverar, Kai py S.a Td pikpov 
amédXevv (sic) 76 péya). The significance 
of Christ choosing a publican for His 
host in a town where many priests dwelt 
has beenremarkedon. Art. ‘ Publican ” 
in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible. 

Vv. 11-27. Parable of the pounds, or of 
the nobleman who goes to find a kingdom 
(cf. Mt. xxv. 14-30). Into the vexed 
question of the connection between this 
parable and that of the talents in Mt. I 
cannot here go. That there is a resem- 
blance between them is obvious, and the 
hypothesis that the one has grown out of 
the other in the course of tradition can- 
not be treated as a mere impertinence. 
Yet that they are two distinct parables in 
their main features, both spoken by Jesus, 
is not improbable. They serve different 
purposes, and their respective details suit 
their respective purposes, and the kindred 
features may only show that Jesus did 
not solicitously avoid repeating Himself. 
The parable before us suits the situation 
as described by Luke, in so far as it cor- 
rects mistaken expectations with regard 
to the advent of the Kingdom. It isa 
prophetic sketch in parabolic form of the 
real future before them, the fortunes of 
the King and the various attitudes of 
men towards him. It is more allied to 
allegory than most of the parables, and 
on this ground, according to J. Weiss (in 
Meyer), it cannot have proceeded from 
Jesus. One fails to see why Jesus might 
not occasionally use allegory as a vehicle 
of truth as well as other teachers. 

Ver. 11. The introduction.—raira 
naturally suggests the words spoken to 
Zacchaeus by Jesus about salvation, as 
what was heard.—rpooels ele imitates 


the Hebrew construction = He added 
and said, cf. Gen. xxxviii. 5, mpooScioa 
érexev.—eyyvs: about fifteen miles off.— 
mwapaypypa: a natural expectation for 
friends of Jesus to entertain, and for all, 
friends and foes, to impute to Him, and a 
good occasion for uttering a parable to 
correct false impressions ; comparable in 
this respect with the parable of the Sup- 
per in Lk. xiv.—saying in effect, “‘ not so 
soon as you think, nor will all be as well 
affected to the king and his kingdom as 
you may suppose”, 

Vv. 12-27. The parable.—evyevis, well- 
born, noble; of such rank and social 
position that he might legitimately aspire 
toakingdom. The Herod family might 
quite well be in view. Herod the Great 
and his son Archelaus had actually gone 
from Fericho on this errand, and Arche- 
laus had had the experience described in 
ver. 14. Since the time of Clericus and 
Wolf, who first suggested it, the idea that 
the Herod family was in Christ’s mind 
has been very generally accepted. Schanz 
thinks Jesus would not have selected so 
bad a man as Archelaus to represent Him. 
Yet He selected a selfish neighbour and 
an unjust judge to represent God as He 
appears, and an unjust steward to teach 
prudence !——ets xaépav paxpdv: implying 
lapse of time; Rome, in the case of Arche- 
laus.—tmoorpewar: the desired kingdom 
is in the land of his birth; Palestine in 
case of Archelaus.—Ver. 13. Séxa 6., 
ten, a considerable number, pointing to 
an extensive household establishment. 
—B8éxa pvas, ten pounds, not to each but 
among them (ver. 16). A Greek pound 
= about £3 or £4; a Hebrew = nearly 
double ; in either case a small sum com- 
pared with the amounts in Mt.xxv. The 
purpose in the two parables is entirely 
different. In the Talents the master di- 
vides his whole means among his servants 
to be traded with, as the best way of 
disposing of them during his absence. 
In the Pounds he simply gives a moderate 
sum, the same to all, with a view to test 
fidelity and capacity, as he desires to 


606 


Zws! Epxopar. 
g Ch, xiv. 
eS 35. Bactkedoar eb’ pas. 


KATA AOYKAN 


14. Ol 8€ wodirar adtod épicour 
otetkav *mpeoBeiay dmiow attod, éyovtes, OF 


XIX. 


airév, kat drré- 
Oéhopev TodTov 


15. Kat éyévero ev tO *éwavehOely abrov 


haBdvra thy Bactelav, kal ele hwvnOijvat abt tods Sovdous 


, * ed 2 
TOUTOUS, O's EdWKE 


Td dpydptoy, tva yva § 


, , , 4 
tis Tl Svetpaypatedoato. 


16. wapeyévero S€ 6 wpGTos, Aéywr, Kupte, 7] pv cou mpocetpydcato 


Séxa° pvas. 


motos eyévou, tO efouciav Exwv émdvw Séxa médewv. 
HdOev 6 Sedtepos, Aéywv, Kupre,  pva cou? 
19. Ele 3€ kal roUrw, Kal od yivou éndvw* wévre wéhewr. 


1 For ews SABDL al. Orig. have av a. 
2 SeSwxet in NBDL 1, 25, 131. 


17. Kal etev ata, EG,° dyabe S0dhe+ Stu ev €Kaxiotw 


18. Kat 
érrolnoe tévte pvas. 
20. 


Vide below. 
3 yvou in NBDL 33. 


4 For tis tt week ge iy in ARFAAN, etc. (Tisch.), SBDL 157 e have ts 


BierpayparevoavtTo (W.H 


5 Sexa mpoceipyacato in NBL 1, 131, 209 ae. 


6 ev in $ALRA al, pl, (W.H. marg. = Mt.). 


W.H.., text). 


7 xupve after y pva govin NBL. T.R. 
8 ewavov yivou in SQBL 1, 131, 157, 209. 


have tested men for higher service when 
the time comes. The amount may suit 
the master’s finances, and though small 
it may just on that account the better 
test character and business talent.— 
TpaypatevoacGe, trade with, here only 
in the Scriptures, found in Plutarch. 
—€pxopar: with éws (T. x = until I 
come back, with év & (W.H.) = while I 
go (to the far country) ; perhaps it is used 
pregnantly to include going and return- 
ing.—Ver. 14. woAtrat = oupmohirat, 
fellow-citizens of the aspirant to kingship 
while a private citizen (as in Gen. xxiil. 
11, Sept., Heb. viii. 11, W.H.).—épt- 
govv, hated habitually, showing some- 
thing far wrong in him, or in them.— 
apeoBelay: this actually happened in the 
case of Archelaus, on just grounds ; this, 
however, is no proof that he cannot have 
been in Christ’s mind. The point is, 
hatred just or unjust, in the case both of 
Archelaus and of Jesus very real.—ov 
8é\opev, we don’t wish, an emphatic nolu- 
mus, stronger than @Aopev TOUTOY ov, etc. 

Vv. 15 ff. After the return.—év to 
éwaveOeiv : év with the aorist infinitive, 
usually with present, but frequently with 
aorist in Lk. = on his return, he takes 
action at once (vide Burton, M. and T., 
§ r109).—elre dovyPivat = commanded 
(jussit, Vulgate) to be called; ete with 
infinitive, instead of tva with subjunctive, 


evye in BD 56, 58, 61 Orig. (Tisch., 


sD etce 


D has yetvov kar ov ew. 


as in some places, ¢.g., Mt. iv. 3.—+rls 
tt S.erp. (T.R.) is two questions in one: 
who had gained anything and what—ti 
Sterpaypatevcavro (W. H.), what they 
had gained.—Ver. 16. 7 pva cov, thy 
pound, modestly, as if he had no hand or 
merit in the gain (Grotius).—8€ka : a con- 
siderable increase, implying proportional 
length of time, the kingdom not near.— 
Ver. 17. dyabé without moré, as in Mt., 
but words in next clause = noble, devot- 
ed.—éyv éhaxtorw, in a very little. éat 
éXiya in Mt.—éwdvw Séxa wédewv, over 
ten cities, or a Decapolis (Holtzmann, H. 
C.). This is what the king has had in 
view all along—to get capable and trusty 
governors. A new king needs to take 
special pains about this. The trial of 
character through trade is not unsuitable, 
as governors would have much to do with 
the provincial revenues.—Ver. 18. wévre, 
five, half as much, implying less capacity, 
diligence, conscientiousness, or luck 
which, however, is not taken into 
account.—Ver. 19. «al ov: this man 
also deemed trustworthy, but ofless capa- 
city, therefore appointed to a governor- 
ship, but of less extent. Also, note, there 
is no praise. He was honest, but might 
have done better. The new king is 
thankful to have honesty even with re- 
spectable, though not admirable adminis- 
trative qualities, 





4-28, EYATTEAION 607 


Kat érepos! 7dOe, Adyuw, Kupre, tSod, if pva cou, hy elyov * daroxet- i Col. i. 5. 
: A = ; ' sails nsy : . 2 Tim. iv. 
pévyny ev coudapiw: 21. époBoupny ydp oe, Ott GvOpwios adotypds 8. Heb. 
> ~ ™ ’ 1X. 27. 
el: aipers 3 obx EOnKxas, Kat Oepilers & odKx Eoterpas. 22. Aéyee a 
S€? abt, “Ex Tod ordpatds gou Kpw@ oe, wovnpe Sodde. deg Ste 
LUN 30 > ¢ > » oe > > ‘ r > 
éy® avOpwios adotnpds eipt, aipwy 6 obx eOyKa, Kai GepiLwv & odx 
gomeipa: 23. Kat S:att obx edwkas TS dpydpidy pou® éxi rhv* 
24. Kat trois 


Tapectacty etme, “Apate dm adtod thy pvay, kal Sére TH Tas Beka 


tpdeLav, kai éyd éOdy adv téxw By Expaga airs >; 
pas éxovte. 25. (Kat etwov atta, Kupie, Exer Séxa vas.) 
26. Adyw yap® dpiv, Ste wavti TH Exovtt SoOjcetar: dad Sé Tob 
27. NA tods 
éxOpovs pou éxetvous,® tols ph Oedyjcavtds pe Baotdedoa én” 


a) ” NPA) Ce. > , > > AT 
pa) ExovTos, Kai & Exe. dpOycerar dm abtod. 





aitous, dydyete Ode, kal xatacpdgate? Eumpoobdy pov.” 28. Kati en 
in N.T. 


> 7 A 3 r ” , > c , 
cimav Tata, émopeveTo Eumpoober, dvaBatywr eis lepocddupa. 


1 9 erepos in NCBDLR 60, 247. 

4 nov To apy. in NABL 33. T.R. =D. 
5 avro empata in NBL. 

7 Omit amr avtov N*BL 36, 53 al. 


7 Omit Se NB al. 1, 28, 131 al. pl. 
‘Omit thy NABDLRA al. fl. 
6 Omit yap NBL 1, 131, 209. 


8 For exetvougs (D, etc.) $BKLUMN al. have rovtovg. 


9 avrovus after karaod. in KBFLR 33. 


Vv. 20-27. The useless servant. Ifin 
any part the parable has borrowed from 
the parable in Mt., it is here. The story 
might well have wound up with a state- 
ment as to what was to be done with the 
disaffected.—Ver. 27. Yet this feature is 
not inapposite, for there were likely to be 
three classes of people to be dealt with 
by the king: the honest and capable, the 
incapable and useless, and the disaffected. 
The chief objection to the part refening 
to the second class is that it gives the 
parable a too didactic aspect, aiming at 
theoretic exhaustiveness rather than in- 
sisting on the main points: how the king 
will deal with his friends and how with 
his foes.—Ver. 20. év govSapig, in a 
handkerchief; év rq yq in Mt.—Ver. 21. 
avornpds (here only in N.T.), harsh in 
flavour, then in disposition.—aipets, etc., 
you lift what you did not deposit, and 
reap what you did not sow; accusing the 
master of an exorbitant demand for pro- 
fit. He despaired of pleasing him in that 
respect, therefore did nothing—a pretext 
of course.—Ver. 23. emt tpdweLay = 
rots tpamefirais in Mt.—é€mpagta = exo- 
ptodpnvy in Mt.—Ver. 24. Gpare, etc. : 
the pound given to him that had ten 
could only have the significance of a 
present, and a petty one, for he was no 


longer to be a trader but a ruler, there- 
fore not an important illustration of the 
principle stated in ver. 26, a sign that in 
this section of the parable Lk. is second- 
ary.—Ver. 25. Possibly an utterance 
from the crowd interested in the parable, 
the ‘‘ Lord” being Jesus, or an addition 
by Lk., or not genuine (wanting in D). 
—Ver. 26. Deprivation the only penalty 
here, no casting out into outer darkness 
as in Mt.; merciless severity reserved 
for the enemies of the king.—Ver. 27. 
anv, for the rest, winding up the trans- 
actions at the commencement of the 
king’s reign.—naracgdfare: barbarous, 
but true to Eastern life; the new king 
cannot afford to let them live. In the 
spiritual sphere the slaying will be done by 
the moral order of the world (destruction 
of the Jewish state), King Jesus weeping 
over their fate. Motive must not be 
transferred from the parable to the appli- 
cation. 

Ver. 28. On the way to Ferusalem 
The Jericho incidents disposed of, the 
next centre of interest is the Holy City. 
Lk. connects the two parts of his narra- 
tive by a brief notice of the ascent from 
the smaller city at the foot of the pass to 
the larger and more famous at the top. 
—<iweoy tatrva refers naturally to the 


608 


KATA AOYKAN XIX, 


29. KAI éyévero ds iyywwev eis ByOpayt) Kat Brybaviav mpds Td 
Sdpos Td Kadovpevov éardy, dméoterhe Sto Tay pabyTav aidtoo,! 
30. eimady,? “ “Yadyere eis Thy katévavrt Kdpny: ev 7 eiomopeudpevor 
edphoete TONov Sedepevor, ep’ Sy odSeis mamote avOpdiwy exdbice * 
AUoavres® adriv &ydyete. 31. Kal édv tts Spas epwrG, Avatl huete ; 
32. ‘Ameh- 
Odvres Sé of dreotadpevor epov Kabds etmev adtois* 33. AudvTwr dé 


“ a J lol , ” 
oltws épeite adTd,* “Ore 6 Kupios adtod xpeiay exer. 


aitay tov WOXov, elroy ot KUptot ato mpds adTous, “Ti AdeTe Tov 
fol A , > 
m@dov ;” 34. Of 8€ elmov, “‘O Kupios® adtod xpelav exer.” 
35. Kal Hyayov aitév mpds tov “Inoodv: Kal émippipavtes éauTay & 
Ta ipdtia emt tov TaAov, ereBiBacay Tov “Incodv. 36. wopevopevou 
x > ake , Rw sf a mT oD a E£On > , 
Sé adtod *Gweotpdvyvoy Ta ipdtia attav’ év tH 686. 37. Eyyt- 
4 > A Fal a ~ , ~ »” Le! > ~ 

fovros 8€ adtod Hoy mpds TH KaTaBdoer TOU Gpous Tay éaov, 
nptavto away Td wARO0S Tov pabyTay xXalpovtes aively Tov Oedv 


& here only 
in N.T. 


(Is. lviii. 
5). 


1 Omit avrov NBL minusce, (found in D ai.), 


2 Xeyov in NBDL 13, 69. 
4 Omit avtw SBDL minusc. 
6 avrwy in NBDLA 1, 13, etc. 


parable. Asa note of time the expression 
is sufficiently vague, for we do not know 
when or where the parable was spoken, 
nor how much time intervened between 
its utterance and the commencement of 
the ascent. It is simply one of Lk.’s 
formulz of transition.—épmpocbev = eis 
7d €uarpogGev, not before them, but for- 
wards: iter suum continuabat, Kypke.— 
avaBalvwy, goinguwp. A constant ascent, 
steep and rugged. 

Vv. 29-38. The triumphal entry into 
Ferusalem (Mt. xx. r-r1, Mk. xi. 1-11).— 
BnOdayn. Following Lightfoot and 
Renan, Godet regards this as the name 
not of a village but of a suburban dis- 
trict included for passover purposes in 
the holy city, pilgrims to the feast find- 
ing quarters in it. The reference to the 
two places Bethphage and Bethany is 
obscure and confusing.—zAat@v, com- 
mentators dispute whether the word 
should be accentuated thus, making it 
genitive plural of éXaia, or €Xarwv, making 
it nominative singular of a name for the 
place = Olivetum, olive grove. W. and 
H. print it with the circumflex accent, 
and Field (Ot. Nor.) and Hahn take the 
same view.—Vv. 31-34. The sending of 
two disciples for the colt is related as in 
Mt. and Mk., but with a little more of 
Greek in the style. The remark about 
the owners sending it (Mt.) or Jesus re- 
turning it (Mk.) is omitted. On the 


3 BDL 157 prefix kat. 
5 ort before o kup. in $ABDL al. pl. 
7Soin S&DL. B has here eavrwy. 


other hand, Lk. alone states that the two 
disciples found matters as the Master 
had said (ver. 32). In ver. 33 ot KUptoe 
suggests a plurality of owners.—Ver. 35. 
émtpplipavres: the participle is used to 
relieve the monotony of the paratactic 
construction (kat, kal, kal in Mt. and 
Mk.) ; the word occurs-here only and in 
I Pet. v. 7, g.v.—éweBiBacay, helped to 
mount, as in Lk. x. 34, Acts xxill. 24; a 
technical term, possibly used here to add 
pomp to the scene.—Ver. 36. Ta iparia, 
their garments, but no mention ot 
branches in Lk., possibly from a feeling 
that they would be an encumbrance.— 
Ver. 37. éyyiLovros: Lk. is thinking of 
Jerusalem = when He was nearing thecity. 
The next clause, mpds Tq xataBacet, 
is added to define more precisely the 
point reached = at the descent of the 
mount. They had got over the ridge to 
the western slope.—xataBdacet, here only 
in N.T.—Grav 76 wA790s: Mt. and Mk. 
divide the crowd into those going before 
and those following.—8vvdpewv: this 
reference to miracles as the occasion of 
praise is peculiar to Lk. That Galilean 
pilgrims should remember gratefully the 
healing ministry at that moment was 
very natural. Yet Lk.’s explanation of 
the popular enthusiasm, while true, may 
be far from exhaustive.—Ver. 38. A free 
reproduction of the popular acclaim as 
reported by Mt. and Mk., not without 





29—43.- EYAITTEAION 60g 
wv peyddn rept mwacév! dy eldov Suvdpewv, 38. héyovres 

“Edhoynpévos 6 épxduevos Baotheds év dvdpat. Kupiou: ecipyry 

év odjpava,? Kat Sdfa ev Siotos.” 39. Kat ties Tay Papicalwy 
Gm Tod Sxdou elwov mpds attdv, “ AvSdoKahe, EmTipnoov Tos 
pabntats cou.” 
Sti, édv obToL ctwmjcwow,* ot AiBor Kexpdgfovrar.”> 41. Kat as 


40. Kat dmoxpiOeis etirev adtots,? “Adyw spiv, 


Hyycev, Sov thy modu, Exdauoey ew adtH,® 42. Adywr, “"Or et 

” . , , a , 

€yvas Kat ov, Kai ye” év TH Huépa gou TaUTy, TA pds cipyyny aou- 

vov S€ éxpuBy amd dhOarpav cou: 43. drt H§ovow juepar emt oF, 
‘ a 

kal meptBadodow ® ot éxOpot cou xdpaxd got, Kat meptkuKAdcouct 


1 wavrwy in BD, perhaps the true reading ; waowv a correction to agree with 





Suvapewv. 


2 ev ovp. erp. in NBL Orig. (Tisch., W.H.). 


3 SSBL omit avrtots. 


4 gtwrygover in NABLR al, 


5 For this form, common in Sept., NBL Orig. have cpagovor. 


6 er avtTnv in NRABDL, etc. 


7 kat ov kat ye is probably a conflate reading; some western texts have the one 


some the other. 


NBL (with D) omit kat ye and read et eyvws ev TH HB. TavTH (Tov 


omitted) kat ov, and omit gov after epyvny. 


8 So in B (W.H. marg.). 


variations even between them, The 
Hebrew Hosanna is omitted and trans- 
lated into equivalents which recall the 
gloria in excelsis (Lk. ii. 14), ‘‘ already 
become a church hymn ” (Holtz., H. C.). 
Lk.’s version runs : 

Blessed is He that cometh, the King, 
in the name of the Lord! 

In heaven peace, 

And glory in the highest. 

In comparison with Mt. and Mk. this 
version seems secondary. 

Vv. 309-44. Pharisees murmur and 
Fesus weeps, peculiar to Lk.—awd tod 
6xAov, from within the crowd, or on 
account of the crowd and what they had 
been saying = prae turba as in ver. 3. 
Loesner cites from Philo instances of the 
use of ard in this sense (but in reference 
to ver. 3).—Ver. 40. éav ctwrycovow : 
éay with future indicative instead of sub- 
junctive as in classic Greek, one of the 
divergent ways in which the N.T. ex- 
presses a future supposition with some 
probability (vide Burton, M. and T., §§ 
250-256).—ot AiBor kpagovary, the stones 
will cry out ; possibly there is a reference 
to Hab. ii. 11, but the expression is pro- 
verbial (instances in Pricaeus, Wetstein, 
etc.) = the impossible will happen rather 
than the Messianic kingdom fail of re- 
cognition. Some, ¢.g., Stier and Nésgen, 
find in the words a reference to the 


mapepBadovory in NCL 33 (Tisch., W.H., text). 


destruction of the temple and the witness 
it bore to Jesus = if I receive not witness 
from the Jewish people the scattered 
stones of the ruined temple will witness 
for me. An attractive idea, not refuted 
by Hahn’s objection that if it had been 
in view we should have had érav otro. 
giwm. instead of éav, etc. éav with 
future may express a future supposition 
with some probability. 

Vv. 41-44. Fesus weeps at sight of 
the city and laments its doom.—as = 
when, asin many places in Lk.— €xAavorev 
ér’ a., He wept aloud, like Peter (Mk. 
xiv. 72).— Saxpve.w = to shed tears 
silently ; for a group of synonyms with 
their distinctive meanings vide under 
KAaiw in Thayer’s Grimm.—Ver. 42. ei 
éyvws : et with the aorist indicative in 
a supposition contrary to fact, the 
apodosis being omitted by an impressive 
aposiopesis.—év T. Rpépa 7., in this (late) 
day, not too late yet.—kal ov, thou too, 
as wellas my disciples: their insight will 
save them, but not you and the nation ; 
you must know for yourselves.—xai ye 
(T.R.): the combination Kal od Kat ye 
(vide critical notes) is suspicious. Coming 
before év tT. Hpépg, etc., as in T.R., it 
will mean: even at this late hour.—ré 
ampos eipyvyy, the things tending to thy 
peace = thy salvation.—vtv 8é, but now 
as things stand; the day of grace there- 


39 


610 


KATA AOYKAN 


XIX. 44-48. 


oe, Kal cuvéfoucl ce mdvtobev, 44. Kal eSatodol ce cal Td Téxva 


ou év got, Kat odk &pryaoucw év col AiBov emi Aidw!+ dvO" dy od 


€yvws Tov KaLpov THs émioKoTs gov.” 


45. Kal eiceh Ody eis Td tepdv, npgaro éxBdddew Tods TwdodvTas 
év adt@ Kal dyopdlovtas,? 46. Aéywr atrots, “Téypamta, ‘“O 


olkds jrou otxos mpoveuxis éotiv®+ dpets S€ adtov émoujoarte 


omyAavov Anotav.” 


47. Kal jv SiSdoxwv Td Kad hudpay év TH tepO* ot S€ dpxrepets 


A c a > , > A A c lal lol fol 
Kal ol ypappatets éLytouv avTov dmoddoat, Kal OL MpATOL TOU Aaod ° 


1 here only 
nN. 


' attod dkouvwr. 


48. kal obx edpickoy Td Ti moijowow, 6 Mads yap das * ebexpépato* 


1 \vBor emt Avdov ev oor in BDL (D with other texts have ev ody wor: e, in tota 


terra). 


27 K8BCL 1, 69, 209 al. omit ev avtw, and NBL 1, 209 syr. sin. Orig. omit Kat 
ayopalovtras, which, in view of Lk.’s editorial peculiarities, is to be rejected. 


SNBLR 1, 13, 69 al. have kat eorat o oLK. ph. OLK. Mpogevyxys (Tisch., W.H.). 
* efexpepero in QB (W.H., also Tisch., who remarks: a vulgari usu haud aliena 


videtur fuisse). 


fore is already past.—éxpvBy: judicial 
blindness has set in, the penalty of a long 
course of moral perversity.—Ver. 43. 
S71, for, because, introducing a prophetic 
picture of coming ruin, either to explain 
the el €yvws = what you would have 
escaped had you but known; or to sub- 
stantiate the assertion of judicial blind- 
ness =no hope of your seeing now; 
your fate sealed; judgment days will 
surely come (7fovcw ypépar). Then 
follows an awful picture of these judgment 
days in a series of clauses connected by 
a fivefold wai, the first being = when. 
The description recalls Isaiah xxix. 3 so 
closely that the use of such definite 
phrases before the event is quite conceiv- 
able, although many critics think the 
prophecy so certainly ex eventu as to use 
it for fixing the date of the Gospel.— 
xapaka, a palisade (here only in N.T.). 
Titus did erect a palisaded mound around 
Jerusalem, and, after it was destroyed by 
the Jews ina sortie, he built a wall.—Ver. 
44. @Sadtoter: this verb (here only in 
N.T., Sept. several times) has both oe 
and 74 téxva a. for its objects and must 
have a meaning assigned to it suitable to 
each; (1) to raze to the ground—in 
reference to the city, (2) to dash to the 
ground—in reference to the children or 
population of the city. Here only in 
N.T., frequent in Sept.—rév katpov rt. 
émisKomis o., the season of thy gracious 
visitation.—émicKomy and its correspond- 
ing verb have this meaning in N.T. In 


Sept. it is a vox media and is used with 
reference to visitations both in mercy 
and in judgment. 

Vv. 45-48. Fesus in the temple (Mt. 
xxi. 12-17, Mk. xi. 15-19). We have 
here two tableaux: Jesus reforming 
temple abuses (45-46), and Jesus teach- 
ing in the temple to the delight of the 
people and the chagrin of their religious 
and social superiors. ~Of the former we 
have but a slight and colourless presenta- 
tion from Lk., whose editorial solicitudes, 
now well known to us, here come into 
play. The story as told by Mt. and Mk. 
shows passion (of the true Divine pro- 
phetic type) and action bordering on 
violence. This disappears from Lk.’s 
page in favour of a decorous but neutral 
picture. J. Weiss thinks it incredible 
that Lk. should have given us so in- 
adequate a statement had he had such 
an account as that in Mk. before him 
(Meyer, eighth edition, note, p. 584). It 
is perfectly intelligible, once we under- 
stand Lk.’s method of handling his 
material. Equally groundless, for the 
same reason, is the inference of Hahn 
from the omissions of Lk. between vy. 
44 and 45 (Mt. xxi. 10,11, Mk. xi. 11-14) 
that he cannot have known either Mt. or 
Mk. 

Ver. 45. Tovs mwwdodvvras, the sellers, 
no mention of the buyers in the true text 
(W.H. after $$3BL).—Ver. 46. wat €rrat: 
the cal, a well-attested reading, does not 
occur in the text quoted (Is. lvi. 7). The 


XX. 1—6. EYAITEAION 611 


XX. 1. KAI éyévero év pud tay tpepav exetvwy,! SiSdcKovtos 


aitod tov hady év TO tepd Kat edayyehtLopdvou, éméstncay ot 
Gpxtepets Kal of ypappatets ody Tots mpecBuTépois, 2. Kal etior 
mpos autdy, Aéyortes,” “Eime® qpiv, év woig éfougia taita motets, 
4) Tis éotw 6 Sous cor thy efouciay tauTny;” 3. “Amoxpibels dé 
€iwe mpds adtols, “"Epwryncw bpas kayo évat Adyov, kal etmaré 
por 4. T6 Bdrricpa® “lwdvvou e& otpavod jy, H e& avOpdtry ;” 
5. Oi Se auvehoyicavro ® mpds Eautous, Aéyovtes, ““Orr édv eitwper, 
is 6. éav Se 


> A A 
eimoper, E§ dvOpdmwy, mas 6 Nads® katahiOdoe Wuas* memeropevos 


» > a a , a 
E§ ovpavod, épet, Avati otv’ odk émoteicate até ; 





1 Omit exeevow NBDLQ al. 


9 heyovres pos avTov in NWBL 1, 131, 209 vers® 


3 evroy in NaBLR 1, 33. 


4 Omit eva (from parall.) SBLR 1, 33, 69, ete. 
5 ro before I. in S$DLR (Tisch.), not in B (W.H.). 
6 guvehoyiLovro (imperfect in Mt. and Mk.) in RCD. Tisch. and W.H. retain 


-CayTO. 


7 SSBL al. pl. omit ovv. 


words waotww Tots é8veotv, which do 
occur, are strangely omitted by Lk., the 
Gentile evangelist, perhaps to sharpen 
the contrast between the ideal—a house 
of prayer, and the reality—a den of 
robbers, i.e., of dishonest traders, or it 
may be because the temple was now in 
ruins. The last part of the saying is 
from Jerem. vii. II. 

Vv. 47-48. 7d xaQ’ Hpépay, daily, as 
in xi. 3.—Gpxtepets kal ypappartets, 
priests and scribes, Sadducees and 
Pharisees, lax and strict, united against 
the Man who had nothing in common 
with either.—xat ot mp@to.: added as a 
kind of afterthought = the socially im- 
portant people who, though laymen, 
agreed with the professionals in their 
dislike of Jesus.—Ver. 48. 1d rf 
moijowoty, “the what to do”; the will 
to kill there, but the way dark (cf. i. 62, 
xxii. 24).—6 Aads, the people, the 
common mass, with their inconvenient 
liking for a true, outspoken, brave, 
heroic man.—éfexpepeto a., hung upon 
Him (hearing), an expressive phrase, and 
classical; examples in Wetstein and 
Pricaeus and in Loesner from Philo. 
From the Latins they cite: 

Pendentque iterum narrantis ab ore.— 
Virg., Aen., v. 79. 

Narrantis conjux pendet ab ore viri.— 
Ovid., Her., 1, 30. 

Pricaeus suggests that the metaphor is 
taken from iron and the magnet. 


8 o Aaos atras in BDL 1, 33 al. 


CHAPTER XX. IN THE TEMPLE. 
PREACHING, CONFLICTS, AND PARABLE 
OF THE VINEDRESSERS.—Vv. 1-8. By 


what authority ? (Mt. xxi. 23-27, Mk. xi. 
27-33).—év pug tT. H, on one of the days, 
referred to in xix. 47; vague note of 
time.—evayyeAtLopévov: Lk. wishes his 
readers to understand that Jesus was not 
engaged in heated controversy all the 
time, that His main occupation during 
these last days was preaching the good 
news, speaking ‘‘ words of grace”’ there as 
in Galilee and in Samaria.—éréotyoay, 
came upon, with perhaps a suggestion of 
suddenness (examples in Loesner from 
Philo), and even of hostility (adorti 
sunt, Erasmus, Annot.). In xxi. 34 Lk. 
uses a separate word along with the verb 
to express the idea of suddenness.—Ver. 
2. eiwdv Hpiv: peculiar to Lk,, makes the 
question pointed.—ratra ought to refer 
to the preaching, not to the cleansing of 
the temple, which in Lk. is very slightly 
noticed.—_tis éorw, etc.: a direct 
question introduced by 4, not dependent 
on euréy, not altogether distinct from 
the first question; an alternative form 
putting it more specifically and more 
pointedly than in parallels = who is it 
that gives, who can it be? Authority 
everything for the interrogants. Every 
Rabbi had his diploma, every priest his 
ordination (Farrar).—Ver. 3. Adyov: 
without the €va of the parallels. Vide 
notes there.—Ver. 5. ovvedoyicavro; 


612 


ydp eorw "lwdvyny mpopytny elvar.” 


dev. 
éfovcia Taita mod.” 


KATA AOYKAN 


XX, 


7. Kat darexptOnoay pi eidévar 


8. kal 5 "Inaods elmev adtois, ‘ OSE yd Aéyw bpiv év woig 


Q. "Hpfato 8€ mpds tov Aadv Aéyew Thy wapaBodhty TadTyy: 


“"“AvOpwrds tis eputeucev dpurredGva,! kal 退Soro? attév yewpyots, 


‘ s , c , 
Kal diredypnoe xpdvous tKavous. 


10. kat év® kaip@ dméorethe mrpds 


Tods yewpyods Soddov, iva dad tod Kapmod Tod dumeh@vos SGou * 


adtG* ot 8€ yewpyol Seipavtes adtov ébamdéorerhay® xevdv. 


Il. Kat 


mpooeeTo méupat Erepov® Soddov: ot S€ Kdketvov SelpavTes Kat 


atisdoarvtes efaméorerhav Kevov. 


a here and 
in Acts 
xix. 16. 


1SSBCDL omit tis, and BL have eput. apa. as in T.R. 


eput. D apt. edut. avd. 


2 efeSero in SBCL = parall. 
e&eSoro found in D. 


3 Omit ev NBDL 33. 


ot 8€ Kai TodTov “tpaupatioavtes eféBadov. 


12. Kat mpooé0ero ménpar tpitoy™- 
13. eime S€ 6 KUpLos 


TOO GumehGvos, Ti tomow; méeppwo Tov uidy pou Tov dyamntév- 


C has apar.avd. 


Tisch. and W.H. both adopt it, but Trg. retains 


4 Swcovow in NABLMQ (Tisch., W.H.). CD have 8wow. 


5 eLamreoretAav a. Setpavtes in NBL. 
6 erepov mepat in NABLU. 


for the more usual S:aA.; here only in 
N.T.—*pds éavtots may be connected 
either with this verb or with Aéyovres. 
—Ver. 6. xartadwtOdoet: in the parallels 
it is indicated generally that they feared 
the people; here it is explained why or 
what they feared: viz., that the people 
would stone them; to be taken cum grano. 
The verb is a Gag Ney. ; Synonyms are 
katahiGotv (Joseph.), Katad.OoBorciv 
(Ex. xvii. 4).—17etetopévos points to a 
fixed permanent conviction, this the 
force of the perfect participle.—Ver. 7. 
pm eiSevar: the answer is given in de- 
pendent form = ov« otSapey in parallels. 

Vv. 9-19. The parable of the wicked 
vinedressers (Mt. xxi. 33-46, Mk. xii. 1- 
12). Between the last section and this 
comes, in Mt., the parable of the Two 
Sons. 

Ver. 9. 7pgaro: this word is less 
appropriate here than in Mk., where it 
means: made a beginning in teaching 
by parables by uttering this particular 
parable. Here it may signify turning 
to the people again after disposing of the 
question of the Pharisees concerning 
authority.—égvtevoev Gpmekdva: Lk. 
‘contents himself with this general state- 
ment, omitting the details given in 
parallels, which explain what planting a 
vineyard involves.—ypdévous ikavovs : 


T rpirov wepwat in NBL, 


literally, ‘‘for long times,” peculiar to 
Lk. here; similar phrases are of fre- 
quent occurrence in his writings. The 
“long times” cover the whole period ot 
Israel’s history. The absenteeism of 
God during these long ages represents 
the free scope given in providence to the 
will of man in the exercise of his moral 
responsibility Ver. 10. katip@ means 
the fruit season each year; many such 
seasons at which God sent demanding 
fruit.—tva Sédcovow : tva with the future 
in a pure final clause; similar con- 
structions occur in classic Greek, but 
with Saws, not with tva.—Seipavres : the 
gradation in indignities is well marked 
in Lk.—beating, beating with shameful 
handling (atisdoavres), ejection with 
wounding (tpavparicavtes 飀Badoyv), 
culminating in murder in the case of the 
son. In the parallels killing comes in 
sooner, which is true to the historical 
fact.—Ver. 12. mpooéero wépwat, he 
added to send, a Hebraism, asin xix. II. 
—Ver. 13. tt woijow; deliberative sub- 
junctive, serving to make the step next 
taken appear something extraordinary. 
In Mt. it appears simply as the next 
(final) step in common course. In Mk. 
the son is the only person left to send. 
He had yet one, a beloved son, ‘‘ beloved” 
added to bring out the significance of 


ee. EYAITEAION 613 


tows toitov iSdvtes! évtpamijcovra. 14. “ISdvtes Se adtav of 
yewpyot BreAoyiLovro mpds Eautods,” héyovtes, OGrds eat 5 Kdnpo- 
3 


vopos* dedTe,? droxretywpev adtéy, iva Hydv yevntar 7 KAnpovopia, 


15. Kat éxBadovtes attov ef tod dpmeNGvos, dméxtewav. Ti oov 
16. éXevoetat kat &roddoer 
TOUS yewpyovs todTous, Kal Sdcer Tov dumehava GXots.” 


Towser AUTOS 6 KUpLOs TOU dptrEOvos ; 
*Akov- 
4 > a 
gavtes Se eitov, “Mh yevouto.” 17. ‘O S€ euBdeas adtois etme, 
, A 
“Tt obv got. TS yeypappevov Todto, ‘ABov dy dmeSoxipacay ot 
OikodopoUvTes, obTos eyevnOy Eis Keay ywrias;” 18. Mas 6 
meoay em éxeivov tov hibov ouvO\acbycetar- ep Sv 8 av récy, 
xX , > , 2” AxS , c > A A ¢ ~ 4 
ukpnoe adtov. 19. Kat éfytnoay ot dpxtepeis kal ot ypappartets 
> N aA Piet) ye. A a > SA a Ws: , a 
éemPadety ew adtov Tas xElpas év adTH TH wpa, Kal ehoByOynoay Tor 





Sabv- 


1Omit vdovres SBCDLQ 1, 
2 adkAndovs in NBDLR 1, 33 al. 


2 4 er BY > “ S AY , C) 5 
Eyvegay yao Or. TPOs AUTOS THY TapaBoAiy TaUTHy etme. 


33, 131 verss. 


3 Omit Sevre B and other uncials (Tisch., W.H.). 


4 ov ypap.. kat ot apy. in BL al. 1, 33 al. pl. verss. 


T.R. = SD. 


> evev before thy wap. in NB (D evpyxev) L 13, 69, etc. 


sending him. In Lk. the reference to 
the son has a theological colour: tov 
vidv pov tov ayamntdv.—iows: more 
than “ perhaps”’ or ‘it may be” (A.V., 
R.V.), and less than ‘“ without doubt” 
(‘sine dubio,” Wolf). It expresses 
what may naturally and reasonably 


be expected = tdya (Hesychius), or 
otpat (Bornemann) =I should think 
(they will reverence him). Here only 


in N.T.—Ver. 15. éxBaddvres ameéx- 
te.vav, Casting out they killed him, in- 
verting the order of the actions in Mk.; 
perhaps with prospective reference (on 
Lk.’s part) to the crucifixion, when Jesus 
was led outside the city and crucified 
“without the gate”.—Ver. 16. py 
yévoito: here only in the Gospels, fre- 
quent in St. Paul’s Epistles (‘a Pauline 
phrase,” Holtzmann, H. C.).  Sturz 
(De Dialecto Mac. et Alex.) reckons it an 
Alexandrine usage, because found in the 
sense of deprecation only in Sept., N.T., 
and late Greek writers. Raphel cites an 
example from Herodotus, This py 
yévouto is put by Lk, into the mouth of 
the people, as unable to contemplate the 
doom pronounced on the husbandmen 
as described by Jesus. In Mt. (xxi. 41) 
the people themselves pronounce the 
doom. The sentiment thus strongly ex- 
pressed prepares the way for the reference 
to the “‘ rejected stone” 

Vv. 17-19. —épBérpas, looking _ in- 
tently, to give impressiveness to what 


He is going to say in reply.—rt ovy, etc., 
what then is (means) this Scripture ? the 
ovv implying that the words point to the 
very doom they deprecate. Yet the 
oracle does not directly indicate the fate 
of the builders, but rather the unex- 
pected turn in the fortunes of the re- 
jected and despised Stone. In Mt. and 
Mk. the citation is introduced, without 
any binding connection with what im- 
mediately goes before, to state a fact 
concerning the future of the ‘‘Son” 
lying outside the parable. They give 
the citation in full. Lk. omits the last 
clause: mapa k«vpiov, etc.—Ver. 18 
points out the bearing of the turn in the 
fortunes of the ‘‘ Stone” on the fate of 
those who rejected Him. The thought 
is based on Daniel ii. 35. It is not in 
Mk., and it is a doubtful reading in Mt. 
It may have been a comment on the 
oracle from the Psalter suggested to 
believing minds by the tragic fate of the 
Jews. They first stumbled on the stone, 
then the stone fell on them with crushing 
judicial effect.—Ver. 19 states the effect of 
the parabolic discourse of Jesus on the 
men whom it satirised. They desired to 
apprehend the obnoxious Speaker on the 
spot.—év avry TH Gp, kal EpoBr/Oycay, 
etc.: the cat here, as in Mk,, is in eftect 
= but; vide notes on Mk. —étyvwoay, 
they, that is the Pharisees and scribes, 
knew.—mpds avtovs = with reference to 
themselves. 


614 


KATA AOYKAN XX. 


20. Kat maparnpycartes dwéorethav éyxabérous, SroKpivopévous 
dautods Sixaious elvar, tva émddBwvrar adtod Aéyou, eis 7d) trapa- 
Sodvar adtdv tH dpxq Kal TH éfovola tod tyepdvos. 21. 
érmpdtncay abtév, Méyovres, “ Avddoxade, oldapev Ste dpOds A€yers 
kat SiSdoxets, kat ob AapBdvers mpdcwmov, GAN’ em’ adyOeias thy 


‘ 
Kat 


65dv Tov Geo0 Siddoxets. 


br Cor. iii. 00; 
Ig. 2 Cor. 
iv.2:xi.3, UTOUS, “TL pe meipdtere § ; 

Eph. iv. 14. 


” 


»” > AY ll » 
Exel eikdva Kal émrypadiy ; 


22. eeotiy Hpiv? Katoape pdpov Sodvat, 
23. Katavorjoas 8€ adtav thy > mavoupyiav, elme mpds 


24. émdelfaté* por Syvdprov: tivos 
*AtroxpiOévtes S€ ettrov,® “ Katcapos.” 


25. ‘O 8€ elev adtois,® “’AmdSote toivuy’ ta Kalcapos Kaicapt, 


kal Ta TOU Qeod TH OcG.” 


26. Kat odk toxuoay émdaBéo8ar adtod® 


, > , an A 4 , A ~ 4 
pyp-aTos é€vaytiov Tou Aaou: Kat Baupdoartes én oi Girokpicet 


aitod, éotynoar. 


1 For es To NBCDL have wore (Tisch., W.H.). 


2 ypas in NABL 73, 33, 69 al. 


3 Omit Te pe wWetp. NBL minusc. e cop. 
5 For amoxp. Se evrov NBL 33 have ot See. 


7 ro.vuy atrodore in SBL 69. 


Vv. 20-26. The tribute question (Mt. 
xxii. 15-22, Mk. xii. 13-17).—Ver. 20. 
mapatynpycavtes: used absolutely = 
watching, not Him, but their opportu- 
nity; so Grotius and Field (Ot. Nor.) ; 
watching with close cunning observation 
‘accurate et insidiose observare, Kypke). 
—tyxabérous: some derive from év and 
xaOypat = sitters down, lying in wait 
(subsessores, Grotius), others from kata- 
ti@ypr. The most probable derivation 
is from xa@inpt, to place in ambush (so 
Kypke, Schanz, etc.). Pricaeus cites 
Sirach viii. 11: tva ph éyxabiog os 
évedpov te otépartl cov, as probably in 
the mind of Lk. Here only in N.T. = 
“spies” (A.V., R.V.), ‘ Aufpasser”’ 
(Weizsacker).—tamoxptvopévous €., pass- 
ing themselves off as ; that was the trick 
they had been put up to.—8txalovs, 
honest men, sincerely anxious to know 
and do their duty. They might pose as 
such with the better chance of success 
if they were as Mt. states ‘‘ disciples ” ; 
scholars of the scribes = ingenuous 
young men.—atrot Adyov: that they 
might lay hold either of a word of His, 
or of Him by a word (eum in sermone, 
Vulgate), or of Him, i.e., of a word 
rh by Him; all three alternatives 

nd support.—dore (els tO T.R.), in- 
dicating aim and tendency.—+. apyq kat 
t. éEovcig: the repetition of the article 
taises a doubt whether both nouns refer 


CD have nptv. 


4 SecEare in NABDLMP al. 
8 @pos avtous in KWBL 1, 13, 69. 
8 rou for avtov in SBL 433 (W.H.). 


to Tov Hyewdvos. Soconstrued the clause 
will mean “ to the rule and especially to 
the authority of the governor,” rule 
being general, and authority a more 
special definition of it. Some take apxq 
as referring to the Sanhedrim. The 
probability is that both refer to Pilate. 
On the aim thus said to be in view 
Grotius remarks: ‘ When disputes 
about religion do not suffice to oppress 
the innocent, matters relating to the 
state are wont to be taken up’’.—Ver. 
21. 6p0as, rightly, as in vii. 43, pointing 
not to sincerity in speech (A€yets) and 
teaching (88dackets) but to sound judg- 
ment = you always say the right thing ; 
the second clause points to impartiality 
= you say the same thing to all; the 
third to sincerity = you say what you 
think. They describe an ideal from 
which their own masters were as remote 
as possible. 

Ver. 22 f. The question.—ddpov = 
Kjvoov, a Latinism, in the parallels.— 
Ver. 23. mavoupylav, craft, cunning, as 
in 2 Coz. iv. 2, which possibly the 
evangelist hadin his eye. Each synoptist 
has his own word here (rovyptav Mt., 
iméxptow Mk.) as if trying to describe 
the indescribable.—Ver. 24. Lk. reports 
more briefly than Mt. and Mk., not 
thinking it necessary to state that the 
denarius asked for was handed to Jesus. 
—Ver. 25. roivuy, therefore, connecting 


a6. EYATTEAION 615 
27. MpocehOdvtes 5é Ties tov Laddouxalwy, ot dvtidéyortes ! 

dvdotaow uh etvar, ernpetycay aitév, 28. héyortes, “ AvddoKahe, 

Mworjs éypaev tpiv, édv twos &dedpds dmoOdvy Exwy yuvaika, Kat 

ots Gtekvos dmobdvy,? tva AdBy 6 ddeApds adtod Thy yuvatka, 

29. émrd ody ddehpot 

3 


see} , a lat > a 

kal egavactnoy oéppa TH ddehpo adrod. 
a ia) > a 

joav: Kal 6 mp@tos haBoy yuvatka dréBavey areKvos* 30. Kal 

ZaBev 6 Sedrepos thy yuvatka, Kal obros dreBavey arexvos ®- 

31. Kal 6 tpitos ékaBev adtyy: doattwas Sé Kal ot éntd ob Karé- 
Aurov tékva, Kal dréBavov: 32. Jotepov S€ mavtwv* drébave kai F 

yur". 

‘ c AWA 4 cee § a 2 
yop émra Exyoy atthy yuvaika. 

lol lol A A , 
6 "Ingods, “Ot uiot Tod atdvos TouUTOU yapolot Kal éxyapioKovTar 
lol lal ~ A ~ 
35. ot dé Katattwbevtes TOO aidvos éxeivou TUXELV Kal THs GvacTdcEws 


fol nA A , m” 
Tis €k veKpav odTe yapovow oltre exyaptoKxovrar®: 36. ore yap 


A , 
33- €v TH obv dvactdcet,> Tivos aitey ylveTar yuvy; ob 
34. Kat daoxpibels ® eitrev aiitots 
ie 


1S9BCDL 1, 33 al. verss. have ot Aeyowres, which may be a conformation to 
parall. W.H. adopt this reading. 


2 For atrof§avy SaBLP 1, 33 al. have y (Tisch., W.H.). 

3 For kau ekaBevy... arexvos SR BDL have simply kat o Sevtepos (Tisch., W.H.). 
4 Omit wavrwy and place amweOave after yuvy NBDL minusc. SBD omit be. 

5 For ev Tn ovv avactace: BL have y yuvy ovv ev Tn avaorr., yuvy thus occurring 





twice (Tisch., W.H.). 
6 Omit amoxpiWers BDL. 


(W.H. marg.). 


the dictum following with the fact stated 
before that the denarius bore Caesar’s 
image, and implying that by the dictum 
Jesus pronounced in favour of paying 
tribute to the Roman ruler.—Ver. 26. 
The reply of Jesus, baffling in itself, was 
doubly so, because it had made a favour- 
able impression on the people. Therefore 
the questioners deemed it best to make 
no attempt at criticism in presence of 
the people (€vavtiov tov Aaov). 

Vv. 27-39. The resurrection question. 
Sadducees speak (Mt. xxii. 23-33, Mk. 
xii, 18-27).—oi avttAdyovres in strict 
grammar ought to refer to twes, but 
doubtless it is meant to refer to the 
whole party. It is a case of a nominative 
in loose apposition with a genitive— 
‘ outside the construction of the sentence 
—interposed as a pendent word, so to 
speak,” Winer, G. N. T., p. 668.—p7 
civat: literally denying that there is not 
a resurrection, the meaning being really 
the reverse. After verbs of denying the 
Greeks repeat the negation. The read- 
ing A€yovres, though well attested, looks 
like a grammatical correction.—Ver. 28. 


7 yapiokovrar in NBL 33. 
8 yaptfovrar in RDLORA 1, 33 al, (Tisch., W.H., text), 


B has yapurKxovras 


Grexvos: here only in N.T. = py éxov 
7. in Mt. and py adg t. in Mk.—Ver. 29. 
ovy, therefore, carrying on the narrative 
(frequent in John) and implying that the 
law of Moses cited gave rise to the 
curious case stated and the difficulty 
connected with it.— Ver. 31. ow 
KkaTéAutrov T. kK. améBavoy, did not leave 
children and died, for died leaving no 
children. The emphasis is on the child- 
lessness, therefore it is mentioned first. 
That the seven died in course of time 
was a matter of course, but that seven in 
succession should have no children was 
marvellous.—Ver. 34. In giving Christ’s 
answer Lk. omits the charge of ignorance 
against the questioners found in Mt. 
and Mk.—yaptoKkovrat = yapifovrar in 
pao here only in N.T.—Ver. 35. of 
é Kataéiwbévtes, etc., those deemed 
worthy to attain that world. The 
thought could have been expressed 
without tvyetv, for which accordingly 
there is no equivalent in the Vulgate: 
“qui digni habebuntur seculo illo,” on 
which account Pricaeus thinks it should 
be leit out of the Greek text. But the 


616 


KATA AOYKAN XX. 
drobavety Ere Sivavtar: iodyyehor ydp etor, nal uviot eiot too! 
Gcod, Tis dvacrdcews viol dvres. 37. “Ort S€ yelpovrat ot veKpol, 
kal Mwoys éunvucey emi tis Bdrou, ws éyer Kupioy tov Ocdv 
*"ABpadp Kal tov? Gedy “loadk Kal Tov! Gedy “laxdB. 38. Oceds Se 
ouK €oTt vexp@v, GANA LadvTov. 39- 
"ArroxpiOértes Sé Tiwes Tav ypappatéwy elirov, “ Addoxahe, Kaas 
elas.” 40. Odx Ete Sé3 erdApwv emepwrav abtov obdév. 


mévtes yap atT@ Laow.” 
‘ 


41. Elie 8€ mpds adtous, “Mas Aéyouct tov Xprotévy uidv AaBid 


> 
elvat ; 


42. kal adtés4 AaBid Aéyer ev BiBAw Padrpar, ‘Elmer 6° 


Kuptos TO Kupiw pou, Kddou éx Segiav pou, 43. ews ay 08 Tods 


€x9pous cou bromddiov Tav Today cou. 


1 Omit trou NABL. 
3 ovkett yap in NBL 33 al. 


* ewat A. viov in NBL, and autos yap for kat avros. 


5 avrov kuptov in ABKL, etc. (W.H.). 


use of this verb, even when it seems but 
an elegant superfluity, is common in 
Greek. Examples in Bornemann.—Ver. 
36. dmo8aveiv: marriage, birth, death, 
go together, form one system of things, 
that of this world. In the next they have 
no place. Here Lk. expatiates as if the 
theme were congenial. — todyyeAou, 
angel-like, here only in N,T.—xat viol 
eiowv, etc.: sons of God, being sons of 
the resurrection. This connection of 
ideas recalls St. Paul’s statement in 
Rom. i. 4 that Christ was declared or 
constituted Son of God with power by 
the resurrection.—Ver. 37. Kai M.: 
the same Moses who gave the Levirate 
law. It was important in speaking to 
Sadducees to show that even Moses 
was on the side of the resurrection.— 
épyvucev, made known, used in reference 
to something previously hidden (John xi. 
57).—émt THs Barov, as in Mk., vide 
notes there.—Ver. 38. @eds is predicate 
= Jehovah is not God of dead men.—8é 
has the force of the argumentative 
nonne.—mavTes yap att@ Caow, ‘ for 
all live unto Him” (A.V., R.V.), is 
probably an editorial explanatory gloss 
to make the deep thought of Jesus 
clearer (notin parallels), The gloss itself 
needs explanation. Is ‘‘ all’ to be taken 
without qualification ?—att@ may be 
variously rendered “by Him,” z.e., by 
His power: quoad Dei potentiam 
(Grotius), ‘(in Him” (Ewald), ‘for 
Him,” z.e., for His honour (Schanz), or 
for ‘‘ His thought or judgment ” = He 
accounts them as living (Hahn). The 


44. AaBid odv kupiov abtév® 


2 Omit roy in second and third places BDLR. 


5 BD omit o. 
eke == pes (duisch:). 


sentiment in some measure echoes Rom. 
xiv. 7, 8.—Ver. 39. Kalas elras, Thou 
hast spoken well; complimentary, but 
insincere, or only half sincere. They are 
glad to have the Sadducees put down, 
but not glad that ¥esus triumphed.— 
Ver. 40. otxért yap: the yap, if the true 
reading, must mean: The scribes could 
do nothing but flatter (ver. 39), for they 
were so conscious of His power that 
they dared no longer ask captious 
questions. 

Vv. 41-44. The counter question (Mt. 
xxli. 41-46, Mk. xii. 35-37). Lk., who 
had given something similar at an earlier 
stage (x. 25-37), omits the question of 
the scribe concerning the great com- 
mandment, which comes in at this point 
in Mt. (xxii. 34-40) and Mk. (xii. 28-34), 
retaining only its conclusion (in Mk.), 
which he appends to the previous 
narrative (ver. 40).—Ver. 41. mpos 
avtovs, to them, 7.¢., the representatives 
of the scribes mentioned in ver. 39. In 
Mt. the Pharisees are addressed, in Mk. 
the audience is the people, and the 
question is about the scribes as in- 
terpreters.—m@s Aé€yovot, how do they 
say? (not A€yere). The controversial 
character of the question is not made 
clear in Lk.—Ver. 42. év BiBAw ¥., in 
the book of Psalms, in place of év T@ 
amvevpatt T. ay. (in the Holy Spirit, Mk.), 
which one might have expected Lk. to 
retain if he found it in his source. But 
he probably names the place in O.T. 
whence the quotation is taken for the 
information of his readers. That what 


37—47. XXI. 1--4. EYATTEAION 


617 


Kael, Kal Tas Ulds adtod! éotw;” 45. “Axovovtos 8€ mavtds TOU 
aod, ele Tois pabytals adtod,” 46. “Npoodxete dd Tay ypap- 
patéwv Tov Ocddvtwy wepimatety év oToats, Kal drdotvTwr domac- 
pods év tats Gyopais, kat mpwroKxabedpias év Tais cuvaywyats, Kat 
TpwrtoKAtotas év Tois Setmvois* 47- ot KatecQlouct Tas olKlas TOY 
XNpOv, Kal mpopdoer paxpad mpocevxovTat. obToL Ay porTar Tepio~ 
odTepov Kpipa.” 

XXI. 1. "ANABAEWAE 8€ efSe tods BddNovtas Ta Sapa adTay eis 
Td yaLoduddxoy ® mhoucicus: 2. €ide S€ Kai* tia xypay Tevixpay 
Béddoucay éxet So AemTd,® 3. Kal elmer, “’AAnOds Ey bptv, Ste 


Hh xnpa 7 wrwxh abty® mretov’ mdvrwy EBadev: 4. Gmavtes yap 





oUTo. x TOU TepiacevorvTos adTtois éBadov eis TA SGpa To Ceod, 


8 


~ a * > bd 
airy S€ ék Tod botephpatos atts Gmavta tov Biov dv etxev EBade. 


1 avtov vios in $B, etc. (Tisch., W.H.). 


2 Omit avrov BD. 


T.R. = NDL, 


3 eis to yal. ta Swpa a. in NBDLX 1, 33, 69 al. Al. 


4 Omit car BBKLMQ 33. 


5 Soin D al. (Tisch.). Aewra Svo in SBLQX 33 (W.H.); conformed to Mk.? 


§ aut before y TTeyxy In NBDLQ (W.H. = Mk.). 


7 wderw in DQX minusc. (Tisch.). 
8 Omit tov Qeov SBLX minusc. 


was written in the Psalms, was spoken 
by the Holy Spirit, was axiomatic for 
him.—trromddiov, as in the Psalms, for 
troxatw in Mt. and Mk. according to 
the approved readings. Lk. seems to 
have turned the passage up (Holtzmann, 
H. C.). 

Vv. 45-47. Warning against the 
scribes (Mk. xii. 38-40).—Either a mere 
fragment of the larger whole in Mt. xxiii., 
or the original nucleus around which Mt. 
has gathered much kindred matter—the 
former more likely.—Ver. 46. gidovvrev: 
while following Mk. in the main, Lk. 
improves the construction here by intro- 
ducing this participle before aomacpots, 
which in Mk. depends on @eAévtwv.— 
Ver. 47. Another improvement is the 
change of ot «cateo@tovtes (Mk. xii. 40) 
into ot katecOiove.—vide notes on Mk,— 
paxpo, at length, an adverb. Bengel (in 
Mt.) suggests paxpg to agree with 
mpodace (‘ex orationibus suis fecere 
magnam mpédacw, praetextum come- 
dendidomos viduarum’”’). Elsner adopts 
the same view. 

CHAPTER XXI. THE WiDow’s OFFER- 
ING. THE ApocaLyPTIC DIscoURSE.— 
Vv. 1-4. The widow’s offering (Mk. xii. 
41-44), unfortunately placed at the begin- 


T.R.=AXPA, etc. (Tisch.}. 


T.R. = B = Mk. (W.H.). 


ning of this chapter, which should have 
been devoted wholly to Christ’s solemn 
discourse concerning the future. Yet 
this mal-arrangement corresponds to the 
manner in which Lk. introduces that 
discourse, by comparison with Mt. and 
Mk., markedly unemphatic.—Ver. I. 
avaBAdpas, looking up, giving the impres- 
sion of a casual, momentary glance taken 
by one who had been previously pre- 
occupied with very different matters. 
Mk’s narrative conveys the idea of delib- 
erate, interested observation by one who 
took a position convenient for the pur- 
pose, and continued observing (xa8icoas 
katévavtt, é0ewper).—ta Sapa, instead of 
Mk’s xaAxov. Lk. has in view only the 
rich; Mk., in the first place, the multi- 
tude.—mAovciovs: the whole clause from 
tous may be taken as the object of etde, 
saw the rich casting in, etc., or wA. may be 
in apposition with tovs BadAovtas = saw 
those casting in, etc., being rich men (so 
Hahn and Farrar). The former (A.V., 
Wzs.) is to be preferred.—Ver. 2. revs- 
xpav, needy, from mévopat or mévys; 
a poetic word rarely used, here only in 
N.T. wrewxn, Mk.’s word, is stronger = 
reduced to beggary.—8vo Aewré. Lk. 
does not think it necessary to explain 


618 


KATA AOYKAN i, 


XXL, 


5. KAl tuwy Aeydvtwr sept tod tepod, Ste ALBorg Kadois Kal 


dvabyjpacr! Kexdopyrat, etme, 6. “Taira & Oewpeite, edevoovrat 
Hpepar ev ats odk ddeOyoetat AlBos emt hidw,? ds of KatahuOnoeTa.” 
7. Emnpdryncay 8€ adtdv, Aéyovres, “ AtSdoxade, wéte ody TadTa 


éorat ; 


kai TL TS onpetov, Stay péAy TadTa yiverOa ;” 


8. ‘O dé ele, “Bdérete p}) wAavnbiTe* Toddol ydp édedoovTat 
emi tH dvdparti pou, héyortes, “Ore ® eyd eipr- Kal, ‘O Katpds iyyiKe. 


1So in BLQAal.(W.H.). avabepacw in SADX (Tisch.}. 


2 SBL minusc. add eS (W.H.). 


what the coin was or what the contribu- 
tion amounted to. Mk. states its value 
in Roman coinage (kodpavrns).—Ver. 
3. €lwev: to whom not indicated. The 
Narrator is concerned alone about the 
saying—éAnOdas, for Mk.’s Hebrew apiy, 
as nearly always.—7tx7: Lk. does not 
avoid this word: the use of the other 
term in his preliminary narrative is a 
matter of style. wrwyn implies that the 
widow might have been expected to beg 
rather than to be giving to the temple 
treasury.—Ver. 4. Gmavres otro, all 
these, referring to the rich and pointing 
to them.—terepypatos: practically = 
Mk.’s torepyjoews, preferred possibly 
because in use in St. Paul’s epistles: not 
so good a word as torépyots to denote 
the state of poverty out of which she 
gave. Lk.’s expression strictly means 
that she gave out of a deficit, a minus 
quantity (‘‘ ex eo quod deest illi,” Vulg.), 
a strong but intelligible way of putting 
it.—T. Blov, her living, as in xv. 12, 30 = 
means of subsistence. Lk. combines 
Mk.’s two phrases into one. 

THE APOCALYPTIC DISCOURSE (vv. 5- 
38).—Vv. 5-7. Introduction to the dis- 
course (Mt. xxiv. 1-3, Mk. xiii. 1-4).—Kal 
tiv Aeyévtwv, and some remarking. A 
most unemphatic transition, as if what 
follows were simply a continuation of 
discourse in the temple on one of many 
topics on which Jesus spoke. No in- 
dication that it was disciples (any of the 
Twelve) who asked the question, or that 
the conversation took place outside. Cf. 
the narrative in Mk. The inference that 
Lk. carinot have known Mk.’s narrative 
(Godet) is inadmissible. Lk. omits many 
things he knew. His interest is obviously 
in the didactic matter only, and perhaps 
we have here another instance of his 
“sparing the Twelve”. He may not have 
cared to show them filled with thought- 
less admiration for a building (and a 
system) which was doomed to judicial 


3 Omit ors NBLX, 


destruction. — Al@ois Kadoits, beautiful 
stones: marble, huge; vide Joseph., 
B. J., v. 5, 2-—kat ava@rpact, and votive 
or sacred gifts, in Lk. only ; the reference 
implies that the spectators are within 
the building. These gifts were many 
and costly, from the great ones of the 
earth: a table from Ptolemy, a chain 
from Agrippa, a golden vine from Herod 
the Great. The temple was famous for 
its wealth. Tacitus writes: ‘illic im- 
mensae opulentiae templum,” Hist., vi. 
8.—xexdopytat: perfect, expressing the 
permanent result of past acts of skilful 
men and beneficent patrons—a highly 
ornamented edifice, the admiration of 
the world, but marked for destruction by 
the moral order of the universe.—Ver. 6. 
tavta & 8 Some (Grotius, Pricaeus) 
take tattTa = tovtwv: of these things 
which ye see a stone shall not be left. 
Most, however, take it as a nominative 
absolute = as for these things which ye 
see (vide Winer, § Ixiii. 2d). This suits 
better the emotional mood.—édevoovrat 
jpépar: cf. v. 35, where a similar 
ominous allusion to coming evil days 
occurs.—Ver. 7. 8tSdocKahe, Master, 
suggesting its correlate, disciples, but not 
necessarily implying that the question 
proceeded from the Twelve; rather the 
contrary, for they would not be so formal 
in their manner of speaking to Jesus (cf. 
Mt. and Mk.).—aérte otv taira, etc. : the 
question refers exclusively to the pre- 
dicted destruction of the temple= when, 
and what the sign? Soin Mk. Cf. Mt. 

Vv. 8-11. Signs prelusive of the end 
(Mt. xxiv. 4-8, Mk. xiii. 5-11).—BAérrere, 
etc., take heed that ye be not deceived. 
This the keynote—not to tell when, but 
to protect disciples from delusions and 
terrors.—émt TO dvéparl pov, in my 
name, %.¢., calling themselves Christs. 
Vide at Mt. on these false Messiahs.—6 
katpos Hyytxe: the katpdos should natur- 
ally mean Jerusalem’s tatal day.—Ver. 9. 





5—I5- 


cs a ~ 
ph) otv! mopevbfte dricw adtay. 9. 


EYATTEAION 


619 


Stay S€ dxovonte Toh€pous 


A , ~ A aA A 
kal “GkatagTacias, pi) mronOate* Set yap tadta yeveoar mpatoy, a 1 Cor. xiv. 


GAN’ obk €bbdws 75 TéAOS.” 


€0vos emi €Ovos, kat Baowdela él Baciheiay: 11. ceiopot Te peydédor 


10. Téte €heyey adrtois, “’EyepOycerat 


33. 2 Cor. 
vi. 5; xii 
20. Jas. 
iii. 16. 


KaTG TOotTous Kat? Aiot Kal Aowwor® Ecovtar, HéBytpd Te Kar 
>) 


onpela ar ov G dda € 
np dm otpavod peydda Eotat. 


12. Mpd 8€ toUTwy damrdvtev 


émtBadotow ep Spas Tas xelpas adtay, Kal Sidéoucr, mapadiddyTes 


eis cuvaywyds * Kal dudakds, dyouevous® ért Bacihets kal Hyepdvas, 


évekev TOU dvdpatds peou. 


13. dwoBycetat S€° Spiv eis paptiprov: 


14. Géobe ody eis Tas Kapdias” Spay, i mpoweheTav dmodoynOAvat 


15. €y yap Séow spiv ordua kat copiav, 4 ob Suvqoovta: dytertety 


1 Omit ovwy NBDLX. 


2 «at before kata rT. in NBL 33. 


5 up. kat Aoww. in SDL (Tisch.). Aowp. kat Au. in B (W.H. text). 


‘ ras before ovvay. in SBD. 
6 Omit S SBD. 


axatactagtas, unsettled conditions, for 
a@koas woeuwv in Mt. and Mk.,, and per- 
haps intended as an explanation of that 
vague phrase. Hahn refers to the French 
Revolution and the Socialist movement 
of the present day as illustrating the 
meaning.—aronOate = Opociobe in par- 
allels; here and in xxiv. 37.—8ei yap, 
etc., cf. the laconic version in Mk. (W. 
and H.) and notes there.—mp@tov, ovx 
ev0éws : both emphasising the lesson that 
the crisis cannot come before certain 
things happen, and the latter hinting that 
it will not come even then.—Ver. 10. 
wTév€ €eyev points to a new beginning in 
discourse, which has the effect of dis- 
sociating the repeated mention of politi- 
cal disturbances from what goes before, 
and connecting it with apostolic tribula- 
tions referred to in the sequel. In Mt. 
and Mk. the verse corresponding is sim- 
ply an expansion of the previous thought. 
—Ver. Il. Kat kata térovs: the Kal 
thus placed (K§BL) dissociates x. +. from 
getopot and connects it with Aowpol Kal 
Aysot: not earthquakes, but pestilences 
and famines here, there, everywhere. X. 
kai X., a baleful conjunction common in 
speech and in fact.—oBnrpa, terrifying 
phenomena, here only in N.T. (in Is. 
xix. 17, Sept.). The te connects the 
$éByr7pa with the signs from heaven next 
mentioned. They are in fact the same 
thing (€v 8:0 Svoiv, Bengel). 

Vv. 12-19. Signs earlier still (Mt. xxiv. 
9-14, Mk. xiii. 9-13).—Ver. 12. mpd 8é 
TovTwy anravtTwy: this phrase may be in- 
troduced here because Mk.’s account 


® amayopevous in NBDL minusc. 
7 Gere ovy ev Tats Kapdiats in NABDLX 33. 


lying under Lk.’s eye mentions the signs 
in the heaven at a later stage, ver. 24. 
Or it may be Lk.’s equivalent for “‘ these 
things are the beginning of birth pangs” 
(Mt. ver. 8, Mk. ver. 9), a Hebrew idea 
which he avoids.—amwayopévous: a tech- 
nical term in Athenian legal language.— 
Ver. 13. amoByoeran, it will turn out; as 
in Phil. i. 19.—tpiv eis paptupioy, for a 
testimony to you = to your credit or 
honour; = eis paptuptou 8éfav, Theophy. 
Soalso Bleek. J. Weiss (Meyer), follow- 
ing Baur and Hilgenfeld, renders: it will 
result in your martyrdom. This meaning 
is kindred to that of Theophy., but can 
hardly be intended here (Schanz). The 
idea belongs to a later time, and the sense 
is scarcely consistent with ver. 18.—Ver. 
14. @ére ovv: not = consider, as in i. 66, 
but = resolve, asin Acts v. 4 (‘settle itin 
your hearts,’ A.V.).—py mpopedergv 
(here only in N.T.), not to study before- 
hand, with the inf. ; not to be taken in the 
letter, as a rule, but in the spirit, therefore 
= Mk.’s wpopeptpvare which counsels 
abstinence from anxious thought before- 
hand.—Ver. 15. éya, I, emphatic, the ex- 
alted Lord, instead of ‘‘the Holy Spirit” 
in Mk. and ‘the Spirit of the Father ”’ in 
Mt.x. 20. The substitution bears witness 
to the inspiring effect of the thought of 
the Lord Jesus ruling in heaven on the 
minds of Christians enduring tribulation, 
at the time when Lk. wrote.—orépa, a 
mouth = utterance.—-cogiay: the wisest 
thing to say in the actual situation.— 
avTior7vat refers to orépa, and avreitreiv 
to copiav = ‘ They will not be able to 


XXII. 


16. rapadodyceabe 


1g. &v 
20. “Orav S¢ Wyre 


21. TOTE ot ev TH ‘loudaia hevyérwoay 


620 KATA AOYKAN 
ob8e dvriotivar! wdvres of dvtixeipevor Spiv. 
S€ Kai bwd yovéwy Kal dSehpav kal cuyyevav kal dior, kat Pavatd- 
govow é& bpav: 17. Kal Eceobe proodpevor bd mévtwr Sd Td Svopd 
pou 18. Kat Opig ék tis Kedadijs Spay ob pi daddnTa. 
TH Stopova Spay Krycacbe? tas puxas Spar. 
kukhoupévny bd otpatorédwv thy® ‘lepoucadyp, Tote yvate Ste 
Hyytkev 7 Epjpwors aitis. 
eis TA Spy: Kat ot év péow adtis €xxwpeitwoav: Kal ot év Tais 
b here only XHpats pi) eloepyéoOwoar eis adTHy. 


aitat eior, Tod wAnpwlhvar* mdvra TA yeypappeéva. 


22. OTe Hpepar exSucynoews 
23. oval Se 


Tais évy yaotpt éxovcats Kal tats Ondalovcas év exeivats Tais 
HpEepats: Eotar yap dvdykn peyddy emt tis yis, Kat épyy ev® ra 


ha® ToUT®. 


\ A , ‘ > 
24- KQL TWETOUVTaL orépate PeOXGalpas, Kat aixpahw- 


ticOjcovtar €is mdvta TA EOvy! Kat ‘lepouocahhp eotar waroupévy 


layriornvar 7 avrevrew in SBL 13, 69 al, (Tisch., W.H.). 


2 «rnoeo Oe in AB minusc. (W.H.). 
3 Omit Thy NBD. 


T.R. = $DLRX, etc. (Tisch.). 
4 wdyqoOynvar in SABDLRA al. (Tisch., W.H.). 


5 BDL codd. vet. Lat. omit 8€; unsuitable to the prophetic style, which makes 


abrupt transitions. 
§ Omit ev NABCDKL al. pl, 


7 ra <Ovn wavta in NBLR 124 cop. (Tisch., W.H.) 


gainsay your speech nor to resist your 
wisdom” (Farrar, C. G. T.).—Ver. 16. 
kai, even, by parents, etc.: non modo 
alienis, Beng.—é& tpev, some of you, 
limiting the unqualified statement of Mk., 
and with the facts of apostolic history in 
view.—Ver.1I7. pimovpevor tro wavtov, 
continually hated (pres. part.) by all; 
dismal prospect! Yet—Ver. 18, @pté, 
etc., a hair of your head shall not perish 
= Mt. x. 30, where it is said: ‘your 
hairs are all numbered”. What! even 
in the case of those whodie? Yes, Jesus 
would have His apostles live in this faith 
whatever betide; an optimistic creed, ne- 
cessary to a heroic life-—Ver. 19. xrjo- 
eoQe or xtycac06, ye shall win, or win 
ye; sense the same. Similar various 
readings in Rom. v. 1, €xepev or €xopev. 

Vv. 20-24. Ferusalem’s judgment day 
(Mt. xxiv. 15-21, Mk. xili. 14-19).—Ver. 
20. KvuKAoupevny, in course of being sur- 
rounded; pres. part., but not necessarily 
implying that for the author of this ver- 
sion of Christ’s words the process is actu- 
ally going on (J. Weiss—Meyer). Jesus 
might have so spoken conceiving Himself 
as present.—otpatomédwv, Camps, or ar- 
mies, here only in N.T. This takes the 
place in Lk. of the BS€Avypa in the 


parallels, avoided as at once foreign and 
mysterious.—H épyjpwots a., her desola- 
tion, including the ruin of the temple, the 
subject of inquiry: when besieging armies 
appear you know what to look for.—Ver. 
2I. tote, then, momentous hour, time 
for prompt action.—dgevyétwcav, flee! 
The counsel is for three classes: (1) those 
in Judaea at some distance from Jerusa- 
lem, (2) those who happen to be in 
Jerusalem (év péow avris) when the 
armies appear, (3) those in the fields or 
farms round about Jerusalem (év tats 
xpats) who might be tempted to take 
refuge within the city from the invaders, 
thinking themselves safe within its walls, 
and who are therefore counselled not to 
enter. The corresponding counsel in the 
parallels, vv. 17,18 in Mt., 15, 16 in Mk., 
vividly sets forth the necessity of immediate 
flight.—Ver. 22: peculiar to Lk,, and set- 
tingforth Jerusalem’s fate as the fulfilment 
(wAnoO7var, for the more usual mAnpo- 
@yvat, here only in N.T.) of prophecy.— 
Ver. 23. oval, etc.: as in parallels as fat 
as jpépats; then follow words peculiat 
to Lk. concerning the avayxn and dpyn. 
The use of the tormer word in the sense 
of distress is mainly Hellenistic; here 
and in St. Paul’s epistles. The latter 





16—28. 


bw5 eOvav, dxpr! wAnpwOdor Katpot eOvav. 


EYATTEATON 


621 


25. Kat €orar? onpeia 


, a A A 
év HAlw kal cedyvy Kal dotpots, Kal etl THs ys Souvoxy eOvav évc2Cor.ii.g. 


Gmopia, nxovons ® Oaddoons kat addou, 26. * Gxropuxdvtwy dvOpd- d here only 
in N.F 


twuv amd pdBou kal mpocdokias Tav emepyonévwy TH oikoupevy: at 
yap Suvdpers tay odpavGv cahevOyoorrat. 


inN.f. 


27. Kal TOTE SipovTat 


Tov uldov TOG dvOpdmou epxopevoy év veheAy peTa Suvduews kat Sdéns 


twohhijs. 


28. “"Apxopévay Sé toUTwy yiveoOat, dvaxdpate kai émdpate Tas 


c 


kepahds Opav- Sidte eyyiLe: 7 


*GwoUTpwots Spar.” 


e here only 
in Gospels. 


layptovin SBCDLR al. pl. B inserts after rAnpwobwow Kar evovrar (W.H. in 


brackets). 


2 The singular with a plural neuter nominative as usual in T.R. ; exovrat in BD. 


3 mxous in HABCLMRX al. (Tisch., W.H.). 


change. 


word expresses the same idea as that in 
1 Thess. ii. 16.—Ver. 24: the description 
here becomes very definite (slaughter and 
captivity) and may be coloured by the 
event.—tatoupéevy: usually taken as = 
katamatoupevy: trodden under foot in 
a contemptuous way, but it may mean 
simply ‘‘trodden” in the sense of being 
occupied by (Hahn).—katpot é6vav: the 
meaning of this suggestive phrase is not 
clear. The connection of thought seems 
to require that it be taken = the times 
of Gentile action in execution of Divine 
judgment on Israel, or more generally the 
times of Gentile supremacy. Yet I 
strongly incline to side with those who 
find in the phrase a reference to a Gen- 
tile day of grace. The Jews had had 
their day of grace (vide xix. 44, Tov 
kaipov THs émtoKom7s) and the Gentiles 
were to have their turn. Such an idea 
would be congenial to Lk., the Pauline 
evangelist, and in sympathy with St. 
Paul’s own thought in Rom. xi. 25. It 
would also be Lk.’s equivalent for the 
thought in Mt. xxiv. 14, Mk. xiii. ro. 
The expression may have become 
current and so be used here as a vox 
signata. 

Vv. 25-28. Signs of the advent (Mt. 
xxiv. 29-31, Mk. xiii. 24-27).—Ver. 25. 
onpeia, etc.: the reference to the signs 
in heaven is very summary as compared 
with the graphic picture in the parallels. 
Lk. is more interested in the state of 
things on earth.—ovvoyy é., distress of 
nations, cf. ovvéxopat in xii. 50.—év 
Gwopiq may be connected with what 
follows or with é6vav = nations in per- 
plexity, in which case the last clause— 
HXovs, etc.—will depend on guvoxyy = 


nxovons (D, etc.) an exegetical 


distress from the noise and billows (adAos 
= wave-movement: THs Pardoons 
KAvSwvos Kivyots, Hesych.) of the sea 
(so Hahn). The main difficulty lies in 
the vagueness of the reference to the sea. 
Is it meant literally, or is it a metaphor 
for the disturbed state of the world? If 
the latter the force of the genitives Rxovs, 
oddov will be best brought out by sup- 
posing @s to be understood = in per- 
plexity like the state of the sea in a storm. 
So Heinsius (Exer. Sac.) : “ @troptav illam 
et calamitatem mari fore similem, quoties 
horrendum tonat atque commovetur,”’ 
citing in support Tertullian’s veluti a 
sonitu maris fluctuantis. The mode of 
expression is very loose: the sound of the 
sea and the waves, instead of ‘‘ the sound- 
ing waves of the sea”. Yet the crude- 
ness of the construction suits the mood 
described. #yovs may be accented Hxous 
(Tisch.) or #xots (W.H.) according as it 
is derived from jxos (neuter like €deos, 
vikos, etc., in N.T.) or from 4x#.—Ver. 
26. atouydvtov: literally, dying, pro- 
bably meant tropically = ws vexpoi, Mt. 
XXVili. 4.—G17rd éBov Kal mpogSokias, 
from fear and expectation, instead of 
fearful expectation as in Heb. x. 27 
(poBepa éxSoxy). mpoodoxia here and 
in Acts xii. 11.—Ver. 27. év vedéAy, 
in a cloud, sing., instead of the plural in 
parallels, making the conception more 
literal.— Ver. 28: instead of the graphic 
picture of the angels gathering the elect 
in Mt. and Mk., Lk. has a general state- 
ment that when these signs, terrible to 
the world, begin to appear the hour of 
redemption for believers is at hand. 
They may look up and raise their heads. 
Cf. 1 Thess. i. 5-10, Jas. v. 7. 


622 


KATA AOYKAN XXI, 


29. Kat ele mapaBodhy abtois, ““ISere tiv ouxqy Kat wévtTa Td 
Sév8pa. 30. Stav mpoBddwow Ady, Br€rovtes df’ EauTav ywwoKeTe 
Ste Sy eyyds Td O€pos Eotiv. 31. obTw Kat Speis, Stay (SyTe TaiTa 
32. api 
Aéyw Syiv, Ste od ph wapeAOy ¥ yeved adry, Ews Oy wdvra yevnta. 
33- 6 odpavds xal 4 yh mapeNedoovtat, ot S€ Adyou pou od ph Tap- 
A&8war.} 
kapdiat® év kpaiTddy Kal pébn Kal pepipvars BiwriKkais, Kat aidvi- 


Sios ép’ Spas émcory * H fpépa exeivy: 35. Os mayls yap émeheu- 
5 


ywopeva, ywooKete Ste éyyus éotw % Bactheia tod Ocod. 


34. Mpoodyete S€ éautols, pymote BapuvOdow? spav at 


cetat® emt mdvras Ttods Kabnpévous ert mpdowmoy mdéons THs yiis- 
36. dyputvette ofv® ey mrayti Katp@ Sedpevor, iva katagiwOfre? 


éxguyety Taita mwdvra To péAdovTa yiveoOar, Kal orabivar eumpoober 


to ulod Tod dvOpdrrou.” 


1 wapehevorovTat in BDL 13, 33. 


2 Bapndwor in SABCL al. pl. 


S yp. at Kkap. in QCDL (Tisch.). at kap. vp. in BX al. (W.H.). 
4 emioty ed vp. atpvidios in S$BDLR (Tisch., W.H.). 


® emevoeevoeTar yap in SBD. Vide below. 


6 $e for ovy (CL) in SBD. 


7 xaticxvonte in NBLX 1, 33 al. (Tisch., W.H.). T.R. = CDA al. 


Vv. 29-33. Parabolic enforcement of 
the lesson (Mt. xxiv. 32-35, Mk. xiii. 28- 
31).—Ver. 29. Kal mavra ta Sévhpa: 
added by Lk., generalising as in ix. 23: 
“take up his cross daily’’. The lesson 
is taught by all the trees, but parabolic 
style demands special reference to one 
particular tree.—mpoBddwouy, put forth 
(their leaves, +& vAAa understood). 
Similar phrases in Greek authors.—B)é- 
wovres, etc., when ye look (as who does 
not when spring returns!) ye know of 
yourselves, need no one to tell you.—Ver. 
31. * Bactrela tov Geo, explaining the 
elliptical but not obscure words in Mt. 
and Mk.: “ (it) is near,’’ z.e., the coming 
of the Son of man. For Lk. that is one 
with the coming of the Kingdom, which 
again = redemption in ver. 28.—VvV. 32, 
33: with slight change as in parallels, 
even to the retention of ap7v usually re- 
placed by &An@G@s. Presumably q yevea 
avr means for Lk., as it must have done 
for the Twelve to whom the words were 
spoken, the generation to which Jesus 
Himself belonged. Hahn holds that atry 
refers to the generation within whose 
time the events mentioned in wv. 25, 26 
shall happen (so also Klostermann). 

Vv. 34-36. General exhortation to 
watchfulness, peculiar to Lk. ; each evan- 
gelist having his own epilogue.—év 
KpatrdAy kal wc0y: this seems to be a 
phrase similar to jxovs Kal oatov— 


sound and wave for sounding wave (ver. 
25) =in headache (from yesterday’s in- 
toxication) and drunkenness, for: in 
drunkenness which causes headache and 
stupidity. Pricaeus denies that kpavraAn 
(here only in N.T.) means _yesterday’s 
debauch (x@eo.wh péOy), and takes it = 
aSynpayla, gluttony. -That is what we 
expect certainly. The warning he under- 
stands figuratively. So also Bleek.— 
pepipvats Biwtikais, cares of life, “‘ what 
shall we eat, drink?”’ etc. (xii. 22).—Ver. 
35. S$ jWayis, asa snare, joined to the 
foregoing clause in R.V. (‘‘and that day 
come upon you suddenly as a snare’). 
Field objects that the verb following 
(éqreroeAevoetrat) does not seem suffi- 
ciently strong to stand alone, especially 
when the verb émuorq is doubly em- 
phasised by ‘‘suddenly” and “as a 
snare’’. He therefore prefers the T.R., 
which connects @s mayis with what 
follows, the arrangement adopted in all 
the ancient versions. The revisers, as 
if conscious of the force of the above 
objections, insert ‘‘ so,’ ‘‘ for so shall it 
come,” etc., which virtually gives os 
mayts a double connection. The figure 
of a snare, while expressive, is less 
apposite than that of a thief (xii. 39).— 
KaOnuévous «. m., etc., sitting on the face 
ot the earth; the language here has a 
Hebrew colouring.—Ver. 36. év mavrt 
katp@, in every season.—Katicxvonrte, 





2q—38. XXII. 1—4. 


EYATTEAION 


623 


37. “Hy 8€ Tas tpepas ev 7G tepd SiSdonwv!- tas Sé vdKtas 


eepxdpevos nudiLero eis TO dpos TO KaNoUpevoy "EAXatdy. 
mds 6 hads *dpOpile mpds adrdv év TH tep@ dxovew adtod. 
I. "HITIZE 8€ 4 éoprh tay aLupwv, 1 eyopévyn macxa.- 


XXII. 


38. Kat 


f here only 
in N. 


2. kal éLyjrouv ot dpxtepets Kal of ypapuateis, 16, Tas dvedwou 


aitév> éboBoivto yap tov adv. 


3. 


Eiond\Oe S€ 62 Xatavas eis 


‘lodSav Tov émiKkahovpevoy ® “loxapiityy, Svra éx Tod apiOuod Ta» 
SdSexa> 4. Kat dweNOdv cuvehddnce Tois dpxrepedor Kal Tots 4 


1 $18. ev tw cep. in BK codd. vet. Lat. (W.H. marg.). 


27 Omit o SABCDL, etc. 
4 SABL, etc., omit this second rots. 


that ye may have power, “ prevail ”’ 
(R.V.).—KatafiwOAre (T.R.), “may be 
accounted worthy’ (A.V.), also gives a 
very good meaning, even in some respects 
preferable.—ora@jvat, to stand—in the 
judgment (so, many), or to be presented 
to, placed before. So most recent com- 


mentators. Either gives a good sense 
(Bleek). 
Vv. 37-38. Concluding notice as to 


how Fesus spent His last days.—Ver. 
37- év rt. tepo Si8doKwy, teaching in the 
temple. The statement covers all that 
is related in chapters xx., xxi., including 
the Apocalyptic discourse = Jesus made 
the most of His short time for the 
spiritual instruction of the people.— 
nvAtlero, lodged, imperfect, because done 
night after night. Some (e.g., Godet and 
Farrar) think Jesus with the Twelve 
slept in the open air. The word might 
mean this, though in Mt. xxi. 17 it 
appears to mean passed the night in a 
house in Bethany.—els r. 6.: the use of 
els is probably due to the influence of 
tEepyxdépevos. But Tobit xiv. 10 has a 
similar construction: pykéte avdAuc OTe 
eis Nuvevn.—Ver. 38. apOpilev, came 
early, or sought Him eagerly (Meyer). 
ép0pevw, the Greek form, always is used 
literally or temporarily. — dp@pitw, its 
Hellenistic equivalent, seems sometimes 
to be used tropically, as in Ps. Ixxviii. 34 
(‘‘ early,” R.V., “‘ earnestly ” in margin), 
Sirach iv. 12, vi. 36. The one meaning 
easily runs into the other: he who rises 
early to learn is in earnest. Earliness 
in the people implies earliness in Jesus, 
and corresponding devotion to the work. 

CHAPTER XXII. THE Passion His- 
Tory. The Passion history, as told by 
Lk., varies considerably from the nar- 
tatives of Mt. and Mk. by omissions, 
additions, etc. J. Weiss (Meyer), follow- 
ing Feine, thinks that Lk. used as his 


5 kahoupevov in SBDLX 69, 


main source for this part of his Gospel 
not Mk. but the precanonical Lk., whose 
existence Feine has endeavoured to 
prove. Lk.’s narrative at some points 
resembles that of the Fourth Gospel. 

Vv. 1-2. Introductory (Mt. xxvi. 1-5, 
Mk. xiv. 1-2).—7yyifev, drew near, for 
the more definite note of time in 
parallels.— éopry, etc.: the Feast of 
Unleavened Bread and the Passover are 
treated as one. Mk. distinguishes them. 
Lk. writes for Gentiles; hence his 
“called” the passover (fh Aeyopévn). — 
Ver. 2. 710 mas, the how, that was the 
puzzle; that Jesus should be put out of 
the way by death (avédwoww a.) ; some- 
how wasasettled matter. Cf. xix. 48 (+d 
tt, etc.).—époBotrro ydp tT. A.: their fear 
of the people explains why the how was 
so perplexing a matter. The popularity 
of Jesus was very embarrassing. 

Vv. 3-6. $udas (Mt. xxvi. 14-16, Mk. 
xiv. 10, 11). At this point in Mt. (xxvi. 
6-13) and Mk. (xiv. 3-9) comes in the 
anointing at Bethany omitted by Lk. 
—eloy\Oev Zatavas, Satan entered into 
Judas. Lk. alone of the synoptists 
thus explains the conduct of Judas. Cf. 
John xiii. 2. Lk.’s statement is stronger 
even than John’s, suggesting a_ literal 
possession. Only so could he account 
for such behaviour on the part of a 
disciple towards such a Master. It was 
a natural view for a devout evangelist in 


the Apostolic Age, but, taken literally, it 
would be fatal to the moral significance 
of the act of the traitor, which, whil 


-presenting a difficult_psychological pro- 
blem, doubtless proceeded from _con- 
scious motives.—ék Tov apiOpov, of the 
number, but how far from the_spirit 
which became that_privi !— 
Ver. 4. otparnyots: a military term 
which might suggest the captains of 
Roman soldiers, but doubtless pointing 


wy 


624 


KATA AOYKAN XXIL 


otpaTnyols, 76, Was abTov wapadd adrois.2 5. Kal éxdpyoar, kat 
auvébevto abt@ dpyvpiov Sodvar- 6. Kat éfwpoddynoe, kai éLyres 
edxatpiay Tod mapadodvar adrdv adtots drep dxdou.? 

7+ "HdOe Se  Hpepa Tav aLdpuv, év® Ff Eder Ovecbar Td méoya- 
8. Kat diréoreke Nétpov Kat “lwdveny, eimav, “ MopeuOévtes Eroind- 
cate hiv To mdoxa, va pdywper.” 
Béders Eroupdowpev; 10. ‘O S€ elwev adtois, “"I80d, ceived OdvTwr 
dpdv ets Thy wow, cuvavtjce: Suiv avOpwros Kepdpiov Udaros Bac- 


g. Ot 8€ elwov adtd, “ Mod 


tdlwy- dkoovlnoate ait eis Thy oixiay ob * eiomopederar: ITI, 
kal épette TO oixodeoméTy THs oiklas, A€yet gor 6 Si8dcKados, Nod 
éort TO kaTddupa, Sou To mdoxa peTa Tov pabyTav pou ddyw; 
12. Kdxeivos Gpiv Setter dvdyeov® péya eotpwpévov: éxet éroind- 


2» 
cate. 
¢c , > , 
HTOLAcay TO TWacxa. 


lavtois Tapadw avrov in NBCL 116. 


13. “AmehOdvtes 8€ etpov Kabds eipnxey® adtois: Kat 


2 avros after ar. ox. in RABCL. D omits avrovg. 

3 Omit ev BCDL, found in WN, etc. (Tisch.). 

4 For ov (in D and many uncials) SBC and codd. vet. Lat., etc., have «us qv. 
5 avayatov in RABDL, ete. (Tisch., W.H.). 


6 e_pyxer in HBCDL 69, 


to the heads of the temple watches 
(Levites) who kept order during the 
feast. They would be necessary to the 
carrying out of Judas’ plan. The Levites 
had to perform garrison duty for the 
temple (vide Numbers viii. 24, 25). In 
Acts iv. 2 weread of one orpatnyos T. t., 
who was doubtless the head of the 
whole body of temple police.—ré wés: 
a second reference to the perplexing 
how.—Ver. 5. éxdpynoav, they were 
glad, emphatically; and how piously 
they would remark on the providential 
character of this unexpected means of 
getting out of the difficulty as to the 
was !—Ver. 6. ét&opoddynoe, he agreed, 
spopondit, for which the Greeks used the 
Sep sesb 7 The sedve OF diea: occurs 
here only in N.T.—Grep 6xAov, without a 
crowd, the thing above all to be avoided. 
arep is a poetic word in Greek authors ; 
here and in ver. 35 only in N.T. 

Vv. 7-13. Preparation for the paschal 
feast (Mt. xxvi. 17-19, Mk. xiv. 12-16).— 
Ver. 7. 7A@e, arrived. A considerable 
number of commentators (Euthy. Zig., 
Godet, Schanz, J. Weiss (Meyer)) render, 
approached (émwAnctace, Euthy.), hold- 
ing that Lk. with John makes Jesus antici- 
pate the feast by a day, so finding here one 
ofthe points in which the third Gospel is 


in touch with the fourth.—Ver. 8. aéo- 
wetke: in Lk. Jesus takes the initiative; 
in Mt. and Mk. the disciples introduce 
the subject. Various reasons have been 
suggested for this change. Lk. simply 
states the fact as it was (Schanz). He 
thought it unsuitable that Jesus should 
seem to need reminding (Meyer, seventh 
edition). The change of day, from 14th 
to 13th Nisan, required Jesus to take the 
initiative (J. Weiss, Meyer, eighth edi- 
tion).—Ilérpov xai ’l.: the two disciples 
sent out not named in parallels.—Ver. 
II. otkodeordTy THS olkias: a pleo- 
nasm = the house-master of the house. 
Bornemann cites from Greek authors 
similar redundancies, olkopvAag Sopav, 
aiméAa aiyGv, aimdAos aiyav, cvBdcra 
ovev, and from Sept., ra Bouxddta tay 
Body (Deut. vii. 13). In the remainder 
of ver. rr and in vv. 12, 13 Lk. follows 
Mk. closely. 

Vv. 14-18. Prelude to the Lord's 
Supper (Mt. xxvi. 20, Mk. xiv. 17).— 
Ver. 14. ot Gdéorodon, the apostles, for 
disciples in parallels. This designation 
for the Twelve, the initiative ascribed to 
Jesus (ver. 8), and the desire of Jesus 
spoken of in next ver. all fit into each 
other and indicate a wish on the part of 
the evangelist to invest what he here 


EYATTEAION 


5—aI. 625 
14. Kal Gre éyévero 4 Spa, dvémece, cat of SdSexa! dmdcrodor 
odv abd. 
TO Tdoxa payety ped Spav, mpd Tod pe wadety’ 16. héyw yap spiv, 
Stu odkéte? of ph ddyw ef adtod,® Ews Stou TAnpwhf év TH Bactheta 
TOU Ocod.” 17. Kat Sefdpevos worypiov, edxaprotyoas elme, “ Ad- 
Bete toito, kal Siapepioate éautois*-: 18. Adyw yap Spiv, dr ® of 
py wiw® dd tod yevvipatos Tihs dpmédou, éws Stou” % Pacidela 
Tod @eod ENOy.” 19. Kai AaPdv dprov, edxapioTicas Exdace, Kat 
Ewxev attois, éywv, “Toitd dor. Td coud pou,® ro imép Spay 
SiSdpevov> todto movette eis Thy ephy dvduyynow.” 20. ‘Qoattw 
mai Td wotyptov peta TO Sermvfcat, Adywv, “ Todto Td TtoThpiey, F 
caw} Siabyxn év TO aipati pou, 7d bwép Spay exxuvdpevov.2 21 
My iBod, 7 xelp Tod wapadiddvTos pe pet Euod emi THs tpamneLys. 


15. Kal etme mpos adtous, “"EmOupia émeupnoa todTo 


1 Omit SwSexa SYBD (Tisch., W.H.). LX omit awog. T.R. = C, etc, . 


2 SABL omit ovxers (W.H.), found in D al. (Tisch.). 

3 For e€ avrov SQBL minusc. have avro. 

“eus eavTous in NCBCLM 1, 13, 69 al. (Tisch., W.H.). D al have eavrois = 
T.R. 

5 Omit ort BCDGL al. (W.H.), found in $§XTA al, (Tisch.). 

§ After mew S$BKLMDN al. have aro tov vwv. DG 1 have the phrase, but before 
ov py. 

7 So in DX al, (Tisch.). S§BL have ov (W.H.). 

8 From to v7ep v., ver. 19, to the end of ver. 20, found in nearly all Greek codd. 
and verss., is omitted in D a ff, 1; b e syrr. cur. sin. more or less rearrange the 
matter referring to the Supper. Syr. cur. has ver. 19 before vv. 17, 18. | Syr. sin. 
has this order: 19, 20 a, 17, 20 b, 18 (‘And He took bread and gave thanks over it 
and brake, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which I give for you: thus 
do in remembrance of me. And after they had supped He took the cup and gave 
thanks over it, and said, Take this, share it among yourselves. This is my blood, the 





new Testament. 


For I say unto you that henceforth I will not drink of this fruit, 


until the Kingdom of God shall come,” Mrs. Lewis). 


narrates with great significance. He 
seems to write with the practice of the 
Apostolic Church in view in reference 
to the Holy Communion.—Ver. 15. mpd 
Tov pe wa0etv; the last passover He will 
eat with them is looked forward to with 
solemn, tender feeling.—Ver. 16. Aéyw 
yap: the words of Jesus here reported 
answer to words given in Mt. and Mk. 
at a later stage, z.c., at the close of their 
narrative of the institution of the Supper. 
At this point Lk.’s narrative follows a 
divergent course.—Ver. 17. Sefdpevos, 
having received from the hand of another 
(different from AaBov, ver. 19), handed 
to Him that He might drink.—evyapic- 
micas, this solemn act gives to the hand- 
ing round of the cup here mentioned the 
character of a prelude to the Holy 
Supper: (‘quaedam quasi prolusio S. 


Coenae,”’ Beng. in reference to vv. 15-18). 
If the reading of D and some Old Latin 
codd. which makes ver. 19 stop at cpa 
pov and omits ver. 20 be the true text 
(vide critical notes above), then Lk.’s 
account of the institution really begins in 
ver. 17, and what happened according to 
it was this: Jesus first sent round the cup, 
saying: take this and divide it among 
yourselves, then teek bread, broke it, and 
gave it to the disciples, saying: this is 
my body. In this version two things are 
to be noted: first, the inversion of the 
actions; second, the omission of all re- 
ference to the blood in connection with 
the wine. The existence of such a read- 
ing as that of D and the Old Latin ver- 
sion raises questions, not only as to 
Lk,’s text, but as to church practice in the 
Apostolic age and afterwards; or, assum- 


40 


626 


KATA AOYKAN XXII. 
22. wai d pev vids! rod dvOpdwou mopederat Katd Td apropevov*. 
mAh odal Ta dvOpdmw exeivy, 8 oF mapadiSorm.” 23. Kai adroi 
npgavto oulyteiv mpds éautous, 76, Tis dpa etn é§ adtav 6 toiTo 
peddwr mpdocew. 24. "Eyévero 8é Kal pidoverkia ev adrois, 14, tis 
aitav Soxei etvar peitwv. 25. 6 8é elmev atrois, “ Ot Bacidets Trav 
20vav Kuptedovow abtav, Kal ot éEoucidLovtes adtav edepyérar Kah- 


ouvTat. 


26. Speis S€é odx odTws* GAN’ 6 peiLwv ev byiv yevéoOw as 
& vewTepos: Kal 6 Hyoupevos ds 5 Siakovav. 


27. tls yap peiluv, 


& dvaxeipevos, 7 6 Siaxovav; obyxt 6 dvakeipevos; éyd Sé ci ev 


1 For cat op. ve BDL have ont, etc., and NcBL o vos pe, 
2 kata T. w. Topevetat in $BDGLT 13, 69, etc. 


ing as a possibility that Lk. wrote as D 
represents, have we here another instance 
of editorial discretion—shrinking from 
imputing to Jesus the idea of drinking 
His blood? If with D we omit all that 
follows g@pa pov, then it results that Lk. 
has left out all the words of our Lord 
setting forth the significance of His 
death uttered (1) at Caesarea Philippi; 
(2) on the occasion of the request of 
Zebedee’s sons; (3) the anointing at 
Bethany ; (4) the institution of the Sup- 
per. (2) and (3) are omitted altogether, 
and (1) is so reported as to make the 
lesson non-apparent. 

Vv. 19-20. The Supper.—Ver. 19. 1d 
oap.a pov, my body, broken like the 
bread, implying blood-shedding, though 
that is passed over in silence if the read- 
ing of D be accepted. Note that in 
Acts ii. 46 the communion of the faithful 
is called breaking bread.—ré ¥. ¥. 81- 
Sépevov: what follows from these words 
to the end of ver. 20 resembles closely 
St. Paul’s account in 1 Cor. xi. 23-25. 
This resemblance is one of the argu- 
ments of W. and H. against the genuine- 
ness of the passage. On the whole sub- 
ject consult J. Weiss (Meyer, eighth 
edition) and Wendt, L. F., i., 173, both 
of whom adopt the reading of D. 

Vv. 21-23. The traitor (Mt. xxvi. 21- 
25, Mk. xiv. 18-21), placed after the 
Supper, instead of before, as in 
parallels.—wAny : making a transition to 
an incident presenting a strong moral 
contrast to the preceding.— yelp, the 
hand, graphic and tragic; the hand 
which is to perform such opposite acts, 
now touching the Master’s on the table, 
ere long to be the instrument of betrayal. 
—Ver. 22. mdAnyv, adversative, neverthe- 
less ; the Son of Man destined to go (to 
dwath), but that does not relieve the in- 


strument of his responsibility.—Ver. 23. 
™pos éavrovs, to one another, or among 
themselves, without speaking to the 
Master ; otherwise in parallels.—rotro: 
in an emphatic position = this horrible 
deed. 

Vv. 24-30. Strife among the disciples. 
Cf. on chap. ix. 46.—Ver. 24. dtAoverxta, 
a contention, here only in N.T. The 
juxtaposition of this strife among the 
eleven with the announcement of the 
traitor gives to it by comparison the 
aspect of a pardonable infirmity in other- 
wise loyal men, and it is so treated by 
Jesus.—+ré ris a., etc., as to the who of 
them, etc. The topic of the earlier dis- 
pute (ix. 46) might be : who outside their 
circle was greater than they all, but here 
it certainly is: which of them is greater 
than his fellow. It is usual to connect 
this incident with the feet-washing in 
John xiii.—8oxet, seems, looks like, 
makes the impression of being (Bleek 
and Hahn).—Vvy. 25, 26: borrowed from 
the incident of the two sons of Zebedee 
(Mt. xx. 25, 26, Mk. x. 42, 43), which 
Lk. omits and somewhat alters in ex- 
pression.—Ver. 25. evepyérat: here 
only in N.T., either titular, like our 
‘your highness,” e.g., Ptolemy Euergetes 
(so, many), or = benefactors.—Ver. 26. 
tpets S&, etc., but ye not so, elliptical, 
€seo0e or woijoere understood.—é 
vewtepos, the younger, ‘who in Eastern 
families fulfils menial duties, Acts v. 6” 
(Farrar).—é yovpevos, the leader or 
chief, the name of those in office in the 
Church in Heb. xiii. 7, also in the 
epistle of Clement; therefore viewed by 
some as a note of a late date, but with- 
out sufficient reason.—Ver. 27 adduces 
the example of Jesus to enforce the 
principle stated in ver. 26. He, the ad- 
mittedly greater, had assumed the position 





22—31. 


péow Spav! ds 6 Siaxovar. 


EYATTEAION 


627 


28. ‘Ypets 8¢ éore of Siapenevnxdtes 


pet €uod év Toig weipacpots pou: 29. Kayo *SiariWepar dpi, a here only 


c 


Kaus Sidberd por 6 


1 eupe after vpev in BLT. 
3 ecOnte in BDT (Tisch., W.H.). 


3 xayoecde in NABFL al, (Tisch., W.H., marg.). 


text). 


mamp pou, Bacitetav, 30. tva éoOinte? nat 
wivyte émt THs Tpamélys pou év TH Bacideia pou, Kal Kalionabe ® 
ent Opdvwy, kpivovtes Tas Swdexa udas* Tod “Iopayd.” 
Sé 6 Kupros,® “ Sipwv, Zipwy, Sov, 6 Zatavas “efyticato bpas, Tod 


in Gospels. 
Acts iii. 
25 and 
several 
tim®s in 

31. Ete Heb. 

~ b here only 
in N.T. 


‘ 


xadyo8e in BTA (W.H. 


4 ras 8wd. pur. xptvovres in BT (W.H.). 
5 Omit eve Se o x. BLT sah. cop. syr. sin. (Tisch., W.H.). 


of the less by becoming the serving man, 
6 Staxovav, instead of the guest at table 
(6 dvakeipevos). In what way Jesus 
had played the part of serving man Lk. 
does not indicate. The handing round 
of the cup might be viewed as service. 
By omitting the incident of the sons of 
Zebedee Lk. missed the supreme illus- 
tration of service through death (Mt. xx. 
28, Mk. x. 45).—Ver. 28. tpets 8é, but 
ye, the 8€ making transition from words 
of correction to a more congenial style 
of address.—ot Srapepevnxdres, who 
have continued all through ; the perfect 
participle, pointing them out as in 
possession of a permanent character, a 
body of thoroughly tried, faithful men.— 
mTetpacpots, in my temptations, pointing to 
all past experiences fitted to try faith and 
patience, which were of daily occurrence: 
temptations even to the Master, but still 
more to the disciples (in view of their 
spiritual weakness) to lose confidence in, 
and attachment to, One so peculiar, so 
isolated, and so much disliked and 
opposed by the people of repute and in- 
fluence.—Ver. 29. StaTiWepor (StariOnpr, 
middle only in N.T.), ‘‘ appoint,” make 
a disposition of. The corresponding 
noun is 8:a0yxyn. In Heb. ix. 17 we find 
6 S.a0ewevos, a testator, and the verb 
may be used here in the sense of 
bequeathing, though that sense is in- 
applicable to God’s gift of a kingdom to 
Jesus referred to in next clause.—Ver. 
30. Karyoecbe, ye shall sit, the judicial 
function the main thing, the feasting a 
subordinate feature; hence stated in an 
independent proposition (Ka8yoecGe not 
dependent on {tva).—8ddexa, twelve 
tribes, and twelve to rule over them, the 
defection of Judas not taken into account. 

he promise is given in that respect as if 
spoken on another occasion (Mt. xix. 


28). This generous eulogy of the disciples 
for their fidelity has the effect of minimis- 
ing the fault mentioned just before. Lk. 
was aware of the fact. It is another 
instance of his ‘‘ sparing of the Twelve”. 

Vv. 31-34. Peter’s weakness foretold, 
With John (xiii. 36-38) Lk. places this 
incident in the supper chamber. In Mt. 
and Mk. it occurs on the way to Geth- 
semane (Mt. xxvi. 31-35, Mk. xiv. 37-41). 
It is introduced more abruptly here than 
in any ofthe otheraccounts. The eiqe dé 
6 xvptos of the T.R. is a natural attempt 
to mitigate the abruptness, but the pas- 
sage is more effective without it. From 
generous praise and bright promises 
Jesus passes suddenly, with perhaps a 
slight pause and marked change of tone, 
to the moral weakness of His much-loved 
companions and of Peter in particular.— 
Ver. 31. Zipov, Zimwv: one can imagine, 
though not easily describe, how this was 
said—with much affection and just 
enough of distress in the tone to make it 
solemn.—6 Zatavas. The reference to 
Satan naturally reminds us of the trial 
of Job, and most commentators assume 
that the case of Job is in the view of 
Jesus or the evangelist. The coming 
fall of Peter could not be set in a more 
advantageous light than by being 
paralleled with the experience of the 
famous man of Uz, with a good record 
behind him and fame before him, the 
two connected by a dark but profitable 
time of trial.—éyryoaT0, not merely 
“‘ desired to have” (A.V.) but, obtained 
by asking (R.V., margin), Careful Greek 
writers used éfarretv = to demand for 
punishment, and éfaureto Gat = to beg off, 
deprecari. Later writers somewhat dis- 
regarded this distinction. The aorist 
implies success in the demand. It is an 
instance of the ‘‘ Resultative Aorist” 


628 


KATA AOYKAN 


XXII. 


ewidoat ds Tov ctrov: 32. yh Se ederOnv wepl cod, Wa ph éxdetay 1 
4 miotts cou: Kal od wore émotpépas ornpigov? rods ddehpous 


» 
gou. 


33- (O Se elev abd, “Kupre, peta cod Erouds cipr Kal eis 
gudaxiy Kal eis Odvarov wopeverOar.” 


34. “O 8é eltre, “ Adyw oor, 


Nétpe, ob ph® havion oxjpepoy ddéxrep, mpiv * tpls draprjoy 


pi) eiddvar pe.” 5 


35. Kai elwev adrois, “Ore dméorerha Spas arep 


Badartiou Kat mipas Kal droSnpdrev, ph twos botepjoate;” Ot 


Sé elroy, “ Od8evds.” © 


36. Eltmev odv? atrois, “’ANAG viv 6 éxwv 


Baddvriov dpdrw, dpoitws kai mypay: Kal é ph Exwr medyodtw Td 


whury in NBDLT al, 


ornpicov in NABKLT 1 (Tisch., W.H.). T.R. = D, ete. 


3 ov without py in NBLTX. 


‘ For wpw 9 SBLT 69 al. have ews (D ews orov). 
5 For awap... pe SBLT 13, 131 al. have pe avrapvyoy edevar (W.H.), 


6 ovOevog in NBT al. (Tisch., W.H.). 


T.R= NDL. 


7 For ovy NcBLT have &. $Q*D have o 8 evwev. 


(vide on this and other senses of the 
aorist, Burton, M. and T., § 35). Field 
(Ot. Nor.) cites from Wetstein instances 
of such use and renders é&yr. 0. peri- 
phrastically ‘‘ Satan hath procured you 
to be given up to him ’.—tpas, you, the 
whole of you (though not emphatic) ; 
therefore, Simon, look to yourself, and 
to the whole brotherhood of which you 
are the leading man. Bengel remarks: 
‘¢ Totus sane hic sermo Domini praesup- 
ponit P. esse primum apostolorum, quo 
stante aut cadente ceteri aut minus aut 
magis periclitarentur”.—owidoar: a 
Gw. Aey., but of certain meaning. 
Hesychius gives as equivalent Koo- 
xivevoat, from xéoxKtvov, a sieve. Euthy. 
Zig. is copious in synonyms = @opuBqcat, 
Kuk7joat, Tapdéar. He adds, ‘‘what we 
call kéoKnuov is by some called ouvlov,”’ 
and he thus describes the function of 
the sieve: év g@ 6 ciros rHSe KqKeioe 
peradepdpevos Tapdccerar. Sifting 
points to the result of the process antici- 
pated by Jesus. Satan aimed at ruin.— 
Ver. 32. éy@ 88 e&erOnv, but I have 
prayed: I working against Satan, and 
successfully.—tva ph éxAlryq h We. oO, 
that thy faith may not (utterly) fail or 
die (xvi. 9), though it prove weak or in- 
adequate for the moment. Job’s faith 
underwent eclipse. He. did not curse 
God, but for the time he lost faith in the 
reality of a Divine government in human 
affairs. So Peter never ceased to love 
Jesus, but he was overpowered by fear 
and the instinct of self-preservation.— 


émiotpéas, having returned (to thy 
true self). Cf. orpapyre in Mt. xviii. 3. 
The word “converted,’’ as bearing a 
technical sense, should be allowed to 
fall into desuetude in this connection. 
Many regard émvorpéwas as a Hebraism 
= vicissim: do thou im turn strengthen 
by prayer and otherwise thy brethren as 
I have strengthened thee. So, e.g., 
Grotius: ‘ Da operam ne in fide deficiant, 
nempe pro ipsis orans, sicut ego pro 
te oro”. Ingenious but sdoubtful.— 
orypirov: later form for orypigov; 
for the sense vide Acts xiv. 22 and 
I Pet. v. 10.—Ver. 33. eis dvAakny Kal 
alg @dvatov: more definite reference to 
the dangers ahead than in any of the 
parallels.—Ver. 34. ovjpepov, to-day, as 
in Mk., but without the more definite 
TavTy TH vuKTi.cpy eldévar: ph after a 
verb of denial as often in Greek authors, 
t.g., Tov Tap’ GwapyynOdvTa ph xpavar 
Ady, Eurip., Hippol., |. 1256. 

Vv. 35-38. Coming danger, peculiar 
to Lk. There is danger ahead physically 
as well as morally. Jesus turns now to 
the physical side. What He says about 
a sword is not to be taken literally. It 
is a vivid way of intimating that the su- 
preme crisis is at hand = the enemy 
approaches, prepare !|—Ver. 35. Sre an- 
dore.hka: the reference ig to ix. 3, or 
rather, so far as language is concerned, 
to x. 4, which relates to the mission of 
the seventy.—Grep as in ver. 6.—Ver. 36. 
aAXa viv, but zow, suggesting an em- 
phatic contrast between past and present, 





32-—40. 


ipdtiov abtod, kat dyopacdtw pdyxarpay. 


éru} 


© “Ikavov €oTl. 


EYATTEAION 


62g 


37- A€yw yap dptv, én 


TodTo Td yeypappevoy Set teheoOAvar ev epol, Td, ‘Kal pera 
dvdpwv éNoyicdn’- Kal yap ta? twepl éyod téAos exer.” 
etmov, “‘Kupie, i8ou, pdxarpat de Sudo.” 


38. Ot de 


‘O Sé elwev adtoig, 


39. KAI é€eOdv erropedOn xatd Td 00s eis Td Spos TOY ’EXaLav* 


AxohovOnoay S€ aitG Kal ot pabytal adrou.® 


1 Omit ert NABDLTX. 


40. yevdpuevos Sd 


2 For ta SBDLT 1 have to (Tisch., W.H.). 
3 Omit avrov NABDLT 1, 13, etc. (Tisch., W.H.). B omits eat before eo: pad. 


(W.H. brackets), 


or near future.—épdre, lift it: if he has 
a purse let him carry it, it will be needed, 
either to buy a sword or, more generally, 
to provide for himself; he is going now 
not on a peaceful mission in connection 
with which he may expect friendly recep- 
tion and hospitality, but on a campaign 
in an enemy’s country.—é ph exev, he 
who has not; either purse and scrip, or, 
with reference to what follows, he who 
hath not already such a thing as a sword 
let him by all means get one.—1wAynodtw 
70 ipatuoy, let him sell his upper garment, 
however indispensable for clothing by day 
and by night. A sword the one thing 
needful. This is a realistic speech true 
to the manner of Jesus and, what is rare 
in Lk., given without toning down, a 
genuine logion without doubt.—Ver. 37. 
7d yeypappevov: the words quoted are 
from Is. liii. 12, and mean that Jesus was 
about to die the death of a criminal.—Sei, 
it is necessary, in order that Scripture 
might be fulfilled. No other or higher 
view than this of the rationale of Christ’s 
sufferings is found in Luke’s Gospel. Cf. 
xxiv. 26. A Paulinist in his universalism, 
he shows no acquaintance with St. Paul’s 
theology of the atonement unless it be in 
ver. 20.—1T6 (ra T.R.) wept épov, that 
which concerns me, my life course.— 
téhos €xet is coming to an end. Some 
think the reference is still to the pro- 
phecies concerning Messiah and take 
téXos €xet in the sense of ‘is being ful- 
filled,’ a sense it sometimes bears: tTeAet- 
ovrTat 75y, Euthy. Kypke renders: rata 
sunt, the phrase being sometimes used in 
reference to things whose certainty and 
authority cannot be questioned = ‘‘ my 
doom is fixed beyond recall””—Ver. 38. 
#-dxatpar Svo: how did such a peaceable 
company come to have even so much as 
one sword? Were the two weapons 
teally swords, fighting instruments, or 


large knives? The latter suggestion, 
made by Chrysostom and adopted by 
Euthym., is called ‘curious ”’ by Alford, 
but regarded by Field (Ot. Nor.) as 
‘* probable ”’.—tkavdv, enough! i.e., for 
one who did not mean to fight. Itisa 
pregnant word = “‘ for the end I have in 
view more than enough ; but also enough 
of misunderstanding, disenchantment, 
speech, teaching, and life generally,” 
Holtzmann, H. C, 

Vv. 39-46. Gethsemane (Mt. xxvi. 36- 
46, Mk. xiv. 32-42). Lk.’s narrative here 
falls far short of the vivid realism of the 
parallels. Mt. and Mk. allow the in- 
firmity of the great High Priest of human- 
ity so graphically described in the Epistle 
to the Hebrews to appear in its appalling 
naked truth. Lk. throws a veil over it, 
so giving an account well adapted doubt- 
less to the spiritual condition of first 
readers, but not so well serving the deep- 
est permanent needs of the Church. This 
statement goes on the assumption that 
VV. 43, 44 are no part of the genuine 
text, for in these, especially in ver. 44, 
the language is even more realistic than 
that of Mk., and is thus out of harmony 
with the subdued nature of Lk.’s narra- 
tive in general. This want of keeping 
with the otherwise colourless picture of 
the scene, which is in accord with Lk.’s 
uniform mode of handling the emphatic 
words, acts and experiences of Jesus, is, 
in my view, one of the strongest argu- 
ments against the genuineness of vv. 43, 


abies 39. é&A@v: no mention of the 
hymn sung before going out (Mt. ver. 30, 
Mk. ver. 26), Lk. makes prominent the 
outgoing of ¥esus. The parallels speak 
in the plural of the whole company.— 
Kata Td €805: for the form vide ii. 42, 
and for the fact xxi. 37 and John xviii. 2. 
This is another point of contact between 


630 KATA AOYKAN XXII. 
él tod té1rov, elev abtois, “ Npovedxeobe pi) eiveOetv els metpac- 
cActsxxir. pdv.” 41. Kal adds *dmeordotn dx adtav doei diGou * Bodyy, 
d here only 4 . , “ 2 "i 
inN.T. Kal Gels tad ydvata mpoondxeTo, 42. éyor, “Mdrep, et Bouder 
mapeveykeiv? 1d mworhpioy todTo? dw énod> wiv pi Td O€Anpd 
wou, GAAd 7d odv yerécOw.”® 43. "QbOy BE adtG dyyedos am’ 
e Acts xii.5. odpavod énoxtwv adtév. 
1 Pet. i. 22. ; < Bde ae os tee ps 
Tepov mpoonuxeto. éyéveto Sé 6 iSpus abtod doei OpdpBor atparos 
kataBaivovtes emt thy yiv.4 


44. Kal yevopevos év dywvia, ° éxrevéo- 


45- Kal dvaords did tis mpoceuyjs, 


1 For wapeveyxerw KL, etc., have wapeveyxas (Tisch.), 
(W.H.). 


2 rouTo To wWoTHptov in NBDLT. 
3 yiv-(or yerv-)eoOw in SABL al, fl. D has yev. = T.R. 


4Verses 43, 44 are found in $*DL and many other uncials, in codd. vet. Lat. 
vulg. Egypt. verss. Syr. (cur. Pesh. Hier., but not sin.) Eus. Canons, etc., etc. 
They are wanting in §aABRT, and Epiph. Hil. and Hier. mention that they were 
wanting in many codd. known to them. W.H. give them in double brackets, and 
regard them as no part of Lk.’s text, though a true element of the @hristian tradition, 


BDT al. have wapeveyuc 


Vide their appendix. Cf. Blass’ theory of two recensions in Evang. sec. Lucam. 


these two Gospels. The reference to the 
habit of Jesus deprives this visit of special 
significance.—7kodovOnoav: the dis- 
ciples followed, no talk by the way of 
their coming breakdown, as in Mt. ver. 
31, and Mk. ver. 27. 

Vv. 40-46. émt tod témov, at the place, 
of usual resort, not the place of this 
memorable scene, for it is not Lk.’s pur- 
pose to make it specially prominent. Cf. 
John xviii. 2, tov témov previously de- 
scribed as a xfmos across the brook 
Kedron.—apogevyeobe: Jesus bids the 
disciples pray against temptation. In 
Mt. and Mk. He bids them sit down 
while He prays. Their concern is to be 
wholly for themselves.—Ver. 41. aireo- 
wac0y, He withdrew, secesstt. Some 
insist on the literal sense, and render, 
“tore Himself away” = “avulsus est,” 
Vulg., implying that Jesus was acting 
under strong feeling. But did Lk. wish 
to make that prominent? The verb does 
not necessarily mean more than ‘ with- 
drew,” and many of the philological com- 
mentators (Wolf, Raphel, Pricaeus, Pal- 
airet, etc.) take it in that sense, citing 
late Greek authors in support.—am’ av- 
tev, from them (all); no mention of three 
taken along with Him, a very important 
feature as an index of the state of mind 
of Jesus. The Master in His hour of 
weakness looked to the three for sym- 
pathy and moral support; vide Mt. xxvi. 
40. But it did not enter into Lk.’s plan 
to make that apparent.—A(@ov Bodyy, a 
stone’s cast, not too distant to be over- 


heard. BoArvis the accusative of measure. 
—els ta yovara: the usual attitude in 
prayer was standing; the kneeling pos- 
ture implied special urgency (“in genibus 
orabant quoties res major urgebat,” 
Grot.), but not so decidedly as falling 
at full length on the ground, the attitude 
pointed at in the parallels.—Ver. 42. 
awatep, Father! the keynote, a prayer of 
faith however dire the distress.— et BovAet, 
etc.: with the reading wapéveyxe the sense 
is simple: if Thou wilt, take away. With 
mapeveykety OF TWapevéykat we have a 
sentence unfinished: ‘‘ apodosis sup- 
pressed by sorrow” (Winer, p. 750), or 
an infinitive for an imperative (Bengel, 
etc.). The use of wap. in the sense of 
“remove” is somewhat unusual. Hesy- 
chius gives as synonyms verbs of the 
opposite meaning: wapaetvat, rapaBal- 
«tv. The am’ éxot leaves no doubt what 
is meant. In Lk.’s narrative there is 
only a single act of prayer. The whole 
account is mitigated as compared with 
that in Mt. and Mk. Jesus goes to the 
accustomed place, craves no sympathy 
from the three, kneels, utters a single 
prayer, then returns to the Twelve. With 
this picture the statement in vv. 43, 44 is 
entirely out of harmony.—Ver. 44. év 
aywviq, in an agony (of fear), or simply 
in ‘‘a great fear”. So Field (Ot. Nor.}, 
who has an important note on the word 
a&ywvia, with examples to show that fear is 
the radical meaning of the word. Loes- 
ner supports the same view with ex- 
amples from Philo. Here only in N.T. 


es EYAITEAION 

€MMav mpds tos pabytds, epey attots Koipwpevous! dd Tis 
Adis, 46. Kal eimev adtois, “Ti Kaeddete; dvaotdvtes Tpoge 
evxeode, iva ph eioehOnrte eis metpacpdy.” 

47. "Ere 8€2 attod adoivtos, idou, Sxdos, Kat & Aeydpevos 
‘loudas, els tav Sddexa, mpoypxeTto adtav,® Kal Hyyiwe TO “Inood 
pirijcar adtov. 48. 6 8€ “Ingods* elwev attd, “*lovda, puiypate 
tov uldv tod avOpdmou tapadidws ;” 49. “ISdvres S€ ot wept adTor 
7d €odpevoy ettrov atTe,> “Kupte, et matdgopev év payaipa;” 50. 
Kat émdtatey eis tis €& attav tov Soddov Tod dpxtepews,® Kat 
Geikev aitod Td ots? TO Seéidv. 51. GroKpilels S€ 6 “Inoods 
etrev, “EGte ws toutov.” Kai ddjevos tod dtiou adtod,® idoato 
autév. 52. Etme S€ 6° “Incods mpds Tods mapayevopevous én’ 1° 
aitév dpxepets Kat oTpatnyous Tod iepod Kai mpecBuTépous, “ ‘As 





1 coipwpevous avrovs in SBDLT 69 al. 
Savtovs in uncials. avtwy in minuss. 
5 Omit avrw SWBLTX., 

7 ro ovs avtov in $BLT 69, 346. 

8 Omit o before |. ABT. 
10 pos in NX, etc. (Tisch.). 


From this word comes the name ‘‘ The 
Agony in the Garden’’.—@pdpBor, clots 
(of blood), here only in N.T. 

Vv. 45, 46. Return of Fesus to His 

disciples.— amd TIS Tpogevy7s : rising up 
from the prayer, seems to continue the 
narrative from ver. 42.—amd Tis Avays, 
asleep from grief, apologetic ; Hebraistic 
construction, therefore not added by Lk., 
but got from a Jewish-Christian docu- 
ment, says J. Weiss (in Meyer). Doubt- 
less Lk.’s, added out of delicate feeling 
for the disciples, and with truth to 
nature, for grief does induce sleep 
“‘moestitia somnum affert,” Wolf).— 
Ver. 46. avactavtes mpocevyerbe : 
Jesus rose up from prayer. He bids 
His disciples rise up to prayer, as if 
suggesting an attitude that would help 
them against sleep.—tva, etc.: again a 
warning against temptation, but no word 
of reproach to Peter or the rest, as in 
parallels. 

Vv. 47-53. The apprehension (Mt. 
xxvi. 47-56, Mk. xiv. 43-52).—Ver. 47. 
guAjoa a., to kiss Him; that the 
traitor’s purpose, its execution left to be 
inferred, also that it was the precon- 
certed signal pointing out who was to 
be apprehended.—Ver. 48. tArjpart, 
etc.. the question of Jesus takes the 
place of, and explains, the enigmatical 
4g’ S adper of Mt. The simple $idnpa, 


2 Omit S€ NABLT, etc. 

4 For o Se |. SBLTX 157 have I. Se. 

S rov apx. Tov Sovdov in SBLT 69, 346- 
8 Omit avrov NBLRT 1, 131. 


em (= T.R.) in ABDL (W.H.). 


unlike xarad.déw, implies no fervour.— 
Ver. 49. ot wept avrov, those about 
Him, z.e., the disciples, though the word 
is avoided.—ré éodpevov, what was 
about to happen, z.e., the apprehension. 
The disciples, anticipating the action of 
the representatives of authority, ask 
directions, and one of them (ver. 50) not 
waiting for an answer, strikes out. In 
the parallels the apprehension takes 
place first.—Ver. 50. els ts, etc., a 
certain one of them, thus vaguely referred 
to in all the synoptists. John names 
Peter.—rd Sefidv, the right ear; so in 
Fourth Gospel. Cf. the right hand in 
vi. 6.—Ver. 51. éate ws Tovrov: an 
elliptical colloquial phrase, whose mean- 
ing might be made clear by intonation 
or gesture. It might be spoken either to 
the captors = leave me free until I have 
healed the wounded man, or to the 
disciples = let them apprehend me, or: 
no more use of weapons. For the 
various interpretations put upon the 
words, vide Hahn. Perhaps the most 
likely rendering is : ‘‘ cease, it isenough,” 
desinite, satis est, as if it had stood, éare, 
éws tovTov ixavév éom, the disciples 
being addressed.—Ver. 52. dapx.epets 
Kai, etc.: Lk. alone represents the 
authorities as present with the 6,Aos— 
priests, captains of the temple and elders 
—some of them might be. though it is 


632 


KATA AOYKAN 


XXII. 


éxi Anothy éeXnAUOate! peta paxatpdv nal Eww; 53. Kal" 
Hpépav dvros pou ped” Spar év TO lepG, obx eferetvare Tas XElpas 


én’ éué. 


€XX’ adry Spay gor? 4 dpa, kal 4 eEoucta tod oxdrous.” 


54. ZYAAABONTES 8€ adtdv jyayov, Kat elonyayov adtév® eis 


Tov olkov* tod dpxtepéws: 6 S¢ Métpos Axohodber paxpdbev. 


55: 


dipdvrwv® $€ wip év péow Tis addijs, Kal cuyxabiodvTwy adtay,® 


éxdOnto 6 Mérpos év péow™ adrav. 


56. i8odca S€ adrév radiony 


fActsi. 10; TUS KaOnpevoy pds TO hs, Kal ‘drevicaca adTG, ele, “Kai obtos 


iii. 4; Vi. ea ae Sea 
1s, etc. 200 AUTO Hy. 
Cor. iii. 
otda aitéy.” ® 
7, 13- 
ov é& adtay ef.” 
r 


15. 


1 efmdOare in NBDLRT, etc. (W.H.). 
3 Omit this avrov NABDLT al, 
5 weptawavtev in NBLT. 


“O Sé Métpos ecimrev,!° “"“AvOpwre, obk eipi.” 


57. ‘O S€ Apyicato attév,® héywv, “Tévar, odk 
58. Kat peta Bpaxd Erepos idmy adtdv Edn, “Kat 


59: 


Acts xii. Kat Stactdons doel Gpas pias, GAdos Tis © dricxupifero, Aéywr, 
‘CE ddnfetas Kal obtos pet adtod jy* Kal yap TadtAaids gor.” 


2 cori vpev in NcBDLT, etc, 
4eus THY orxtav in NBLT, etc., 1, 124 al. 
© Omit avrwy NBDLT. 


7 pecos for ev peow (N, etc.) in BLT 1, 209 (Tisch., W.H.). 


8 Omit avtrov NBD°LT (W.H.). 


9 ov« o18a avTov yuvat in RBLTX. D omits yuvas, 


0 eby in BLT al, pl. 


not likely. Farrar remarks: ‘‘these 
venerable persons had kept safely in the 
background till all possible danger was 
over ’.—as ért Aqorhy. Lk. gives the 
reproachful words of Jesus nearly as in 
the parallels.—Ver. 53. GAN’ airy éoriv, 
etc.: the leading words in this elliptical 
sentence are Tov oxétovs, which qualify 
both dpa and éfovgia. Two things are 
said: your hour is an hour of darkness, 
and your power is a power of darkness. 
There is an allusion to the time they 
had chosen for the apprehension, night, 
not day, but the physical darkness is for 
Jesus only an emblem of moral dark- 
ness. He says in effect: why should I 
complain of being captured as a robber 
in the dark by men whose whole nature 
and ways are dark and false ? 

Vv. 54-62. Peter's fall (Mt. xxvi. 57, 
58, 69-75, Mk. xiv. 53, 54, 66-72).—Lk. 
tells the sad story of Peter’s fall without 
interruption, and in as gentle a manner 
as possible, the cursing omitted, and the 
three acts of denial forming an anti- 
climax instead of a climax, as in 
parallels.—Ver. 54. 6 8 Mérpos *xod- 
ovGer, Peter followed. What the rest did 
is passed over in silence; flight left to be 
inferred.—Ver. 55. weptawdavtwy, more 
strongly than aypavrwv (T.R.) suggests 


the idea of a well-kindled fire giving a 
good blaze, supplying light as well as 
heat. Who kindled it did not need to 
be said. It was kindled in the open 
court of the high priest’s house, and was 
large enough for the attendants to sit 
around it in the chilly spring night 
(ovyxabicdvtwy).—péoos aitay. Peter 
sat among them. Was that an acted 
denial, or was he simply seeking warmth, 
and taking his risk ?—Ver. 56. drevi- 
caca (a intensive, and telvw), fixing the 
eyes on, with dative here, sometimes 
with eis and accusative, frequently used 
by Lk., especially in Acts.—ottos, the 
maid makes the remark not to but about 
Peter in Lk. = this one also was with 
Him, of whom they were all talking.— 
Ver. 57. ovxoldaa. y.: a direct denial 
=I do not know Him, woman, not to 
speak of being a follower.—Ver. 58. petra 
Bpaxv, shortly after (here only in N.T.), 
while the mood of fear is still on him, no 
time to recover himself.—€repos, another 
of the attendants, a man.—éé air@y, of 
the notorious band, conceived possibly 
as a set of desperadoes.—av@pwie, ovx 
eip(, man, I am not, with more emphasis 
and some irritation = denial of disciple- 
ship. In one sense a strenger form of 
denial, but in another a weaker. Peter 





53-65. 


60. Etre Sé & Nétpos, “"AvOpwre, otk ofda 6 héyets.” 
XPRMO, Ett Nahodvros adtod, épdvncey 61 ddéxTwp- 


EYATTEAION 


633 


Kai tapa- 


61. 


NY 
KQU 


atpadeis & Kuptos évéBXee TH Nétpw- xal SwenvjoOy 5 Mérpos 
Tod Aéyou? tod Kupiov, as elev attd, “"Om, amply ddéxtopa 


dwvicat,® drapyion pe tpts.” 
éxauce TkpOs. 


62. Kai éfehOav em 6 Mérpos * 


63. Kat ot dvSpes of cuvéxovtes tav “Inoodv® évérailov adta, 
Sépovtes 64. Kal meptxadtWavres adtéy, ErumTov avtou Td mpdo- 
wrov, Kai® émnpdtwv aitdv,” héyortes, “ Mpodjteucov, tis éotw 6 


, oe 
Tatoas o€; 
autév. 


1 Omit o NABDL, ete. 


65. Kat érepa woddkd Brachypodvtes Eeyov eis 


4 pnpatos in SBLTX 124 al. (W.H.). T.R. = AD (Tisch.), 
* Add onpepov after dwvqgar KBKLMT al. 


‘Omit o Ml. SBDLT, etc. 
brackets). 


Some codd. of vet. Lat. omit ver, 62 (W.H. in 


5 For roy |. SSBDLT, etc., 157 al. have avrov. 
Serumtov .. . Kat omitted in NBKLT al. 1, 209, 


7 Omit this avroy BKLMTX. 


might have known Jesus without being a 
disciple. To deny all knowledge was 
the strongest form of denial. Besides it 
was less cowardly to deny to aman than 
to a woman.—Ver. 59. Stacrdons Spas, 
at the distance of an hour; the verb 
here used of time, in xxiv. 51 and Acts 
xxvii. 28 of place. This interval of an 
hour is peculiar to Lk. Peter in the 
course of that time would begin to think 
that no further annoyance was to be 
looked for.—8tioyxvpilero, tx’ adnBelas: 
these expressions imply that the previous 
denials had partly served their purpose 
for a time, and put the attendants off 
the idea that Peter was of the company 
of Jesus. After watching Peter, and 
listening to his speech, a third gains 
courage to reaffirm the position = I am 
sure he is after all one of them, for, etc. 
—Ver. 60. Gv@pwre, etc., man, I don’t 
know what you are saying—under shelter 
ofthe epithet TadtAatos, pretending igno- 
fance of what the man said—an evasion 
xather than a denial, with no cursing 
and protesting accompanying. A mon- 
strous minimising of the offence, if Lk. 
had Mk.’s account before him, thinks J. 
Weiss ; therefore he infers he had not, 
but drew from a Jewish-Christian source 
with a milder account. What if he had 
both before him, and preferred the 
milder ?—édevynoev Gdex., immediately 
after the cock crew ; but in Lk.’s account 


the reaction is not brought about thereby. 
In the paraliels, 1n which Peter appears 
worked up to a paroxysm, a reaction 
might be looked for at any moment on 
the slightest occasion, the crowing of 
the cock recalling Christ’s words abund- 
antly sufficient. But in Lk. there is no 
paroxysm, therefore more is needed to 
bring about reaction, and more accord- 
ingly is mentioned.—Ver. 61. orpadeis, 
etc., the Lord, turning, looked at Peter ; 
that look, not the cock crowing, recalled 
the prophetic word of Jesus, and brought 
about the penitent reaction.—trepvjc6n, 
remembered, was reminded, passive here 
only in N.T.—Ver. 62 exactly as in Mt. 

Vv. 63-65. Indignities (Mt. xxvi. 67- 
68, Mk. xiv. 65). In Mt. and Mk. these 
come after the trial during the night 
which Lk. omits. In his narrative the 
hours of early morning spent by Jesus 
in the palace of the high priest are filled 
up by the denial of Peter and the out- 
rages of the men who had taken Jesus 
into custody (of cuvéyovres atrév).— 
Ver. 63. évéwatfov, mocked, in place of 
the more brutal spitting in parallels.— 
Sépovtes, smiting (the whole body), 
instead of the more special and insulting 
slapping in the face (koAad(feuv),—Ver. 
64. . weptkadvwayres, covering (the face 
understood, 16 mpécwmrov in Mk.)— 
mpopntevooy, tis, etc. : Lk. here follows 
Mt., not Mk., who has simply the verb 


634 


KATA AOYKAN 


XXII. 66—7r. 


66. Kai ds éyévero ipépa, ouvixOn 1d mpeoButépiov Tod aod, 
Gpxiepets Te Kal ypapparets, Kat dviyayov! adrév eis TO cuvedprov 


éaurav,? 67. héyovtes, “Et od ef 6 Xprords, etme § Hpiv.” 


Etre Se 


abtois, “Edy Spiv etrw, ob pi) moredontes 68. édy Sé xal* épw- 
Tow, oF pi) drroxpiOfTé por, } dwoddonte.5 69. dd Tod viv® 


€otat 6 vids Tod dvOpwmou Kabijpevos ex Sefiav THs Suvduews Tod 


a 
@ecou. 


70. Etwov 8€ wavtes, ‘‘E0 obv ef 6 vids Tod Oc0d;”” “O Be 


mpds adtods edn, ““Ypets Adyere, Ste yd eiyr.”” 71. Ot Sé eliroy, 


“Ti ér xpelay €xopey paptupias’; adrol yap jKovcaper Gwo Too 


Pew 
oTép.aTos adTou. 


1 anrnyayov in NBDKT (Tisch., W.H.). T.R. = ALX al, 


®autwy in NBDLT al. 


®SSBLT omit pot y aroAvente (Tisch., 


6 vuv Se in NABDLTX. 


wpod. without the question following.— 
Ver. 65. €&repa wodda, many other 
shameful words, filling up the time, 
which Lk. would rather not report 
particularly, even if he knew them. 

Vv. 66-71. Morning trial, the pro- 
ceedings of which, as reported by Lk., 
correspond to those of the night meeting 
reported by Mt. and Mk. (Mt. xxvi. 59- 
66, Mk. xiv. 55-64), only much abridged. 
No mention of the attempt to - get, 
through witnesses, matter for an accusa- 
tion, or of the testimony concerning the 
word about destroying the temple. The 
Messiah question is alone noticed. 
Perhaps Lk. omitted the former because 
of their futility, though they were im- 
portant as revealing the animus of the 
judges.—Ver. 66. els 7d cvvéSpiov, to 
the council chamber, in which the San- 
hedrim met.—dé€yovres, introducing the 
proceedings, in a very generalising way. 
Cf. the graphic account of the high 
priest rising up to interrogate Jesus, 
after the first attempt to incriminate 
Him had failed, in parallels (Mt. xxvi. 62 f., 
Mk. xiv. 60 f.).—Ver. 67. ei ov ci 6 X. 
eiov Hiv: either, art Thou the Christ? 
tell us, or tell us whether Thou be the 
Christ. Christ sirepuicetey without any 
epithet as in parallels (Son of God, Son 
of the Blessed).—etwe 8¢ a.: Jesus first 
answers evasively, saying in effect: it is 
vain to give an answer to such people. 
In parallels He replieswith a direct ‘‘yes” 
(‘‘thou sayst,” Mt.; ‘I am,” Mk.).— 
Ver. 69. What Jesusnow says amounts 
to an affirmative answer.—a7d Tod viv 
érrat, etc.: Jesus points to a speedy 
change of position from humiliation to 


3 evrrov in NBLT. 


4 Omit nat NBLT. 
W.H.). 


7 exopev pap. xpevav in BLT (Tisch., W.H.). 


exaltation, without reference to what 
they will see, or to a second coming.— 
Ver. 70. wavres, all, eagerly grasping at 
the handle offered by Christ’s words.— 
6 vios t. @. This is supposed to be in- 
volved in the exalted place at the right 
hand.—éy@ eipt, the direct answer at 
last.—Ver. 71. papruptas: instead of 
papTvpwy, no mention having been pre- 
viously made of witnesses. 

J. Weiss (in Meyer, eighth edition) 
finds in this section clear evidence of the 
use of a Jewish-Christian source from 
the correspondence between the account 
it gives of the questions put to Jesus 
and His replies and the Jewish-Christian 
ideas regarding the Messiahship. These 
he conceives to have been as follows: In 
His earthly state Jesus was not Messiah 
or Son of Man; only a claimant to these 
honours, He became both in the state 
of exaltation (cf. Acts ii. 36: ‘‘God hath 
made Him both Lord and Christ”). He 
was God’s Son in the earthly state 
because He was conscious of God’s 
peculiar love and of a Messianic com- 
mission. So here: Jesus is to become 
(€orat) Messianic Son of Man with 
glory and power (86a and 8vvapts) ; 
He is Son of God (éye cipt). On this 
view Sonship is lower than Christhood. 
Was that Lk.’s idea? On the contrary, 
he evidently treats the Christ question 
as one of subordinate importance on 
which it was hardly worth debating. 
The wider, larger question was that as 
to Sonship, which, once settled, settled 
also the narrower question. ,If Son, then 
Christ and more: not only the Jewish 
Messiah, but Saviour of the world. The 








XXIII. 1-6. 


XXIII. 


EYATTEAION 


635 


1. KA! dvactdy Grav 75 mAO0s5 abtay, Hyayev! abtév 


émi tov Middtov. 2. ipgavto S¢ katynyopetv adtod, Néyovtes, “ TodTov 
evpopev Stactpépovta Td eOvos,? Kai Kwdvovta Kaicapt ddpous ® 


Srddvat, Adyovra éautéy* Xprotdv Baowéa etvar.” 


3. “0 Se Mudd- 


tos émnputncev® adtdv, Aéywr, “Ed ef 6 Baotheds Tdv “lovdaiwy ;” 


‘O Sé daroxpileis adt@ Edy, “ZO déyers.” 


4. “0 3€ Middtos etre 


Tpos Tous dpyrepets Kat Tods Sxdous, “OddSey edpiokw airtiov év TO 


évOpdTw TouTw.” 
t 4 


5+ Ot 8€ emicxuov, Néyovtes, “Ort *dvaceies tov adv, SiddoKwy a here and 


KaQ Sdys THs ‘loudaias,® dpédpevos amd THs TadiAatas éws dSe.” 
6. Middros S€ dxodcas Tadthaiav’ éemnpwtyncey et 6% avOpwios 


1 yyayov in uncials, yyayev in minusc., 
2 Add npev to e8vos SBDLT, etc. 


in Mk. 


XV. II 
(Scac. in 
Ch. iii. 14), 


3 popous K. in S$ BLT, which also have «at before Aeyovra, 


* So in NADL (Tisch.), 


avtov in BGT. 


5 mpwtyoev in BRT. T.R. = DL, ete. 
Skat before apgapevog in S{BLT, not in D, etc., probably omitted because 


difficult. 
7 Omit Tad. MBLT. 


account of the trial runs on the same 
lines as the genealogy, in which Davidic 
descent is dwarfed into insignificance by 
Divine descent (vids . . . Tov Geov). 
CuaPTeR XXIII. Tue Passion 
History ConTiInvED.—Vv. 1-5. Before 
Pilate (Mt. xxvii. 1, 2, 11-14, Mk. xv. 
1-5). At the morning meeting of the 
Sanhedrim (in Mt. and Mk.) it had 
doubtless been resolved to put the con- 
fession of Jesus that He was the Christ 
into a shape fit to be laid before Pilate, 
i.e., to give it a political character, and 
charge Him with aspiring to be a king. 
To this charge Lk. adds other two, 
meant to give this aspiration a sinister 
character.—Ver, I. Grav Td wA7Qos, the 
whole number. The Jewish authorities 
go to Pilate in full strength to make as 
imposing an appearance as possible and 
create the impression that something 
serious was on hand.—7yayev: nothing 
is said about leading Jesus bound, as in 
Mt. and Mk.—Ver. 2. S:actpédovrta, 
perverting, causing disaffection and dis- 
loyalty to Rome.—kwdAvovta, doing His 
best to prevent (people from paying 
tribute to Caesar); false, and they pro- 
bably knew it to be so, but it was a 
serviceable lie.—Bao.déa: in apposition 
with Xpuoroy = saying that He was 
Christ—a King /—Ver. 3. ot el, etc.: 
Pilate’s question exactly as in Mt. and 
Mk.—ovd deyets: this reply needs some 


® B and a few others omit o (W.H. brackets). 


such explanation as is given in John; 
vide notes on Mt.—Ver. 4. aituov, 
blameworthy, punishable (neuter of 
aitios) = airfa. Pilate arrived at his 
conclusion very swiftly. A glance sufficed 
to satisfy him that Jesus was no dangerous 
character. Probably he thought him a 
man with a fixed idea.—Ver. 5. émrioyvov 
(here only in N.T.), they kept insisting, 
used absolutely =‘‘invalescebant,” Vulg. 
—avaceler, stirs up, a stronger word 
than S:actpédewv.—BiSacKwv, teaching, 
the instrument of excitement. Jesus 
did, in fact, produce a great impression 
on the people by His teaching, and one 
not favourable to the Pharisees, but He 
did not set Himself to stir up the people 
even against them.—xa@’ GAns 7. ’I.: 
kata with the genitive of place as in iv. 
14 = in the whole of Judaea. This, con- 
sidering the purpose, should mean 
Judaea strictly, Pilate’s province, and so 
taken it bears witness to more work 
done by Jesus in the south than is re- 
corded in the Synoptists. But the 
testimony is of little value. The accusers 
said what suited their purpose, true or 
false.—xal apfapevos: the kal is a 
difficult reading, and just on that account 
probably correct. It gives the impression 
of an unfinished sentence, something left 
out = and beginning from Galilee He 
has spread His mischievous doctrine over 
the land even to this holy city. The 


636 


b Acts xxv. 


KATA AOYKAN XXIII. 


Tadt\aids ores 7. Kal émyvods Sti éx tis eoucias “HpwSou eortiv, 
*dvérepwev adtdv mpds “Hpddny, dvta Kat abtov év ‘lepocohtpors év 
TavTats Tats Hpépats. 8. 6 S€ ‘Hpddns Sav Tov "Inoody éxdpy Alay: 
hv yop Gov ef ixavod! iSetv adrdv, Sd Td dove wohhd? rept 
adtod: Kai HAmLE te onpetov ideiv bm’ adrod ywdpevov. 9. émnp- 
tira 8é adrav év Aéyors tkavois: adtds Sé obS€v drexpivato aiTd. 
10. elomjKeroay S€ of dpxtepets Kal ot ypappartets, edTévws KaTy- 
yopotvres adrod. 11. efouderfoas S¢ adtav® & “Hpddns adv Tois 
oTpateipacw abrod, kat éumaitas, weptBadov adrév* éoOjTa hap- 
mpdv, dvéreupey adtov TO Middtw. 12. éyévovto S€ pidor & Te 
Middtos kai 6 ‘Hpwdyns® év adth TH Hpépa pet GAAHAwV~ Tpob- 


Wijpxov yap év €xOpa dvres mpds Eautols.® 13. Mddtos S€ ouy- 


le~ ixavwv xpovwv Oekwv in NBT. D also has e&€ txavwv xp., but Oedov in a 


L omits Sedov. 


different position. 


2 Omit wodkAa NBDLT 1, 131 al. 


® xat before o H. in SLTX 13, 69 (Tisch., W.H., marg.). 


4 Omit avrov NBLT. 


5 Hp. and MX. change places in BLT. 


words from xat to FadsAalas are omitted 
in some MSS., and it is not inconceivable 
that they are an early gloss to explain 
ver. 6 (so Weiss in Meyer). 

Vv. 6-12. Before Herod, peculiar to 
Lk.—Ver. 7. dvéwep ev, remitted Him 
= remisit, sent Him to, not the higher 
(Meyer), but the proper tribunal: a 
Galilean, to the tetrarch of Galilee; a 
technical term.—év ‘lepoo. Herod would 
be in Jerusalem to keep the Passover, 
though that is not stated.—Ver. 8. éxdpy 
Atay, was much pleased, ‘“ exceeding 
glad” (A.V. and R.V.) is too grave a 
phrase to express the feeling of this worth- 
less man, who simply expected from the 
meeting with Jesus a ‘“‘ new amusement ”’ 
(Schanz), such as might be got from a 
conjurer who could perform some clever 
tricks (rt oynpetov).—Ver. 9. év Adyots 
ixavots: suggesting the idea of a de- 
sultory conversation, in which the king 
introduced topic after topic in a random, 
incoherent manner, showing no serious 
interest in any of his questions.—ovdev 
airexp(varo, answered nothing, which 
would greatly astonish and pique this 
kingling, accustomed to  courtier-ser- 
vility. The fact that Jesus said nothing, 
and that nothing of importance came 
out of the appearance before Herod, 
may explain its omission by the other 
evangelists.—Ver. 10. otf apxtepets, etc., 
priests and scribes, there too, having 
followed Jesus, afraid that the case 


BD omit. 


6 aurous in NBLT. 


might take an unfavourable turn in their 
absence.—etrévws, eagerly (Acts xviii. 
28).—Ver. 11. éfov8evrioas: on this 
verb and kindred forms, vide at Mk. ix. 
12. Herod, feeling slighted by Jesus, 
slights Him in turn, inciting his body- 
guards (tots otparevpaciy, which cannot 
here mean armies) to mock Him, and 
having Him invested with a costly robe, 
probably a cast-off royal mantle of his 
own, and so sending Him back a mock 
king to Pilate, a man to be laughed at, 
not to be feared or punished.—éoOqTa 
Aopmpav, a splendid robe; of what 
colour, purple or white, commentators 
vainly inquire.—avérwepev, “sent Him 
again” (A.V.), or ‘‘back” (R.V.). 
The verb may mean here, as in ver. 7, 
sent Him to Pilate as the proper person 
totry the case. The two magnates com- 
pliment each other, and shirk unpleasant 
work by sending Jesus hither and thither 
from tribunal to tribunal, the plaything 
and sport of unprincipled men.—Ver. 
12. éyévowro pfAou: that the one posi- 
tive result of the transaction—two rulers, 
previously on bad terms, reconciled, at 
least for the time. Sending Jesus to 
Herod was a politic act on Pilate’s 
part. It might have ended the case so 
far as he was concerned; it pleased a 
jealous prince, and it gave him a free 
hand in dealing with the matter: nothing 
to fear in that quarter.—per’ &AAxjAov 
for ddAjAors (Euthy. Zig., who also sub- 


7—20, EYATTEAION 
Kaheodwevos Tovs dpxrepets Kal Tods dpxovTas Kal Tov adv, 14. 
eime mpds adtous, “Mpoonvéycaté pot tov GvOpwrov todTtov, as 
dmootpépovta tov adv: Kat idou, eyo évdmov Spav dvaxplvas 
ovdév! etpoy év tO dvOpd j i a c ; 
pov év tT GvOpirw ToUTw aitiov, Gv KaTnyopeite Kat 
ado: 15. GAN odd€ “Hpddys- dvémeppa yap spas mpos adtdy,? 
kal idou, obSév déiov Oavdtou ott mempaypevov adto. 16. mat- 
Sedoas obv adrév dmodtcw.” 17. “Avdykny Sé elyev darodvew 
aitois kata éopriy éva.® 18. dvéxpatay* Sé mapmdndei, Aéyortes, 
“Aipe todtoy, darddugov S€ Hpiv Tov BapaBBav-” 19. Sots qv da 
otdow twa yevonevny év TH moder Kat ddvov BeBAnpévos eis 


637 


gudaxyy.F 


1 ovOev in WBT 1. 


20. Mdduw ody 6 Middtos mpocepuivyce,® OeXwv dmohioas 


2 averene yap avTov wpos naas in NBKLMT, T.R. = ADX is perhaps a 


correction by the scribes. 


3 Ver. 17 is omitted in ABKLTN (Tisch. W.H.). 

4 avexpayov in BLT 124,157. T.R. = ADX, ete. 

5 Byers ev TH HvAaky in BLT (Tisch., W.H.). S2has PeBA. ev +. ud. 
6 SSBLT have waAwv S¢ o [. wpowed. avroig. 


stitutes mpds GAAyAovs for rpds éavTovs). 
—dovres after mpotmyjpxov might have 
been omitted, as in Acts viii. 9, but it 
serves to convey the idea of continued 
bad relations. 

Vv. 13-16. Pilate proposes to release 
Fesus.—Ver. 14. anwootpepovra, turn- 
ing away (the people from their 
allegiance). In Acts iii. 26, of turning 
men from their iniquities.—évémiov v 
G@vaxpivas, having made an inquiry in 
your presence. In John, Pilate’s inquiry 
is private. ‘* He says this,” remarks 
Pricaeus, ‘‘lest they should think he 
was setting Jesus free by favour or in- 
trigue”’ (gratia aut ambitu). avaxpivas 
is used absolutely here as in Acts xxiv. 8. 
—Ver. 15. airt@: some have taken this 
as referring to Herod=Herod did 
nothing in the case, implying that it 
was of a serious, capital nature. Most 
take it as referring to Jesus = behold, 
the result of sending to Herod is that in 
his judgment nothing has been done 
deserving death by the accused.—airo 
instead of vm’ abrod; vide on this con- 
struction Winer, § xxxi., 10.—Ver, 16, 
matdevoas: doubtless used here in the 
Hellenistic sense of chastise, scourge— 
a mild name for an ugly thing. The 
policy of the proposal Euthy. thus ex- 
plains: ‘a moderate flagellation (perpiav 
pPaotiywo.v) to mitigate their wrath, 
that thinking they had gained their 
point they might cease from further 


madness’. A weak, futile policy. ‘* Hic 
coepit mimium concedere” (Bengel). 
Fanaticism grows by concession (Schanz). 

Vv. 17-25. Pilate finally succumbs 
(Mt. xxvii. 15-26, Mk. xv. 6-15).—Ver. 
17, which states that Pilate was under a 
necessity (why, not explained) to release 
one (prisoner) at feast time, is almost 
certainly imported from the parallels by 
a later hand, though it fills up an ob- 
vious hiatus in Lk.’s meagre narrative. — 
Ver. 18. mapadnel: adverb, from wap- 
awn 0s (here only in N.T.) =in the whole- 
mob style, giving a vivid idea of the 
overpowering shout raised.—aipe tovrov, 
take away this one, i.e., to the cross.— 
améAdvaov, release; if ye willrelease some 
one (ver. 16, aroAvow) let it be Barabbas. 
Lk. makes this demand the voluntary 
act of the people. In the parallels (vide 
there) it is suggested to them by Pilate 
(Mt.), and urged on them by the priests. 
In Lk. s narrative the behaviour of the 
people is set in a dark light, while both 
Pilate and the priests are treated with 
comparative mildness. In view of 
Israel’s awful doom, Lk. says in effect: 
the people have suffered for their own 
sin.—Ver. 19. So7ts seems to be = ds 
here, following the growing usage of 
later Greek (Schanz, vide Buttmann, 
Gram., p. 115).—8a ordow ... wai 
dovoy = $14 ddvov dv ordoer metrot- 
npéevov, Pricaeus.—Hv BAnbeis: instead 
of €BA79y, the analytic form is unusual 


638 


Tar “Inoobr. 
1 > , » 
gov aQuTOv. 


KATA AOYKAN 


XXIIL 


21. ot S€ éwedadvouv, Adyortes, ““ Eraipwoov, craipw- 
22. ‘O 8€ tpitov elwe mpds attous, “Ti yap KaKdv 


, ~ 
éroinoev obtos ; obS€v aitiov Bavdrou ebpov ev ait&: wadevoas ody 


autév atroktcw.” 


23. Ot dé éwdxewro pwvais pevddats, aitoupevor 


4 a ~ ~ 
aitov otaupwOijvar: Kal Katioxuoy al pwvai adtay «al tay dpxrep- 


éwv.? 


24. “O 8€5 Middros érékpwe yevéoOar TO ateypa abrav- 


25. dwé\uce S€ adtois* Tov 1a ordow Kai ddvoy PeBAnpévor cig 
THY? gudaKyy, dv yrodvto: tov S€ “Incoiv wapédwxe TH OeAyjpare 


autor. 


26. Kat ds drmyayov® abtdy, émAaBdpevor Lipwrds tevos Kupy 
vaiou Tod épxonévou’ dm’ dypod, éwéOyxav atta tov oraupdy, héperr 


” a A 
SmiaGev Tod “Incod. 


27. "HkodovGe: S€ adt@ wodd TAGs Tod Aaod, 


Ye@ravpov, eravpov in BD. T.R. = ALX, ete. 
? Omit kat twv apy. NBL (Tisch., W.H.). 


3 For o 8« NBL have xan 
5 Omit ryy NBD 69 al. 


“Omit avrots SHABDX, ete 
® amnyov in B (W.H. marg.). 


7 Zipeva twa K—ov epy—ov in BCDLX 13, 33 al. (Tisch., W.H.). 


with the aorist (here only in N.T.), 
hence probably the reading of T.R., 
BeBAnpevos.—Ver. 20. madd, again, a 
second time. Lk. carefully enumerates 
the friendly attempts of Pilate, hence 
Tpitov in ver. 22. The first is in ver. 
16.—Ver. 21. émepevovy, shouted (Bog 
«pale, Hesych.), in Lk. only, and in 
reference to the people (Acts xii. 22).— 
otavpov (active, not middle = orav- 
pov), ‘‘ crucify,” repeated, with passion ; 
thoughtless, foolish, impulsive mob |— 
Ver.22. tplrov: third and final attempt, 
showing some measure of earnestness on 
Pilate’s part.—ri yap Kkaxov: the yap 
answers to the hostile mood of the people 
= I cannot respond to your demand for, 
etc. ; the ‘“‘ why, what evil,” etc., of the 
A.V. is a happy rendering. In this 
final appeal, Pilate states most distinctly 
his opinion that Jesus is innocent.—Ver. 
23. éaéxewwro, “they were instant,” 
A.V. The verb is used absolutely.— 
xatioxvoy, were overpowering; ‘‘ ecce 
gentis ingenium!” Pricaeus.—Ver. 24. 
éxéxpivev, decided, gave judgment; here 
only in N.T. and in 2 Maccab. iv. 47, 
3 Maccab. iv. 2. It was not a con- 
demnation but simply a sentence to 
death under pressure.—airypa, desire, 
here and in Phil. iv. 6 in this sense.— 
Ver. 25. ov da o-.: the repetition of 
this description, instead of giving the 
name, is very expressive..—7@ @eAnparte 
a., to their will Weak man and wicked 
people! 


Vv. 26-32. On the way to the cross 
(Mt. xxvii. 31-34, Mk. xv. 21).—Ver. 
26. amnyayov: who led Jesus away is 
not indicated. It might seem it was the 
mob, to whose will Jesus had just been 
delivered. But Lk. does not mean that. 
He simply continues the story, as in Mk., 
omitting the mockery of the soldiers 
(Mk. xv. 16-20), who, that brutal sport 
ended, led Him out (é&dyovo.y, Mk. xv. 
20). Lk. omits also the scourging, which 
even Mt. and Mk. hurry over (@payeAd- 
éoas).—émidaBopevor: a Greek word 
substituted for the foreign technical ayya- 
pevewv in the parallels (usually takes the 
genitive in the Gospel, here also in 
T.R., accusative in W. and H.’s text, 
vide Acts xvii. 19, xviii. 17).—@mioGev 
tov ‘Incot does not mean that Simon 
helped Jesus to bear the cross, carrying 
the end behind Jesus. They laid the 
whole cross on him. 

V. 27 f. This incident of the women 
following in the crowd is peculiar to Lk. 
—xai yuvatkev, and of women ; they are 
the part of the crowd in which the story 
is interested. They were mainly women 
of Jerusalem (ver. 28).— at éxéarovto, 
etc. : they indulged in demonstrative 
grief by gesture and voice (é@pyvovv), 
contrary to rule it would appear (‘non 
planxerunt eductum ad supplicium, sed 
interius luxerunt in corde,” Lightfoot on 
Mt. xxvii. 31), but great grief heeds not 
rules.—Ver. 28. éa’” ewe, é’ Eavtas are 
brought close together to emphasise the 


21-~34- 


Kal yuvatkay, at kat? éxdmtovro Kal éOpyvouy adtdv. 


EYATTEAION 


639 


28. otpadels 


S€ mpds adtas 62 “Ingois cime, “ Quyartépes ‘lepoucadyp, pi) KaleTe 


en éué, why ép’ Eautds KAalete Kal émi Ta Téxva Spor. 


29. Ott 


> , » < > * > a ¢€ La) ‘ 
iSou, Epxovrar fpépar ev ais épodor, Maxdpra. at oreipar, Kal 


kotdlat ® at odk éyévyngay, kal pacrot ot obk €0y\acav.4 


30. Tore 


GpfovTar héyew Tots spect, Méoete eh pas: Kai tots * Bouvois, c Lk. tii. 5 


(late Gr ). 


Kahtwpare fas. 31. Sr, ef dv tH “Gypd Sddw Taira w rodow, ev d here only 
a é BH anG q "H Se 12 Suvo ° a \ in N.T. 
7 Enpd tl yévntar; 32. “Hyovto S€ nal Etepor, Svo ° kaKodpyot Ov ¢ here, w. 


> ~ > Len) 
avTa dvarpeOjvat. 


33, 39, and 
2 Tim. ii. g. 


33- Kat ote drAdOov ® émi tév térov Tév KahovmEvov Kpaviov, éxet 


zotavpwoay adtév, kal tods Kakoupyous, dv pev ek Sefiav, dv Se € 


dpiotepav. 
I , A 27 
oloacL TL TroLoUcL. 


1 Omit xa. ABCDLX 28, 

3 at kovArar in NBCX 1, 28, 60, ete. 
4 bpeway in BCL 331. 
5 Omit tw BC (W.H. text). 


34. 6 8€ “Ingots Edeye, “Mdtep, apes attois- od yap 
AtapepiLopnevor S€ Ta iudtia adtod, EBahoy 


2 Omit o NBL 


D has efe8pevay. 
6 mGov (-av) in $BCL (W.H.). 


7 Ver. 34, from o 8€ |. to movover, is omitted in NaBD minusc. (2) ab d Egypt. 


verss. syr. sin. 


Tisch. retains, but W.H. only in double brackets, regarding this as 


one of D’s non-interpolations, i.e., where the interpolation is on the side of those 
Pp » , P 


who have the clause. 


contrast = weep not for me, but for 
yourselves weep, hinting at the tragedies 
of Jerusalem’s fatal day. At such times 
the greatest joy, that of motherhood, is 
turned into the greatest misery (Holtz- 
mann, H.C.). The mothers ever have 
the worst of it (J. Weiss in Meyer).— 
Ver. 29. pakdprat,etc.: blessed the 
women that have no children, barren, or 
unmarried : nobody to care for but them- 
selves. The reflection implies keen 
sympathy with human feeling.—Ver. 30. 
Tots Opeot, Tots Bovvois: the reference 
is to Palestine, a land of mountains and 
hills, and the prayer of the miserable 
that a hill may fall on them and bury 
them under its ruins (quoted from 
Hosea x. 8),—Ver. 31. The sense of 
this proverbial phrase is obscure, but 
the connection demands this general 
idea: what is happening to me now is 
nothing to what is going to happen to 
this people. The green tree represents 
innocence, the dry tree guilt, ripe for the 
fire of judgment. Vide Ezekiel xx. 47, 
xxi. 3. Pricaeus cites as a parallel from 
Catullus: ‘‘quid facient crines quum 
ferro talia cedant?”’ The Rabbinical 
proverb, ‘‘si duo fuerint ligna arida et 
unum viride, arida illud lignum viride 
exurunt,’’ does not seem to bear the 


Vide their appendix. 


same meaning.—év typo fvAw, in the 
wet tree, in lignohumido, Grotius. Ev¥Aov 
xAwpdy = lignum viride, in Ezekiel.— 
Ver. 32. €repot Svo Kkaxodpyor, other 
two malefactors, as if Jesus was one 
also. But this isnot meant. ‘It is a 
negligent construction, common to all 
languages, and not liable to be mis- 
understood,” remarks Field (Ot. Nor.), 
who gives an example from the Com- 
munion service. ‘If he require further 
comfort or counsel let him come to me, 
or to some other discreet and learned 
minister of God’s word.” If kaxovpyou 
were meant to include Jesus it would be 
used in reference to what men thought, 
Sogactikas (Kypke) = pro tali habitus 
in reference to Jesus (Kuinoel). On this 
use of repos and Gos, vide Winer, p. 
66s. 

Wy. 33-38. Crucifixion (Mt. xxvii. 35- 
38, Mk. xv. 24-27).—«pavlov, a skull, 
for the Hebrew ToAyo0a in Mt. and Mk. 
—Ver. 34. [larep, etc.: a _ prayer 
altogether true to the spirit of Jesus, 
therefore, though reported by Lk. alone, 
intrinsically credible. It is with sincere 
regret that one is compelled, by its 
omission in important MSS., to regard its 
genuineness as subject to a certain 
amount of doubt. In favour of it is its 


640 


f here and khijpor.2 
in Ch. xvi. 


1} ol dpxovtes aby adrois,? AéyorTes, 
et obtéds éotw 5 Xpiotds, 5 Tod Geod éxdextds.” ® 


KATA AOYKAN 


35. Kal etoryKer 6 ads Oewpav. 


XXIII. 


*Efenuxryptlov 82 Kat 
AdXous Eowoe, cwodtw éautdv, 
36. *Evématlor 4 


o™ 


82 ait Kat of otpariGrar, mpocepyspevar Kai® Sos mpoodepovTes 


atta, 37. Kat Aéyortes, “Et od ef 6 Bactheds Tay loudSalwy, cdcov 
: Y 


9 
@EQuUTOP. 


38. "Hy 8€ Kat émypadh yeypappevn® em” adtd ypdp- 


paow “ENAnviKxots Kat “Pwuatkots kal “EBpaixois,’ “Otrds eotw 6 


Baowteds tay “loudaiwr.” § 


39. Els 8€ tav xpepacbévrwy Kaxotpywv éBrachhpe atrdv, 


héywr,? “EL! od ef 5 Xpiotdés, cdoov ceautév Kal Hpas.” 


40. 


"AmoxpiOels 8€ 6 Erepos éwetina adtd, A€ywy,!! “OdSE HoPA od Tov 


1 «Anpovs in AX 1, 33 al. (Tisch., who thinks xAnpov an assimilation to parall.). 
2 Omit ovy avrors NBCDLQX 33, 69, etc. (Tisch., W.H.). 
3In WBL 1, 118, 209 the last clause stands thus: et outros eoriv o X. tou Geov 9 


exXexTos. 
4 everrarlav in NBL. 


John (Tisch., W.H. omit). 
% 0 Bac. twyv |. ovros in NBL a 
10 ovye in SBCL. 


conformity with the whole aim of Lk. 
in his Gospel, which is to exhibit the 
graciousness of Jesus.—Srapepildpevor, 
etc., and parting His garments they cast 
lots = they divided His garments by 
casting lotsi—Ver. 35. @Qewpa@v: the 
people are now mere spectators. Have 
they begun to rue already when they 
see what their demand has come to? 
Observe the words @ewpiav and Sewpy- 
gavtes in ver. 48. When they had 
gazed long enough it came to decided 
poignant regret. Fickle mob!—ot 
apxovres: they alone, the rulers of the 
people, mock and sneer. The ovv aitois 
(T.R.) is a badly attested reading and 
clearly contrary to the spirit of the 
narrative.—6 éxAextds, the Elect One, 
and come to this? Incredible? No! 
thus all the truest sons and elect of God 
have fared in this evil world.—Ver. 36. 
ot otpatwrat, the soldiers; first mention 
of them, whether there as executioners 
or as keeping order does not appear in 
Lk.’s narrative. They too mock in their 
own rough way, offering the sufferer 
vinegar by way of grim joke (Meyer). 
So Lk. understands the matter. Note 
how he hurries over these brutalities. 
Cf. Mt. and Mk.—Ver. 37. The taunt 
put into the mouth of the soldiers is a 
pointless echo of the sneers of the rulers. 
The crucified one might be a King, yet be 


5 Omit kat NABCL. 
7 All after ew avtw is omitted in BCL a sah. cop. syrr. cur. sin, 


® Omit yeyp. NBL. 
It comes from 


® Omit Aeywv BL. 
D enitipwv avtw epy in NBCLX. 


unable to save Himself. The Christ, 
elect of God, might be conceived en- 
dowed with supernatural power.—Ver. 
38. én’ av7@, over Him, i.¢., above His 
head; or in reference to Him (Bleek). 
The émtypagy is viewed by Lk. as also an 
insult, crowning the others (qv 8é Kai), 
to which answers its form as in W. and 
H.: 6 Bac.drets 7. *l. otros = the King 
of the Jews this (crucified person). 

Vv. 39-43. The penitent malefactor, 
peculiar to Lk. and congenial to the 
spirit of the Gospel of the sinful.—Ver. 
39. éBrAacdyper: the wretched man 
caught up the taunt of the rulers and, 
half in coarse contempt, half by way of 
petition, repeated it, with kal tas 
added, which redeemed the utterance 
from being a gratuitous insult.—Ver. 40. 
ovde doBy ov tr. 6.: ovSe may be con- 
nected with, and the emphasis may fallon, 
either doBq, ov, or Gedy = (1) dost thou 
not even fear God, not to speak of any 
higher religious feeling? (2) dost not 
even thou, in contrast to these mockers 
of misery, fear, etc. ? (3) dost thou not 
fear God, at least, if thou hast no regard 
for men? The position of ovSé just 
before @ofq, casts the scale in favour of 
(x).—Ver. 41, Gromov (a pr. and rds): 
primarily out of place, unfitting, absurd, 
often in Plato; in later usage bearing a 
moral sense—wrong, wicked (arora 


aint EYAITEAION 


Ocdy, Ste €v TH abtH kpipate ef; 41. Kal pets perv Sixalws. aéa 
yop Gy éexpdgapev darohapBdvopev- obtos 8€ obSév Gromov émpage.” 
42. Kat edeye tH} “Inood, “MvyoOnti pou, Kupie,? étav edOns év 
s a , 2 ae \ Cpe Wee) A ‘6c? 5 ’ 
TH Baciteta® cou.” 43. Kal elwevy adt@ 6 “Inaods,* “’Apty héyw 
5 Q 2 3 ed > nw , 2 
Gol,” onpepoy pet epo0d Eon ev TH Tapadetow. 
44. “Hy 5é° daet dpa extn, kat axdros éyéveto ef Snv Thy yy, 
og o > , wit) , [ae ANTE) , re A 
€ws @pas evvdtyns. 45. kat éoxotioOy 6 HdLos, Kal eoyicdn! 7d 
s lo) “~ , x , ~ < 
KaTATETATHA TOU vaoU pécov> 46. Kal dwvijcas pwvy peyddy 6 
2 “ C) “cc , ? ee, 64 8 ~ » 
Inaois eine, “ Mdrep, eis xetpds cou tapabijcopar® +5 mvetpd pou. 
9 47. Sav 8€ 6 Exatdvrapyos!° 1d 


Kat taita® eimay é&émveucer. 


yevopevoy éddgace!! tay Cedv, héywr, “"Ovtws 6 GvOpwiros obToS 


Vide below. 
5 es Thy B. in BL (W.H. text). 


1 S8BCL omit tw; based on mistaken interpretation. 
2 Omit kvpte SMBCDLM, 


641 


4 Omit ol. NBL. 


5 wou ANeyw in BCL. 


8 For nv 8 NBC*DL 255 have kat nv, to which BC*L add 8. 
7 For kat eo. o nA. kar eox. $$ BC*L minusc. have tov nAtov exAuwovros eto On Se. 


8 wapaTilenar in SABC, etc. 
0 exatovtrapxys in SB 1, 131, 209. 


movnpa, aioypa, Hesych.); of persons 
2 Thess. iii. 2, in the sense of physically 
hurtful in Acts xxviii. 6.—Ver. 42. Kat 
éXeyev* “Inood, and he said: Jesus! not 
to Jesus as T. R. signifies—éy 7 
Baotdeia o.: when Thou comest in Thy 
kingdom = when Thou comest as King 
to earth again, the petition meaning: 
may I be among those whom Thou shalt 
raise from the dead to share its joys! 
The reading of BL, eis thv B. o., might 
point to an immediate entering into the 
Kingdom of Heaven, the prayer mean- 
ing: may I go there to be with Thee 
when I die!—Ver. 43. orpepov: to be 
connected with what follows, not with 
Aéyw = to-day, as opposed to a boon ex- 
pected at some future time (which makes 
for the reading év tq B. in ver. 42). Or 
the point may be: this very day, not to- 
morrow or the next day, as implying 
speedy release by death, instead of a 
slow lingering process of dying, as often 
in cases of crucifixion.—éy T@ wapadciow, 
in paradise ; either the division of Hades 
in which the blessed dwell, which would 
make for the descensus ad inferos, or 
heaven ; vide at xvi. 23, and cf. 2 Cor. 
xil. 4, where it is a synonym for heaven, 
and Rev. ii. 7, where it denotes the 
perfected Kingdom of God, the ideal 
state of bliss realised. The use of 
‘“‘paradise”’ in this sense is analogous to 
the various representations in Hebrews 


9 For kat tavta S$ BC*D have tovro Se. 
1 eS0falev in RBDL. 


of the perfect future drawn from the 
primeval condition of man: lordship in 
the world to come, deliverance from the 
fear of death, a Sabbatism (Heb. ii. 8, 
14; iv. g). The use of the term 
mapaderoos by St. Paul makes its use by 
our Lord credible. 

Vv. 44-49. After crucifixion (Mt. 
xxvii. 45-56, Mk. xv. 33-41).—Ver. 44. 
ép’ SAnv THY yiv:-though Lk. writes 
for Gentiles this phrase need not mean 
more than over the whole land of Israel. 
—Ver. 45. tov nAlov éxAimevros : this 
phrase (a well-attested reading as against 
the T.R. éoxotio§y 6 7.) ought to mean 
the sun being eclipsed, an impossibility 
when the moon is full. If all that was 
meant was the sun’s light totally failing, 
darkened, e¢.g., by a sand storm, the 
natural expression would be éoxotio6y. 
—Ver. 46. dwvq peyéAy: this expression 
is used in Mt. and Mk. in connection 
with the ‘‘ My God, My God,” which 
Lk. omits. In its place comes the 
‘* Father, into Thy hands”. Here as in 
the agony in the garden Lk.’s account 
fails to sound the depths of Christ’s 
humiliation. It must not be inferred 
that he did not know of the “ Eli, Eli’’. 
Either he personally, or his source, or 
his first readers, could not bear the 
thought of it—wapari@epar T. 7. p.: an 
echo of Psalm xxxi, 6, and to be under- 
stood in a similar sense, as an expression 


Al 


642 


KATA AOYKAN XXIII. 


Sixatos Hy.” 48. Kal mdvres of cupmapayevdpevor Sxdor emt Thy 


2 +a 


Bewpiavy tavtyy, Oewpodvres! ra yevdpeva, TUmTovTes éauTdv 
ot1Oy iwéotpepov. 49. elotyKeroav S€ mavtes of yywotol adtod 
pakodder, Kal yuvatkes at cuvaxohov0yjoacar® adt@ awd THs Takt- 
Aaias, dp@cat TadTa. 

50. Kat i8ou, dvip dvépate “lwonp, Boudeuths trdpxwy, dvijp 
dyabds Kat Bixatos, 51. (odtos odk Hy ouykatateBerpévos ti] Boudy 
kal TH mpdter adTav,) dmd "Apipabalas wédews TOY *loudatwy, ds Kal 


mpooedéxeTo Kal attos® thy Baoiteiay tod Geo, 52. obTos mpoo- 


a ~ a > a 
hay Ta NiAdtw yTHoaTo T6 Tapa Tov ‘Inaod. 
t ‘ . 


atto™ éverddugev alts owddni, Kal EOnKev adtd 


1 Bewoynoavtes in NBCDL 33. 
S autw in NEBLP 33, 64. 


> guvaxoN\ovboveat in NBCLRX al. T.R. = AD, etc. 


53: kal kaehiy 
8 


év pyypate hageuta, 
2 Omit eautwv MABCDL minusc. 

4 amo pak. in NBDL al. 

B has at before yuvatkes. 


SS{BCDL 69 verss, have og mpooedexeto without kat before mpooed., or Kat 


autos after it. 


7 auto omitted in RBCDL 13, 33, 69, ete. 


of trust in God in extremis. Various 
shades of meaning have been put on the 
words, among which is that Jesus died 
by a free act of will, handing over His 
soul to God as a deposit to be kept safe 
(Grotius, Bengel, Hahn, etc.).—Ver. 47. 
© ExatoyvTdapxys, the centurion, in com- 
mand of the soldiers named in ver. 36.— 
Sixatos, righteous, innocent; in the 
parallels he confesses that Jesus is a Son 
of God. Lk. is careful to accumulate 
testimonies to Christ’s znocence: first 
the robber, then the centurion, then the 
multitude (ver. 48) bears witness.—Ver. 
48. Q@ewpiav, sight, here only (3 Macc. 
v. 24).—7Ta yevopeva, the things that had 
happened; comprehensively, including 
the crucifixion and all its accompani- 
ments. They had looked on and listened, 
and the result was regret that they had 
had anything to do with bringing sucha 
fate on such a man.—rtvartovtTes T. oO, 
beating their breasts. Lk. has in mind 
Zechariah’s ‘‘they shall look on me 
whom they have pierced and mourn” (xil. 
10).—tréotpedoy, kept going away, in 
little groups, sad-hearted.—Ver. 49. ot 
yveorol, His acquaintances, Galileans 
mostly, who stood till the end, but far 
away. Mt. and Mk. do not mention this. 
No word of the eleven.—kai yuvatxes: 
warm-hearted Galileans they too, and 
women, therefore bolder where the heart 
was concerned; nearer presumably, 
therefore ‘‘seeing’’ predicted of them 
specially (6p@cat). The men stood ata 


8 avtov in NBCD. 


safe distance, the women cared more for 
seeing than for safety. 

Vv. 50-56. The burial (Mt. xxvii. 57- 
61, Mk. xv. 42-47).—Ver. 50. kat iSov: 
introducing the bright side of the tragic 
picture,_a welcome relief after the 
harrowing incidents previously related: 
the Victim of injustice honourably buried 
by a good man, who is described with 
greater fulness of detail than in Mt. and 
Mk.—avnp aya@ds cal Sixatos, a man 
generous or noble and just. Instead of 
the epithets etoxypwv (Mk. xv. 43) and 
mhovoros (Mt. xxvii. 57), indicative ot 
social position, Lk. employs words 
descriptive of moral character, leaving 
BovAevtis to serve the former purpose. 
dya8os has reference to the generous 
act he is going to perform, 8ixatos to his 
past conduct in connection with the trial 
of Jesus; hence the statement following: 
ovTos ovK 7, etc., which forms a kind 
of parenthesis in the long sentence.— 
Ver. 51. ovk Hv ovyKkatateferpevos, was 
not a consenting party, here only in N. 
T. Alford thinks the meaning is that he 
absented himself from the meeting. Let 
us hope it means more than that: present 
at the meeting, and dissenting from its 
proceedings.—t. BovAq Kal tT. mpdger, 
their counsel and their subsequent action 
in carrying that counsel into effect.— 
8s mpooedexerTo, etc.: this describes his 
religious character. Thus we have first 
social position, a counsellor; next 
ethical character, generous and just; 





he 


— 
- 


4q8—56. XXIV. 1—3, 


00 odk Fy obSdmw oddels! Ketpevos. 


kat cdBBatov émédwore. 


EYATTEAION 


643 


54. kal tpdépa qv mapackeun,” 


55. Karaxodov8jcacar Sé kat® yuvatkes, aitiwves Hoav cuveAndu- 


Butar adtG éx tis FadtAalas,* Cedoavto Td pvnetov, Kal ws eTeOy 


TO g@pa adtod. 56. srootpéacat 


A , oy et, A 
dé YTOLMLATAY APWHATA Kat 


pupa: Kal Td pev odBBatov novyacay Kata Thy évroAnv, XXIV. 


I. TH dé pid t&v caBBdrwv “dpGpou Palos, AAOov emi Td pvApa,® a Acts v.ar, 


épovoa & iToipacay dpdpara, Kai Twes adv abtais.” 
2. EYPON 8€ tév AiBov drroxexudtopevoy did Tod pynpeiou, 3. Kat 


1 ovSers ovderrw in YC (Tisch.); ovders ovrw in NBL (W.H.). 


2 wapacKeuns in NBC*L 13, 346. 
3 Omit kat SAC al. (Tisch.). 


For Se kat BLPX 33 al. have Se at (W.H. text). 


D codd. Lat. vet. have 8 8vo (W.H. marg.). 


4 autw after Tad. in BL. 
8 ew. To pvnua nACav in NBL. 


® Babews in NABCDL, eta 


7 ka. T. Suv avTats Omitted in NBCL 33 Lat. vet. vulg. cop. 


finally religious character, one who was 
waiting for the Kingdom of God.—Ver. 
53- Aakevrg, cut out ofstone, here only, 
and in Deut. iv.49.—ovx, ovSérrw, ovdets, 
an accumulation ofnegativesto emphasise 
the honour done to Jesus by depositing 
His body in a previously unused tomb. 
—Ver. 54. émédwoxe, was about to 
dawn, illucescebat, Vulgate. The even- 
. ing is meant, and the word seems in- 
appropriate. Lk. may have used it as if 
he had been speaking of a natural day 
(as in Mt. xxviii, 1) by a kind of inad- 
vertence, or it may have been used with 
reference to the candles lit in honour of 
the day, or following the Jewish custom 
of calling the night /ight justified by the 
text, Ps. cxlviii. 3, ‘ Praise Him, all ye 
stars of light” (vide Lightfoot, Hor. 
Heb.). Or it may be a touch of poetry, 
likening the rising of the moon to a 
dawn. So Casaubon, Evxercit. anti- 
Baronianae, p. 416.—Ver. 55. aitwves: 
possibly = at, but possibly meant to 
suggest the idea of distinction: Galilean 
women, and such in character as you 
would expect them to be: leal-hearted, 
passionately devoted to their dead 
Friend.—dpepara, spices, dry.—pvpa, 
ointments, liquid.—Ver. 56. kata tHv 
évtoAnv: they respected the Sabbath 
law as commonly understood. The 
purchase of spices and ointments is 
viewed by some as a proof that the day 
of Christ’s crucifixion was an ordinary 
working day. 

CHAPTER XXIV. THE RESURREC: 
TION, In this narrative Lk. diverges 


widely from Mt. and Mk, both as to the 
appearances of the Risen Christ he re- 
ports and as to the scene of these. 
Specially noticeable is the limitation of 
the Christophanies to the neighbourhood 
of Jerusalem, Galilee being left out of 
account. 

Vv. 1-11. The women at the tomb (Mt. 
xxvili, 1-10, Mk. xvi. 1-8).—Ver. 1. tq 8é 
p- T.o.: the 8é answers to the pev in the 
preceding clause (xxiii. 56) and carries the 
story on without any break. The T.R. 
properly prints the clause introduced by 
ty S€ as part of the sentence beginning 
with cat 76 pév, dividing the two clauses 
by a comma.—6p6pov Bab€ws (Bab€os, T. 
R., a correction), at deep dawn = very 
early. BaGéws is either an adverb or an 
unusual form of the genitive of Bafus. 
This adjective is frequently used in refer- 
ence totime. Thus Philo says that the 
Israelites crossed the Red Sea wept Badtv 
dp8pov. The end of the dawn was called 
ép9po0s éayatos, as in the line of Theo- 
critus: épvixes tTpltov dpte Tov EoxaTov 
dpOpoy devdov (Idyll xxiv., v., 63).—dpo- 
para: the pvpa omitted for brevity.— 
Ver. 2. tov AiPov, the stone, not previ- 
ously mentioned by Lk., as in Mt. and 
Mk.; nor does he (as in Mk.) ascribe to 
the women any solicitude as to its re- 
moval: enough for him that they found 
it rolled away.—Ver. 3. etoeBotoar Se: 
this is obviously a better reading than «ai 
eto. (T.R.), which implies that they 
found what they expected, whereas the 
empty grave was a surprise.—Ver. 4. 
Gvdpes, two men in appearance, but with 


KATA AOYKAN XXIV. 


644 


2 4. Kal éyévero 


eivehPodcat! ody eSpoy 15 cHpa Tod Kupiou "Inood. 
év TO StatropetoOar® adtags mepl totrou, Kat iSod, S00 avdpes* éméo- 
5. euddBuv Be 
eig Thy yiy, elmov 
mpds adtds, “Ti {nretre Tov LOvra peta TOv vexpOv; 6. od eotw 


-Acte xa Tyoay adtais ev éobijceow dotpamrodaats.? 


£X.V. 2. 


Pey. xi. 1° 6 


yevonevwy ait&y, kal KXwvoutav Td mpdcwtrov 


Sde, AAN HyépOyn 7+ pyjoOnte ds EXdAnocev Spi, Ere dv ev TH Tads- 
hata, 7. Aéywr, “Ore Set tov vidv Tod dvOpawou® mapadoPjvat eis 
yeipas avOpdmwy dpaptwdGv, Kat oravpwOijvat, Kat TH TpiTy pépa 
dvaoriva.” 8. Kal éurionoay tay pnpdtev adtod- 9. Kai dro- 
oTpépacat dnd rod pvynpetou,” dmyyyethay tadta mavro. 1° Tots evBexa 
kal maou Tots Aovrots. 10. oav S€ y MaydSadnv} Mapia Kal 


"lwdvva Kal Mapta “laxdBou,!! Kai at Noval ody adtais, at}? Edeyov 


1 evreXO. Se in NBCDL 1, 33 al. 


2rov xvptov I. is found in S$ABCL al. pl. (Tisch.). D and some codd. vet. Lat. 
omit the whole; f. syrr. cur. sin. omit xvptov. W.H. count this one of the 
“Western non-interpolations,” remarking that the combination o xvptos Incovs is 
not found in the genuine text of the Gospels. 


5 amropeto Bar in NBCDL. 4 avSpes Svo in NABCL. T.R. =D. 
5 ev exOyTt aotpartovcy in NBD. 


5 ra mpocwra in NBCDL, 33, etc. 


7 ovx eotiv woe akAa nyepOy wanting in D a be ff,, a ‘‘ Western non-interpola- 


tion”’; 
W.H. App. 


‘““comes from Mt. xxviii. 6 = Mk, xvi. 6 thrown into an antithetic form,” 


8 ort Sec after avOpwirov in N*BC*L (Tisch., W.H.). 
®*Dabce ff?1 omit ao. tT. pv. (W.H. brackets). 


10 So in BL (W.H.). 
1 y lax. in SABD al. pl. 


angelic raiment (év éo 6471 doTrpartovey). 
—Ver. 5. épddBwv, fear-stricken, from 
éugoBos, chiefly in late writers, for év 
ooBw etvar. Vide Hermann, ad Viger., 
p. 607.—rav Lavra, the living one, simply 
pointing to the fact that Jesus was risen: 
no longer among the dead.—pera tov 
vexp@v, among the dead. The use of 
peta in the sense of among, with the 
genitive, is common in Greek authors, as 
in Pindar’s line (Pythia, v., 127): paxap 
pev dvSpev pera évareyv. Wolf mentions 
certain scholars who suggested that pera 
a. vekpa@v should be rendered “with the 
things for the dead,” i.¢., the spices and 
mortuaria. But of this sense no example 
has been cited.—Ver. 6. pvjoOnre, etc.: 
the reference is to what Jesus told the 
disciples in the neighbourhood of Cae- 
sarea Philippi (ix.), There is no indica- 
tion elsewhere that women were present 
en that occasion.—a@s: not merely 
‘that,’? but ‘how,’ in what terms.—év 
1y TadtAaiq: this reference to Galilee 
suggests that Lk. was aware of another 


mavta TavTa in ND (Tisch.). 
12 Omit at NABDL, ete. 


reference to Galilee as the place of 
rendezvous for the meeting between the 
disciples and their risen Master (Mt. xxvi. 
32, Mk. xiv. 28, to which there is nothing 
corresponding in Lk.).—Ver. 7. tév vidyv 
7. d.: standing before Sri Set may be 
taken as an accusative of reference = 
saying as to the Son of Man that, etc.— 
avOpwoTwy Gpaptwhey, sinful men, not 
necessarily Gentiles only (Meyer, J. 
Weiss, etc.), but men generally (Hahn) 
Jesus actually expressed Himself in much 
more definite terms.—Ver. 9. damnyyet- 
Aay, etc.: cf. the statement in Mk, xvi. 
8, according to which the women said 
nothing to any person.—Ver. to: here 
for the first time Lk. gives names, adding 
to two of those named by Mk. (xv. 47, 
xvi. 1) Joanna, mentioned in viii. 3. Mary 
Magdalene is here called the Magdalene 
Mary.—«al ai Aorrrai, etc., also the other 
women with them. The emphasis must 
lie on the persons named as those who 
took the chief hand in informing the 
Apostles,—owv aitais describes the other 


4—15- 


mpds Tods dmooté\ous Taira. 


EYATTEAION 


645 


A 
If. Kat épdvyvay éveiriov attov 
a me ‘ , A 
doet Afjpos TA fjpata adtdy,! Kat yrlorouy adrais. 


12. 6 8e 


Nétpos dvactas eSpapey emi TO pvypetov, Kal *mapakuipas Pdérerc John xx.s, 


ra 7 60dvia Ketpeva pdva- Kal amide mpds Eautdv Oaupdtwv 1d 


yeyovds. 2 


II. Jas.1. 
25. 

d John xix. 
40; XX. 5, 


13. Kat i8ov, 880 é€ adtav foav wopeuduevor ev ath TH Hpepa® 


cig Kwpny améxougay atadious éfjKovta amd ‘lepovcadyp, 1 Gvopa 


"Eppaous: 14. Kat adTol “apihouv mpds GAAHAoUS Tept TavTwY TOY e Acts xx. 


oupBeBynkdtwv TodTwy. 


15. kat éyéveto év TH Sprheiy adtods xat 26, 


Il; xxiv. 


1 ravta for avtwy in BDL codd. vet. Lat. 


2 Ver. 12 is another ‘‘ Western non-interpolation,’ 


omits, W.H. double brackets). 


EGQUTOV. 


3 yoav trop. after ev a. T. np. in NB. 


women as, in a subordinate way, joint- 
informants. The at before édeyov in T. 
R. makes the construction easier, and just 
on that account may be regarded as a 
correction by the scribes.— Ver. 11. éba- 
vycav: plural with a neuter pl. nom. (ra 
pypata), denoting things without life 
(vide John xix. 31), because the “words,” 
reports, are thought of in their separate- 
ness (vide Winer, § lviii., 3 a).—Afjpos: 
here only in N.T. = idle talk, not to be 
taken seriously. 

Ver. 12, Peter runs to the sepulchre. 
This verse, omitted in D and some copies 
of the old Latin version, is regarded by 
some as an interpolation. For Rohr- 
bach’s theory vide notes on the appendix 
to Mark’s Gospel (xvi. 9-20).—dvacras, 
rising up, suggesting prompt action, like 
the man; asif after all he at last thought 
there might be something in the women’s 
story.—trapakvias may mean: stooping 
down so as to look in, but in many 
passages in which the verb is used the 
idea of stooping is not suggested, but 
rather that of taking a stolen hasty 
glance with outstretched neck. Kypke 
gives as its meaning in profane writers 
exserto capite prospicere (examples there). 
Field (Ot. Nor.) quotes with approval 
these words of Casaubon against Baron- 
ius (p. 693): ‘‘ Male etiam probat humili- 
tatem sepulchri ex eo quod dicitur Joannes 
se inclinasse ; nam Graeca veritas habet 
Tapaxvyat, quod sive de fenestra sumatur 
sive de janua, nullam inclinationem cor- 
poris designat, qualem sibi finxit B., sed 
protensionem colli potius cum modica 
corporis incurvatione ”’.—péva, alone, 
without the body.—-pds éavrov (or av- 
Tov): most connect this with awnd@ev = 


, 


wanting in D abel (Tisch. 


NB omit ketpeva, and BL have mpos avtoy for w. 


went away to his home, as in John xx. 
Io (wpds THY éavTod Siaywyyv, Euthy. 
Zig.). The Vulgate connects with 9av- 
palwv = secum mirans, and is followed 
by not a few, including Theophyl. and 
Grotius; Wolf also, who lays stress on 
the fact that the ancient versions except 
the Coptic so render.—Oavpaflwv, wonder- 
ing; for, rernarks Euthy., he knew that 
the body had not been carried off, for 
then the clothes would have been carried 
off also. 

Vv. 13-35. On the way to Emmaus: 
in Lk. only, and one of the most beauti- 
ful and felicitous narratives in his Gospel, 
taken, according to J. Weiss (in Meyer), 
from Feine’s precanonical Luke. Feine, 
after Holtzmann, remarks on the affinities 
in style and religious tone between it and 
Lk. i. and ii. 

Vv. 13 ff. 8vo 2& aitav, two of them. 
The reference ought naturally to be to the 
last-named subject, the Apostles (ver. 
10) ; yet they were evidently not Apostles. 
Hence it is inferred that the reference is 
to rots Ao.mois in ver. 9g. Feine (also 
J. Weiss) thinks the story had been 
originally given in a different connection. 
—Eppaots: now generally identified 
with Kalonieh, the Emmaus of Josephus, 
B. J., vii. 6, 6, lying to the north-west of 
Jerusalem (vide Schirer, Div. I., vol. ii., 
p- 253, note 138, and Furrer, Wan- 
derungen, pp. 168-9).—Ver. 15. ovlnreiv. 
This word, added to 6ptAeiv to describe 
the converse of the two disciples, suggests 
lively discussion, perhaps accompanied 
by some heat. One might be sceptical, 
the other more inclined to believe the 
story of the resurrection.—Ver. 16. 
éxparovvto, their eyes were held, from 


646 


KATA AOYKAN 


XXIV. 


culntew, Kat abtds 6! "Ingots éyyivas ouverropedeto abtois* 16. ot 
n y TY p 


Sé dpbarpol adtav exparodvto rod pi) émyvOvar adbtdy. 


17. Elwe 


S€ mpds adtous, “ Tives ot Adyor obrot, obs dvTiBddKeTE pds GAAH- 


Aous epimarodvres, Kal é€ote oxuSpwroi?;” 18. "Amoxpibeis Se 6 


ets? © dvoma 4 KXedrras, ele pds adtév, “Xd pdvos trapoieis ev 5 
y p ’ p Pp 


« , ‘4 > »” A , > ~ > a < , 
lepouvadyp, Kal OUK Eyvws Ta yevoneva év QuUTH Ev TALS MEpats 


, > a“ A >» r 
sauTais;” Ig. Kat elev adtois, “Mota;” Ot S€ etrov adtra, “TA 
oy na 


wept ‘Ingou tod Nafwpatou,® ds éyévero dvnp mpopytys, Suvatis év 


» ‘ , > , A ~ 4 ‘ - n a 
epyw Kal Aeyw €vavtTlovy TOU Oe€ou Kat TavVTOS TOU aod * 20. oTrws TE 


twapédwxav adrov ot dpxrepets Kal ol GpxovTes Huav eis Kpipa 


. -~ “~ , 
Gavdtou, kat éotavpwoay attév: 21. pets S€ HAMiLopey Ste adrds 


éotiv 6 pEANWY AuTpOTGBaL Tov “lopanh. 


1 SABL omit o. 


* kar egta@yoav ox. in NB e sah. cop. 


5 For o ets NBDL 1, 13 al. have ets. 


GANG ye! ody Tact ToUTaLs 


D retains o but omits avtos. 


D has simply oxv@pwrrot. 


4 For w ovopa (AD, etc., Tisch.) S$ BLNX have ovopats (W.H.). 


® Omit ev SABDIL and many others. 


© Nalapyvov in BIL. 


Tedda ye kat in NBDL 1, 33 (Tisch., W.H.). 


recognising Him (here only in this 
sense). Instances of the use of the verb 
in this sense in reference to the bodily 
organs are given by Kypke. It is not 
necessary, with Meyer, to suppose any 
special Divine action or purpose to pre- 
vent knowledge of Jesus.—Ver. 17. 
dvttBaAdXete : an expressive word (here 
only in N.T.), confirming the impression 
of animated and even heated conversa- 
tion made by ov{nretv. It points to an 
exchange of words, not simpiy, but with 
a certain measure of excitement. As 
Pricaeus expresses it ; ‘ fervidius aliquanto 
et commotius, ut fieri amat ubi de rebus 
noy s mirisque disserentes nullamque 
expediendi nos viam invenientes, alter- 
camur’’. The question of the stranger 
quietly put to the two wayfarers is not 
without a touch of kindly humour.— 
Kat éoTd@ncav, cxv@pwmrot: this well- 
attested reading gives a good graphic 
sense = ‘‘ they stood still, looking sad ”’ 
(R.V.). A natural attitude during the 
first moments of surprise at the in- 
terruption of their talk by an unknown 
person, and in a puzzling tone.—Ver. 
18. doxpiOeis S€: at last after re- 
covering from surprise one of them, 
Cleopas, finds his tongue, and explains 
fully the subject of their conversation,— 
ZU pdvos, etc.: he begins by expressing 
his surprise that the stranger should 
need to be told. What could they be 


talking about but the one supreme topic 
of the hour? The verb wapotkeis might 
mean: live near, and the point of the 
question be: dost thou live near 
Jerusalem (in the neighbourhood of 
Emmaus, a few miles distant), and not 
know, etc. So Grotius, Rosenmiller, 
Bleek, etc. The usual meaning of the 
verb in Sept. and N.T. (Heb. xi. 9) is to 
sojourn as a stranger, and most take it in 
that sense here = art thou a stranger 
sojourning in Jerusalem (at passover 
time), and therefore ignorant? The 
pdévos implies isolation over and above 
being a stranger. There were many 
strangers in Jerusalem at passover 
season ; the two friends might be among 
them; but even visitors from Galilee 
and other places knew all about what 
had happened = do you live alone, 
having no communication with others— 
a stranger in Jerusalem so as to be the 
only man who does not know? (péves 
qualifies €yyws as well as trapouKeis).— 
Ver. 19. ota, what sort of things? 
with an affected indifference, the feign- 
ing of love—ot 8é elwov: both speak 
now, distributing the story between 
them,—davip mpod7rns, a prophetic man, 
a high estimate, but not the highest.— 
a&vyp may be viewed as redundant— 
‘‘eleganter abundat,’’ Kypke.—Ver. 20. 
Strws te, and how; Smws here = was, 
used adverbially with the indicative, here 


16—26. 


TpiTHy TavTHY Hpepay dyer onpepor,! dd’ oF tadta éyévero. 


EYATTEAION 


647 


22. 


GhAA Kal yuvaixés tives €& pay eEéotnoay pas, yevdpevar SpOproe * 
ee) x io ‘ S c Lo ‘ a > FS ets 4 
€ml TO pynpetov: 23. Kal ph ebpodcat 76 cHpa adtod, 7Oov, héyou- 


gat Kal éntaciay dyyé\wy éwpaxévat, ot Aéyouow adtoy Liv. 


24. 


A ~ , ~ A c /~ 2.4 ‘ ~ \ e 
kat drjhOov ties tay oby piv ert TO pyynpetov, Kal epov obrw 


Kabws Kat? 


c “~ > ee A > 3 2” 
at yuvatkes eitov: attov dé ovK eidor. 


25. Kal atroe 


s a a a 
eime mpds adtous, “"Q *dvdnto Kal ©Bpadeis TH KapSia Tod mir-¢ here only 


Tevew emt maow ois éhddnoay ot mpopytar: 26. odxi Tadta f5« 


1 Omit onpepov NBL 1. 


only in N.T. The te connects what 
follows with what goes before as together 
constituting one complete tragic story: 
the best of men treated as the worst by 
the self-styled good.—kal éotatpwoay : 
this confirms the idea suggested in the 
previous narrative of the crucifixion that 
Lk. regarded that deed as the crime of 
the Jewish people, and even as executed 
by them.—Ver. 21. ‘eis 82, but we, on 
the other hand, as opposed to the priests 
and rulers.—jAwifopev, were hoping; 
the hope dead or in abeyance now. But 
how wide asunder these disappointed 
ones from the rulers, ethically, in that 
they could regard such an one as Jesus 
as the Redeemer of Israel! Avtpoto@ar 
is to be taken in the sense of i. 68, 74.— 
a\Aa ye: these two particles stand 
together here contrary to the ordinary 
usage of Greek writers, who separate 
them by an intervening word. It is not 
easy to express the turn of feeling they 
represent. Does the éorw in the pre- 
vious clause mean that they think of 
Him as still living, hoping against hope 
on the ground of the women’s report, 
mentioned in the following clause, and 
does the &AAa ye express a swing of 
feeling away in the opposite direction of 
hopelessness ? = we hoped, we would 
like to hope still; yet how can we? He 
is dead three days, and yet again on the 
other hand (adda kal, ver. 22) there is 
a story going that looks like a re- 
surrection. How true to life this 
alternation between hope and despair ! 
ovv Waco. TovTots, in addition to all 
these things, 7.¢., all that caused them 
to hope: prophetic gifts, marvellous 
power in word and work, favour with 
the people: there is the hard fact 
making hope impossible.—@ye.: pro- 
bably to be taken impersonaily = 
agitur, one lives this third day since. So 
Grotius and many others. Other sug- 
gestions are that xpdévos or 6 “Ingots is 


in Gospels. 
» g Jas. i. 19. 


2 opOpwas in RABDL al. * Omit kar BO (W.H.). 


to be understood (cf. Acts xix, 38).— 
Ver. 22. GAG Kal y. +.: introducing 
another hope-inspiring phase of the 
story.—étéorqoav %., astonished us.— 
épOpivai: dpOpivds is a late form for 
épOp.os, and condemned by Phryn.; the 
adjective instead of the adverb = early 
Ones, a cOmmon classical usage.—Ver. 
23. py Evpovoat, etc.: that part of the 
women’s story—the body gone-—is 
accepted as a fact; their explanation oi 
the fact is regarded as doubtful, as 
appears from the cautious manner of ex- 
pression.—Ad€yovoat, etc., they came 
saying that they had also seen a vision of 
angels who say. Yet the use of the 
present indicative, Aéyovowy, in reporting 
what the angels said, shows a wish to 
believe the report.—Ver. 24. tives Tav 
oiv jpiv: a general reference to the 
Apostles, though the phrase covers all 
the lovers of Jesus. The tives were 
Peter and John (John xx. 3).—avrov 8é 
ovK etdov, but Him they saw not, as 
surely, think the two friends, they ought 
to have done had He really been alive 
from the dead. 

Ver. 25 f. Fesus speaks.—avdyror, 
‘fools’? (A.V.) is too strong, “ foolish 
men’’ (R.V.) is better. Jesus speaks not 
so much to reproach as by way of en- 
couragement. As used by Paul in Gal. 
iii. 1 the word is harder. “ Stupid” might 
be a good colloquial equivalent for it here. 
—muorevey él w.: émt with dative of 
person after muoreverv is common, with 
dative of the thing only here.—Ver. 26. 
éSev: here as always in Lk. pointing to 
the necessity that O.T. prophecy should 
be fulfilled. Accordingly Jesus is repre- 
sented in the next verse as going on to 
show that prophecy demanded the course 
of experience described : first the passion, 
then entrance into glory.—xal eioeOeiv: 
the passion is past, the entering into 
glory is still to come, therefore it seems 
unfit to make eioeA. dependent with 


648 


KATA AOYKAN 


XXIV. 


madeiv tov Xpiordv, Kat eloehOelv eis thy Sdtav adrod; 27. Kal 
dpfdpevos dd Mocéws kai drs mdvtwv Tdv mpopytav, Sunpprvevev? 


adtois év mdoas Tais ypahais ta wept éaurod. 


28. Kal nyyiwav 


2 , * é , “ ‘ > a 2 
als Thy KWHNY OU ETTOPEVOVTO* KAL GUTOS TPOCTETOLELTO TOppwrépw 


wopeverOar. 


Yu petvar adv adtots. 


29. Kat mwapeBidoavto adtdv, héyorres, “ Meivov peO” 
HpOv, Ott mpds éomépav oti, kal KékdtKev 7 tpyepa.” 8 


Kal cionhOe 


30. kal éyévero év TA katakdOjvar adrdv 


pet’ adtav, AaBov tév aprov ed\dyyoe, Kai KXdoas éredSiSou adrois. 


31. abtav Sé SinvolxOnoay ot dpPadpol, kat evéyywoay adtév: Kat 


aitss ddhavtos éyévero Gm adtay. 
Y 


32. Kat ettroy wpos &d\dyous, 


“Ooxt H KapdSia hpav Kacopévyn Fy ev tpty,* ds edder jpiv ev 7H 


* Secounvevoev in BL (Tisch., W.H. text). 


epnveverv (W.H. marg.). 


D has nv before apfapevos with 


*poceroincato in SABDL 1; for moppwrepw (in NSDL) AB 382 have 


*xoppartepov (\W.H.). 
* 48y before 7m np. in NBL 1, 33 al. 
*So in NALX al. pl. 
pevy (W.H. marg.). 


maQeiy on €de.. Meyer supplies Sei, 
Bornemann Tatra wafdvra, the Vulgate 
ovTw = et ita intrave.—Ver. 27. Kat 
Gpidpevos ard, etc.: there is a 
grammatical difficulty here also. He 
might begin from Moses, but how could 
He begin from Moses and all the 
prophets? Hahn, after Hofmann, 
suggests that Moses and the prophets 
together are set in contrast to the rest of 
the O.T. But Lk. seems to have in 
mind not so much where Jesus began as 
what He began to do, viz., teach = 
beginning (to instruct them) from Moses, 
etc.—Ver. 28. mpooeroijoato, He 
assumed the air of one going farther. 
The verb in the active means to bring 
about that something shall be acquired 
by another, in middle, by oneself = 
“‘meum aliquid facio”’ (Alberti, Observ. 
Phil., ad loc.). Jesus wished to be in- 
vited to stay.—Ver. 29. mapeBidcavo, 
they constrained by entreaty, again in 
Acts xvi. 15, found in Gen. xix. 9.—pe@” 
Gv, with us, presumably in their home 
or lodgings. If they were but guests 
they could not well invite another.— 
™pos Emrépav, KeKALKev q F.: two phrases 
where one was enough, by way of press- 
ing their fellow-traveller. They make 
the most of the late hour, which is not 
their real reason.—Ver. 30. AaBov 7. a., 
etc.: Jesus possibly by request assumes 
the position of host, prepared for by the 
aod ogg exercise of the function of 
Master. By this time a suspicion of who 


BD omit ev np. (W.H.). 


For xatopevn D has kexadvp.- 


He was had dawned upon the two. 


disciples. While He spoke old impres- 
sions of His teaching were revived 
(Pricaeus).—Ver. 31. Stnvoiy@noav ot 
éo., their eyes were at length opened, a 
Divine effect, but having its psychological 
causes. - Euthy. suggests the use of the 
well-known blessing by Jesus as aiding 
recognition. The opening of the mind 
to the prophetic teaching concerning 
Messiah’s suffering was the main pre- 
paration for the opening of the eyes 
The wonder is they did not recognise 
Jesus sooner.—apavros: an_ early 
poetical and late prose word = adavjs, 
not in Sept., here only in N.T. After 
being recognised Jesus became invisible, 
am’ avtav, not to them (avrots) but from 
them, implying departure from the house. 
Some take &pavros adverbially as qualify- 
ing the departure = He departed from 
them in an invisible manner. 

Vv. 32-35. After f$esus’ departure.— 
Ver. 32. 4 Kapdla katowévn, the heart 
burning, a beautiful expression for the 
emotional effect of new truth dawning 
on the mind; common to sacred writers 
(vide Ps. xxxix. 4, Jerem. xx. g) with 
profane. Their heart began to burn 
while the stranger expounded Scripture, 
and kept burning, and burning up into 
ever clearer flame, as He went on— 
‘‘ valde et diu,” Bengel. It is the heart 
that has been dried by tribulation that 
burns so. This burning of the heart 
experienced by the two disciples was 








sega, EYAITEAION 


830, Kal? ds Siqvoryey Hptvy tas ypapds;” 33. Kal dvacrdvtes 
aith TH dpa, dmwéotpepay els ‘lepoucadrju, Kal edpov cuvnOpoc- 
pévous? tous evdexa kal rods adv ators, 34. héyovras, ‘Ore 
hyépOn 6 Kupros dvtws,® kai ShOy Lion.” 35. Kat adrol éfy- 
yourto Ta év 7H 686, Kat ds éyvdobn adrots év TH KAdoeL TOO Gptou. 





36. Tada 8€ attdy Nadodvtwv, adtés 6 “Incods* éoty ev péow 


attav, Kal Aéyer adrois, “Eipyyn spiv.® 
EupoBor yevoucvor eddxouv wveipa, Oewperv. 


, 
“Tl tetopaypevor €oTeé ; 


Tats Kapdlats’ bpav ; 


37- MronPévtes® S€ nai 
38. Kal elwev adtois, 


kal Stati Stadoyiopol dvaBaivouow év 


39. Sete TAs XElpds pou Kal Tods mddas 


pou, tt aitds éyd ciurS- "Wydadrjoaré pe kat ere: Ste mvedpan Acts xvii 


cdpka kal doréa odK 


TouTo cindy ewédergev adTois Tas yxEtpas Kal Tods mddas.° 


” ‘ Se UIN A m” 2° 
exer, KaBds Ene Oewpette ExovTa. 


27. Heb 

7 

40. Kat xii. 18. a 
»” John i. 1 

41. ett 


An fol A ‘ A 
S€ dmictovvtwy adtavy dd THs Kapas Kat OaupaldvTwy, etrrev adtois, 


oem 


evOdde ; * 


Exeté te Bodorpov 


1 SBDL 33 omit Kav 
2 nOpo.opevous in KBD 33. 
4 Omit o |. BDL 6r al. 


42. Ol Be eméSwxav abt ixOvos 


S ovrws nyep. o K. in BDL 1, 131, 


5 kar Acyer autos etp. very wanting in Da be ff?1; a “ Western non-interpola. 
tion,’ W.H. App. Omitted also by Tisch. 


6 B has 9pondevtes (W.H. marg.). 
? ey Kapdia in BD. 
°D abe ff? syr. cur. omit ver. 40. 


typical of the experience of the whole 
early Church when it got the key to the 
sufferings of Jesus (Holtzmann, H. C.). 
Their doubt and its removal was common 
to them with many, and that is why the 
story is told so carefully by Lk.—dés 
ehddet, os Sijvoryev (without kat), as He 
spoke, as He opened, etc.; first the 
general then the more specific form of 
the fact.—Ver. 33. atTq TH Spa: no 
time lost, meal perhaps left half finished, 
no fear of a night journey; the eleven 
must be told at once what has happened. 
‘« They ran the whole way from overjoy” 
(vd mweptxapeias), Euthy. Zig.—Ver. 
34. Aéyovras: the apostolic company 
have their story to tell: a risen Lord 
seen by one of their number. The two 
from Emmaus would not be sorry that 
they had been forestalled. It would be 
a welcome confirmation of their own ex- 
perience. On the other hand, the com- 
pany in Jerusalem would be glad to hear 
their tale for the same reason. So they 
told it circumstantially (ra év Tq 656, 
ver. 35). 

Vv. 36-43. Fesus appears to the eleven 
(cf. Mk. xvi. 14, John xx. 19-23).—Ver. 


5 eyw ete autos in NBL 33. 


A ‘“ Western non-interpolation,” W.H. 


36. gory év péow a. suggests an appear- 
ance as sudden as the departure from the 
two brethren.—Ver. 37. mvetpa, a spirit, 
1.€., a form recognisable as that of Jesus, 
but of Jesus not risen but come from the 
world of the dead disembodied or only 
with an apparent body ; therefore they 
were terrified at the sight, notwithstand- 
ing what they had heard.—Ver. 38. ti 
TETApaypLevot eore 3 why are ye disturbed? 
or about what are ye disturbed? taking 
ti as object of tevap. (Schanz).—Ver. 39. 
Tas Xeipas pov, etc.: Jesus shows His 
hands and feet with the wounds to 
satisfy them of His identity (Sr éyo eis 
avtés). Then He bids them touch Him 
(WnrAadyraré pe) to satisfy themselves 
of His substantiality.—iSere, see with 
the mind; with the eye in case of the 
preceding tSere.—67t: either that, or 
because.—Ver. 40. Very nearly John xx. 
20 and possibly an interpolation. It 
seems superfluous after ver. 39.—Ver. 41. 
amd THS Xapas, a psychological touch 
quite in Lk.’s manner. Cf. xxii. 45: 
there asleep from grief, here unbelievers 
from joy. Hahn takes yapa objectively. 
—. Bpootpov, anything eatable, here 


650 


dmrod pépos, Kal dd pedtooiou Kyplou.! 


adtav epayev. 


KATA AOYKAN 


XXIV. 


43. kal AaBdy évdtrcov 


44. Ele 8€ adrots,? “ Odror ot Adyor,® obs EXdAnoa 


mpos Spas Ere Sy ody Spiv, Ste Sei whypwOfvar wdvta Ta yeypappeva 
év TO voupw Mwoéws Kal mpoprtats* Kal adpots mepi eyod.” 45. 
Tére Bujvorgey adtav tév voiv, tod ouviévat tds ypadds: 46. kal 
elev adtois, ““Or odtw yéypamrat, Kai odtws eSe.® mabeiv tdv 
Xpiordv, kai dvaotivar éx vexpdv tH tpity hppa, 47. Kai knpux- 
Gijvar éri 7H dvdpatt adtod perdvoray xal® dheow dpaptidy eis 


Tdvta ta €Ovy, dpfdpevov? dd ‘lepoucadip. 


48. bpets 8€ eate ® 


1 kat amo ped. knp. omitted in NABDL (Tisch.; W.H., text, with the words in 


marg.). 


2 xpos avrovs in NBLX 33. 
® Add pov ABDL 33. 
5 


S ets in WB (Tisch., W.H., text). 


A Syrian and Western interpolation. 


‘ B has trois pod. (W.H.). 
Kat ovtws ede. omitted in NBCDL a bce ff?; an explanatory addition, 
CD have wat (W.H. marg.), 


T apfapevor in NBCLNX 33 (Tisch., W.H.). 
® NSBCL have vpets without Se, and BD omit eae, 


only in N.T.—Ver. 42. dd pedtootov 
«yplov, of a bee-comb. The adjective 
peA. occurs nowhere else. xnptov is the 
diminutive of xkynpés. The words are 
probably a gloss.—Ver. 43. That Jesus 
ate is carefully stated. The materiality 
thus evinced seems inconsistent with 
the pneumatic nature of Christ’s body as 
suggested by sudden appearing and de- 
parture, and with the immortal form of 
embodied life generally. Hahn suggests 
that the materiality was assumed by 
Jesus for the moment to satisfy the 
disciples that He had a body, and that 
He was risen. Euthy. Zig. expresses a 
similar view, stating that Jesus ate and 
digested supernaturally (twepgvas), and 
that what He did to help the faith of the 
disciples was exceptional in reference to 
the immortal condition of the body, 
which can have nothing to do with 
wounds or food (otSeis yap érepos peta 
Thy ad8aprlay trod odparos dTethas 
fer, 4) Bpaow mpooyoerat). 

Vv. 44-49. Parting words.—elwe 8 
avtois: it is at this point, if anywhere, 
that room must be made for an extended 
period of occasional intercourse between 
Jesus and His disciples such as Acts i. 3 
speaks of. It is conceivable that what 
follows refers to another occasion. But 
Lk. takes no pains to point that out. 
His narrative reads as if he were still 
relating the incidents of the same meet- 
ing. In his Gospel the post-resurrection 
scenes seem all to fall within a single 
day, that of the resurrection.—otvor ot 


* 


Adyou, etc., these are the words. With 
Euthy. Zig. we naturally ask: which ? 
(otrot* motor; and there he leaves it). 
Have we here the concluding fragment 
of a longer discourse not given by Lk., 
possibly the end of a document contain- 
ing a report of the words of Jesus 
generally (so J. Weiss in Meyer)? As 
they stand in Lk.’s narrative the sense 
must be: these events (death and 
resurrection) fulfil the words I spoke to 
you before my death. If that be the 
meaning the mode of expression is 
peculiar.—év 7. v. Mwoéws, etc.: Moses, 
Prophets, Psalms, a unity (no article 
before mpodyrats or wahpois) = the 
whole O.T. canon. So most. Or, these 
three parts of the O.T. the main sources 
of the Messianic proof (Meyer, Hahn,etc.). 
The latter the more likely.—Ver. 45 
points to detailed exposition of Messianic 
texts, generally referred to in ver. 44, as 
in the case of the two brethren.—Ver. 
46 gives the conclusion of the expository 
discourse in Christ’s own words (kat 
elev, St) = the gist of prophecy is: the 
suffering and resurrection of the Christ, 
and the preaching in the name of the Risen 
One, to all nations, of repentance unto the 
remission of sins,—Ver. 47. apdpevor: 
this well-approved reading gives a satis- 
factory sense. We have to suppose a 
pause and then Jesus resuming says to 
the eleven—‘ beginning,” the implied 
though not expressed thought being: 
this preaching of repentance to the 
nations is to be your work; or ga ye 


—o—S-,.->~ ~~ 


43—53- 


paptupes toUTwy. 


EYATTEAION 


651 


49. Kat i8ou, éya dwootéhhw! thy émayyeNay 


ToU Tatpds ou ed’ Spas Gpets 8¢ xablcate ev TH wddet ‘lepovcadr}p, 


€ws of evSdonobe Suvapw ef tious.” ® 


50. “Eéjyaye 8€ adtots céwt gws eis ByOaviav: kal émdpas ras 


XElpas avtou, edhdynoev adtous. 


autov attous, Si€oty dm ait&v, kal dveddpeto eis Tov odpavdv. 
7 


‘ 3 NY , ee, 
52. KQL QuUTOL TWPOCKUYYOAYTES AuUTOV, 


‘ > , > n > vay 
51. Kal éyévero év TG eddoyetv 
t 


6 


inéotpepay cis ‘lepousahhp 


PETA Xapas peyddns: 53. Kal joay Siamavtds év TH lepG, aivodvres 


kal eUhoyodvtes ® tay Gedy. “Aprjv.® 


1 «at dou eyw in ABC al. (W.H.); omit wou SDL (Tisch.). 


efatrootehdw (Tisch., W.H.). 
2 Omit lep. S&BCDL codd. vet. Lat. 
4 Omit ef NBCL 1, 33. 


McBLXA 33 have 


® ef uous Suvapey in WBCL 33. 
5 For ets NBCDL 1, 33 have moos. 


$ kat aved. ets T. ovp. is wanting in *Dabcel ff?, A‘ Western non-interpola 


tion,” W.H. App. 


Tarpookuy. autov wanting in Dabe ff?, 


W.H. App. 


8 awvouvtes only in D a be ff? (Tisch.). 


text). 
% Anny is wanting in QC*DL 1, 33 al, 


and do this—beginning at Jerusalem.— 
Ver. 48. pdptupes r., the witnessing 
function refers mainly to the resurrec- 
tion, not exclusively as i. 2 shows.— 
Ver. 49. THv émayyedlav +. 7.: the 
promise is the Spirit spoken of in pro- 
phetic oracles (Is. xliv. i., Joel ii. 28, 
etc.).—ka@loate, sit still, patiently but 
with high hope.—éws ot: without dy, 
because the power is expected to come 
without fail._évdvonoGe: till ye be in- 
vested, a natural figure, and no mere 
Hebraism. Cf. Rom. xiii. 14, Gal. iii, 
27. There may bea reference to warlike 
armour (8S{kyv tmavomAlas, Euthy. Zig.). 

Vv. 50-53. Farewell! (cf. Mk. xvi. 
1g, 20, Acts 1. g-12).—Ver. 50. ¢&rjyaye : 
does this imply that Jesus walked 
through the streets of Jerusalem towards 
Bethany visible to all? Assuming that 
it does, some (e.g., Holtz. in H. C.) find 
here a contradiction of the statement in 
Acts x. 41 that Jesus was manifested 
after His resurrection only to chosen 
witnesses.—€fw: the best MSS. leave 
this out, and it seems superfluous after 
éiny.; but such repetitions of the pre- 
position are by no means uncommon in 
Greek (examples in Bornemann).—éws 
mpos (eis T.R.): this reading adopted 
by the revisers they render: ‘ until they 
were over against,” which brings the in- 
dication of place into harmony with that 
in Acts i, 12, Possibly harmonistic 


A ‘Western non-interpolation, ’ 


SBC*L have evAoyourtes only (W.H. 


considerations influenced transcription, 
leading, e¢.g., to the adoption of pds 
instead of ets (in AC%X, etc.). Bethany 
lay on the eastern slope of Olivet, about 
a mile beyond the summit.—Ver. 51. 
Sidory, parted; taken by itself the verb 
might point merely to a temporary 
separation, but even apart from the next 
clause, referring to the ascension, it is 
evidently meant to denote a final leave- 
taking. — Kal advedépero, etc, : the absence 
of this clause from $§D and some old 
Latin codd. may justify suspicion of a 
gloss, meant to bring the Gospel state- 
ment into line with Acts. But on the 
other hand, that the author of both 
books should make a distinct statement 
concerning the final departure of Jesus 
from the world in the one as well as in 
the other was to be expected.—Ver. 52. 
peta xapas peyddns, with great joy, the 
joy of men convinced that their Lord 
was risen and gone up to glory, and that 
great events were impending in connec- 
tion with the promise of the Spirit.— 
Ver. 53. 814 wavrés (xpdvov understood), 
continually, z.e., at the hours of worship 
when the temple was open. By frequent- 
ing the temple the disciples remained 
faithful to the programme “ beginning at 
Jerusalem”. To the Jew first, and with 
the Jew as far and as long as possible: 
such was Lk.’s habitual attitude; manifest 
throughout in the Gospel and in Acts. 


_ THE GOSPEL 


ACCORDING TO 


JOHN 








INTRODUCTION. 


AutHorsuip. The importance of ascertaining the authorship of 
the Fourth Gospel can hardly be exaggerated. In no other Gospel 
have we the direct testimony of an eye-witness. Luke expressly 
informs us that his information, although carefully sifted, is at 
second hand. If in Mark we have the reminiscences of the Apostle 
Peter, these are related not by himself but by his companion and 
interpreter John Mark. In the first Gospel we probably have in a 
more or less original form the collection of our Lord’s sayings 
which Papias tells us was made by Matthew; but certainly the 
original work of Matthew did not exactly coincide with our present 
Gospel, and to what extent alteration has been made upon it, it is 
not easy to say. But the Fourth Gospel professes to be the work 
of an eye-witness, and of an eye-witness who enjoyed an intimacy 
with our Lord allowed to none besides. If this claim be true, and if 
the Gospel be indeed the work of the Apostle John, then we have 
not only the narrative of one who saw and was a part of what he 
records, but we have a picture of our Lord by one who knew Him 
better than any one else did. 

On examination the contents of this Gospel are found to be of 
such a character as to make it imperative that we should know 
whether we can trust its statements or not. The author of the 
Gospel not only expresses his own belief in our Lord’s divinity, but 
he puts words into the mouth of Jesus which even on close scrutiny 
seem to many to form an explicit claim to pre-existence and thus to 
imply a claim to divinity. If these claims and statements merely 
reflect the belief and opinion of the third or fourth generation and 
not the very mind of Christ Himself, then they are important mainly 
as historical evidence of a growing tradition and not as giving us the 
firm basis on which the Church may build. But if an apostle was 
responsible for the Gospel, then the probability is that the utterances 
which are referred to Christ nearly, if not absolutely, represent His 
very words, and that the doctrinal position of the author himself is 
not one we can lightly set aside. For, although apostolic author- 


656 INTRODUCTION 


ship does not guarantee absolute accuracy in detail, and although we 
cannot determine the relation of the record to the words actually 
spoken by Jesus until we have ascertained the object and point of 
view of the writer, yet apostolic authorship not only fixes the date 
within certain limits, but also determines to a considerable extent 
the probable spirit, attitude, means, and object of the writer. 

Critics who find themselves unable to admit apostolic authorship 
lay stress upon the value of the Gospel as exhibiting the faith of the 
Church in the early part of the second century and the grounds on 
which that faith rested. Thus Weizsacker declares that the debates 
regarding the divinity of Christ are a mere reflex of the time in 
which the evangelist lived—a time when, according to Pliny, 
Christians were accustomed to sing hymns to Christ as God and 
were creating a fuller dogma of His divinity. The Johannine Christ 
occupies no relation to the Law, because for the Church of the 
evangelist’s day the Law was no longer of present interest as it had 
been in a former generation. The strife exhibited in the Gospel did 
not belong to the life of Christ, but is a strife of the Epigoni. 

Holtzmann is of the same opinion. The Gospel has value as a 
mirror of the times in which the writer lived and of the experiences 
through which the Church had reached that period; but when we 
proceed to use the Gospel as a record of our Lord’s life we must 
bear in mind that the author meant to portray the image of Christ 
as that image lived in his own soul and in the Church for which he 
wrote ; and as, in his view, it should live in the Church of all times 
as the image of the Godhead. Oscar Holtzmann (Das Fohannes- 
evangelium, 1887, p. 137) believes that the writer sought to write a 
life of Jesus which should be in keeping with the thought of his 
time; and with this object he used the material furnished by the 
Synoptists and by the oral tradition of his day, correcting and 
amplifying to suit his purpose. 

Schiirer (Vortrage d. theol. Konferenz zu Giessen, 1889, Uber d. 
gegenwirtigen Stand d. Fohanneischen Frage) maintains that the 
worth of the fourth Gospel lies, not in its historical narrative, but in 
its expression of the conviction that in Jesus Christ God revealed 
Himself. This is the essence of Christianity ; and this is the funda- 
mental thought of the Gospel. Nowhere in the New Testament is 
it presented with such clearness, with such ardent faith, with such 
victorious confidence. Accordingly, though this Gospel as a source 
of history must take a lower place than the synoptic Gospels, it 
must always have its worth as a witness of the Christian faith. 

Doubtless the Gospel has a value, whoever is its author, and 


—————. 


INTRODUCTION 657 


whatever its date. But if it is not historically reliable and if the 
utterances attributed to our Lord were not really uttered by Him 
but are merely the creation of the writer and ascribed to the 
Pounder of the Church to account for and justify some of its 
developments, plainly its value is widely different from that which 
attaches to a reliable record of the words and actions of Jesus. 
The faith and life of the Church of the second century is not 
normative; and if in this Gospel all that we have is a reflex of that 
life given in terms of the life of Christ, we have, no doubt, a very 
interesting document, but not a document on which we can build 
our knowledge of our Lord. Nay, professing, as this record does, to 
be historically reliable, the Church has been throughout its history 
gravely in error regarding the claims of its Founder, and this error 
lies at the door of the author of the Gospel. It is of the first 
importance, therefore, that we ascertain whether the writer had the 
means of being historically trustworthy, whether he was an eye- 
witness or was entirely dependent on others for his information. 

1. External evidence in favour of Fohannine authorship. In 
examining the Christian literature of the second century with a view 
to ascertain the belief of the Church regarding the authorship of 
the Fourth Gospel, it must be borne in mind that there are many 
instances in which the classical writers of antiquity were not quoted 
for some centuries after their works were published. The character 
and position of the New Testament writings, however, made it likely 
that they would at once and frequently be referred to. But although 
the second century was prolific of Christian writings, their extant 
remains are unfortunately scanty. We might have expected definite 
information from the exegetical writings of Papias and Basileides, 
and possibly some allusions in the histories of Hegesippus, but of 
these and other important documents only the names and a few 
extracts survive. It 1s also to be borne in mind that the mode of 
quotation in vogue at that time was different from our own. Books 
were not so plentiful, and they were more cumbrous. Accordingly 
there was more quotation from memory and little of the exactness 
which in our day is considered desirable. It was a common practice 
with early writers to weave Scriptural language into their own text 
without pausing to say whence these allusions were derived. The 
consequence is that while such allusions may seem to one reader to 
carry evidence that the writer is making use of such and such a 
book of Scripture, it is always open to a more sceptical reader to 
say that the inexactness of the allusion is rather a proof that the 
book of Scripture had not been seen, and that some traditional 


42 


658 INTRODUCTION 


saying was the source of the quotation. And even where explicit 
quotations occur, no light may be thrown on the authorship of the 
book quoted, except in so far as they indicate the date of its com- 
position. . 

It is not questioned that in the last quarter of the second century 
the Fourth Gospel was accepted by the Church as the work of the 
Apostle John, and was recognised as canonical. This is a fact not 
questioned, but its importance may easily be underrated and its 
significance missed. Opponents of the Johannine authorship have 
declared it to be “totally unnecessary to account” for this remark- 
able consent of opinion. But the very fact that a Gospel so 
obviously different from the synoptic Gospels should have been 
unanimously received as Apostolic is a weighty testimony. Its 
significance has been admirably summarised by Archdeacon Watkins 
(Bampton Lectures, p. 47): “It is not that the Fourth Gospel was 
known and read as the work of St. John in the year a.p. 190 or 180 
or 170; but that it was known and read through all the extent of 
Christendom, in churches varying in origin and language and history, 
in Lyons and Rome, in Carthage and Alexandria, in Athens and 
Corinth, in Ephesus and Sardis and Hierapolis, in Antioch and 
Edessa; that the witness is of Churches to a sacred book which was 
read in their services, and about which there could be no mistake, 
and of individuals who had sacrificed the greatest good of temporal 
life, and were ready to sacrifice life itself as a witness to its truth ; 
that these individual witnesses were men of culture and rich mental 
endowment, with full access to materials for judgment, and full power 
to exercise that judgment; that their witness was given in the face 
of hostile heathenism and opposing heresy, which demanded caution 
in argument and reserve in statement; and that this witness is clear, 
definite, unquestioned ”. 

To this universal consent the sole exceptions were Marcion and 
the Alogi, and possibly Gaius.1 During the decade a.p. 160-170 
there existed in Asia Minor some persons who discovered in the 
Gospel traces of Gnostic and Montanistic teaching. They held their 
place in the Christian Church, but discarded the Johannine writings 
and ascribed them to Cerinthus. Epiphanius gives them the name 
of “AXoyo [unreasonable, irrational] because they did not accept the 
Logos proclaimed by John.2?- Harnack justly maintains that this is 


1 See Rendel Harris’ Hermas in Arcadia and other Essays, 1896. 

* Epiphan., Haeres., 51, 3, defines this heresy as GroBad\oveay lwavvouv rag 
BiBXous. “Emel otv tov Adyow ov Séxyovrat Tov Tapa “lwavvov Kexnpvypevoy, 
“Adoyot wAndycovrar. See Harnack, Das N. Test. um d. ahr 200, pp. 58-70; 


INTRODUCTION 659 


“ of the highest significance” for the history of the Canon; but it 
has little or no significance for the criticism of the Gospel, because 
the rejection of the Gospel proceeded wholly on dogmatic grounds. 
Its ascription to Cerinthus, an impossible author, betrays the reck- 
lessness of the judgment pronounced; while the naming of a 
contemporary and fellow-townsman of the Apostle may be accepted 
as an indication of the true date of the Gospel. Some of the 
scholars who are best informed regarding the second century, such 
as Hilgenfeld and Salmon, are inclined to believe that no such sect 
as the Alogi ever existed, although one or two individuals may have 
held the opinions identified with that nickname. If they existed, their 
rejection of the writings of John demonstrates that previous to their 
time these writings had been accepted as Apostolic and authoritative.! 
Marcion’s neglect of the Johannine books is equally unimportant for 
the criticism of the Gospel. 

In the writings of Irenaeus, who was born, according to Lipsius, 
about A.D. 130, and whose great work against Gnosticism may be 
dated between 180-185, the Fourth Gospel is referred to the Apostle 
John and is regarded as canonical. In a well-known passage 
(Contra Haer., \11., xi., 8) this representative writer even argues that 
in the nature of things there can be neither more nor fewer than 
four Gospels, as there are four zones of the world in which we live, 
and four principal winds. In accordance with this natural fourfold- 
ness the Word who designs all things has given us the Gospel under 
four aspects but united and unified by one Spirit. Additional 
importance has been given to this statement by the suggestion of 
Dr. Taylor of Cambridge that Irenaeus borrowed this idea from 
Hermas. This writer, who belongs to a much earlier period than 
Irenaeus, in speaking of the Church says: “ Whereas thou sawest 
her seated on a couch, the position is a firm one; for the couch has 
four feet and standeth firmly, for the world too is upheld by means 


Watkins’ B. L., p. 123; Salmon’s Introd., p. 229; Sanday’s B. L., p. 64; and cf. 
Irenaeus, Haer., III., xi., 9. 


1 Dr. Plummer, after discussing the rejection of the Gospel by Marcion and the 
Alogi, proceeds: ‘ All this tends to show that if the Fourth Gospel was rejected in 
certain quarters for a time, this tells little or nothing against its genuineness. 
Indeed it may fairly be said to tell the other way; for it shows that the universal 
recognition of the Gospel, which we find existing from A.D. 170 onwards, was no 
mere blind enthusiasm, but a victory of truth over baseless, though not unnatural, 
suspicion. Moreover, the fact that these overwary Christians assigned the Gospel 
to Cerinthus is evidence that the Gospel was in their opinion written by a contem- 
porary of St. John. Toconcede this is to concede the whole question” (Cambridge 
Greek Test. ; Gospel acc. to St. Fohn, n. 24). 


660 INTRODUCTION 


of four elements”! If we could accept Dr. Taylor’s view and 
believe that the four Gospels are here alluded to, we should have 
the earliest testimony to our four canonical Gospels; but it may so 
reasonably be doubted whether the reference is to four Gospels that 
the passage cannot be appealed to without hesitation. 

But it is the connection of Irenaeus with Polycarp which has 
always been considered the significant element in his testimony. 
Eusebius (H. E., v., 20) has preserved a letter written by Irenaeus to 
Florinus, in which he reminds him how they had together listened to 
Polycarp in their youth: “I distinctly remember the incidents of 
that time better than events of recent occurrence; for the lessons 
received in childhood, growing with the growth of the soul, become 
identified with it; so that I can describe the very place in which the 
blessed Polycarp used to sit when he discoursed, and his goings out 
and his comings in, and his manner of life and his personal appear- 
ance, and the discourses which he held before the people; and how 
he would describe his intercourse with John and with the rest who 
had seen the Lord, and how he would relate their words. And what 
were the accounts he had heard from them about the Lord, and about 
His miracles, and about His teaching, how Polycarp, as having 
received them from eye-witnesses of the life of the Word [rijs Lwijs 
tod Adyou], used to give an account harmonising on all points with the 
Scriptures.”2 The Scripture in which “the life of the Word” can 
be traced is the Fourth Gospel. Polycarp does not refer his hearers 
to that Gospel, because having himself been a pupil of John, he pre- 
ferred to relate what he had heard from him. But Irenaeus recog- 
nised that Polycarp’s oral tradition was in harmony with the Gospel. 
Besides, John lived to the times of Trajan, whose reign began in a.p. 
98, while Polycarp was born not later than a.p. 70, and was put to 
death in 156, so that the first thirty years of his life coincided with 
the last years of John’s, and the last thirty years with the youth of 
Irenaeus. This being s9, can it fairly be said to be likely that after 
such intimacy with Polycarp as Irenaeus claims, he should not know 
whether John had written a Gospel or not? Is it conceivable that 
a young man of an intelligent and inquiring turn of mind should 
have been in daily communication with a pupil of the Apostle’s, and 
should never have discovered the origin of the most remarkable 
document of primitive Christianity ? 

But Irenaeus is not the earliest writer who ascribes the Fourth 


* See Taylor's Hermas and the Four Gospels. Cambridge, 1892. 
2 This argument is put in an interesting and conclusive form by Dr. Dale in his 
Living Christ and the Four Gospels, pp. 149-151, 281-284. 


INTRODUCTION 661 


Gospel to the Apostle John. This distinction belongs to Theophilus 
of Antioch. His treatise, Ad Autolycum, was probably of an earlier 
date than Irenaeus’ great work, and in this treatise, speaking of 
inspired men, he says: “ one of whom, John, says, In the beginning 
was the Word”. 

The date of the Muratorian Canon is so much debated that it 
cannot be cited as a witness anterior to Irenaeus. But it records an 
interesting tradition of the origin of the Gospel. ‘The fourth of 
the Gospels is by the disciple John. He was urged by his fellow 
disciples and bishops and said, ‘ Fast with me this day and for three 
days and whatever shall be revealed to any of us let us relate it’. 
The same night it was revealed to the Apostle Andrew that John 
should write the whole in his own name, and that all the rest should 
revise it.” Whatever may be thought of this tradition, it is at all 
events evidence that for some considerable time prior to the publica- 
tion of the Muratorian Canon the Fourth Gospel had been accepted 
as the work of John. 

The esteem in which the Fourth Gospel was held about the 
middle of the second century is evinced by the place it holds in the 
Diatessaron of Tatian. This harmony of the four Gospels opens 
with a portion of the Pourth Gospel. What may reasonably be 
gathered from the existence of such a work is fairly stated by 
Harnack in his article on Tatian in the Encyc. Brit.: “We learn 
from the Diatessaron that about a.p. 160 our four Gospels had 
already taken a place of prominence in the Church, and that no 
others had done so; that in particular the Fourth Gospel had already 
taken a fixed place alongside of the three synoptics’’. But this is 
too modest an inference. Prof. Sanday has shown that the text 
used in the composition of the Diatessaron does not represent the 
original autograph of the Gospel, nor a first copy of it, but that 
several copyings must have intervened between the original and 
Tatian’s text; that in fact this text was derived “from a copy that 
is already very corrupt, a copy perhaps farther removed (if every 
aberration is taken into account) from the original text than the text 
which was committed to print in the sixteenth century. This is a fact 
of the very highest significance, and it is one that the negative critics 
in Germany have, to the best of my belief, entirely overlooked.”! The 
date of the Gospel is thus pushed back considerably. 

With the writings of Tatian’s master, Justin, we pass from the 
second into the first half of the second century. Dr. Hort places his 


1 See also Harris’ Preliminary Study, etc., p. 56. 


662 INTRODUCTION 


martyrdom in the year a.p. 149, and his writings may, with Lightfoot, 
be dated in the fifth decade of the century. That he made use of 
the Pourth Gospel, although hotly contested a few years ago, is now, 
since the investigations of Drummond and Abbot, scarcely denied.! 
And indeed several passages in Justin’s writings are indisputable 
echoes of the Gospel. In the Dialogue with Trypho (c. 105) he 
expressly states that his knowledge of Jesus as the only begotten of 
the Father and as the Logos was derived from the Gospels, that is, 
from the Fourth Gospel, for none of the synoptics speak of the Logos. 
In his First Apology (c. 63) he says of the Jews: ‘“ They are justly 
upbraided by Christ Himself as knowing neither the Father nor the 
Son”. In the same A fology (c. 61), in explaining baptism, he says: 
“ Por Christ also said, Except ye be born again ye shall in no wise 
enter into the Kingdom of Heaven”. Other passages have a similar 
bearing. 

In the Apostolic Fathers we find no express references to the 
Fourth Gospel, but there are not wanting echoes which indicate a 
familiarity with its teaching. Thus in the epistles of Ignatius written 
in the year a.p. 110 while the writer was on .his way to martyrdom, 
are found such expressions as ‘“‘the Spirit . . . knoweth whence it 
cometh and whither it goeth,” an obvious reminiscence of our Lord’s 
conversation with Nicodemus. And when we find Ignatius speaking 
of Jesus as “the door of the Father,” “ the Shepherd,” “ the Son 
who is His Word,” the probability is that these expressions were 
derived from the Gospel. 

Polycarp’s one epistle dates from the same yeara.p.110. It isa 
brief letter, and no reference to the Fourth Gospel occurs in it. But 
he quotes from the First Epistle of John, and as no one doubts that 
the Gospel and the Epistle are from the same hand, it can at any 
rate be concluded that the writer of the Gospel “ flourished before 
Polycarp wrote”’. 

Papias of Hierapolis, although not usually numbered among the 
Apostolic Fathers, was a contemporary of Polycarp, and his life 
overlapped that of the Apostle John by about twenty-five years. He 
wrote the earliest known commentary, entitled An Exposition of 
our Lord’s Oracles. Most unfortunately this book is lost, and 
among the many rich discoveries which modern research is making 
none could be more valuable than the discovery of this work of 
Papias. The fact remains that he did write it, and therefore had 
some written material to proceed upon. And significant allusion is 

‘See Abbot’s Critical Essays; Purves, Test. of Fustin; Norton, Genutneness 
of the Gospels. 





INTRODUCTION 663 


made to this work in an old Latin argument prefixed to the Gospel 
in a MS. of the ninth century, which says: “The Gospel of John 
was revealed and given to the churches by John while he still 
remained in the body, as one named Papias of Hierapolis, a beloved 
disciple of John, related in his five books of expositions ”. 

The testimony of heretics is equally decisive. From the decade 
-a.D. 160-170 we receive a significant witness in the commentary on 
the Gospel of John by Heracleon, a pupil or companion of Valentinus,! 
(yyépysov is Origen’s word). Mr. Brooke, who edited the extant 
portions of this commentary for Armitage Robinson’s Texts and 
Studies, arrives at the conclusion that it must be dated shortly 
after the death of Valentinus, that is to say, not much later than 
A.D. 160. “The rise of commentaries shows an advanced stage in 
the history of the text of the Fourth Gospel” (Lightfoot, Bzbl. 
Essays, p. 111). And the reason for Heracleon’s choosing this 
Gospel as the subject of a commentary is that Valentinus and his 
school borrowed from it much of their phraseology, and hoped by 
putting their own interpretation on it to gain currency for their 
views. We have, then, this remarkable circumstance that shortly 
after the middle of the second century the Fourth Gospel occupied 
such a position of authority in the Church that the Gnostics con- 
sidered it of importance to secure its voice in favour of their views. 
No wonder that even Volkmar should exclaim: “Ah! Great God! 
if between A.D. 125 and 155 a commentary was composed on John’s 
Gospel such as that of which Origen has preserved considerable 
extracts, what yet remains to be discussed? It is very certain that 
it is all over with the critical thesis of the composition of the Fourth 
Gospel in the middle of the second century.” ? 

But there is evidence that even an earlier Gnostic teacher made 
use of this Gospel. Hippolytus (Philos., vii., 22), in giving an account 
of the opinions of Basileides, who flourished at Alexandria about the 
year A.D. 125, quotes him in the following terms: “ This,’ says he 
(v.e., Basileides), “is that which is said in the Gospels, ‘That was the 
true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world’”. 
The words are cited precisely as they stand in the Fourth Gospel, 
and as they are not words of Jesus, which might have been handed 
gown through some other channel, but words of the evangelist 
himself, they prove that the Gospel existed before the year a.p 125. 
The attempt to evade this conclusion by the suggestion that 


? Valentinus himself used “ integro instrumento,” the whole N.T. as Tertullian 
received it. Tert., Praescr., 38. 
* See Reynolds, Pulpit Com., p. 29. 


664 INTRODUCTION 


Hippolytus is quoting the followers of Basileides rather than himself 
has been finally disposed of by Matthew Arnold (God and the Bible, 
268-9). But even Basileides was not the earliest Gnostic who used 
this Gospel. Hippolytus gives an account of the previously existing 
sects, the Naasseni and Peratae, which proves that they made large 
use of this Gospel. Already in the earliest years of the second 
century the Fourth Gospel was an authoritative document. 

What must necessarily be inferred from this use of the Gospel 
by the Gnostics of the second century? The conclusion drawn by 
Ezra Abbot is as follows: ‘It was then generally received both by 
Gnostics and their opponents between the years a.p. 120 and 130, 
What follows? It follows that the Gnostics of that date received it 
because they could not help it. They would not have admitted the 
authority of a book, which could be reconciled with their doctrines 
only by the most forced interpretation, if they could have destroyed 
its authority by denying its genuineness. Its genuineness could then 
be easily ascertained Ephesus was one of the principal cities of the 
Eastern world, the centre of extensive commerce, the metropolis of 
Asia Minor. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people were living who 
had known the Apostle John. The question whether he, the beloved 
disciple, had committed to writing his recollections of his Master’s 
life and teaching, was one of the greatest interest. The fact of the 
reception of the Fourth Gospel as his work at so early a date, by 
parties so violently opposed to each other, proves that the evidence 
of its genuineness was decisive.” } 

The Clementine Homilies and the Testaments of the Twelve Pa- 
triarchs, which respectively represent the Ebionite and Nazarene 
branches of Judaistic Christianity, betray familiarity, if not with the 
Fourth Gospel, certainly with its teaching and phraseology. 

In the face of this external evidence, it has been found impossible 
to maintain the late date which was ascribed to the Gospel by 
several eminent critics of the last generation. There can be no 
doubt that the Gospel existed in the earliest years of the second 
century, and that it was even then esteemed authoritative. That the 
Apostle John was its author, is nowhere explicitly stated before the 
middle of the century ; but that this was from the first believed, may 
legitimately be inferred both from the esteem in which tt was held, 
and from the fact that no other name was ever connected with the 
Gospel until the impossible Cerinthian authorship was suggested by 
the insignificant and biassed sect of the Alogi. Schurer, indeed, says 


1 Critical Essays, p. Qle 


oy 


nam, a 


INTRODUCTION 665 


that “the utmost one can admit in an unprejudiced way, is that the 
external evidence is evenly balanced pro and con, and leads to no 
decision. Perhaps, however, it would be truer to say it is more un- 
favourable than favourable to the authenticity.” Such a conclusion 
can only excite astonishment. 

2. Internal evidence of $Fohannine authorship. The internal 
evidence has usually been grouped under four heads, showing 
respectively that the author was (1) a Jew, (2) a Palestinian, (3) an 
eye-witness, (4) the Apostle John. 

(1) That the writer was a Jew is proved by his Hebraistic style, 
by his knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic, and by his familiarity 
with Jewish traditions, ideas, modes of thought, expectations, 
customs. Although written in Greek which is neither awkward nor 
ungrammatical, the Gospel uses a small number of words and only 
such as are familiar in ordinary conversation. The vocabulary is 
much more limited than that of the well-educated Paul, and the 
style reveals none of the nicety found in the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
One chief distinction between Hebrew and Greek style is that the 
Greek writer by means of multitudinous particles exhibits with 
precision the course of thought by which each clause is connected 
with that which goes before it: the Hebrew writer contents himself 
with laying thought alongside of thought and leaving it to the reader 
to discover the connection. The most casual reader of the Fourth 
Gospel speedily finds that the difficulty of understanding it is the 
difficulty of perceiving the sequence of the clauses. Any one 
accustomed to a Greek style would on reading the Fourth Gospel 
conclude that its author was not familiar with Greek literature.! 

It would also naturally be concluded that the writer was a Jew 
from his inserting translations of Aramaic names, as in i. 38, i. 41, 
1, 42, ix. 7, xix. 13, xix. 17, xx. 21; and especially from his familiarity 
with Jewish customs, ideas, and institutions. Thus he knows that it 
is a Jewish custom to sit under the fig tree, i. 49; to have water-pots 
for purposes of purification, ii.6; to embalm the dead, xix. 40; to 
wash the feet before meals, xiii.4. He is familiar with Jewish ideas, 
as that it is wrong for a Rabbi to speak with a woman, iv. 27, that 
disease is the result of sin, ix. 2; that Elias was to come before the 
Messiah, i. 21; that it defiles a Jew to enter a Gentile dwelling, 
xviii. 29, So intimate an acquaintance with the Jewish Messianic 
ideas as is shown in chap. vii. cannot easily be ascribed to any but a 
Jew. Jewish institutions are also well known: Levites and priests 


1 See further in Lightioot's Bibl. Essays, p. 16 ff. Weiss, Introd., ii., 359. 


666 INTRODUCTION 


are distinguished, i. 19; the composition and action of the Sanhedrim 
is well understood; the less frequented feasts (éyxaina, x. 22) are 
known. He is also aware of the chief point in dispute between Jews 
and Samaritans, iv. 20; the length of time the Temple has been in 
building, ii. 21; that synagogue and temple are the favourite resort 
of teachers, xviii. 20.) 

Two objections, however, have been raised. Ist. It is said 
that the author throughout his Gospels betrays a marked antipathy 
to the Jews. He uses the name as a recognised designation of 
the enemies of Jesus; “the Jews” sought to kill Him; “no man 
spake openly of Him for fear of ‘the Jews’”. They are spoken of 
as “the children of the devil’’. This objection, however, is base- 
less. In the synoptic Gospels Jesus, Himself a Jew, is represented 
as pronouncing invectives against the leaders of the people quite as 
strong as any to be found in the Fourth Gospel. In John all the 
apostles are Jews, and it is in this Gospel the great saying is preserved 
that “salvation is of the Jews”. 2nd. Matthew Arnold and the 
author of Supernatural Religion have maintained that the Jews 
and their usages are spoken of in this Gospel as if they belonged to 
a race different from the writer’s. ‘ The water-pots at Cana are set 
‘after the manner of purifying of the Fews’; ... ‘now the Fews' 
passover was nigh at hand’.... It seems almost impossible to 
think that a Jew born and bred—a man like the Apostle John— 
could ever have come to speak so... . A Few talking of the Jews 
passover and of a dispute of some of John’s disciples with a Few 
about purifying. It is like an Englishman writing of the Derby as 
the English people's Derby, or talking of a dispute between some of 
Mr. Cobden’s disciples and an Englishman about free trade. An 
Englishman would never speak so.’’?. An Englishman who had for 
many years been resident abroad and who was writing for foreigners 
would use precisely such forms of expression. 

(2) The author was a Palestinian. A Jew of the dispersion, a 
Hellenist, would probably betray himself, not only by writing a freer 
Greek style, but by showing a less intimate knowledge of the 
localities of the Holy Land, and by using the LXX., and not the 
original Hebrew, in quoting from the Old Testament. In regard to 
the evidence afforded by a knowledge of localities, Professor Ramsay 
lays down the following: “It is impossible for any one to invent a 
tale, whose scene lies in a foreign land, without betraying in slight 


‘ The best statement of this part of the evidence will be found in Oscar Holtz- 
mann’s Fohan., pp. 188-191. 
2 God and the Bible, p. 251. 


INTRODUCTION 667 


details his ignorance of the scenery and circumstances amid which 
the event is described as taking place. Unless the writer studiously 
avoids details, and confines himself to names and generalities, he is 
certain to commit numerous errors. Even the most laborious and 
minute study of the circumstances of the cuuntry, in which he is to 
lay his scene, will not preserve him from such errors. He must live 
long, and observe carefully in the country, if he wishes to invent 
a tale which will not betray his ignorance in numberless details. 
Allusions of Prench or German authors to English life supply the 
readiest illustration of this principle.” Now the author of the Fourth 
Gospel betrays that intimate acquaintance with the localities of 
Palestine, which could only be possessed by a resident. He de- 
scribes Bethany as “nigh unto Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs 
off”. Who, but one who had often walked it, would be likely to let 
that exact indication drop from his pen? It is the unconscious 
gratuitousness of full knowledge. In chap. vi. he has before his 
mind’s eye the movements round the Sea of Galilee, which he de- 
scribes. He is familiar with the Temple, with its porches and 
cloisters, and he knows the side of the building which people chose 
in cold weather. He passes from Jerusalem to the villages around, 
crossing brooks, and visiting gardens without once stumbling in his 
topographical details. This sure sign of a resident he constantly 
betrays, he adds to the name of a town the additional specification 
by which it might be distinguished from others of the same name: 
“ Bethany beyond Jordan,” “ Aenon near to Salim,’ “ Bethsaida the 
city of Andrew and Peter,” and so forth. 

In a matter of this kind few are more qualified to judge than 
Bishop Lightfoot, who spent so much of his own life in archzological 
research, Here is his judgment: “Let us place ourselves in the 
position of one who wrote at the middle of the second century, after 
the later Roman invasion had swept off the scanty gleanings of the 
past which had been spared from the earlier. Let us ask how a 
romancer so situated is to make himself acquainted with the inci- 
dents, the localities, the buildings, the institutions, the modes of 
thought and feeling which belonged to this past age, and (as we 
may almost say) this bygone people. Let it be granted that here 
and there he must stumble upon a historical fact, that in one or two 
particulars he might reproduce a national characteristic. More than 
this would be beyond his reach. For, it will be borne in mind, he 
would be placed at a great disadvantage, compared with a modern 
writer; he would have to reconstruct history without these various 
appliances, maps and plates, chronological tables, books of travel, 


668 INTRODUCTION 


by which the author of a historical novel is so largely assisted in the 
present day " (Expositor, Jan., 1890, p. 13). 

A few years ago the writer's ignorance of the localities he men- 
tioned was insisted upon. But since the Palestinian Survey the 
tables are turned. It is now admitted that competent knowledge 
of the localities is shown. Schiirer, e.g., says: ‘“ Among serious 
difficulties we need no longer reckon at the present day the 
supposed ignorance of Palestinian and Jewish matters from which 
Bretschneider and Baur inferred that the author was neither a 
Palestinian nor in any sense a Jew. The geographical errors 
and ignorance of things Jewish have more and more shrunk to 
a minimum.” The argument now is, “admitting that the writer 
shows local knowledge, this does not prove that he was a native 
of Palestine. He may have derived his knowledge from books, 
or from occasional residence in the country.” Professor Sanday 
has been at pains to show that any knowledge which could 
have been derived from such geographers as Pomponius Mela, 
Ptolemy, or Strabo, was of the scantiest possible description. Holtz- 
mann, though strongly opposed to the Johannine authorship, admits 
that the topographical knowledge indicates that the author had 
visited the holy places, but not that he was a Palestinian. He had 
then been a resident in Palestine, knew the places he spoke about, 
and so far was not romancing. . 

One distinction of the Jew of the dispersion was his use of the 
LXX., instead of the Hebrew Bible. What Old Testament then 
does the writer of the Fourth Gospel use? He is found to depart 
from the LXX., and to use language more closely representing the 
Hebrew. Until a very few years ago, this was accepted as proof 
that he read the Hebrew, and used it. But recently there has been 
a growing conviction that during the Apostolic Age other versions 
of the Old Testament, or of some books and portions of it, were 
extant in Greek. And it is argued that John might have used some 
of these. But when it is found that in some of his quotations his 
language is closer to the original than that of the LXX., or than the 
versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, it is certainly 
reasonable to conclude that he used the Hebrew, and translated for 
himself, and was, therefore, a native Palestinian.! 

(3) There is reason to believe that the author was an eye-witness 
of the events he relates. In the first place, the writer claims to be 
an eye-witness. This is surely of some account. The expression 


1 See this handled with his usual fairness by Professor Sanday, Exbositor, 
March, 1892. 





INTRODUCTION 669 


‘‘we beheld His glory” (i. 14) meed not be pressed, although con 
sidering the analogous statement of 1 John i. 1, it may very well be 
maintained that the writer had with his bodily eyes seen the mani- 
festation of his Lord’s glory. But in xix. 35 we have an explicit 
claim: ‘‘ He that saw it bare record, and his record is true, and he 
knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe’. The words 
‘‘he knoweth that he saith true” could hardly have been inserted 
by any other hand than that of the eye-witness himself. In xxi. 24 
we read: “ This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and 
wrote these things”. Whether this note was added by the writer 
himself, or by another hand, certainly the intention is to identify the 
writer with an eye-witness and participator of the events recorded. 
We are thus confronted with the alternative: either an eye-witness 
wrote this Gospel, or a forger whose genius for truth and for lying 
are alike inexplicable. As Renan says (Vie, xxvii.): ‘ L’auteur y 
parle toujours comme témoin oculaire; il veut se faire passer 
pour ’Apotre Jean. Si donc cet ouvrage n’est pas réellement de 
l'apétre, il faut admettre une supercherie que l’auteur s’avouait 4 
lui-méme.” 

This claim is abundantly confirmed by the character of the Gospel. 
For we find in it such a multitude of detail as gratuitously invites 
the detection of error. Not only are individuals named, and so de- 
scribed that we seem to know them, but frequently there are added 
specifications of time and place which obviously are the involuntary 
superfluity of information which flows almost unconsciously from a 
full memory. Such details are: the hour at which Jesus sat on the 
well, the number and size of the water-pots at the marriage at Cana, 
the weight and value of the ointment, the number of fish at the last 
cast, the hour at which the nobleman’s son began to amend, the 
hour at which Jesus took the two inquirers into His own lodging. 

Circumstantiality can, no doubt, be given to a narrative by a 
Defoe or a Swift. But among the Jews the writing of fiction was 
not cultivated ; and besides, the circumstantial detail of this Gospel 
does not belong to the world of imagination, but attaches to real 
objects and events, and can in many instances be verified. If in 
these instances the detail is found to be accurate, the presumption 
is that accuracy characterises those also which cannot so easily be 
checked ; and that, therefore, the circumstantiality is due to the 
fact that the writer was an eye-witness of what he records. 

(4) This Palestinian Jew who was himself an eye-witness of the 
ministry of Jesus was the Apostle John. In xxi. 24 the writer of the 
Gospel is identified with the disciple whom Jesus loved. This disciple 


670 INTRODUCTION 


was certainly one of the seven named in xxi. 2, who appear as the 
actors in the scene there recorded. Of these seven there were three 
who frequently appear in the other Gospels as the intimates of 
Jesus. These are Peter, James, and John. But Peter cannot have 
been the disciple in question, for in this chapter Peter and that 
disciple are spoken of separately. Neither can James be the person 
meant, for his early death precludes the idea of his being the author 
of the Gospel. It remains that John was the disciple whom Jesus 
loved,! the author of the Fourth Gospel. And however we interpret 
the intention of John in using this circumlocution to designate 
himself, it must not be overlooked that its employment is evidence of 
the Johannine authorship. In the other Gospels John is frequently 
spoken of by name. In this Gospel John is not once named, 
although from no Gospel do we gather such vivid descriptions. of 
the Apostles. Certainly it is a most natural and sufficient explana- 
tion of this fact to suppose that John was the author of the Gospel. 

Objections. But to this conclusion many critics demur. Since 
Bretschneider it has been continually asserted that this does not 
exhaust the internal evidence, and that there is that in the Fourth 
Gospel which makes it impossible to refer it to the Apostle John. 
There are evidences of dependence on the synoptists, inconsistent 
with the hypothesis that it was written by an Apostle who himself 
had been an eye-witness; of a universalism inconsistent with the 
fact that the Apostle John was a pillar of the Jewish Christian 
Church ; and of a philosophical colouring which does not favour the 
idea that the author was a Galilean fisherman.? 

The two latter objections are not formidable. Schiirer shows 
with considerable force that up to the time of the Apostolic conven- 
tion in Jerusalem John was a Jewish Christian and an upholder of 
the law, whereas the author of this Gospel knows the law only as 
the law of the Jews. Is it likely, he asks, that one who during the 
first twenty years of his ministry maintained the law would in his 
latter years so entirely repudiate it? “If during this long period the 
influence of the preaching of Jesus had not made John a liberal, was 
such a transformation probable at a still later time ?’’ That sucha 
transformation was very probable will be the answer of those who 
consider that between the earlier and the later period the Jewish 


+ « There is no trace that in Christian antiquity this title ever suggested any 
one but John” (Ezra Abbot, Critical Essays, p. 73). 

2 For a brief but conclusive answer to these objections, see Dale’s Living Christ 
and the Four Gospels, 149-152. 





INTRODUCTION 671 


economy had come to an end and that John had become the successor 
of Paul in a thoroughly Greek city. 

The traces of philosophical colouring have been exaggerated and 
misinterpreted. In the Platonic dialogues the circumstances, the 
speakers, and their utterances are all either created by the writer or 
employed to proclaim his own philosophy. To suppose that the 
Gospel was composed in some analogous manner is to misconceive 
it. No doubt in Ephesus John was brought into contact with forms 
of thought and with speculations which were little heard of in 
Palestine. And in so far as the ideas then preyalent were true, an 
intelligent Christian mind would necessarily bring them into relation 
with the manifestation of God in Christ. This process would bring 
to the surface much of the significance both of the life and teaching 
of Jesus which hitherto had been unnoticed and unused. The process 
is apparent in the epistles of Paul as well as in the Fourth Gospel. 
The idea of the Logos was a Jewish-Alexandrian idea, and that the 
author sought to attach his Gospel to this idea is unquestionable, but 
it is a very long and insecure step from this to conclude that he was 
himself trained in the Hellenistic philosophy of Alexandria. The 
Logos idea is not essential to the Fourth Gospel; it is rather the 
Sonship idea that is essential. But the term and the idea of the 
Logos are used by the author to introduce his subject to the Greek 
veaders. As Harnack says: “The prologue is not the key to the 
understanding of the Gospel, but is rather intended to prepare the 
Hellenistic reader for its perusal’’.! After the introduction the Logos 
is never again referred to. The philosophy one finds in the Gospel 
is not the metaphysics of the schools, but the insight of the con- 
templative, brooding spirit which finds in Christ the solvent of all 

- problems. 

The originality of the author of the Fourth Gospel has recently 
been vigorously assailed.2 It has been shown that, in certain 
passages, he is dependent for his phraseology on the Synoptic 
Gospels; and it has been urged that an Apostle and eye-witness 
would not thus derive from others an account of what he had him- 
self seen. As a general rule it is of course true that an eye-witness 
would depend on his own reminiscences; but, presumably, no one 
denies that John knew and used the Synoptic Gospels; and that 
phrases which occur in them should have remained in his memory is 
not surprising. Even in the passages where these borrowings occur, 


} Zeitschrift f. T. und K., 2nd Jahrg., p. 230. 
* See especially Oscar Holtzmann, Fohannesevang., p. 6 tf. 


672 INTRODUCTION 


there are divergences so considerable as to indicate an original 
witness. For, to interpret these divergences, as Oscar Holtzmann 
does, as misunderstandings of his sources, is rather, if it may without 
offence be said, a misunderstanding of John. It may rather be said 
that, in several instances, we find additions and corrections which 
are requisite for the understanding of the Synoptists. From the 
first three Gospels the reader might gather that our Lord’s ministry 
extended over only one year; the Pourth Gospel definitely mentions 
three Passovers (ii. 13; vi. 4; xiii. 1), with a possible fourth (v. 1). 
The probabilities here are certainly in favour of the representation 
of the Pourth Gospel, and it may be shown that even in the 
Synoptic narratives a longer ministry is implied than that which they 
expressly mention. Again, the ministry in Jerusalem, as recounted 
in the Fourth Gospel, alone enables us to understand the lament 
which finds a place in the Synoptics, ““O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how 
often,” etc. The call of those who afterwards became Apostles, the 
arrival in Galilee of scribes from Jerusalem to watch Jesus, and 
other incidents recorded by the Synoptists, only become fully in- 
telligible when read in the light of the narrative given in the Fourth 
Gospel. Evidently the author of this Gospel had, at least on some 
points, access to more accurate and complete information than that 
which was accessible to the other evangelists. 

The independence of the Pourth Gospel is further shown by its 
omission of such remarkable scenes as the Temptation, the Trans- 
figuration, the Agony in the Garden, and by its introduction of places 
and persons unnamed in the other Gospels; as, Aenon, Salim, 
Sychar, Bethany beyond Jordan, Nicodemus, Nathanael, the Samari- 
tan woman, the man born blind, the dead Lazarus, Annas. The 
most natural way to account for this is to suppose that we have 
here the additional information which an Apostle would necessarily 
possess. The alternatives are that we must refer it to the creative 
imagination of the writer, or to the tradition of our Lord’s life which 
had been handed down irrespective of the Synoptic Gospels, the 
“ Johanneisches vor Johannes”. But why deny this tradition to the 
Apostle John? In whom could it find a more suitable repository ? 
Unquestionably there underlies this Gospel a full and significant 
tradition, but there seems no good reason for allotting the tradition 
to one source and the Gospel to another. Much more probable is 
the account of Eusebius,! who tells us “that John, having spent all 


1H.E., iii., 24: lodvyny baci tov wavra xpdvov Gypadw Kexpynpevoy KypvypaTe 
téhog Kal éri thy ypapyy édeiv. 


INTRODUCTION 673 


his life in proclaiming the Gospel orally, at the last committed it to 
writing”. 

Suspicion has been cast on the historicity of the Fourth Gospel 
by the omission from the others of all reference to the raising of 
Lazarus. As related by John, this event was not only remarkable 
in itself, but materially contributed to the catastrophe. It is difficult 
to suppose that so surprising an event should not be known to the 
Synoptists. It is true John omits incidents as remarkable ; but he 
knew that they were already related. It is possible that at the first, 
while the life of Lazarus was still in danger from the authorities, re- 
ference to the miracle may have been judged unadvisable, especially 
as similar raisings from the dead had been recorded. Probably, 
however, Professor Sanday’s solution is right: ‘“ Considering that 
the Synoptists knew nothing of events in Jerusalem before the last 
Passover, we cannot be surprised that they should omit an event 
which is placed at Bethany”. 

But that which has driven many open-minded critics to a dis- 
belief in the Apostolic authorship of the Gospel is the character of 
the conversations and addresses which are here attributed to our 
Lord. Some pronounce these discourses to be entirely fictitious, 
ascribed to Jesus for the sake of illustrating and enforcing opinions 
of the author. Others suppose that a small modicum of historical 
truth is to be found in them; while critics who are branded as 
“ Apologists ” almost entirely eliminate from the discourses ascribed. 
to our Lord any subjective element contributed by the Evangelist. 
Is there then any test we can apply to this record, any criterion by 
which these discourses may be judged? The reports in the Synoptic 
Gospels at once suggest themselves as the required criterion. Doubts 
there may be regarding the very words ascribed to our Lord in this 
or that passage of the Synoptists, doubts there must be, whether we 
are to follow Matthew or Luke, when these two differ; but practi- 
cally there is no doubt at all, even among extreme critics, that we 
may gather from those Gospels a clear idea both of the form and of 
the substance of our Lord’s teaching. 

Now it is not to be denied that the comparison of the Fourth 
Gospel with tie first three is a little disconcerting. For it is obvious 
that in the Fourth Gospel the discourses occupy a different position, 
and differ also both in style and in matter from those recorded in 
the Synoptical Gospels. They occupy a different position, bulking 
much more largely in proportion to the narrative. Indeed, the 


1 Authorship of Fourth Gospel, p. 186. 
43 


674 INTRODUCTION 


narrative portion of the Gospel of John may be said to exist for the 
sake of the verbal teaching. The miracles which in the first three 
Gospels appear as the beneficent acts of our Lord without ulterior 
motive, seem in the Fourth Gospel to exist for the sake of the 
teaching they embody, and the discussions they give rise to. 
Similarly, the persons introduced, such as Nicodemus, are viewed 
chiefly as instrumental in eliciting from Jesus certain sayings, and 
are themselves forgotten in the conversation they have suggested. 

In form the teachings recorded in John conspicuously differ from 
those recorded by the other evangelists. They present our Lord as 
using three forms of teaching, brief, pregnant apophthegms, parables, 
and prolonged ethical addresses. In John, it is alleged, the parable 
has disappeared, the pointed sayings suitable to a popular teacher 
have also disappeared, and in their place we have prolonged dis- 
cussions, self-defensive explanations, and stern invectives. As Renan 
says: “This fashion of preaching and demonstrating without ceasing, 
this everlasting argumentation, this artificial get-up, these long dis- 
cussions following each miracle, these discourses, stiff and awkward, 
whose tone is so often false and unequal, are intolerable to a man of 
taste alongside the delicious sentences of the synoptists ”’. 

Even more marked is the difference in the substance of the dis- 
courses. From the synoptists we receive the impression that Jesus 
was a genial ethical teacher who spent His days among the common 
people exhorting them to unworldliness, to a disregard of wealth, to 
the humble and patient service of God in love to their fellow-men, 
exposing the hollowness of much that passed for religion, and seek- 
ing to inspire all men with firmer trust in God as their Father. In 
the Gospel of John His own claims are the prominent subject. He 
is the subject matter taught as well as the teacher. The Kingdom of 
God no longer holds the place it held in the synoptists: it is the 
Messiah rather than the Messianic kingdom that is pressed upon the 
people. 

Again it has been urged that the style ascribed to our Lord in this 
Gospel is so like the style of John himself as to be indistinguishable ; 
so that it is not always possible to say where the words of Jesus end 
and the words of John begin (see chap. xii. 44, iii. 18-21). This 
difficulty may, however, be put aside, and that for more reasons than 
one. The words of Jesus are translated from the vernacular Aramaic 
in which He probably uttered them, and it was impossible they should 
not be coloured by the style of the translator. Besides, there are 
obvious differences between the style of John and that of Jesus. 
For example, the Epistle of Jobn is singularly abstract and devoid of 





INTRODUCTION 675 


illustration. James abounds in figure, and so does Paul; but in 
John’s epistles not a single simile or metaphor occurs. Is it credible 
that their writer was the author of the richly figurative teachings in 
the tenth and fifteenth chapters of the Gospel [the sheepfold and the 
vine] ? 

But turning to the real differences which exist between the 
reports of the first three and the Fourth Gospel, several thoughts 
occur which at least take off the edge of the criticism and show us 
that on a point of this kind it is easy to be hasty and extreme. For, 
in the first place, it is to be considered that if John had had nothing 
new to tell, no fresh aspect of Christ or His teaching to present, he 
would not have written at all. No doubt each of the synoptists goes 
over ground already traversed by his fellow-synoptist, but it has yet to 
be proved that they knew one another’s work. John did know of their 
Gospels, and the very fact that he added a fourth prepares us to 
expect that it will be different ; not only in omitting scenes from the 
life of Christ with which already the previous Gospels had made men 
familiar, but by presenting some new aspect of Christ’s person and 
teaching. That there was another aspect essential to the complete- 
ness of the figure was, as the present Bishop of Derry has pointed 
out, also to be surmised. The synoptists enable us to conceive how 
Jesus addressed the peasantry and how He dealt with the scribes of 
Capernaum ; but, after all, was it not also of the utmost importance 
to know how He was received by the authorities of Jerusalem and 
how He met their difficulties about His claims? Had there been no 
record of those defences of His position, must we not still have 
supposed them and supplied them in imagination ? 

That we have here, then, a different aspect of Christ’s teaching 
need not surprise us, but is it not even inconsistent with that already 
given by the synoptists ? The universal Christian consciousness has 
long since answered that question. The faith which has found its 
resting-place in the Christ of the synoptists is not unsettled or per- 
plexed by anything it finds in John. They are not two Christs but 
one which the four Gospels depict: diverse as the profile and front 
face, but one another’s complement rather than contradiction. A 
critical examination of the Gospels reaches the same conclusion. 
For while the self-assertiveness of Christ is more apparent in the 
Fourth Gospel, it is implicit in them all. Can any claim be greater 
than that which our Lord urges in the Sermon on the Mount to be 
the supreme lawgiver and judge of men? Or than that which is 
implied in His assertion that He only knows the Father and that 
only through Him can others know Him; or can we conceive any 


676 INTRODUCTION 


clearer confidence in His mission than that which He implies when 
He invites all men to come to Him and trust themselves with Him, 
or when He forgives sin, and proclaims Himself the Messiah, God’s 
representative on earth ? 

Can we then claim that all that is reported in this Gospel as 
uttered by our Lord was actually spoken as it stands? This is not 
claimed. Even the most conservative critics allow that John must 
necessarily have condensed conversations and discourses. The truth 
probably is that we have the actual words of the most striking say- 
ings, because these, once heard, could not be forgotten. And this 
plainly applies especially to the sayings regarding Himself which 
were most likely to astonish or even shock and startle the hearers. 
These at once and for ever fixed themselves in the mind. In the 
longer discussions and addresses we have the substance but cannot 
at each point be sure that the very words are given. No doubt in 
the last resort we must trust John. But whom could we more 
reasonably trust? He was the person of all others who entered 
most fully into sympathy with Christ and understood Him best, the 
person to whom our Lord could most freely open His mind. So that 
although, as Godet says, we have here “ the extracted essence of a 
savoury fruit,’ we may be confident that this essence perfectly 
preserves the flavour and peculiarity of the fruit. 

Neither ought it to be forgotten that there occur in the Gospel 
passages which strikingly illustrate the desire of the author to pre- 
serve the very words of our Lord. In chap. xii. 33, ¢.g., we find an 
interpretation given of the saying recorded in verse 32. This is 
unintelligible on the hypothesis that the author was himself com- 
posing the discourses which he attributes to Christ. Any author 
who is expressing his own ideas, and writing freely out of his own 
mind, even although he is using another person as his mouthpiece, 
will at once deliver his meaning. To suppose that John first put 
his own words in the mouth of Jesus, and then interpreted them, is 
to suppose an elaborateness of contrivance which would reduce the 
Gospel to a common forgery. Cf. vii. 39. 

While, then, it cannot be affirmed that the internal evidence 
uniformly points to the Johannine authorship, neither can it be said 
that it is decisively against it. There are difficulties on either 
alternative. But when to the internal evidence the weight of 
external attestation is added, by far the most probable conclusion is 
that the Fourth Gospel is the work of the Apostle John, and that it 
is historically trustworthy. 

Between the affirmation and denial of the Johannine authorship 









es ee eg ee ee 





INTRODUCTION 677 


there has been interposed a third suggestion. The Gospel may have 
been (1) partly or (2) indirectly the work of the Apostle: parts of it may 
be from the hand of John, while the remainder is the work of an 
unknown editor; or, the whole may be from the school of John, but 
not directly from his own hand. The most distinguished advocate of 
the former of these two suggestions is Dr. Wendt, whose theory is 
that the Apostle John made a collection of our Lord’s discourses, 
which was used by some unknown editor as the basis or nucleus 
of a Gospel. This theory ruthlessly sacrifices many of the most 
valuable and characteristic portions of the Gospel, such as the scene 
between the Baptist and the deputation, the examination before 
Annas (or Caiaphas), and many of those historical touches which 
lend life to the narrative. But the fatal objection to this theory is 
the solidarity of the Gospel. Holtzmann does not accept the Fourth 
Gospel as Johannine, but he says: “All attempts to draw a clearly 
distinguishable line of demarcation, whether it be between earlier 
and later strata, or between genuine and not genuine, historical and 
unhistorical elements, must always be wrecked against the solid and 
compact unity which the work presents, both in regard to language 
and in regard to matter. Apart from the interpolations indicated 
by the history of the text (v. 4, vii. 53, viii. 11), and from the last 
chapter added by way of supplement, the work is both in form and 
substance, both in arrangement and in range of ideas, an organic 
whole without omissions or interpolations, the ‘seamless coat,’ which 
cannot be parted or torn, but only by a happy cast allotted to its 
rightful owner.” Certainly, if this Gospel is not from one hand, 
then there is no possibility of proving «nity of authorship by unity of 
design and execution. 

The second alternative, that the Gospel proceeded rather from 
the circle of John’s disciples than from his own hand, has more in 
its favour and has enlisted great names in its support. Thus Renan 
says (Vie de F., xxv.): “Can it indeed be John who has written in 
Greek these abstract metaphysical discourses, which find no analogy 
either in the Synoptists or in the Talmud? This is a heavy tax on 
faith, and for myself 1 dare not say I am convinced that the Fourth 
Gospel was entirely from the pen of an old Galilean fisherman; but 
that the Gospel as a whole proceeded, towards the close of the first 
century, from the great school of Asia Minor whose centre was 
John.” ‘One is sometimes tempted to believe that some precious 
notes made by the Apostle were employed by his disciples.” 

The other great literary critic of our own day, Matthew Arnold, 
held the same opinion regarding the origin of the Gospel. In God 


678 INTRODUCTION 


and the Bible, 256-7, he writes: “In his old age St. John at Ephesus 
has ‘ logia,’ sayings of the Lord, and has incidents in the Lord’s story 
which have not been published in any of the written accounts that 
were beginning at that time to be handed about. The elders of 
Ephesus, whom tradition afterwards makes into apostles, fellows of 
St. John, move him to bestow his treasure on the world. He gives 
his materials, and the presbytery of Ephesus provides a redaction 
for them and publishes them. The redaction with its unity of tone, 
its flowingness and connectedness, is by one single hand; the hand 
of a man of literary talent, a Greek Christian, whom the Church of 
Ephesus found proper for such a task. A man of literary talent, a 
man of soul also, a theologian. A theological lecturer perhaps, as in 
the Fourth Gospel he so often shows himself, a theological lecturer, 
an earlier and a nameless Origen, who in this one short composition 
produced a work outweighing all the folios of all the Fathers, but was 
content that his name should be written in the Book of Life.”” Schtirer 
and Weizsicker! are both advocates of this theory. 

That this is an inviting theory is not to be denied. But, after all, 
little is gained by it ; and there are grave objections to it. The Jew 
and the eye-witness appear on every page; so that the utmost that 
can be allowed is that some younger man may in quite a subordinate 
function have collaborated with the Apostle. That the Gospel was 
composed after the Apostle’s death, mainly from reminiscences of 
his teaching, is a hypothesis which seems at once needless. and 
imadequate. é 

Object of the Gospel. The object of the writer reflects some light 
on the nature of his work. In xx. 31 it is said: “these things are 
written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of 
God, and that believing ye might have life in His name”. The writer 
has no intention of composing a full biography of Jesus. He means 
to select from His life such material as will most readily convince 
men that He is the Christ, the Son of God. If not a dogmatic 
treatise [a “lehrschrift’’], it is at any rate a history with a dogmatic 
purpose. This is always a dangerous form of literature, tempting the 
author to exaggeration, concealment, misrepresentation. But that 
this temptation invariably overcomes an author is of course not the 
case. Acertain limitation, however, nay, a certain amount of distortion, 
do necessarily attach to a biography which aims at presenting only 
one aspect of its subject—distortion, not in what is actually presented, 
but in the implication that this is the whole. Where only a part of 


1 Apost. Zeit., 531-538. 


tat 


a ee ee ee a Oe a ee 


rit 




















INTRODUCTION 679 


the life is given and certain aspects of the character are exclusively 
depicted, there is a want of perspective and so far a misleading 
element. But this gives us no ground for affirming that the actual 
statements of the book are erroneous or unhistorical. 

The circumstance that John wrote a Gospel with the express 
purpose of proving that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, 
implies that he considered that this truth needed confirmation ; that 
in the Christian circle in which he moved there was some more or 
less pronounced tendency towards a denial of the Messiahship or 
Divinity of Jesus. Whether the teaching of Cerinthus was or was 
not the immediate occasion of the publication of the Gospel, it is a 
happy circumstance that the author did not confine himself to what 
was controversial, or throw his work into a polemic and doctrinal 
form, but built up a positive exhibition of the Person and claims of 
our Lord as stated by Himself. 

The object in view, therefore, reflects light on the historicity of 
the contents of the Gospel. The writer professes to produce certain 
facts which have powerfully influenced the minds of men and have 
produced faith. If these pretended facts were fictions, then the 
writer is dishonest and beneath contempt. He wishes to produce 
the conviction that Jesus is the Messiah, and to accomplish his 
purpose invents incidents and manipulates utterances of Jesus. A 
writer of romance who merely wishes to please, even a preacher 
whose aim is edification, might claim a certain latitude or negligence 
of accuracy, but a writer whose object it is to prove a certain pro- 
position stands on a very different platform, and can only be pro- 
nounced fraudulent if he invents his evidence. 

Method and Plan of the Gospel. The method adopted by the 
writer to convince men that Jesus is the Christ 1s the simplest 
possible. He does not expect that men will believe this on his mere 
word. He sets himseif to reproduce those salient features in the 
life of Jesus which chiefly manifested His Messianic dignity and 
function. He believes that what convinced himself will convince 
others. One by one he cites his witnesses, never garbling their 
testimony nor concealing the adverse testimony, but showing with 
as exact truthfulness how unbelief grew and hardened into opposition, 
as he tells how faith grew till it culminated in the supreme con- 
fession of Thomas, “My Lord and my God’’. The plan of the 
Gospel is therefore also the simplest. Apart from the Prologue 
(i. 1-18), and the Epilogue (chap. xxi.), the work falls into two nearly 
equal parts, 1. 19-xii. and xiii.-xx. In the former part the evangelist 
relates with a singular felicity of selection the scenes in which 


680 INTRODUCTION 


Jesus made those self-revelations which it was essential the world 
should see. These culminate in the raising of Lazarus related in 
chap. xi. The twelfth chapter therefore holds a place by itself, and 
in it three incidents are related which are intended to show that the 
previously related manifestations of Jesus had sufficed to make Him 
known (1) to His intimates (xii. 1-11), (2) to the people generally 
(12-19), and (3) even to the Gentile world (20-36). Jesus may there- 
fore now close His self-revelation. And the completeness of the 
work He has done is revealed not only in this widely extended 
impression and well-grounded faith, but also in the maturity of 
unbelief which now hardens into hatred and resolves to compass 
His death. Between the first and second part of the Gospel there 
is interposed a paragraph (xii. 37-50), in which it is pointed out that 
the rejection of Jesus by the Jews, who had been trained to receive 
the Messiah, had been predicted and reflects no suspicion on the 
sufficiency of the preceding manifestations. In the second part of 
the Gospel the glory of Christ is manifested (1) in His revealing 
Himself as the permanent source of life and joy to His disciples 
(xiii.-xvil.), and (2) in His triumph over death (xviii.-xx.), 


The Gospel, therefore, falls into these parts :— 


THE PROLOGUE, i. 1-18. 

I. Part First. 1. Manifestation of Christ’s glory as the Joy, Life, Light, 
Nourishment, Saviour of Men: or as the Son of God 
among men, i. Ig-xi. 

2. Summary of results, xii. 1-35. 
Pause in the Gospel for review of Christ’s teaching and its consequences, 
xii. 36-56. 
Il. Part SEconD. 1. Jesus declares Himself to be the permanent source of life 
and joy to His disciples, xiii.-xvii, 
2. His victory over death, xviii.-xx, 


THE EPILOGUE, xxi. 


LITERATURE. 


A vast literature has grown up around the Fourth Gospel. A full list of critical 
treatises on the- Authorship, published between 1792 and 1875, is given by Dr. 
Caspar Gregory in an appendix to the translation of Luthardt’s St. John, the Author 
of the Fourth Gospel. To this list may now be added Thoma, Die Genesis d. Foh. 
Evang., 1882; Jacobsen, Untersuchungen itber d. Foh. Evang., 1884; Oscar 
Holtzmann, Das ¥oh. evangelium, 1887. The Introductions of H. Holtzmann, 
Weiss, Salmon, and Gloag may also be consulted. The fullest history of the 
criticism of the Gospel is to be found in Watkins’ Bampton Lectures for 1890. 

Full lists of commentaries are given in the second volume of the translation 
of Meyer on John, and in Luthardt. The most valuable are the following :-— 





INTRODUCTION 681 


F[leRACLEON. The Fragments of Heracleon have been collected out of Origen’s Com- 
mentary on John, and edited for Armitage Robinson’s Tezts and Studies by 
A. E. Brooke, M.A. 

CrIGEN. Commentary on St. Fohn’s Gospel ; originally only extending to the 
thirteenth chapter, and even of this original much has been lost. The best 
edition is that of A. E. Brooke, M.A., Cambridge University Press. 1896. 

Portions of this Commentary are translated in the additional volume of 
Clark’s Ante-Nicene Library 

CHRYSOSTOM [347-407 A.D.]. Homilies on the Gospel, etc. ‘The most convenient 
edition is Migne’s. The Commentary on John is translated in the Ozford 
Library, and in the American Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. 

AUGUSTINE [354-430]. Tvactatus in Foan. Evan. In third volume of Migne’s 
edition ; translated in Oxford series and Clark’s translation. 

CyrIL oF ALEXANDRIA [ob. 444]. In D. Foannis Evangelium. Best edition by 
P. E. Pusey, A.M., Clarendon Press. Three vols. 1872. 

THEOPHYLACT and EutTuymius (see p. 58) both wrote on this Gospel. The com- 
mentary of the latter is especially excellent. 


Among post-reformation works, the Paraphrases of Erasmus, the Commentary 
of Calvin, and the Annotationes Majorves of Beza are to be recommended. The 
Annotationes of Melanchthon are frequently irrelevant. Besides the collections of 
illustrative passages mentioned on pp. 58, 59, and the commentaries of Grotius, 
Bengel, and others which cover the whole New Testament, there may be named 
the following which deal especially with this Gospel: Lampe, Com. Analytico- 
Exegeticus, 3 vols., 4to, Amstel., 1724, an inexhaustible mine. More recent com- 
mentaries are those of Liicke, 1820-24; Tholuck, 1827 [translated in Clark’s F. T. 
Lib., 1860]; Meyer, 1834 [translated 1875], edited by Weiss, 1893; Luthardt, 
1852-3 [translated in Clark’s F. T. Lib., 1876], Alford, 1849; 4th edition, 1859; 
Godet, 1864-5 [translated in Clark’s F. T. L., 1876-7], Westcott, 1882; Reith, in 
Clark’s Hand-books for Bible-classes ; Whitelaw, 1888; Reynolds, in Pulpit Com., 
1888; Watkins, in Ellicott’s Com., n. d.; Holtzmann, in Hand-commentar, 1890; 
Plummer, in Cambridge Greek Testament, 1893. In Oscar Holtzmann’s Das 
Fohannesevangelium untersucht und evkldrt, 1887, there are a hundred pages of 
commentary. 





ABs 


TO KATA 


IQOANNHN 


ATION EYATTEAION.} 


I. 1. *"Ev dpxq wv 6 Adyos, Kal 6 Adyos Fv “mpds Tov Oedy, Kala Gen it. 


*@eds HY 6 Adyos. 


bi Jo.i.2. Prov. viii. 30. 


2. oUTOS HY €v apy pds Tov Ocdv. 


c xx. 28; 


1 J0.i,1,2. 
3. ~ Mdvra_ Ch. xvii. 
dv.17. CoLiz6. Heb.i.e 


x. 30. Phil. ii. 6. 


lara lwavvyy in S$ abeq; xara lwavyy in B; evayyeAtov kata lwavyyy in 


ACEFG ; T-.R. in minusc. 


CHAPTER I,—Vv. 1-18. The prologue. 
The first eighteen verses contain a 
preface, or as it is usually called, the 
prologue to the Gospel. In this prologue 
the writer identifies the person, Jesus 
Christ, whom he is about to introduce 
on the field of history, with the Logos. 
He first describes the Logos in His 
relation to God and to the world, and 
then presents in abstract the history of 
His reception among men, which he is 
about to give in detail. That the Eternal 
Divine Word, -in whom was the life of 
all things, became flesh and was 
manifested among men; that some 
ignored while others recognised Him ; 
that some received while others rejected 
Him—that is what John means to ex- 
hibit in detail in his Gospel, and this is 
what he summarily states in this pro- 
logue. 

The prologue may be divided thus: 
Vv. 1-5, The Logos described ; vv. 6-13, 
The historic manifestation of the Logos 
and its results in evoking faith and un- 
belief; vv. 14-18, This manifestation 
more precisely defined as incarnation, 
with another aspect of its results. Cf. 
Westcott’s suggestive division; and 
especially Falconer in Expositor, 1897. 

Vv. 1-5. The Logos described. The 
first five verses describe the pre-existence, 
the nature, the creative power of the 
Logos, who in the succeeding verses is 
spoken of as entering the world, becom- 
ing man, and revealing the Father; and 
this devcription is given in order that we 
may at tmce grasp a continuous history 


which runs out of an unmeasured past, 
and the identity of the person who is the 
subject of that history. 

Ver. 1. _ In the first verse three things 
are stated regarding the Logos, the 
subject 6 Adyos being repeated for im- 
pressiveness. Westcott remarks that 
these three clauses answer to the three 
great moments of the Incarnation de- 
clared in ver. 14. He who was (qy) in 
the beginning, beca (Eyivero} in time; 
He who was with God, tabernacled 


Sn a a nner aio 


among men; He who was God, became 
flesh. 


(1) év Gpxq jv 6 Adyos. ev apyxqG is 
here used relatively to creation, as in 
Gen. i. 1 and Prov. viii. 23, €v apyq mpd 
+oU Thy yyv worqoat; cf. I John i. 1. 
Consequently even in the time of 
Theophylact it was argued that this 
clause only asserts that the Logos was 
older than Adam. But this is to over- 
look the mv. The Logos did not then 
begin to be, but at that point at which 
all else began to be He already was. In 
the beginning, place it where you may, 
the Word already existed. In other 
words, the Logos is before time, eternal. 
Cf. Col. i. 18 (the article is absent 
because év @py7q is virtually an adverbial 
expression).—6 Adyos. The term Logos 
appears as early as Heraclitus to denote 
the principle which maintains order in 
the world (see passages in Ritter and 
Preller), Among the Stoics the word 
was similarly used, as the equivalent of 
the anima mundi (cf. Virgil, Z4n., vi., 
724). Marcus Aurelius (iv. 14-21) uses 


684 


KATA IQANNHN 


L 


ev.at; xi 8’ adrod éyévero, Kat xwpis aitod éyévero obSé ey, 8 ida baie 
txil’ 36. 25 4. év aba “hor jv.? Kal } Loh Hy Td pds tay dvOpdrwy, 5. Kat Td 


times in 
ohn 
lsewhere 

only in Mt. x. a7. Lk. xii. 3. 


pads ev TH oxoria paiva, kal 4 ‘oxoria adtd ob KaréhaBer. 


1 Almost all ante-Nicene Fathers join o yeyovey to ver. 4 with AC*DG*L. Chry- 


sostom declares this reading heretical and argues against it. 


C8EG*HK vet. Lat. Brixianus. 
2 qv in ABCL, vulg.; extw in ND vet. 


the term omeppatikds Adyos to express 
the generative principle or creative force 
in nature. The term was familiar to 
Greek philosophy. In Hebrew thought 
there was felt the need for some term to 
express God, not in His absolute being, 
but in His manifestation and active con- 
nection with the world. In the O. T. 
“the Angel of the Lord” and ‘the 
wisdom of God” are used for this pur- 
pose. In the Apocryphal books and the 
Targums “the word of Jehovah” is 
similarly used. These two streams of 
thought were combined by Philo, who 
has a fairly full and explicit doctrine of 
the Logos as the expression of God or 
God in expression (see Drummond’s 


Philo; Siegfried’s Philo; Reville, 
Doctrine du Logos; Bigg’s Bampton 
Lec.; Hatch’s Hibbert Lec.). The word 


being thus already in use and aiding 
thoughtful men in their efforts to con- 
ceive God’s connection with the world, 
John takes it and uses it to denote the 
Revealer of the incomprehensible and 
invisible God. Irrespective of all specu- 
lations which had gathered around the 
term, John now proceeds to make known 
the true nature of the Logos. (Cf. The 
Primal Will, or Universal Reason of the 
Babis ; Sell’s Faith of Islam, 146.) 

(2) If the Word was thus in the 
beginning, what relation did He hold to 
God? Was He identical or opposed ? 


6 Adyos Hv wpds Tov Gedy. mpds implies 
not merely existence alongude of bit 
personal intercourse. _It means more 
than’ pera or amapd, and _ is regularly 
employed in in expressing the presence of 


oné person with another. Thus in 
classical Greek, rhy pds Zwxpatny 


ovvovciay, and in N. T. Mk. vi. 3, Mt. 
xiii. 56, Mk. ix. 19, Gal. i. 18, 2 John 12. 


This preposition implies intercourse and 


therefore separate _ personality. As 
Chrysostom says: ‘Not in God but 
“wit C God, as person with person, 
eternally”. 


(3) The ‘Word is distinguishable from 
God and yet Seds jv 6 Verte the Word 


T.R. is found in 


Lat., arising out of above punctuation. 


was God, of Divine nature; not ‘‘a 
God,” which to a Jewish ear would have 
been abominable; nor yet identical with 
all that can be called God, for then the 
article would have been inserted (cf. 
1 John iii. 4). ‘The Christian doctrine 
of the Trinity was perhaps before any- 
thing else an effort to express how Jesus 
Christ was God (eds) and yet in another 
sense was not God (6 #eéds), that is to 
say, was not the whole Godhead.’’ Con- 
sult Du Bose’s Ecumenical Councils, p. 
70-73. Luther says ‘‘the Word was 
God” is against Arius: ‘‘ the Word was 
with God ”’ against Sabellius. 

Ver. 2. otros qv ev apy mpds Tov 
Gedy. Not a mere repetition of what has 
been said in ver. 1. There John has 
said that the Word was in the beginning 
and also that He was with God: here he 
indicates that these two characteristics 
existed contemporaneously. ‘“‘ He was 
in the beginning with God.” He wishes 
also to emphasise this in view of what he 
is about to tell. In the beginning He 
was with God, afterwards, in time, He 
came to be with man. His pristine con- 
dition must first be grasped, if the grace 
of what succeeds is to be understood. 

Ver. 3. Mavra 8’ avrot éyévero. The 
connection is obvious: the Word was 
with God in the beginning, but not as 
an idle, inefficacious existence, who only 
then for the first time put forth energy 
when He came into the world. On the 
contrary, He was the source of all 
activity and life. ‘All things were 
made by Him, and without Him was 
‘not even one thing made which was 
e. 

The double sentence, positive and 
negative, is characteristic of John and 
lends emphasis to the statement.— 
mavra, “grande verbum quo mundus, 
i.é., UMiversitas rerum factarum de- 
notatur ”’ (Bengel). The more accurate 
expression for “all things” taken as a 
whole and not severally is Ta wavTa 
(Col. i. 16) or tO wav; and, as the 
negative clause of this verse indicates, 


, 
4 
_ 


4-7: 


EYATTEAION 


685 


6. "Eyévero dvOpwros dmeotahpévos apd Gcod, ®dvoua attd g Cp. Gen. 


*"lwdvyns.} 


7. obtos HAOev eis paptupiay, va paptupyoy “mept Tod i.s. 


xi. 29. Lk. 


A 


x h paprup. 
wept freq. in Jo., not elsewhere in N. T. 


1 eavns in Tr.W.H., here and at every recurrence of the name, 


created things are here looked at in their 
variety and multiplicity. Cf. Marcus 
Aurelius, iv. 23, & dvots, ék cod wavra, 
év ool wavra, els oe mavTa.—& atTov. 
The Word was the Agent in creation, 
But it is to be observed that the same 
preposition is used of God in the same 
connection in Rom. xi. 36, Sti é& avrovd 
xal 3.’ aitod cai eis avTov Ta WdavtTa; 
and in Col. i. 16 the same writer uses the 
same prepositions not of the Father but 
of the Son when he says: ra wavra 8 
avrov kal cis avtov éxtictar. In x Cor. 
viii. 6 Paul distinguishes between the 
Father as the primal source of all things 
and the Son as the actual Creator. (In 
Greek philosophy the problem was to 
ascertain by whom, of what, and in view 
of what the world was made; wd’ ot, ef 
ov, mpds & And Liicke quotes a signifi- 
cant sentence from Philo (De Cherub., 
35): evpyjoets airiov pev aitod (Tov 
Koopov) Tov Gedv, Ud’ ob yéyovev> bAny 
8 ta téscapa ororyeia, @& Gv ovv- 
expa0y* Spyavov S€ Adyoy Oeov 81’ od 
KkaTeoKevac On *) 

Ver. 4. év avT@ {wn Fy. ‘In Him was 
life’; that power which creates life and 
maintains all else in existence was in the 
Logos. To limit ‘life’ here to any 
particular form of life is rendered im- 
possible by ver. 3. In John {wy is 
generally eternal or spiritual life, but 
here it is more comprehensive. In the 
Logos was life, and it is of this life all 
things have partaken and by it they 
exist. Cf. Philo’s designation of the 
Logos as wnyy fwis.—xal 4 lwt fv 7d 
$Gs Tav avOpdmeyv, ‘and the life was 
the light of men”; the life which was 


the fountain of existence to all things 
was esecay the light of man 7Licke). 
t was not the Ogos irectly but_the 
ife which was in the Logos which was 
the light of men. O. Holtzmann thinks 
this only means that as men received 
life from the Logos they might be ex- 


pected in the gift to recognise the Giver. 
Godet says: 


“The Lo is light; but 

it is through the mediation of life that 
e must become so always; this is 
precisely the relation which the Gospel 
restores. , We recover through the new 
creati in i n_inn ight 


_creation in Jesus Christ an inner ligh 
which springs up from the life.’”” Stevens 


says: ‘‘The Word represents the self- 
manifesting quality of the Divine life. 
This heavenly light shines in the dark- 
ness of the world’s ignorance and sin.” 
The words seem to mean that the life 
which appears in the variety, harmony, 
and progress of inanimate nature, and 
in the wonderfully manifold yet related 
forms of animate existence, appears in 
man as ‘‘light,” intellectual and moral 
light, reason and conscience. To the 
Logos men may address the words of 
Ps. xxxvi. 9, Tapa col tHyy Cwis, év TO 
gett cov ddpe0a has.—Ver. 5. kat 
7d Gs év TH oKoTtia datver, ‘and the 
light shineth in the darkness”. Three 
interpretations are possible. The words 
may refer to the incarnate, or to the pre- 
incarnate experience of the Logos, or to 
both. Holtzmann and Weiss both con- 
sider the clause refers to the incarnate 
condition (cf. 1 John ii. 8). De Wette 
refers it to the pre-incarnate operation 
of the Logos in the O. T. prophets. 
Meyer and others interpret ¢aiver as 
meaning ‘present, 7.¢., uninterruptedly 
from the beginning until now”. The 
use of the aorist xaté\aBev seems to 
make the first interpretation impossible ; 
while the second is obviously too 
restricted. What ‘shining ’”’ is meant ? 
This also must not be limited to O. T. 


prophecy or revelation but to the light of 
conscience and reason (cf, ver. 4).—év TH 


oKorig, in the darkness which existed 


wherever the light of the Logos was not 
admitted. Darkness, oxétos or oKoria, 
was the expression naturally used by 
secular Greek writers to describe the 
world’s condition. Thus Lucian: év 
oxéT» Thavwpévors mwavres éoixapev. 
Cf. Lucretius: 

‘‘ Qualibus in tenebris vitae, quantisque 

periclis, 

Degitur hoc aevi quodcunque est ”’. 
Kal 4 oKotia ato ov KatéAaBev. The 
A. Y. renders this ‘‘and the darkness 
comprehended it not”; the R. V. has 
“apprehended” and in the margin 
‘‘overcame’’, The Greek interpreters 
understood the clause to mean that the 
darkness did not conquer the light. 
Thus Theophylact says: } oxotia.. . 
ediwke TO das, GAN’ ctpey dkatapaxyrov 
Kal aytTyTov. Some modern interpreters, 


686 


portis, va tdvtes moredowor 8’ adrod. 
GAN iva paptupioy Tept TOO dwrds. 


and especially Westcott, adopt this 
rendering. ‘‘ The whole phrase is indeed 
a startling paradox. The light does not 
banish the darkness: the darkness does 
not overpower the light.” This render- 
ing is supposed to find support in chap. 
xii. 35, where Christ says, ‘‘ Walk while 
ye have the light,” tva py oxorla tpas 
katahaBy; and xaradapBavew is the 
word commonly used to denote day or 
night overtaking any one (see Wetstein). 
But the radical meaning is ‘‘to seize,” 
“to take possession of,” ‘‘to lay hold 
of’’; so in Rom, ix. 30, 1 Cor. ix. 24, 
Phil. iii. r2. It is also used of mental 
perception, as in the Phaedrus, p. 250, D. 
See also Polybius, iii. 32, 4, and viii. 4, 6, 
Svoxepis katadafeiv, difficult to under- 
stand. This sense is more congruous in 
this passage; especially when we com- 
pare ver. 10 (6 Kécpos avrév otk Eyva) 
and ver. 11 (of {8101 adtév od wapéAaBoy). 

Vv. 6-13. The historic manifestation 
of the Logos and its results—Ver. 6. In 
this verse John passes to the historical ; 
and like the other evangelists begins 
with the Baptist. So Theodore Mops: 
peteAnrAvOas éwl thy émipdveray tow 
viov, tiva av etpev apyyv étépay 7 Ta 
Kata Tov lwavyny ;—éyeveto avOpwrros, 
“not there was (chap. iii. 1), but denot- 
ing the appearing, the historical mani- 
festation,” Meyer. Cf. Lk. i. 5. The 
testimony of John is introduced not only 
as a historical note but in order to bring 
out the aggravated blindness of those 
who rejected Christ. This man was 
ameotahpévos tapa Geov. Holtzmann 
says ‘an historical appearance is 
characterised as Godsent”. It might 
rather be said that an historical appear- 
ance sent to fulfil a definite Divine pur- 
pose is so characterised. There is no 
designation our Lord more frequently 
applies to Himself. In the prayer of 
chap. xvii. some equivalent occurs six 
times. And in the epistle to the Hebrews 
He is called ‘‘the Apostle of our con- 
fession”. No distinguishing title is 
added to the common name “ John”. 
Westcott says: “If the writer of the 
Gospel were himself the other John of 
the Gospel history, it is perfectly natural 
that he should think of the Baptist, 
apart from himself, as John only”. 
Watkins says: ‘‘ The writer stood to 
him in the relation of disciple to teacher. 
To him he was the John.” Afterwards 
the disciple became the John.—Ver. 7. 


KATA IQANNHN L 


8. obx Fy éxeivos 1d das, 
9. jv Td pds 1d adnOuvdv, 8 


otros AOev els paprupiav... & 
aitov. ‘ The same (or, this man) came 
for witness,” etc. ‘John’s mission is 
first set forth under its generic aspect: 
he came for witness; and then its 
specific object (tva papr. mept 7. .) and 
its final object (tva wavr. mio.) are de- 
fined co-ordinately,” Westcott. John 
was not to do a great work of his own 
but to point to another. All his ex- 
perience, zeal, and influence were to be 
spent in testifying to the true Light, 
This he was to do “that all might be- 
lieve through him”. The whole of this 
Gospel is a citing. of witnesses, but 
John’s comes first and is of most import- 
ance. At first sight it might seem that 
his mission had failed. All did not 
believe. No; but all who did believe, 
speaking generally, believed through 
him. The first disciples won by Jesus 
were of John’s training; and through 
them belief has become general.—Ver. 
8. otk Tv éxeivos... dwrtds, the 
thought of the previous verse is here put 
in a negative form for the sake of 
emphasis; and with the same object 
ovx jv is made prominent that it may 
contrast with the tva paptupyoy. He 
(or, that man) was not the light, but he 
appeared that he might bear witness 
regarding the light. Why say this of 
John? Was there any-danger that he 
should be mistaken for the light ? Some 
did think he was the Christ. See vv. 19, 
20.—Ver. 9. Fv Td das... els Tov 
kdcpov. wv stands first in contrast 
to the ov jy of ver. 8. The light was 
not... : the light was... In this 
verse the light is also further contrasted 
with John. The Baptist was himself a 
light (ver. 35) but not 76 das TO GAnOtvdv. 
This designation occurs nine times in 
John, never in the Synoptists. It means 
that which corresponds to the ideal; 
true not as opposed to false, but to 
symbolical or imperfect. The light is 
further characterised as 6 dwrifer wavra 
Gv@pwrov. This is the text on which 
the Quakers found for their doctrine that 
every man has a day of visitation and 
that to every man God gives sufficient 
grace. Barclay in his Apology says: 
“This place doth so clearly favour us 
that by some it is called ‘the Quakers’ 
text,’ for it doth evidently demonstrate 
our assertion”’. It was also much used 
by the Greek Fathers, who believed that 
the Logos guided the heathen in their 








8—11. 


bwrile. mdvra avOpwwov épxdpevov cis tov Kdopoy. 


EYATTEAION 


687 


10. éy ti xvii. 25; 1 
Cor. i. a1. 


Kdcpw Tv, Kal 6 Kdapos 8 adtod éyévero, ‘kal 6 Kédcpos adtov obK j Acts xxiv. 


éyyw. IF. cig Ta idta AOE, Kal Vol 


philosophical researches (see Justin’s 
Dial., ii., etc., and Clement, passim).— 
épxopevov has been variously construed, 
with @v@pwmov, with To das, or with Fy. 
(1) The first construction is favoured by 
Chrysostom, Euthymius, the Vulgate, 
and A. V., “that was the true light 
which lighteth every man that cometh 
into the world”; or with Meyer, ‘the 
true light which lightens every man 
coming into the world was present” (qv 
= aderat). To the objection that épyép. 
. -- kégpov is thus redundant, Meyer 
replies that there is such a thing as a 
solemn redundance, and that we have 
here an “epic fulness of words”. But the 
““epic fulness” is here out of place, 
emphasising wavta Gv@pwrov. Besides, 
in this Gospel, ‘‘ coming into the world” 
is not used of human birth, but of 
appearance in one’s place among men. 
And still further épxémevoy of this verse 
is obviously in contrast with the év r@ 
xdopw Hv of the next, and the subject of 
both clauses must be the same. (2) The 
second construction, with +d $s, was 
advocated by Grotius (‘valde mihi se 
probat expositio quae apud Cyrillum et 
Augustinum exstat, ut hoc épxdpevov 
referatur ad 7d o@s,” cf. iii. 19, xii. 46, 
Xviii. 37), and has been adopted by Godet, 
who renders thus: ‘(That light) was 
the true light which lighteth every man, 
by coming (itself) into the world”. If 
this were John’s meaning, it is difficult 
to see why he did not insert otros as in 
. the second verse or tovro. (3) The third 
construction, with qv, has much to recom- 
mend it, and has been adopted by West- 
cott, Holtzmann, and others. The R. V. 
margin renders as if qv épxdpevov were 
the periphrastic imperfect commonly 
used in N. T., “ the true light which en- 
lighteneth every man was coming into 
the world,” z.2., at the time when the 
Baptist was witnessing, the true light 
was dawning on the world. Westcott, 
however, thinks it best to take it ‘‘ more 
literally and yet more generally as 
describing a coming which was pro- 
gressive, slowly accomplished, combined 
with a permanent being, so that both the 
verb (was) and the participle (coming) 
have their full force and do not forma 
periphrasis for an imperfect’. And 
he translates: ‘‘ There was the light, 
the true light which lighteth every man; 


> 23: 
itor adtdv od * wapéAaBov. k Col. ii. 6 


that light was, and yet more, that light 
was coming into the world ”’.—Ver. ro. 
év T@ Kogpw .. . otK Eyvw. Vv. ro and 
11 briefly summarise what happened 
when the Logos, the Light, came into 
the world. John has said: “ The Light 
was coming into the world’’; take now 
a further step, év t@ kéope jy, and let 
us see what happened. Primarily rejec- 
tion. The simplicity of the statement, 
the thrice repeated kdéopos, and the con- 
necting of the clauses by a mere xai, 
deepens the pathos. The Logos is the 
subject, as is shown by both the second 
and the third clause. 

Westcott thinks that the action of the 
Light which has been comprehensively 
viewed in ver. 9 is in vv. 10, 11 divided 
into two parts. ‘‘The first part (ver. 10) 
gathers up the facts and issues of the 
manifestation of the Light as immanent. 
The second part (ver. 11) contains an 
account of the special personal manifesta- 
tion of the Light to a chosen race.” 
That is possible; only the obvious ad- 
vance from the épyo,evoy of ver. g to the 
jv of ver. 10 is thus obscured. Certainly 
Westcott goes too far when he says: 
“Tt is impossible to refer these words 
simply to the historical.presence of the 
Word in Jesus as witnessed to by the 
Baptist”. 

Ver. 11. els 7a tia HAGev, “‘ He came 
to His own”. In the world of men was 
an inner circle which John calls ra t&a, 
His own home. (For the meaning of 
va idia cf. xix. 27, xvi. 32, Acts xxi. 6, 
3 Macc, iv. 27-37, Esther v. 10, Polybius, 
Hist., ii. 57, 5.) Perhaps in this place 
“His own property”? might give the 
sense as accurately. Israel is certainly 
signified; the people and all their in- 
stitutions existed only for Him. (See 
Exod. xix. 5, Deut. vii. 6, ‘‘The Lord 
thy God hath chosen thee to be a special 
people, a peculium, unto Himself”? ; also 
Mt. xxi. 33.)—oi t8s01, those of His own 
home (His intimates, cf, xiii. 1), those who 
belonged to Him, airov ob wapéAaBoy 
‘‘gave Him no reception”. The word 
is used of welcoming to a home, as in 
xiv. 3, waAw €pxopat kat wapadyppopas 
Upas mpos évavtdv. Even those whose 
whole history had been a training to 
know and receive Him rejected Him. 
It is not said of ‘ His own” that they 
did not ‘know ’”’ Him, but that they did 


Iv. 43. 
@ ii. 23; < 

18. : yevéoOar, trois “matesouow 
mn tii.5. Jas. . 

i.18.° aipdtwy, odS€ éx OeAypartos 
oWith ¢ 


Mtis,6,4AX' éx @eod * éyevvij9nvar. 
16. Ch, iii. 
5.6. 1 Jo. passim. 


not receive Him. And in the parable of 
the Wicked Husbandmen our Lord re- 
presents them as killing the heir not in 
ignorance but because they knew him. 
—Ver. 12. But not all rejected Him. 
Boor $2 EaBov . . . Svopa adtov. Sot, 
as many as, as if they were a countable 
number (Holtzmann), or, rather, suggest- 
ing the individuality of exceptional action 
on the part of those who received Him. 
—Swxev aitois, to them (resuming 
800. by a common construction) He 
gave éfovclav, not equivalent to Svvapis, 
the inward capacity, nor just equivalent 
to saying that He made them sons of 
God, but He gave them title, warrant, or 
authorisation, carrying with it all needed 
powers. Cf. v. 27, x. 18, xix. ro, Lk. 
ix. i., Mk. vi. 7, where éfovota includes 
and implies Svvopis.—tékva Qe0v 
yevéoGat, to become children of God. 
Weiss (Bibl. Theol., § 150) says: “To 
those who accept Him by faith Christ 
has given not sonship itself, but the 
ower to become sons of God; the last 
nt Wighest realisation of This Tdeat—a 
“realisation for the present fathomiless, 
“tes only in the future constmmation . 
“Rather with Stevens" To Deneve ahd 
to be begotten of God are two insepar- 
able aspects of the same event or 
process” (¥ohan. Theol., p. 251). John 
uses téxva rather than the Pauline viots 
vt. 6., because Paul’s view of sonship 
was governed by the Roman legal 
process of adopting a son who was not 
one’s own child: while John’s view is 
mystical and physical, the begetting of a 
child by the communication of the very 
life of God (x John, passim). This dis- 
tinction underlies the characteristic use 
of vids by the one writer and téxvov by the 
other (cf. Westcott, Epistles of St. Fohn, 
p- 123). By the reception of Christ as 
the Incarnate Logos we are enabled to 
recognise God as our Father and to 
come into the closest possible relation to 
Him. Those who thus receive Him are 
further identified as tots miotevovcty 
eig TO Gvopa.avTov, “ those who believe 
(believers, present participle) in His 
name”’.—movevety efg tia is the 
favourite construction with John, and 
emphasises the object on which the 


or ranerbtes 5 


KATA TQANNHN 1. 


12. Scot 82 'ZaBov adriv, ESwxev adroig efouclar réxva Ocoi 


eis Td Gvouna attod* 13. ot odx eg 
Gapkos, ovde ex *Oedijpatos drdpds, 


faith rests. Here that object is 73 Svopa 
avtov, the sum of all characteristic 
qualities which attach to the bearer of 
the name: ‘“ quippe qui credant esse 
eum id ipsum, quod nomen declarat” 
(Holtzmann). It is impossible to identify 
this ‘‘name” with the Logos, because 
Jesus never proclaimed Himself under 
this name. Other definite names, such 
as Son of God or Messiah, can here only 
be proleptic, and it is probably better to 
leave it indefinite, and understand it ina 
general sense of those who believed in 
the self-manifestation of Christ, and 
were characterised by that belief.—Ver. 
13. ot ovx éEaipatwy . . . éyevyiPqrav. 
This first mention of réxva 603 suggests 
the need of further defining how these 
children of God are produced. The ex 
denotes the source of the relationship. 
First he negatives certain ordinary 
causes of birth, not so much because 
they could be supposed in connection 
with children of God (although thoughts 
of hereditary rights might arise in Jewish 
minds) as for the sake of emphasising 
by contrast the true source.—ov« éé 
Giudatwy; that is, not by ordinary 
physical generation. aipa was com- 
monly used to denote descent; Acts 
xvii. 26, Odys. iv. 611, aiparos els 
a@yaGoro. This is rather a Greek than a 
Hebrew expression. The plural atpdrev 
has given rise to many conjectural ex- 
planations; and the idea currently re- 
ceived is that it suggests the constituent 
parts of which the blood is composed 
(Godet, Meyer). Westcott says: ‘“ The 
use of the plural appears to emphasise 
the idea of the element out of which in 
various measures the body is formed”. 
Both explanations are doubtful. The 
plural is used very commonly in the 
Sept., 2 Sam. xvi. 8, avnp atpatrev ov; 
Ps. xxv. 9, peta GvSpov aipdtrwv; 2 
Chron. xxiv. 25, etc.; and especially 
where much slaughter or grievous murder 
is spoken of. Cf. Eurip., [ph. in Taur., 
73. It occurs in connection with descent 
in Eurip., Ion., 693, GAAwy tpadels éf 
aipatwy (Liicke), The reason of John’s 
preference for the plural in this place is 
not obvious; he may perhaps have 
wished to indicate that gil tamily 


—— ta Gus ia a ee 


BSHPres rere rp sp = a 





12—14. 


14. Kat & ddyos Podpé éyéveto, x 


EYATTEAION 


689 


US éoxy é iv, Tim. iti, 
a oxjvwcey évy tyty (xal p13 m. il. 


* Beacdpeba thy Sdfay adtod, Sdgav * ds povoyevods *wapd matpds), ii. 14. 


wArpys xdpitos Kai " dAnOelas. 


59; xxi.3,etc. rijJoi£ix. 


histories and pedigrees were here of no 
account, no matter how many illustrious 
ancestors a man could reckon, no matter 
what bloods united to produce him.— 
ovde . . . dvdpos. The combination of 
these clauses by ov8é . . . ovSe and not 
by ovre . . . ovre excludes all interpre- 
tations which understand these two 
clauses as subdivisions of the foregoing. 
ovSé adds negation to negation: ovre 
divides a single negation into parts (see 
Winer, p. 612). ‘‘ Nor of the will of the 
flesh,” z.e., not_as the resuit of sexua 


instinct; ‘(nor of the will of a man,” 
t.e., not the product of human purpose 
(‘Fortschritt von Stof zum Naturtrieb 
und zum personlichen Thun,” Holtz- 
mann). Cf. Delitzsch, Brbl. Psych., p. 
290, note E, Tr.—aaAd’ é« beod éyevv7- 


@naav. The source of regeneration 
positively stated. Human will is re- 


pudiated as the source of the new birth, 
but as in physical birth the life of the 
child is at once manifested, so in spiritual 
birth the human will first manifests re- 
generation. 
birth the o 


spiritual as in physical 
ation 1s trom without 


not frorm ourselves; but just because 
| our oe birth 1s spiritual the will 
| must take its part in it. Nothing is 
spiritual into Eich the will d t 


Pp oes no 


| enter. 
“Wy. 14-18. The manifestation of the 
Logos defined as Incarnation.—Ver. 14. 
kal 6 Adyos oapé éyevero, ‘and the Word 
became flesh”. This is not a mere 
repetition. John has told us that the 
Logos came into the world, but now he 
| emphasises the actual mode of His 
| coming and the character of the revela- 
| tion thus made, kat ‘‘ simply carrying 
| forward the discourse”’ (Meyer) and 
| now introducing the chief statement 
|} (Luthardt). It is this great statement to 
which the whole prologue has been 
} directed; and accordingly he names 
again the great Being to whom he at 
first introduced us but whom he has not 
named since the first verse. As forcibly 
tas possible does he put the contrast 
} between the prior and the subsequent 
}conditions, 6 Adyos wap— éyévero; he 
fdoes not even say Gv@pwios but odpé. 
He wishes both to emphasise the interval 
jerossed, Adyos, odap—; and to direct 





q Zech. ii. 
10, 11. 
Rev. vii, 


s Mt. vii. a9. tvi. 45; =. 18; xv. 26. U iv. 24. 


attention to the visibility of the mani- 
festation. Cf. 1 Tim. iii, 16, idavepidn 
év gapkl; 1 John iv. 2, dv capxl 
dAnAvOds; also Heb. ii. 14. “Flesh 
expresses here human nature as a whole 
regarded under the aspect of its present 
corporal embodiment, including of 
necessity the ‘soul’ (xii. 27) and the 
‘ spirit ’ (xi. 33, xiii. 21) as belonging to 
the totality of man’’ (Westcott). The 
copula is éyévero, and what precisely this 
word covers has been the problem of 
theology ever since the Gospel was 
written, The Logos did not become 
flesh in the sense that He was turned 
into flesh or ceased to be what He was 
before; as a boy who becomes a man 
ceases to be a boy. By his use of the 
word éxévwoev in connection with the 
incarnation Paul intimates that some- 
thing was left behind when human 
nature was assumed; but in any case 
this was not the Divine essence nor the 
personality. The virtue of the incarna- 
tion clearly consists in this, that the very 
Logos became man, The Logos, retain-. 
ing is personal identity, “became” man 
so as to live as man.—kal éoxjvwoe 
év mtv, “and tabernacled among us’’; 
not only appeared in the flesh for a brief 
space, manifesting Himself as a Being 
apart from men and superior to human 
conditions, but dwelt among us (‘‘ non 
tantum momento uno apparuisse, sed 
versatum esse inter homines,” Calvin). 
The “tent,” oxynvy, suggests no doubt 
temporary occupation, but not more 
temporary than human life. Cf. 2 Cor. 
v. I, 2 Pet. i. 13. And both in classical 
and N.T. Greek oxnvovv had taken the 
meaning “ dwell,” whether for a long or 
a short time. Cf. Rev. vii. 15, xii. 12, 
and Raphel, Annot. in loc. From the use 
of the word in Xenophon to denote living 
together and eating together Brentius 
would interpret ina fullersense: ‘ Filius 
ille Dei carne indutus, inter nos homines 
vixit, nobiscum locutus est, nobiscum 
convivatus est”. But the association in 
John’s mind was of course not military, 
but was rather with the Divine taber- 
nacle in the wilderness, when Jehovah 


tents of His people, and shared even in 
their_thirty-eight years of punishment. 


ad 


690 


v ver. 7. 
w Const 


30. A > 
x Col.i.xo, Ste MpOtds prou Hr’. 


1 T.R. in NcbAB'DL, etc. ; ovros nv o evrrwy, as a parenthesis, in NaB*C*. 
2T.R. in AC8EF; ore in NBC*DL 33. 


Whether there is an allusion to the 
TT3"DW has been doubted, but it is 


probable. The Shekinah meant the 
token of God’s presence and glory, 
and among the later Jews at all events 
it was supposed to be present not only 
in the temple but with individuals. See 
Schoettgen in loc. and Weber, Die 
Lehren des Talmud, § 39. What the 
tabernacle had been, the dwelling of God 
in the midst of the people, the humanity 
of the Logos now was.—kai éBeaodpeba 
Thy Sétav ai’Tov, we, among whom He 
lived, beheld by our own personal ob- 
servation the glory of the incarnate 
Logos. ‘ Beheld,” neither, on the one 
hand, only by spiritual contemplation 
(Baur), nor, on the other, merely with the 
bodily eye, by which the glory could not be 
seen. This ‘‘ beholding” John treasured 
as the wealth and joy of his life. The 


‘‘olory ”’ they saw was not like thec 

or dazzlin 

manifested His glory in ient 

tabernacle. It was no ical 
ory, a glor f personality an 

character, manifestin f in human 

conditions. j j in 


unique, S6fav ds povoyevols Tapa 7raTpés, 
“a glory as of an only begotten from a 
father”.—@s introduces an illustrative 
comparison, as is indicated by the 
anarthrous povoyevots. Holtzmann ex- 
pands thus: ‘‘ The impression which the 
glory made was of so specific a character 
that it could be taken for nothing less 
than such a glory as an only son has 
from a father, that is, as the only one of 
its kind; for besides the povoyevys a 
father has no other sons”’. But the ex- 
pression is no doubt suggested by the 
‘immediately preceding statement that as 
many as received Christ were born of 
God. The glory of the Incarnate Logos, 
however, is unique, that of an only 
‘begotten. In the connection, therefore, 
the application of the relation of Father 
and Son to God and Christ is close at 
hand and obvious, although not explicitly 
made. ‘The thought centres in the 
abstract relation of Father and Son, 
though in the actual connection this 


KATA IQANNHN I. 


15. "lwdvyns paptuper ‘rept adtod, kal kéxpaye Aéywv,  Obtos 
viii 55:x.4¥ “Ov elrov,) ‘‘O dmicw pou épxduevos, Eumpoobév pou yéyover 
16. Kat? ék rod *mAnpdpatos adtod tpets 























































abstract relation passes necessarily into 
the relation of the Son to the Father.” 
Westcott.— mapa matpés more naturally. 
follows 8éfav than povoyevots. The 
glory proceeds from the Father and 
dwells in the only begotten wholly, as if 
there were no other children required to 
reflect some rays of the Divine glory. 
Accordingly He is wAjpys. With what 
is mAypyns to be construed? Erasmus 
thinks with *lwavvyns following. Codex 
Bezae reads wAmpy and joins it to 8dgav. 
Many interpreters consider it to be one 
of those slight irregularities such as 
occur in Mk, xii. 40 and Phil. iii. 19 and 
in the Apoc., and would unite it either 
with avrot or povoyevovs. But (pace 
Weiss) there is no good reason why we 
should not accept it as it stands and con- 
strue it in agreement with the nominative 
to éoxyvwoe.—yapitos Kat adnfetas. 
His glory consisted in the moral qualities 
that appeared in Him. What these 
qualities were will appear more readily 
from ver. 17.— Ver. 15. “lwdvyns 
PapTupet . .. wpa@tds pov qv. At first 
sight this verse seems an irrelevant in- 
terpolation thrust in between the wAypys 
of ver. 14 and the wAypwpa of ver. 16. 
Euthymius gives the connection: et kat 
BN éyo, yot, S0K@ tTicw tows aéiomio- 
TOS, GANG Tpd épod 6 “lwdvvys papTupet 
mept THs YedtHTOS aiTod: “lwavyns 
éxeivos oF TO Ovopa péya Kal weptBonTtoy 
Tapa wact tots ‘lovdatois. ‘John 
witnesses and cries, saying otros qv év 
etmov. This was He of whom I said © 
6 émiow pov épxdpevos,”’ etc. This testi- 
mony was given to Andrew and John, ~ 
ver. 30 ; but when the previous “ saying” 
occurred we do not know, unless it be 
referred to the answer to the authorities, — 
ver. 27. The meaning of the testimony ~ 
will be considered in the next section of 
the Gospel, which is entitled ‘‘The — 
Testimony of John’’.—Ver. 16. Ot. é« 
Tov TWAnpapatos . . . xaptTos, ‘because 
out of His fulness have we all received”. _ 
The 8r7t does not continue the Baptist’s 
testimony, but refers to whvjpys in ver. 
14. In Col. ii. 9 Paul says that img 
Christ dwelleth all the mAyjpopa of the — 
Godhead, meaning to repudiate the 


15—18, EYAITEAION 691 


mdvtes é\dBowev kat xdpw 7dvtl xdpitos: 17. Ste & vdpos Bud y Cp. fe. 
> x A vil. Ig. 
Macéws €560n, 7 *xdpis Kal  “GAnVera Sid “Ingod Xprotod eyévero. z Rom. iii 
b Q > ‘ , 2 ‘ eo | A > 24. 
18. ° Gedy oddeis Edpaxe mwwore> 5 povoyevijs ulds,! 6 dy Eis TOV a vill. 98; 
Gikspdexniii aol Heciaa: sili! 3. 


1 Instead of the reading of the T.R., 0 povoyevns vos, several modern editors read 
povoyevns Geos. For the T.R. the authorities are AC*X and some other uncials ; 
of versions the old Latin and the Vulgate, Curetonian Syriac, Armenian and Ethiopic; 
almost all the cursives and the great body of the Fathers—all the Latin Fathers after 
the fourth century. For povoyevns Oeos the uncials SBC*L and cursive 33; the 
Peshito and Harklean Syriac in margin, and the Memphitic; and of the Greek 
Fathers Clement of Alexandria, Valentinus in Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Basil, etc. 
These authorities and the text they witness to have been discussed by the late Dr. 
Hort in his Two Dissertations, and by Ezra Abbot in his Critical Essays, pp. 241-285. 
The MS. authority favours the reading @e0s; while the versions and the Fathers 
weigh rather in the opposite scale. Internal evidence is on the whole in favour of 
the T.R. The reading Qeos is rejected by Scrivener, Wordsworth, McLellan, 
Tischendorf, Meyer, Godet, Liicke, Holtzmann, and Weizsacker. It should be 
noted, as brought out by Ezra Abbot, that the Arians were quite willing to call the 
Son 0 povoyevys Geos, because in their view this appellation happily distinguished 
Him from the Father who alone was God in the highest sense, unbegotten, un- 
caused, and without beginning. 





Gnostic idea that this pleroma was dis- 
tributed among many subordinate beings 


or eons. But what John has here in 
view is that the fulness o ace in 
Christ was communicable to men, By 
qpets wavres he indicates himself and all 
other Christians. He had himself ex- 
perienced the reality of that grace with 
which Christ was filled and its inex- 
haustible character. For he adds kat 
xapiv avtl xdpitos, “grace upon grace”. 
Beza suggests the rendering: (‘ut 
quidam vir eruditus explicat,” he says): 
“ Gratiam supra gratiam; pro quo 
eleganter dixeris, gratiam gratia cumu- 
latam,’”’ but he does not himself adopt it. 
It is, however, adopted by almost all 
modern interpreters: so that ever and 
anon fresh grace appears over and above 
that already received. This rendering, 
as Meyer points out, is linguistically 
justified by Theognis, Sent., 344, avr’ 
Gvi@v avias, Sorrows upon sorrows; and 
it receives remarkable illustration from 
the passage quoted by Wetstein from 
Philo, De Poster. Cain., where, speaking 
of grace, he says that God does not 
allow men to be sated with one grace, 
but gives érépas avr” éxelvwy (the ony 
Kal tpitas dvtt tev Sevtépwv Kal ae 
véas GvtTl madatotépwv. Harnack (Hist. 
of Dogma, i., 76, E. Tr.) asks: ‘“‘ Where 
in the history of mankind can we find 


anything resembling this, that men who means ‘reality ” 


world, as the living power of its existence, 
and that a choir of Jews and Gentiles, 
Greeks and barbarians, wise and foolish, 
should along with them immediately 
confess that out of the fulness of this one 
man they have received grace for grace?’ 
—Ver. 17. Sti 6 vopos . : . éyévero. 
What is the connection? His state- 
ment that the Incarnate Logos was the 
inexhaustible supply of grace might seem 
to disparage Moses and the previous 
manifestations of God. He therefore 
explains. And he seems to have in view 
the same distinction between the old and 
the new that is so frequently emerging 


in the Pauline writings. Through Moses, 
here taken as representing the _pre- 
Christian dispensation, was given th 
‘Taw, which made great demands but 

ave nothing, which was ue _revela- 
‘tion of God's will, and so far was good, 
‘but brought men no ability to become 


liker Gal , But through Jesus Christ 
rst time name 


“(here for the 


in the 
Gospel, because we are now fully on the 
ground of history) came grace and truth. 


In contrast _to_ the inexorable demands 
of a law that ee no ENE a 
esus rist brought ‘ grace,” the un- 
earned favour of God. The Law said: 


o this an 
ives you life, 
was broug 


live; Christ says: God 
accept it. “Truth” also 
y Christ.—ahyOera here 
as opposed to the 


had eaten and drunk with their Master” symbolism of the Law (cf. iv. 23). In 


should glorify Him, not only as the 
Revealer of God, but as the Prince of 
Life, as the Redeemer and Judge of the 


the Law _was a shadow of good things 
to come: in Christ we have the good 


things themselves. Several good critics 


692 


KATA LQANNHN L 


« Deut, xiii. xé\wov ros warpds, exeivos éfnyjoaro. 19. Kal adry éotiv 4 
; paptupia Tod ‘lwdvvou, Ste dméotehay of “loudaio: é& ‘lepoao\dpwr 


iepeis kal Aevitas, tva épwricwow adrdv, “Ed tis ef ;” 


20. Kat 


Spoddynoe, at ox Apyycato* Kal dpoddyynoer, ““Ore odn eipi 


tind a contrast between @868y and 
tyévero; the law being “ given” for a 
special purpose, “grace and truth” 
“coming” in the natural course and as 
the issue of all that had gone before.— 
Ver. 18. @edv ovSeis Edpaxev... 
éEnyyoaro. This statement, ‘God no 
one has ever seen,”’ is probably suggested 
by the words Sa “Incot Xpiorov. The 


reality and the grace of God we have 
seen through Jesus Christ, but why not 
irectly Because God, the Divine 


essence, the Godhead, no one has ever 
seen. No man has had immediate know- 
ledge of God: if we have knowledge of 
God it is through Christ. 

A further description is given of the 
Only Begotten intended to disclose His 
qualification for revealing the Father in 
the words 6 dy eis tov Kddrov Tov 
watpés. Meyer supposes that John is 
now expressing himself from his own 
present standing point, and is conceiving 
of Christ as in His state of exaltation, as 
having returned to the bosom of the 
Father. But in this case the description 
would not be relevant. John adds this 
designation to ground the revealing 
work which Christ accomplished while 
on earth (é&nyyoaro, aorist, referring to 
that work), to prove His qualification for 
it. It must therefore include His con- 
dition previous to incarnation. 6 év is 
therefore a timeless present and els is 
used, asin Mk. xiii. 16, Acts viii. 40, etc., 
for év. els rawxdéAqov, whether taken 
from friends reclining at a feast or from 
a father’s embrace, denotes perfect in- 
timacy. Thus qualified, éxetvos é&ny7- 
ato ‘‘ He” emphatic, He thus equipped, 
‘‘has interpreted’’ what? See viii. 32; 
or simply, as implied in the preceding 
negative clause, ‘‘God”. The Scholiast 
on Soph., Ajax, 320, says, é&yynots él 
Beiwv, Eppnvela él trav tuxdvTwv, Wet- 
stein. 

Ver. 19. With this verse begins the 
Gospel proper or historical narrative of 
the manifestation of the glory of the 
Incarnate Logos, 

Vv. 19-42. The witness of $ohn and 
its result.—Vv. 19-28. The witness of 
John to the deputation from Jerusalem, 
entitled atrn éoriv . . . Aeveitas. The 
witness or testimony of John is placed 
first, not only because it was that which 


influenced the evangelist himself, nor 
only because chronologically it came 
first, but because the Baptist was com- 
missioned to be the herald of the 
Messiah. The Baptist’s testimony was 
of supreme value because of (1) his 
appointment to this function of identify- 
ing the Messiah, (2) his knowledge of 
Jesus, (3) his own holiness, (4) his dis- 
interestedness.—atrn, this which follows, 
is the testimony given on a_ special 
occasion Sre amwéeatethav . . . Aevetras, 
“‘when the Jews sent to him from Jeru- 
salem priests and Levites ”’.—lovdaior 


[orn], originally designating the 


tribes of Judah and Benjamin which 
formed the separate kingdom of Judah, 
but after the exile denoting all Israelites, 
In this Gospel it is used with a hostile 
implication as the designation of the 
“entire theocratic community as summed 
up in its official heads and as historically 
fixed in an attitude of hostility to 
Christ” (Whitelaw). Here “‘ the Jews” 
probably indicates the Sanhedrim, com- 
posed of priests, presbyters, and scribes. 
—tepets kat Aevetras, the higher and 
lower order of temple officials (Holtz- 
mann). Why were not scribes sent? 
Possibly because John’s father was him- 
self a priest. The priests were for the 
most part Sadducees, but John tells us 
this deputation was strong in Pharisees 
(ver. 24). Lampe says: ‘‘ Custodibus 
Templi incumbebat, Dominum Templi, 
cujus adventum exspectabant, nosse”’. 
They were sent tva épwrjcwow aitév, 
‘that they might interrogate him,’’ not 
captiously but for the sake of informa- 
tion. Lk. tells us (iii. 15) that the people 
were on the tiptoe of expectation, and 
were discussing whether John were not 
the Christ ; so it was time the Sanhedrim 
should make the inquiry. ‘‘ The judg- 
ment of the case'of a false prophet is 
specially named in the Mishna as belong- 
ing to the council of the Seventy One” 
(Watkins). ‘ This incident gives a deep 
insight into the extraordinary religious 
life of the Jews—their unusual combina- 
tion of conservatism with progressive 
thought” (Reynolds’ ¥ohn the Baptist, 
Pp. 305).—Zb ths el, ‘Who art thou?” 
Not, what is your name, or birth, but, 
what personage do you claim to be, 








19—23 


éy® 6 Xpiotds.” 
ou;" Kat déye, “Odx ecipi.” 
GarexpiOn, ‘ Ov.” 


A ~ , c ~ , A ~ >» 
SGpev TOLS TepWaow Mas’ TL héyets TEPL GEQUTOU ; 


~ 


Ey® ‘wv Bodytos ev TH 


1T.R. in NACIL; esway in BC*D, 


what place in the community do you 
aspire to?—with an implied reference to 
a possible claim on John’s part to be 
the Christ. This appears from John’s 
answer, @poddyngev Kal ovK Apyicato 
Kal @poddynoev. Schoettgen says the 
form of the sentence is “‘ judaico more,’’ 
citing ‘‘ Jethro confessus, et non mentitus 
est”. Cf. Rom. ix. 1 and 1 Tim. ii. 7. 
The iteration serves here to bring out 
the earnestness, almost horror, with 
which John disclaimed the ascription to 
him of such an honour. His high con- 
ception of the office emphasises his 
acknowledgment of Jesus.—étt, here, as 
commonly, ‘recitative,” serving the 
purpose of our inverted commas or 
marks of quotation.—éy® ov« ecipl 6 
Xpiords, the reading adopted by Tisch. 
and W.H., bringing the emphasis on 
the “I”. ‘J am not the Christ,” but 
another is. The T.R. ove cipl éyo 6 
Xpiords, by bringing the éyo and 6 
Xpistds together, accentuates the in- 
congruity and the Baptist’s surprise at 
being mistaken for the Christ. This 
straightforward denial evokes another 
question (ver. 21), ti o¥v; which Weiss 
renders, ‘‘ What then art thou ?”’ Better 
‘what then?” “‘ what then is the case? ”’ 
quid ergo, quid igitur >—‘H)eias et ov; 
If not the Christ Himself, the next 
possibility was that he was the fore- 
runner of the Messiah, according to Mal. 
iv. 5, ‘‘ Behold, I will send you Elijah 
the prophet before the coming of the 
great and dreadful day of the Lord”. 
[Among the Fathers there seems to have 
been a belief that Elias would appear 
before the second Advent. Thus 
Tertullian (De anima, 50) says: ‘‘ Trans- 
latus est Enoch et Elias, nec mors eorum 
reperta est, dilata scilicet. Caeterum 
morituri reservantur, ut Antichristum 
sanguine suo _ exstinguant.” Other 
references in Lampe.] But to this 
question also John answers ov« elpl, 
because the Jews expected Elias in 
person, so that although our Lord spoke 
of the Baptist as Elias (Mt. xvii. 10-13), 
John could not admit that identity with- 
out misleading them. If people need 


EYATTEAION 


“<*‘O ampopyms et av;” 
22. Etrrov) ody abta, “Tis et; 


693 


21. Kat ipeétnoay adtov, “Te obv, ““HXias ef d Mal. iv. 5. 


Kate Deut. 
xviii. 18. 
iva, * droxprow £ xix. 9. Job 


23. “Eon, XXXili. 9. 


épjpw, Edddvate thy S8dr Kupiou:’g Is. x1. 3. 


to question a great spiritual personality, 
replies in their own language will often 
mislead them. Another alternative pre- 
sented itself: 6 mpodytns et ov; “art 
thou the prophet?” vis., the prophet 
promised in Deut. xviii. 15, ‘‘ The Lord 
thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet 
from the midst of thee, like unto me”’. 
Allusion is made to this prophet in four 
places in this Gospel, the present verse 
and ver. 25 of this chapter; also in vi. 
14 and vii. 40. That the Jews did not 
see in this prophet the Messiah would 
appear from the present verse, and also 
from vil. 40: ‘‘ Some said, Of a truth this 
is the prophet ; others said, This is the 
Christ”. The Jews looked for ‘a faith- 
ful prophet” (1 Macc. xiv. 41) who was 
to terminate the prophetic period and 
usher in the Messianic reign. But after 
Peter, as recorded in Acts iii. 22, applied 
the prophecy of Deut. to Christ, the 
Christian Church adopted this interpre- 
tation. The use of the prophecy by 
Christ Himself justified this. But the 
different interpretations thus introduced 
gave rise to some confusion, and as Light- 
foot points out, none but a Jew contem- 
porary with Christ could so clearly have 
held the distinction between the two in- 
terpretations. (See Deane’s Pseudepig., p. 
121; Wendt’s Teaching of Fesus, E. Tr., 
i, 67; and on the relation of ‘‘the 
prophet”’ to Jeremiah, see Weber, p. 339.) 
To this question also John answered 
‘“No”; ‘‘quia Prophetis omnibus erat 
praestantior” (Lampe). This negation 
is explained by the affirmation of ver. 23. 
Thus baffled in all their suggestions the 
deputies ask John to give them some 
positive account of himself, that they 
might not go back to those who sent 
them without having accomplished the 
object of their mission. To this second 
tls el; ri A€yers epi weavrod; (ver. 23) 
he replies in words made familiar by the 
Synoptists, éy® gwvn Bodvros év TH 
épjpw ... 6 mpodytns; John applies 
to himself the words of Is. xl. 3, blending 
the two clauses érowusdoate thy oddv 
Kuptov and ev@elag moveire Tas tpiBovs 
Tou Qcov Hpay into one: «vOvvaTe Thy 


KATA IQANNHN i 


5 mpopytys.” 24. Kal ot! dmeotahpévor Foow 


dx tOv dapicaiwy: 25. Kal ipdtyooy adtov, Kat elmov adtd, “ Th 


caas elev ‘Hoatas 


obv BarriLers, ei od odn €f 5 Xpioris, ode ‘HAias, ove 5 mpopytys ; 





b Mt. fii, a 26. Amexpi0y adtois 6 ‘lwdvyns Aéywr, “Ey Bamtifw "ev dat: 


Lk. iii. 1 


iMt.xiv.a4.*péoos 8€ Spav éornxer,? dv duets odx oidate. 


, Arare 
constr., 
usually 
infin. or 
gen. 


ag.os J iva Adow adtod Tov tndytTa Tod SaodHpartos.” 


27. abtés éotw 6 


drricw pou épxdpevos, Ss Eumpoobéy pou yéyovey: oF ey odx eipl 


28. Tatra év 


By OaBapa ® éyévero wépay Tob “lopSdvou, Sou Ay ‘lwdvyns BanriLwy. 


1 TLR. in NchA2C%, etc. ; without article in Q*A*BC*. 
* T.R. in ACX, etc. ; ornxet in BL, adopted by W.H.R. 
* Bnbavia in N*ABC*EFG, etc., adopted by Tr.T.W.H.R. 


656v Kupiov. By appropriating this pro- 
phetic description John identifies himself 
as the immediate precursor of the 
Messiah; and probably also hints that 
he himself is no personage worthy that 
inquiry should terminate on him, but 
only a voice. {Heracleon neatly graduates 
revelation, saying that the Saviour is 6 
Adyos, John is gwvy, the whole pro- 
phetic order jxos, a mere noise; for 
which he is with some justice rebuked 
by Origen.] ‘‘ The desert,” a pathless, 
fruitless waste fitly symbolises the 
spiritual condition of the Messiah’s 
people. For the coming of their King 
preparation must be made, especially by 
such repentance as John preached. “If 
Israel repent but for one day, the Messiah 
will come.” Cf. Weber, p. 334.—Ver. 
24. Kal Gwectadpévo. oav ék Tay 
Papioaiwy. This gives us the meaning 
‘* And they had been sent from,’’ which 
is not so congruous with the context as 
‘‘And they who were sent were of the 
Pharisees”; because apparently this 
clause was inserted to explain the follow- 
ing question (ver. 25): tt otv Bamwrifes 

- 6 wpodytyss Founding on Zech. 
xiii. 1, ‘(In that day there shall be a 
fountain opened for sin and for unclean- 
ness,” and on Ezek. xxxvi. 25, ‘‘then 
will I sprinkle clean water upon you,”’ 
they expected a general purification 
before the coming of the Messiah. Hence 
their question. If John was not the 
Messiah, nor the prophet, nor Elias in 
slose connection with the Messiah, why 
did he baptise? Lightfoot (Hor. Heb., 
p. 965) quotes from Kiddushin “ Elias 
venit ad immundos distinguendum et ad 
purificandum’”’. See also Ammonius and 
Beza quoted in Lampe. In reply to 
this objection of the Pharisees (ver. 26) 


John says: éy® Bamrifw ... Tov 
vrodipatos, ‘I for my part baptise with 
water’; the emphatic “I” leading us 


to expect mention of another with whom 
a contrast is drawn. This contrast is 
further signified by the mention of the 
element of the baptism, év tSatt; a 
merely symbolic element, but also the 
element by baptism in which preparation 
for the Messiah was to be made. And 
John’s administration of this precursory 
baptism is justified by the fact he im- 
mediately states, péoos tpov orrjxer dv 
tpeis ovK otSare. Had they been aware 
of this presence (tpets emphatic) as John 
was aware of it, they could not have 
challenged the baptism of John, because 
it was the divinely appointed prepara- 
tion for the Messiah’s advent. This 
scarcely amounts to what Lampe calls 
it, ‘nova  exprobratio ignorantiae 
Pharisaeorum”’ (Is. xlii. 19, xxix. 14), 
because as yet they had had no oppor- 
tunity of knowing the Christ.—péoos 
ipov. There is no reason why the 
words should not be taken strictly. So 
Euthymius, ay yap 6 Xpiords ava- 
pepiypévos toTe TH Aag.—dtricw pov 
épxdpevos, denoting the immediate 
arrival of the Messiah and John’s close 
connection with Him. He is further 
described relatively to John as incon- 
ceivably exalted above him, ot ov« eipl 

. . trodypatos. The grammatical 
form admitting both the relative and pers. 
pronoun is Hebraistic. Gos iva also 
stands instead of the classical construc- 
tion with the infinitive. Talmudists 
quote the saying: ‘‘ Every service which 
a servant will perform for his master, a 
disciple will do for his Rabbi, except 
loosing his sandal thong”.—Ver. 28. 
Tatra év ByOavig ... Barrifwv. The 
place is mentioned on account of the im- 
portance of the testimony thus borne to 
Jesus, and because the evangelist him- 
self in all probability was present and it 
was natural to him to name it. But 
where was it? There is no doubt that 








24—29, 


EYADTEAION 


695 


29. TH eratprov Brémer & “ladvyns tov “Inoody épydpevor mpis k Exod. xii. 


1 Cor. 


adrdv, kal déyer, “"ISe 6 *Gpvds Tod Ceo’, 6‘ aipwy thy dpaprtiay | v. 7. 


the reading Bn@avlq is to be preferred. 
The addition wépav tod *lopSavov con- 
firms this reading ; as the existence of 


Bethany near Jerusalem rendered the 
distinguishing designation necessary. 


Bethany = (J9I$§ VD meaning “‘boat- 
house,” and Bethabara having the same 
meaning [Tay a ferry boat] is it not 


possible that the same place may have 
been called by both names indifferently ? 
Henderson (Palestine, p. 154) suggests 
that possibly the explanation of the 
doubtful reading is that the place referred 
to is Bethabara which led over into 
Bethania, that is, Bashan. Similarly 
Conder (Handbook, p. 320) says Bethania 
beyond Jordan is evidently the province 
of Batanea, and the ford Abarah now 
discovered leads into Batanea. At this 
place “John was, baptising,” rather 
than ‘* John was baptising ”. 

Vv. 29-34. The witness of fohn based 
on the sign at the baptism of Fesus.— 
Ver. 29. Tq éwavptoy, the first instance 
of John’s accurate definition of time. 
Cf. 35, 43, ii. 1. The deputation had 
withdrawn, but the usual crowd attracted 
by John would be present. ‘ The in- 
quiries made from Jerusalem would 
naturally create fresh expectation among 
John’s disciples. At this crisis,” etc. 
(Westcott).—Bdéret tov “Inootv épxé- 
pevoy pds avtév. Jesus had quite 
recently returned from the retirement 
in the wilderness, and naturally sought 
John’s company. Around John He is 
iiore likely to find receptive spirits than 
elsewhere. And it gave His herald an 
opportunity to proclaim Him, We 6 
Gpvos Tov Meod 6 aipwy THY apapriav 
Tov kécpov. The article indicates that a 
person who could thus be designated had 
been expected; or it may merely be 
introductory to the further definition of 
the succeeding clause.—rtot Qco0v, pro- 
vided by God; cf. ‘bread of God,” vi. 
33; also Rom. viii. 32. It is impossible 
to suppose with the author of Ecce Homo 
that by this title ‘the lamb of God” the 
Baptist merely meant to designate Jesus 
as a man “full of gentleness who could 
patiently bear the ills to which He would 
be subjected” (cf. Aristoph., Pax, 935). 
The second clause forbids this interpre- 
tation. He is a lamb atowv Ti apaptiay, 


Heb. i. 3. 


1 Jo. ii.a. 1 Pet. i. 19. 


and there is only one way in which a 
lamb can take away sin, and that is by 
sacrifice. The expression might suggest 
the picture of the suffering servant of 
the Lord in Is. liii., ‘‘led as a lamb to 
the slaughter,” but unless the Baptist 
had previously been speaking of this 
part of Scripture, it is doubtful whether 
those who heard him speak would think 
of it. In Isaiah it is as a symbol of 
patient endurance the lamb is introduced ; 
here it is as the symbol of sacrifice. It 
is needless to discuss whether the paschal 
lamb or the lamb of daily sacrifice was 
in the Baptist’s thoughts. He used “‘ the 
lamb’? as the symbol of sacrifice in 
general. Here, he says, is the reality 
of which all animal sacrifice was the 
symbol.—6 aitpwy, the present participle, 
indicating the chief characteristic of the 
lamb. aipw has three meanings: (1) to 
raise or lift up, John vili. 59, jpav 
Al@ovs; (2) to bear or carry, Mt. xvi. 24, 
apdtw Tov oTavpdv avTov; (3) to re- 
move or take away, John xx. 1, of the 
stone jppévov from the sepulchre; and 
1 John iit. 5, tva Tas Gpaptias apy, that 
He might take away sins. In the LXX 
déperv, not aipery, is regularly used to 
express the ‘‘bearing” of sin (see 
Leviticus, passim). In 1 Sam. xv. 25 
Saul beseeches Samuel in the words 
Gpov To Gudptnpa pov, which obviously 
means ‘‘remove” (not “‘bear”’?) my 
sin. Soin 1 Sam. xxv. 28. But a lamb 
can remove sin only by sacrificially 
bearing it, so that here aipew includes 
and implies dépewv.—rov kdopov, cf. I 
John ii. 2, attis thacpds eott . . . tepl 
dAov Tov kécpov, and especially Philo’s 
assertion quoted by Wetstein that some 
sacrifices were tmép Gmavtos avOpd7rwv 
yévous. 

In this verse Holtzmann finds two 
marks of late date. (1) The Baptist was 
markedly a man of his own people, 
whose eye never ranged beyond a Jewish 
horizon; yet here he is represented as 
from the first perceiving that the work ot 
Jesus was valid for all men. And (2) 
the allusion to the sacrificial efficacy ot 
Christ’s death could not have been made 
till after that event. Strauss stated this 
difficulty with his usual lucidity. ‘So 
foreign to the current opinion at least 
was this notion of the Messiah that the 
disciples of Jesus, during the whole 


696 


rod xdécpou. 


KATA ITQANNHN L 


30. obtds gore wepi! of eye elwor, ‘Owicw jsou 


Epxetar dvhp, 5 epmpoo8éy pou yéyovey, Ste mpdréds pov jy. 


31. ndyo odx ydew adtdv- 
m Mk.i, 10, TOOTO HABov eyo ey TO Dare BantiLwr.” 
ludvyens déywr, “™"OTr TeOgapar +d Mvedpa xataBatvoy del 


Mt. iii. 16.5 
Lk. iii. 2. 


1 vrep in NBC, Origen. 


GAN’ tva avepwOf ro “lopaijd, bud 
32. Kat énaptipyoey 


Cp. 2 Thess. ii. 1, and 2 Cor, i. 8. This use common 


in late Greek prose. Cp. Holden’s note in Plutarch, Demosth., p. 181. 


period of their intercourse with Him, 
could not reconcile themselves to it; 
and when His death had actually taken 
place their trust in Him as the Messiah 
was utterly confounded.’”’ Yet Strauss 
himself admits that ‘‘a penetrating mind 
like that of the Baptist might, even 
before the death of Jesus, gather from 
the O.T. phrases and types the notion 
of a suffering Messiah, and that his 
obscure hints on the subject might not 
be comprehended by his disciples and 
contemporaries”. The solution is pro- 
bably to be found in the intercourse of 
John with Jesus, and especially after 
His return from the Temptation. These 
men must have talked long and earnestly 
on the work of the Messiah; and even 
though after his imprisonment John 
seems to have had other thoughts about 
the Messiah, that is not inconsistent 
with his making this statement under 
the direct influence of Jesus. We must 
also consider that John’s own relation 
to the Messianic King must have greatly 
stimulated his thought; and his desire 
to respond to the cravings he stirred in 
the people must have led him to consider 
what the Messiah must be and do. 

Ver. 30. ovtTos ... mpatdés pov jy. 
Pointing to Jesus he identifies Him with 
the person of whom he had previously 
said émiow pov, etc. Cf, ver. 15. ‘ After 
me comes a man who is before me 
because He was before me.” The A.V. 
‘““which is before me’”’ is preferable 
though not so literal as the R.V. ‘‘ which 
is become before me’’. The words mean: 
‘“Subsequent to me in point of time 
comes a man who has gained a place in 
advance of me, because He was eternally 
prior to me”’.—émlow pov épxerar refers 
rather to space than to time, ‘‘ after me,”’ 
but with the notion of immediacy, close 
behind, following upon. As certainly, 
éumpoabéy pov si dei refers to position 
or dignity; He has come to be in front of 
me, or ahead of me. So used sometimes 
in classic writers ; as €umpoo8.to0v Stxalov, 
preferred before justice. Dem., 1297, 26. 


—ir. wpatés pov Fy, assigning the 
ground of this advanced position of 
Jesus: He was before me. For wparés 
pov see chap. xv. 18, “If the world 
hateth you, ye know 8tt épée awpatov 
tpov pepionkev,” and Justin Martyr, 
1 Apol., 12. It is difficult to escape the 
impression that something more is meant 
than mpdtepos would have conveyed, 
some more absolute priority. As ol 
mp@tot otpatov are the chief men or 
leaders, it might be supposed that John 
meant to say that Christ was his 
supreme, in virtue of whom he himself 
lived and worked. But it is more probable 
he meant to affirm the pre-existence of 
the Messiah, a thought which may have 
been derived from the Apocalyptic books 
(see Deane’s Pseud. and Drummond’s 
Fewish Mess.).—Ver. 31. Kayo ovK 
Pdew avrov, i.e., I did not know Him to 
be the Messiah. Mt. iii. 14 shows that 
John knew Jesusasa man. This mean- 
ing is also determined by the clause 
added: GAN’ tva . . . évtdart Barrifer. 
The object of the Baptist’s mission was 
the manifestation of the Christ. It was 
the Baptist’s preaching and the religious 
movement it initiated which summoned 
Jesus into public life. He alone could 
satisfy the cravings quickened by the 
Baptist. And it was at the baptism of 
Jesus, undergone in sympathy with the 
sinful people and as one with them, that 
the Spirit of the Messiah was fully im- 
parted to Him and He was recognised 
as the Messiah. How John _ himself 
became convinced that Jesus was the 
Messiah he explains to the people, vv. 
32-4.—Ver. 32. TeO€apar Td wvetpa . 
ér’ avrdv. ‘‘I have seen the Spirit 
coming down like a dove out of heaven, 
and it remained upon Him,” ‘I have 
seen, perfect, in reference to the sign 
divinely intimated to him, in the abiding 
fulfilment of which he now stood.” 
Alford, te@éapat is used (as in ver. 14) 
in its sense of seeing with intelligence, 
with mental or spiritual observation and 
inference (cf. Aristoph., Clouds, 363, 








3°—34- 


weptotepay é& odpavod, mat Epewev ex adrdv. 
yoew attév: GAN’ 6 wéppas pe Bamrilew 


EYATTEAION 


697 


33- Kayo ox 


*éy Gari, exetvds por D ver. 26. 


eimev, "Ep dv dv t8ys 1d Mvedpa nataBatvoy cai pévoy én abtoy, 


obtés €ot 6 BamriLwy éy Mvedpare 


“Ayiw. 34. ndyo édpaxa, 


‘ , J Qa ~ > < ea A a” 
KGL PEMAPTUPHKG OTL OUTOS EoTIY O ULOS TOU Geod. 


‘““Have you ever seen it rain without 
clouds?”’). In what sense did the 
Baptist ‘‘see’’ the Spirit descending ? 
Origen distinctly declared that these 
words otxovopias Tpdmp yeypamrTa. ovy 
ioropuiy Sinynow € €xovra ahha Sewpiay 
vonTyy, li, 239. The os weptotepay é 
ovpavod does not necessarily involve that 
an actual dove was visible. It was not the 
dove which was to be the sign; but, as 
the Baptist affirms in ver. 33, the descent 
and abiding of the Spirit. John was 
scarcely the type of man who would be 
determined in an important course of 
action by the appearance of a bird. 
What he saw was the Spirit descending. 
This he can best have seen in the de- 
meanour of Jesus, in His lowliness and 
sympathy and holiness, all of which 
came to their perfect bloom at and in 
His baptism. It was the possession of 
this spirit by Jesus that convinced John 
that He could baptise with the Holy 
Spirit. That this conviction came to 
him at the baptism of Christ with a clear- 
ness and firmness which authenticated 
it as divine is guaranteed by the words 
of this verse. It was as plain to him 
that Jesus was possessed by the Spirit 
as if he had seen the Spirit in a visible 
shape alighting upon Him. Toa mind 
absorbed in this one idea it may have 
actually seemed as if he saw it with his 
bodily eyes. Ambrose, De Sacram.,i., 5, 
‘« Spiritus autem sanctus non in veritate 
columbae, sed in specie columbae 
descendit de coelo”. The dove was in 
the East a sacred bird, and the brooding 
dove was symbolic of the quickening 
warmth of nature. In Jewish writings 
the Spirit hovering over the primeval 
waters is expressly compared to a dove: 
“Spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas, 
sicut columba, quae fertur super pullos 
suos nec tangit illos”. Cf. also Noah’s 
dove as symbol of the new creation. 
(See Suicer, s.v., weptorepa, and Strauss, 
i., 362.) Such a symbol of the Spirit 
would scarcely have been imagined by 
the Baptist, who was all for stern and 
violent methods.—Ver. 33. Kayo ov« 
Pdew . .. éxeivds pot elwev. Because 
of the importance of the identification of 
the Messiah the Baptist reiterates that 


his proclamation of Jesus was not a 
private idea for which he alone was 
responsible, On the contrary, He who 
had sent him to baptise had given him 
this sign by which to recognise the 
Christ. —éf’ bv Gv tdys .. . wvevpani 
ayig. Lk. (iii. 16) adds kai wvpt, which 
occasions the well-known utterance in 
Ecce Homo: ‘* Baptism means cleansing, 
and fire means warmth. How can 
warmth cleanse? The answer is that 
moral warmth does cleanse. No heart is 
pure that is not passionate ; no virtue is 
safe that is not enthusiastic. And such 
an enthusiastic virtue Christ was to in- 
troduce.”’ In affirming that the Christ 
baptises with the Holy Spirit, and that 
this is what distinguishes the Christ, the 
Baptist steps on to grouud where his 
affirmations can be tested by experience. 
This is the fundamental article of the 
Christian creed. Has Christ power to 
make men holy? History gives the 
answer. The essence of the Holy Spirit 
is communication: Jesus being the 
Christ, the anointed with the Spirit, must 
communicate it.—Ver. 34. kayo édpaka 
- +. 6 vids Tov Beodv. “And I have 
seen and have testified that Uhis is the 
Son of God.” The Synoptists teli us 
that a voice was heard at the baptism 
declaring ‘“‘this is my beloved Son”’; 
and in the Temptation Satan uses the 
title. Nathanael at the very beginning 
of the ministry, and the demoniacs very 
little later, use the same designation. 
This was in a rigidly monotheistic com- 
munity and in a community in which the 
same title had been applied to the king, 
to designate a certain alliance and close 
relation between the human representa- 
tive and the Divine Sovereign. Whether 
the Baptist in his peculiar circumstances 
had begun to suspect that a fuller mean- 
ing attached to the title, we do not know. 
Unquestionably the Baptist must have 
found his ideas of the Messianic office | 
expanding under the influence of inter- 
course with Jesus, and must more than 
ever have seen that this was a unique 
title setting Jesus apart from all other 
men. The basis of the application of 
the title to the Messiah is to be found in 
2 Sam, vii. 14, ‘1 will be to him a Father 


698 


—-35« TH éwadprov mad} eiorjKer 5 "lodvvns, Kal éx Tov padntov 
36. cat éuBrépas TO "Invod mepumarodrvts, héyer, “ "Ide 


abtod duo. 


5 dvds Tod od.” 


® Ps. xxvii. TOS, Kal HKoAoOnoay TO “Incod. 
“**° Veagdpevos adtods dxohoulodrvtas, Aéyet adtois, 39. “ Ti Lyrette ;” 


8. Lk 
9. 


1 For the two forms evorynKxet and totyKet see Veitch, 


and he will be to me a Son”’, In the 
second and eighty-ninth Psalms the term 
is seen passing into a Messianic sense, 
and that it should appear in the N.T. as 
a title of the Messiah is inevitable. 

Vv. 35-42. Witness of Fohn to two of 
his disciples and first self-manifestation 
of Fesus as the Christ. Bengel entitles 
the section, vv. 35-52, ‘‘ primae origines 
Ecclesiae Christianae’’; but from the 
evangelist’s point of view it is rather the 
blending of the witness ‘of John with the 
self-manifestation of Jesus. His kingly 
lordship over men He reveals (1) by 
making Himself accessible to inquirers: 
Andrew and John; (2) by giving a new 
name, implying new character: Simon 
becomes Peter ; (3) by summoning men 
to follow Him: Philip; (4) by interpret- 
ing and satisfying men’s deepest desires 
and aspirations: Nathanael.—Ver. 35. 
T] émwavpiov... avtov dSvo. On the 
morrow John was again standing 
(ioryjket, pluperfect with force of im- 
perfect) and two of his disciples. [Holtz- 
mann uses this close riveting of day to 
day as anargument against the historicity 
of this part of the Gospel. He says that 
ne room is left for the temptation 
between the baptism and the marriage 
in Cana. But these repeated ‘‘ morrows”’ 
take us back, not to the baptism, which 
is nowhere in this Gospel directly 
narrated, but to the Baptist’s conversa- 
tion with the deputation from Jerusalem, 
in which it is implied that already the 
baptism of Jesus was past; how long 
past this Gospel does not state, but, quite 
as easily as not, six weeks may be in- 
serted between the baptism of Jesus and 
the deputation.}—mwdAw looks back to 
ver. 29. Thenno results followed John’s 
testimony : now results follow. Two of 
his disciples stood with him, Andrew 
(ver. 41) and probably John.—Ver. 36. 
The Baptist, épBAéWas to *Ilnood, having 

’ gazed at, or contemplated (see Mt. vi. 
26, épBdebatre elg ta etewa, and 
especially Mk. xiv. 67, nat iSo0tca toy 
Mérpov . . . &uBdrdbaoa) Jesus as He 
walked, evidently not towards John as 
on the previous day, but away from him. 
—peyet “Ide 6 Guves Tod Scot without the 
added clause of ver. 29.—Ver. 27. wat 


KATA IQANNHN 


37- Kai jKovcay adtod ot So palytat Aadoov- 
























































c 


38. otpadeis 8€ 6 “Ingois, Kat 


Hkovoav... 7 “Inood. “And the 
two disciples heard him speaking ”— 
possibly implying that the day before 
they had not heard him—‘‘and they 
followed Jesus”; the Baptist does not 
bid them follow, but they feel that 
attraction which so often since has been 
felt—Ver. 38. orpadels 8... rl 
{nreire; Jesus, hearing their steps 
behind Him, turns. To all who follow 
He gives their opportunity. Having 
turned and perceived that they were 
following Him, He asks ri {nreire; the 
obvious first inquiry, but perhaps with a 
breath in it of that Fan which the Baptist 
had warned them to expect in the 
Messiah; as if, Are you seeking what 
I can give? They reply ‘PaBBet . 
pévers; Lightfoot (Hor. Heb.) tells us 

that ‘‘ Rabbi” was a new title which had 

not been used long before the Christian 

era, and possibly arose during the 

rivalries of the schools of Hillel and 

Shammai. The word means ‘‘ my great- — 
ness”. Cf. His Majesty, etc., and for 

the absorption of the pronoun cf, — 
monsieur or madame. See Lampe. As — 
it occurs here for the first time John © 
translates it, and renders by S.dacKehe, 
Teacher; so that as yet they were scarcely 
prepared to give Him the greater title. 

Lord, or Messiah. Unready with ar ~ 
answer to His question they put another 
which may stand for an answer, 7ov — 
pévets; where are you staying, where 
are you dwelling? So used in N.T., — 
Lk. xix. 5, and in later Greek, Polybius, 
30, 4, 10, and 34, 9, 9g, of dwelling fora 
short time in a place; not so much im- 
plying, as Holtzmann suggests, that 
they wished to go to His lodging that 
they might have more uninterrupted — 
talk with Him; for that scarcely fits 
Oriental habits; but rather implying 
that they were shy of prolonging inter- 
course and wished to know where they — 
might find Him another time. From 
this unsatisfactory issue they are saved 
by His frank invitation (ver. 40) épyeoOe 
Kal oeobe. ‘Come and ye shall see.” 
Use the opportunity you now have. — 
Christ’s door is ever on the latch: He is 
always accessible.—f\Oav otv... oF 
Sexaty. The two men remained ip con- 


gS rae ee awa =x « 





35—43¢e 


EYAITEAION 


699 


Oi S¢ elroy atrd, ““PaBBi,” (8 héyetar Epunveudpevor, ASdoxane,) 


“rou évets ; 
kal etdov ? ol peéver: 
Gpa dé hy as Sexdry. 


Nérpou, eis éx tav S00 tay dxovodvtwy * mapa “Iwdvvou, Kat GKo- 341. 


hovOyodvtwy ait. 


iStov Zipwva, Kat A€yer adtd, “Edpyxapev toy Meootay, (6 éore 


40. Aéyet adtois, “"EpxecOe kal iSere.” "HdOov 
kal Tap auT@ Epmewav Thy hpépay éxelyny - p Constr. 


vide Bur 


41. "Hy *’AvSpdas 6 ddedpds Zipwvos ton, M. 


and T., 


q Mk. i. 16, 


42. ebptoxer obtos mp@tos! tov ddehpdy Tov r vi. 45. 


8 Acts x. 38. 


peOeppnvevopevoy, "6 Xptotés:) 43. Kal Hyayev adtovy mpds Tov t Mt. xvi.i8. 


éuBreWas S€ atta 6 


‘inoodv. 
"lava 2+ od KdnOjon ‘Kydas: 


1 epwrov in N?ABM. 


versation with Jesus during the remainder 
of the day [but Grotius gives the sense 
as ‘‘ibidem pernoctarunt, quia jam 
serum erat’’], a day so memorable to 
John that he recalls the very hour when 
they first approached Jesus, four o’clock 
in the afternoon. It seems that at this 
time throughout the Greco-Roman 
world one system of reckoning the hours 
prevailed. There is indisputable evidence 
that while the Romans calculated their 
civil day, by which leases and contracts 
were dated, as extending from midnight 
to midnight, the hours of each day were 
reckoned from sunrise to sunset. Thus 
on the Roman sun-dials noon is marked 
VI. (see Becker’s Gallus, p. 310). 
Martial’s description of the manner in 
which each hour was spent (Ep., iv., 8) 
leads to the same couclusion; and for 
proof that no different method was 
followed in the provinces, see Prof. 
Ramsay’s paper ‘‘On the Sixth Hour’ 
in the Expositor, 1893. Cf. also paper 
by Mr. Cross in Classical Review, June, 
1891.—Ver. 41. Hv Avdpéas .. . Zluwvos. 
One of the two who thus first followed 
Christ was Andrew, known not so much 
in his own name as being the brother of 
Simon-—Mlérpov is here proleptic. We 
are left to infer that the other disciple 
was the evangelist.—Ver. 42. etpioxer 
otros mpatos. If with T. R. and Tischen- 
dorf we read mp@ros, the meaning is 
that Andrew, before Fohn, found his 
brother ; if with W.H. we read wpe@tov 
the meaning is that before Andrew did 
anything else, and perhaps especially 
before the other men afterwards named 
were called, he first of all finds his own 
brother. Reading mp@rov, we cannot 
gather that John went in search also of 
his brother, and as there is no mention 
of him at this time the probability is that 


~ , c 
"Ingots ecime, “20 ef Lipwy 6 ulds 


& éppnveverat Nétpos. 


Here only 
in John. 
8 times in 
Paul. 


$ T.R. in AB, etc.; lwavov in NB*L 33. 


he was not at hand. mpd@royv is the note 
of warning that this was but the begin- 
ning of a series of calls.—etpyxapev tov 
Mecotay. ‘We have found,” perhaps, 
as Weiss suggests, with reference to the 
expectations produced by the Baptist’s 
teaching. The result of their conversa- 
tion with Jesus is summed up in these 
words. They were now convinced that 
He was the Christ. In Jewish lips ‘we 
have found the Messiah’ was the most 
comprehensive of all Eurekas. That 
John gives the actual words, though he 
has immediately to translate one of them 
for his Greek readers, is not without 
significance in regard to his accuracy in 
reporting.—Ver. 43. Kal Hyayev avtdv 
ampos Tov ‘Ingovv. He was not content 
to allow his report to work in his 
brother’s mind, but induced him there 
and then, though probably on the follow- 
ing day, as now it must have been late, 
to go to Jesus.—épBréwas . . . Meérpos. 
Jesus may have known Simon previously, 
or may have been told his name by 
Andrew. ‘Thou art Simon, Jonah’s 
son, or better, John’s son. Thou shalt 
be called Kephas.” This name, Kephas 
or Peter, stone or mass of rock, Simon 
did receive at Caesarea Philippi on his 
confession of Jesus as the Christ (Mt. xvi. 
17, 18); a confession prompted not by 
“flesh and blood,” that is, by his brother’s 
experience, but by his own inwrought 
and home-grown conviction. The reason 
of this utterance to Simon is understood 
when it is considered that the name 
he as yet bore, Simon Barjona, was 
identified with a character full of im- 
pulsiveness ; which might well lead him 
to suppose he would only bring mischief 
to the Messiah’s kingdom. But, says 
Christ, thou shalt be called Rock. Those 
who enter Christ’s kingdom believing in 


700 


a Freq. in 
ohn. 


‘ ~ ” 
v Is. Ixv. 1. Ral Yedpioner Pidummor, Kai héyer adt@, “ AcodouvBer por. 


w xii. 21. 

x xxi. 2. 

y Gen. xlix. 
10. Deut. Nétpou. 
xviii. 18. 


KATA LQANNHN 1 


44. Ti eradproy *i0Anoer 6 "Ingods efeOeiv eis Thy FadiAalay - 


45. 


"Hy B€ 6 “idummos dwd ByOoaidda, ek THs TodEws "Avdpéou Kat 
46. Edpioxes Oi\ummos Toy *NaSavaid, Kal Adyer adTe, 


Is. ix.6. “**Ov Eypape Mwors ev TO vépw Kal of wpopitat, cipyxapey, 


Mic. v. a. 
Constr. vide Rom. x. 5. 


Hlim receive a character fitting them to 
be of service. 


Vv. 44-52. Further manifestations 
of Fesus as Messiah.—Vv. 44. tH 
émavptow... FadtAalay. ‘The day 


tollowing He would go forth,’’ that is, 
from the other side of Jordan, into 
Galilee, probably to His own home.— 
Kal evpioxet Pidiwoy, “and He finds,” 
“lights upon,” Philip (cf. vi. 5, xii. 21, 
xiv. 3). To him He utters the summons, 
axodovGer por, which can hardly have 
the simple sense, ‘‘ accompany me,” but 
must be taken as the ordinary call to 
discipleship (Lk. ix. 59, Mt. xix. 21, etc.). 
—Ver. 45. jv 8€ 6 idAummos... 
Mlérpov. This is inserted to explain how 
Jesus happened to meet Philip: he was 
going home also; and to explain how 
Philip’s mind had been prepared by con- 
versation with Andrew and Peter. The 
exact position of Bethsaida is doubtful. 
There was a town or village of this name 
(Fisher-Home) on the east bank of 
Jordan, slightly above its fall into the 
Sea of Galilee. This place was rebuilt 
by Philip and named Julias, in honour of 
the daughter of Augustus. Many good 
authorities think that this was the only 
Bethsaida (see Dr. G. A. Smith’s Hist. 
Geog. of Palestine, p. 457). Others, 
however, are of opinion that the manner 
in which Bethsaida, here and in xii. 21, is 
named with an added note of distinction, 
‘the city of Andrew,’’ ‘of Galilee,” 
requires us to postulate two Bethsaidas. 
This is further confirmed by the move- 
ments recorded in vi. 16-22. Cf. Mk. 
vi. 45. Those who accept two Bethsaidas 
locate the one which is here mentioned 
either opposite Bethsaida Julias and as a 
kind of suburb of it or farther south at 


Ain Tabigha (see Rob Roy on the 
Fordan, 342-392).—Ver. 46. evpioner 
. +» + Nafapér. Philip in turn finds 


Nathanael, probably on the road from 
the Bethany ford homewards. Nathanael 
is probably the same person as is spoken 
of in the Synoptical Gospels as Bar- 
tholomew, t.e., Bar Tolmai, son oi 
Ptolemy. This is usually inferred from 
the following: (1) Both here and in 


chap, xxi, 2 he is classed with apostles ; 
(2) in the lists of apostles given in the 
Synoptical Gospels Bartholomew is 
coupled with Philip ; (3) while Nathanael 
is never mentioned by the Synoptists, 
Bartholomew is not mentioned by John, 
The two names might quite well belong 
to one man, Bartholomew being a 
patronymic. Nathanael means ‘“ God’s 
gift,’’ Theodore, or, like Augustine’s son, 
Adeodatus. Philip announces the dis- 
covery in the words 6v é€ypawev... 
Nalapér. On which Calvin remarks: 
“Quam tenuis fuerit modulus fidei in 
Philippo hinc patet, quod de Christo 
quatuor verba profari nequit, quin duos 
crassos errores permisceat. Facit illum 
filium Joseph, et patriam Nazareth falso 
illi assignat.” This is too stringent. He 
draws the conclusion that where there is 
a sincere purpose to do good and to pro- 
claim Christ, success will follow even 
where there is error. Nazareth lies due 
west from the south end of the Sea of 
Galilee, and about midway between it 
and the Mediterranean.—Ver. 47. 
Philip’s announcement-is received with 
incredulity.—éx Naflaper Sdvarat 
ayaGev elvat; ‘Can anything good be 
from Nazareth.” Cf. viii. 52, ‘‘out of 
Galilee ariseth no prophet’’. Westcott, 
representing several modern interpreters, 
explains: ‘Can any blessing, much 
less such a blessing as the promised 
Messiah, arise out of a poor village like 
Nazareth, of which not even the name 
can be found in the O.T.?” But 
probably Nathanael was influenced by 
the circumstance that he himself was of 
Cana (xxi. 2), only a few miles from 
Nazareth, and with the jealousy which 
usually exists between neighbouring 
villages (inter accolas odium) found it 
hard to believe that Nazareth could pro- 
duce the Messiah (cf. Is. liii. 2, ‘a root 
out of a dry ground”). From this 
remark of Nathanael’s light is reflected 
on the obscurity and unobtrusiveness 
of the youth of Jesus. Though living 
a few miles off, Nathanael never 
heard of Him. To _ his _ incredulity 
Philip wisely replies, pxov wai ide; as 








44—§0. 


‘Inoody ray uidv Tod “lwo Tov awd NaLapeér.” 
Na@avai\, “Ex Nafapér Suvatai te dyafdv etvar;” 


bikummos, “"Epxou kal Se.” 


épxdpevov mpos adtov, Kat dyer epi adtod, 


"lopanditys, év @ Sddos ovK EoTL.” 
**1160ev pre yivdoxers ;” 


rob ge dikimmov pwvicat, dvTa bmd Thy cuKhy, elddv ce.” 


EYATTEAION 


Jol 


47. Kat etwev aito 
A€yeu adt@ 


48. Eider 6 “Ingots tov Nabavahd 


"1S 


*dnbds z Gen. xxv 
49. A€ye. ait Nadavaih, : 


*AtrekptOy 6 “Ingots Kat etrev adta, “Mpd 


50. 


*AtrexpiOn Naavand Kai Adyer aiza, ““PaBBl, od ef 6 ulds Tod 


Bengel says, ‘‘optimum remedium 
contra opiniones praeconceptas”’. And 
Nathanael shows himself to be willing 
to have his preconceptions overcome. 
He goes with Philip.—Ver. 48.  etdev 
... d6d0g otnK éoti. The honesty 
shown in his coming to Jesus is indicated 
as his characteristic. He had given 
proof that he was guileless. In Gen. 
xxvii. 35 Isaac says to Esau, “ Thy 

brother has come and pera, Sédou Daf 
Tv evrAoylay gov”. And it was by 
throwing off this guile and finding in 
God his dependence that Jacob became 
Israel. So that in declaring Nathanael 
to be a guileless Israelite, Jesus declares 
him to be one who does not seek to win 
blessing by earthly means but by prayer 
and trust in God.—Ver. 49. The 
significance of this utterance is further 
shown by what follows. Naturally 
Nathanael is surprised by this explicit 
testimony from one with whom he has 
had no acquaintance and who has not- 
withstanding truly | described him, and he 
asks, woBev pe yiwooers; ‘ how do you 
know me?” perhaps imagining that 
some common friend had told Jesus 
about him. But Jesus ascribes it to 
anoth r cause: mpd rov oe Piduriov 
dovica ovta vrd Thy oUKHV Eldov ce, 
I saw thee under the fig tree before 
Philip called thee (not, I saw thee some- 
where else before Philip called thee when 
you were under the fig tree). ‘‘ Under 
the fig tree’ is obviously significant. 
Such trees were planted by the wayside 
(Mt. xxi. 19), and the large thick leaf 
afforded shade. It was the favourite 
garden tree of the Jews, so that “ sitting 
under one’s fig tree’? meant being at 
home (Micah iv. 4, Zech. iii. ro). The 
tree formed a natural arbour affording 
shade and privacy. Thus Schoettgen 
quotes that it is related of Rabbi Jose 
and his disciples, ‘‘ solebant summo mane 
surgere et sedere et studere sub ficu”. 
And Lightfoot (Hor. Heb., im loc.) says 
that Nathanael was ‘aut orans, aut 


legens, aut meditans, aut aliquid 
religiosum praestans, in secessu sub 
aliqua ficu et extra conspectum 


hominum’’, But evidently Nathanael 
understood that Jesus had not only seer 
him when he thought he was unobserved, 
but had penetrated his thought in re- 
tirement, and understood and sympa- 
thised with his prayer under the fig tree, 
for the impression made upon him by this 
knowledge of Jesus is profound. —Ver. 
50. ‘PaBBet, he exclaims, ov el 6 vids 
Tov Geo, ot Bacrdreds el tod “lopayd. 
Nathanael had been praying for the 
manifestation of the Messiah: now he 
exclaims Thou art He. That Nathanael 
used both expressions, Son of God, and 
King of Israel, we may well believe, for 
he found both in the second Psalm. And 
it is probable that he used both as 
identifying Jesus with the Messiah (see 
chap. xi. 27, xii. 13-15). It is not likely 
that he would pass from a higher designa- 
tion to a lower; more probable that by 
the second title he means more closely 
to define the former. Thou art the Son 
of God, fulfilling the ideal of sonship 
and actually realising all that prophecy 
has uttered regarding the Son of God: 
Thou art the ideal, long-expected King of 
Israel, in whom God’s reign and kingdom 
are realised on earth. ‘‘ The words are 
an echo of the testimony of the Baptist. 
Nothing can be more natural than to 
suppose that the language of John had 
created strange questionings in the 
hearts of some whom it had reached, and 
that it was with such thoughts Nathanael 
was busied when the Lord ‘ saw’ him. If 
this were so, the confession of Nathanael 
may be an answer to his own doubts” 
(Westcott). —Ver. 51. amexpidy . 

6p. In accordance with the habit of 
this evangelist, who calls attention to 
the moving cause of faith in this or that 
individual, the source of Nathanael’s 
faith is indicated with some surprise that 
it should have proved sufficient: and 
with the announcement that his nascent 


702 KATA IQANNHN 
« Rarely @cod, od ef 5 Baaireds Tod “lopayd.” 
stand 

open,vide , rn E 7 . Ag 
» weitch. peiLw tovTwr Spe.” §2. Kat Aéyer atta, 


xxviii. 12. dm dpte! dpeoOe tov odpavdvy “dvewydra, Kal 
Gcod dvaBaivovras kal kataBaivovras emt tov uldv Tod dvOpdrou.” 
II. 1. KAl TH Hpépa tH Tpitn ydpos éyévero ev “Kava ris 


a Josh. xix. 
28. 

b Esth. v. 
12. 1 Cor. 


I. 51—52. II. 


51. “AmexptOy “Inoods kal 


elrev abt, ““Ore elrdv gor, ElSév ce SroKdtw Tis cuKis, moTEvELs ; 


“Aut dphy héyw dpty, 
»rods dyyédous Tob 


Mi xxii, Todwdalas+ Kat Fv Hy pytnp Tod “Inood éxet. 2. *exyOn Sé kai 6 
3. 


“am aptt rejected by Tr.T.W.H.R. on authority of NBL vet. Lat. vulg., ete. 


faith will find more to feed upon: pel{lw 
TovTwy Sy.—Ver. 52. What these 
things are is described in the words 
éWeobe . . . avOpemmwov, introduced by 
the emphatic apiv, aphy Aéyo vpiv, 
used in this double form twenty-five 
times in this Gospel (always single in 
Synop.) and well rendered ‘verily, 
verily”. Christ as the Faithful and 
True Witness is Himself called the 
Amen in Rev. iii. 14. The words am’ 
&ptt are omitted by recent editors. The 
announcement describes the result of the 
incarnation of Christ as a_ bringing 
together of heaven and earth, a true 
mediation between God and man, an 
opening of what is most divine for the 
satisfaction of human need. It is made 
in terms of Jacob’s dream (Gen. xxviii. 
ro ff.). In his dream Jacob saw a ladder 
fixed on earth with its top in heaven, 
ot ayyeXor Tov GBeot aveBavov Kal 
xatéBatvov ér avty. What Jacob had 
dreamt was in Christ realised. The Son 
of Man, the Messiah or actual repre- 
sentative of God on earth, brings God to 
man and makes earth a Bethel, and the 
gate of heaven. What Nathanael under 
his fig tree had been longing for and un- 
consciously preparing, an open com- 
munication with heaven, a ladder reach- 
ing from the deepest abyss of an earth 
submerged in sin to the highest heaven 
of purity, Jesus tells him is actually 
accomplished in His person. ‘The Son 
of Man” is the designation by which 
Jesus commonly indicates that He is the 
Messiah, while at the same time He 
suggests that His kingdom is not founded 
by earthly power or force, but by what 
is especially human, sympathy, reason, 
self-sacrifice. 

CHAPTER II,.—Vv. 1-11. The marriage 
at Cana. The first manifestation of 
Christ’s glory to His disciples.—Ver. 1. 
As usual John specifies time and place 
and circumstance. The time was TH 
n<ea TH Tpity. The Greeks reckoned 


OnpPEpov, avpiov, tT] TpitTy HHEpg. So 


Lk. xiii. 32, idoers ewiTeAd orjpepov Kal 
avpioy, Kal rq Tplry TeAcrodpar. The 
“third day’’ was therefore what we call 
“the day after to-morrow”. From what 
point is this third day calculated? From 
1. 41 or i. 44? Probably the latter. 
Naturally one refers this exact specifica- 
tion of time to the circumstance that the 
writer was present. The place was év 
Kavg@ ris TadtAalas, ‘of Galilee” to 
distinguish it from another Cana, as in 
all countries the same name is borne by 
more than one place (Newcastle; Tarbet ; 
Cleveland, Ohio, and Cleveland, N.Y.; 
Freiburg). This other Cana, however, 
was not the Cana of Josh. xix. 28 in 
the tribe of Asher (Weiss, Holtzmann) ; 
but more probably Cana in Judaea (cf. 
Henderson’s Palestine, p. 152 ; Josephus, 
Antiq., xiii., 15, 1; and Lightfoot’s Disq. 
Chorog. Fohan. praemissa). Opinion is 
now in favour of identifying ‘‘ Cana” 
with Kefr Kenna, five miles north-east 
of Nazareth on the road to the Sea of 
Galilee. Robinson (Researches, iii., 108 
and ii., 346) identified it with Khurbet 
Kana, three hours north of Nazareth, 
because ruins there were pointed out to 
him as bearing the name K4na el Jelil, 
Cana of Galilee. Dr. Zeller, however, 
who resided at Nazareth, declares that 
Khurbet Kana is not known to the 
natives as Kana el Jelil. Major Conder 
(Tent Work, i., 153), although not 
decided in favour of Kefr Kenna, shows 
that the alteration in the form of the 
name can be accounted for, and that its 
position is in its favour (Henderson’s — 
Palestine, 151-3).—yapos éyévero, a 
marriage took place. Jewish marriage 
customs are fully described in Trumbull’s 
Studies in Oriental Social Life.—xat fv — 
7} pyTHp Tov "Incod éxei. This is noticed — 
to account for the invitation given to 
Jesus and His disciples. Joseph is not — 
mentioned, probably because already © 
dead. Certainly he was dead before the © 
crucifixion.—Ver. 2. é«A7j0n 8é Kat 6 
"Ingots kai of padnrai airod elg tov 


I---5, 


—‘Mngods kat of pabntat attod eis tov ydpov. 


EYATTEAION 


708 


3. kat Sorenieavres 


oivou,! héyer 4 pytnp Tod “Incod ue se “Oivoy obK Exouct.” ¢ Jud. xi. 12 


4. Aéyer sal 6 "Ingots, “* Tt épot Kai gol, 
5. Adyet 4 pimp abtod trois Staxdvors, ““O tr ay oe 6: 


% Gpa pov.” 


2 Sam. 


4 yévat ; ; * ouTw 7 KEL 


1T.R. in SaABL valg. cop. syr.; but $§* and some vet. Lat. read owvov ovx erxov 
oT guveteher Oy 0 olvos Tov yapov, eta, ‘they had no wine because the wine of 


the marriage was finished; then... ”. 


yapov. ‘And both Jesus was invited 
and His disciples to the marriage.”’ To 
translate ékAyén as a pluperfect ‘had 
been invited” is grammatically possible, 
but it is impossible that the disciples 
should have been previously invited, 
because their existence as disciples was 
not known. They were invited when 
they appeared. The collective title ot 
pabnral avrovd is anticipatory: as yet it 
could not be inuse. The singular verb 
(éxAyOn) with a plural nominative is too 
common to justify Holtzmann’s inference 
that it indicates, what of course was the 
fact, that the disciples were asked only 
in consequence of Jesus being asked. 
Cf. Lk. ii. 33. In this instance Jesus 
‘came unto His own” and His own 
received Him, at any rate as a friend.— 
Ver. 3. Through this unexpected 
addition to the number of guests the 
wine began to fail, totepyjcavtos otvov. 
totepéw, from torepos, signifies “to be 
late,’ and hence “to come short of,” 
‘to lack,” and also ‘‘to be awanting” 
Cf. Mt. xix. 20, tl €rt voTep@; and Mk. 
X. 21, €¥ wo. torepet. Here the mean- 
ing is ‘the wine having failed,” or 
“‘siven out”. Consequently Aéyer 7 
HTH TOU "lnood wpds avTov, Olvov ovK 
€xova.. Bengel supposes she wished him 
to leave ‘‘ velim discedas, ut ceteri item 
discedant, antequam penuria patefiat”’. 
Calvin suggests *‘ fieri potest, ut [mater] 
tale remedium [miraculum] non expectans 
eum admonuerit, ut pia aliqua exhorta- 
tione convivis taedium eximeret, ac 
simul levaret pudorem sponsi’’. Lampe 
says: ‘‘Obscurum est’, Licke thinks 
Jesus had given proof of His miracle- 
working previously. The Greek com- 
mentators and Godet suppose that when 
she saw Him recognised as Messiah the 
time for extraordinary manifestation of 
power had arrived. The words show 
that she was on terms of intimacy with 
the family of the bridegroom, that she 
knew of the failure of the wine and 
wished to relieve the embarrassment, She 
naturally turns to her oldest son, who 
had always in past emergencies proved 


helpful in counsel and practical aid. 
But from the words of Jesus in reply, 
“« Mine hour is not yet come,”’ it certainly 
would seem as if she had suggested that 
He should use Messianic powers for the 
relief of the wedding guests.—Ver. 4. His 
complete reply is, ti épot cat vol, yuvar; 
oUTw HKEL 7] Spa pov. yvvat is a term of 
respect, not equivalent to our ‘‘ woman”’ 
See chap. xix. 26, xx. 13, Lk. xiii. 12. In 
the Greek tragedians it is constantly 
used in addressing queens and persons 
of distinction. Augustus addresses 
Cleopatra as yvvat (Dio, quoted by 
Wetstein). Calvin goes too far when he 
says that this term of address was used 
to correct the superstitious adoration of 
the Virgin which was to arise. But 
while there is neither harshness nor dis- 
respect, there is distance in the expres- 
sion. Wetstein hits the point when he 
says: ‘Non poterat dicere: quid mihi 
tecum est, mater?”—+rl épol kal ool 


represents the Hebrew BP, al bn 


(Judges xi, 12), and means: “What have 
we in common? Trench gives the sense: 
Let me alone; what is there common 
to thee and me; we stand in this matter 
on altogether different grounds”. Or, as 
Holtzmann gives it, Our point of view an 

interests are wholly diverse ; why do you 
mingle them ?—ovtw ‘ker 7 Spa pov. 
not as Bengel, ‘‘discedendi hora,” but, 
mine hour for bringing relief This 
implies that He too had observed the 
failure of the wine and was waiting a 
fitting opportunity to interfere. That 
the same formula is more than once used 
by Jesus of His death (see chap. vii. 30, 
viii. 20) merely indicates that it could be 
used of any critical time. Euthymius 
says it here means “the hour of miracle 
working”. Wetstein quotes from R. 
Sira ‘non quavis hora fit miraculum”’. 
Especially true is this of the first miracle- 
of the Messiah, which would commit 
Him to a life of publicity ending in an 
ignominious death. That Mary found 
hope in the ote is obvious from ver. 5. 

She did not find His reply wholly refusal. 


704 


fiv.28. 1 éyn Suty, woujoate.” 
Kings bi Nail lalla 

g 2 Cor. mi _ 
: Tpels. 

b tiewiie. P 

i 2 Chron. 


iv. 5. : 
j Rev. iv. 8. Winer, p. 496. 


She therefore says to the servants (ver. 
5), 6 te Gv Adyy tpiv woiyoare. The 
Staxdvot, or servants waiting at table, 
might not otherwise have obeyed an un- 
important guest. His orders might 
perhaps be of an unusual kind.—Ver. 6. 
There were there, hard by or in the 
feast-room, there were vSpiat AlOivar ef 
xe(uevat, “six stone water jars stand- 
ing”. Stone was believed to preserve 
the purity and coolness of the water. 
[According to Plutarch, Tib. Gracchus, 
these jars were sometimes used for 
drawing lots, wooden tablets being put 
in the jars and shaken.] Similar stone 
jars are still used in Cana and elsewhere. 
They were xelpevat, set; “in purely 
classical Greek ketpat is the recognised 
passive perfect of tl@epar’ (Holden, 
Plutarch’s Themist., p. 121).—kxata Tov 
xaSapiopov Tov ‘lovdaiwy. For the wash- 
ing of hands and vessels. Cf. Mk. vii. 
*‘Abluendi quidem ritum habebant ex 
Lege Dei, sed ut mundus semper nimius 
est in rebus externis, Judaei praescripta 
a Deo simplicitate non contenti con- 
tinuis aspersionibus ludebant: atque ut 
ambitiosa est superstitio, non dubium 
est quin hoc etiam pompae serviret, 
quemadmodum hodie in Papatu videmus, 
quaecunque ad Dei cultum pertinere 
dicuntur, ad meram ostentationem esse 
composita,” Calvin. The number and 
size are given that the dimensions of the 
miracle may appear. There were six 
Xwpotoat ava petpntas Svo 4 pels, 
‘holding two or three firkins each ”.— 
ava is here distributive, a classical use; 
ef. also Mt. xx. g, 10, Mk. vi. 40. Accord- 
ingly the Vulgate translates “ capientes 
singulae metretas binas”. The Attic 
petpytyis held about nine gallons, so 
that averaging the jars at twenty gallons 
the six would together contain 120 
gallons. The English translation has 
jirkin, that is, vierkin, the fourth of a 
barrel, a barrel being thirty imperial 
gallons. It is difficult to assign any 
reason for giving the number and 
capacity of these jars, except that the 
writer wished to convey the idea that 
their entire contents were changed into 
wine. This prodigality would bring the 
miracle into closer resemblance to the 


KATA IQANNHN 


I. 


6. “Hoay Sé éxet ‘ SSpiar © A(Oivar FE *keipevar 


ss ‘ 4 ‘ ~ J , 
xviil. 23. KaTG Tov KaBaptopoy TOv “loudaiwr, 


"xwpodcat Java petpytas Buo 


7. Aéyer adtois 6 “Ingods, “Tepicare tas SSpias JSaros.” 
Kal éyéuicay adtas *éws dvw. 
k 2 Chron. xxvi. & 


8. Kal dyer adtois, “"AvtAnoate 


gifts of nature. Also it would furnish 
proof, after the marriage was over, that 
the transformation had been actual. 
The wedding guests had not dreamt it. 
There was the wine. It was no mesmeric 
trick. Holtzmann, in a superior manner, 
smiles at the prosaic interpreters who 
strive to reduce the statement to matter 
of fact.—Ver. 7. The first order Jesus 
gives to the Staxdévors is one they may 
unhesitatingly obey.—leploare rag 
t8pias USaros, “ Fill the water jars 
with water,” the water being specified 
in view of what was to follow.—at 
tyépicay atras gws Gvw, “and they 
filled them up to the brim’’. The corre- 
sponding expression, €ws Katw, is found 
in Mt. xxvii. 51. ws €ow and éws ckw 
are also found in N.T. to indicate more 
precisely the terminus ad quem. In this 
usage €ws is not perceptibly different 
from a preposition. ‘ Up to the brim” 
is specified not so much to indicate the 
abundant supply as to suggest that no 
room was left for adding anything to the 
water. The servants did all their part 
thoroughly, and left no apparent room 
for Jesus to work. Thus they became 
instrumental to the working of a miracle. 
—Ver. 8. The second order might 
stagger them more, AvrAyoate viv, kal 
hépete TH GpxitpikAivw. The apxerpi- 
«Atvos was Originally the person whe 
had charge of the triclinium or triple 
couch set round a dining table: ‘ prae- 
fectus cui instruendi ornandique triclinii 
cura incumbit”; a butler or head waiter 
whose duty it was to arrange the table 
and taste the food and wine. Petron. 
Arb. 22, “Jam et Tricliniarches ex- 
perrectus lucernis occidentibus oleum 
infuderat”. But apparently the person 
indicated in this verse is rather the 
oupTooidpxyns Or cuproglapxos, the 
chairman elected by the company from 
among the guests, sometimes by lot. Cf, 
Horace’s ‘* Arbiter bibendi,” Od., ii., 7. 
The requirements in such an official are 
described in Ecclus. xxxii. 1; Plato, Laws, 
p. 640 ; see also Reid’s edition of Cicero, 
De Senect., p. 131. In general he regu- 
lated the course of the feast and the 
conduct of the guests. [Holtzmann and 
Weiss both retain the proper meaning of 








6—106. 


EYATTEAION 


7195 


vov, kat dépere 7H GpyitpiKAivw.” Kai iveyxay. 9. ds 8€ éyedaato | Constr.see 
1 


5 dpxutpikdwos 73 Twp otvoy yeyernpevov, Kat odk qder | wdbev mi. 40. 
éotiv: (ot Sé SidKovor Wdetoay ot HyTAnKdTES TS USwp-) ™dwvel Tov 
vupdptov 6 dpxitpikAwvos, IO. kai héyet adTG, “Nas avOpwiros mp@tov 
Tov Kahdv otvoy ™ TiOnot, Kal Stay peOucAGanr, TéTe Tov °éAdoow: ob 


apxitpixAtvos.] Westcott suggests that 
the advrAjoate viv may refer to drawing 
from the well, and that ‘the change in 
the water was determined by its destina- 
tion for use at the feast”. ‘‘ That which 
remained water when kept for a cere- 
monial use became wine when borne in 
faith to minister to the needs, even to 
the superfluous requirements of life,” a 
suggestive interpretation, but it evacuates 
of all significance the clause “ they filled 
them up to the brim’. The servants 
obeyed, possibly encouraged by seeing 
that what they had poured in as water 
flowed out as wine; although if the 
words in the end of the ninth verse are 
to be taken strictly, it was still water 
when drawn from the water jars. But 
some refer the of qvTAnKétes to drawing 
from the well. It is, however, more 
natural to refer it to the avrAjoate viv 
of the eighth verse. Besides, drawing 
water from the well would be the 
business rather of the women than of 
the 8tdxover.—Ver. 9. The architriklinos, 
then, when he had tasted the water which 
had now become wine, and did not know 
whence it had been procured, and was 
therefore impartially judging it merely 
as wine among wines, dwvet Tov vupdioy, 
‘calls the bridegroom,” or simply “ ad- 
dresses the bridegroom,’’? and says to 
him was Gv@pemos... The usage 
referred to was natural: and is illustrated 
by the éwAoxpacia, the mixture of all the 
heeltaps with which the harder heads 
dosed the drunken at the end of a 
debauch.—étay pe8vo8Gor, “ when men 
have drunk freely,” R.V. The Vulgate 
more accurately has “cum inebriati 
fuerint”. And if the word does not 
definitely mean ‘‘when men are in- 
toxicated,”’ it at least must indicate a 
condition in which they are unfit to dis- 
criminate between good wine and bad. 
The company then present was not in 
that condition, because they were able to 
appreciate the good wine ; but the words 
of the architriklinos unquestionably im- 
ply that a good deal had already been 
drunk. The ws Gpti involves this, 
The significance of the remark consists 
| in the certificate thus given to the quality 


40. 


n Here 
only, but 
cp. Bel 
and the 
Dragon, 
ver 14. 

© Inferior, 

cp. Wisd. ix. 5. 


of the wine. 
“ Tgnorantia 


Bengel felicitously says: 
architriclini © comprobat 
bonitatem vini: scientia ministrorum 
veritatem miraculi”. Judging it by his 
natural taste and comparing it with the 
wine supplied by the host, the architri- 
klinos pronounces this fresh supply 
better. What Christ introduces into the 
world will stand comparison with what 
is already in it. Christian grace must 
manifest itself not in sanctimonious and 
unpractical displays, but must stand 
comparison with the rough natural 
virtues, the courage, generosity, and 
force which are called for in the practical 
affairs of life——Ver. 11. No answer of 
the bridegroom is recorded, nor any 
detail of the impression made, but John 
notes the incident as “the beginning of 
signs”’.—tTavThnv eroinoey apxyy, delet- 
ing the article with Tisch. and W.H., 
and rendering “ This as a beginning of 
signs did Jesus,’ from which it can 
scarcely be gathered that no insight 
mentioned in the first chapter was con- 
sidered by John to be supernatural. It 
is characteristic of this Gospel that the 
miracles are viewed as signs, or object 
lessons. The feeding of the five thousand 
presents Jesus as the bread of God ; the 
strengthening of the impotent man 
exhibits Him as the giver of spiritual 
life; and so forth. So that when John 
here says that by this miracle Jesus 
épavépwoe thy Sdfav avtov, we are 
prompted to ask what particular aspect 
of His glory was manifested here. 
What was there in it to elicit the faith 
and reverence of the disciples? (1) He 
appears as King in physical nature. He 
can use it for the furtherance of His 
purposes and man’s good. He is, as 
declared in the Prologue, that One in 
whom is life. (2) A hint is given of the 
ends for which this creative power is to 
be used, It is, that human joy may be 
full. These disciples of the Baptist 
perceive a new kind of power in their 
new Master, whose goodness irradiates 
the natural joys and domestic incidents 
of human life. (3) When John recorded 
this miracle he saw how fitly it stood as 
the first rehearsing as it did the entire 


45 


IL 


II. Tadrny émoinve thy 


dpx}y TOv Ponpetwv 6 ‘Inoots év Kava tis FadtAalas, kal épavépwoe 


12. META tovto xatéBy els Karepvaodp,! attés kal 7 pType 


706 KATA IQANNHN 
TeTHpykas Tov Kkaddv olvov Ews apts.” 
p John 
passtm, ‘ s a Riv mip = 5 é ‘ ~ rm 
and freq. THY Sdfav atrod: Kal émloreucay eis adrdv of pabytat abtod. 
in Synopt. 
q Mt. xii. 
46. 


adTou, Kai of *&8eApot adTod, Kai ot paOynTal adTod: Kat exe épewwvay 


1 Kadapvaoup in BX, adopted by T. Tr. W.H. 


work of Christ, who came that human 
happiness might not untimely close in 
shame. Wine had become the symbol 
of that blood which brought reconcile- 
ment and renewal. Seeing this sign and 
the glory manifested in it émrlorevoav 
eis aUTOV ot pabyTal avTov. “ Testimony 
(i. 36) directs those who were ready to 
welcome Christ to Him. Personal inter- 
course converts followers into disciples 
(ii. 2). A manifestation of power, as a 
sign of divine grace, converts disciple- 
ship into personal faith’’ (Westcott). 
‘* Crediderunt amplius’’ (Bengel). The 
different grades, kinds, and types of faith 
alluded to in this Gospel are a study. 
Sanday remarks on the unlikelihood of 
a forger making such constant allusion 
to the disciples. That they believed 
would seem a truism. If they had not, 
they would not have been disciples. It 
would have been more to the point to 
tell us the effect on the guests, and a 
forger would hardly have failed to do so. 
But John writes from the disciples’ point 
of view. Not happy are the attempts to 
interpret this seeming miracle as a 
cleverly prepared wedding jest and gift 
‘Paulus); or as a parable (Weisse), or as 
a hastened natural process (Augustine, 
Olshausen). Holtzmann finds here an 
artistic Lehrdichtung, an allegory rich in 
suggestion. Water represents all that 
is mere symbol as contrasted with spirit 
and reality. The period of symbolism is 
represented by the water baptism of 
John: this was to find its realisation in 
Jesus. The jars which had served for 
the outward washings of Judaism were 
by Jesus filled with heart-strengthening 
wine. The O.T. gift of water from the 
rock is superseded by the gift of wine. 
Wine becomes the symbol of the spiritual 
life and joy of the new kingdom. With 
this central idea the details of the in- 
cident agree: the helplessness of the old 
oeconomy, ‘‘they have no wine”; the 
mother of the Messiah is the O.T. com- 
munity; and so forth. The historical 
truth consists simply in the joyful 
character ascribed to the beginning of 
Christ’s ministry. (1) Against all these 


attempts it is the obvious intention of 
John to relate a miracle, a surprising 
and extraordinary manifestation of 
power. (2) Where allegory exists he 
directs attention to it ; as in this chapter, 
ver. 21; also in chapters x., xv., etc. 
(3) That the incident can be allegorised 
is no proof that it is only allegory and 
not history. All incidents and histories 
may be allegorised. The life and death 
of Caesar have been interpreted as a sun 
myth. 

Few, if any, incidents in the life of 
Jesus give us an equal impression of the 
width of His nature and its imperturbable 
serenity. He was at this juncture fresh 
from the most disturbing personal con- 
flict, His work awaited Him, a work 
full of intense strife, hazard, and pain; 
yet in a mind occupied with these things 
the marriage joy of a country couple 
finds a fit place. 

Ver. 12. From Nazareth to Capernaum 
and thence to Ferusalem. At ver. 12, as 
Calvin says, ‘transit Evangelista ad 
novam historiam”. This new section 
runs to the end of the fourth chapter, 
and gives an account of the first great 
series of public manifestations on the 
part of Christ (1) in Jerusalem, (2) in 
Judaea, (3) in Samaria, (4) in Galilee 
These are introduced by the note of time. 
peta TovTo, commonly used by John 
when he wishes merely to denote 
sequence without definitely marking the 
length of the interval. The interval in the 
present case was probably long enough 
at any rate to allow of the Nazareth 
family returning home, although this is 
not in the text. The motive for a fresh 
movement was probably the desire of the 
fishermen to return home. Accordingly 
KatéBy eis Kadapvaotp, down from the 
higher lands about Nazareth to the lake 
side, 680 feet below sea level. His 
destination was Kagapvaovp, the site of 
which is probably to be found at Khan 
Minyeh (Minia), at the north end of the 
plain of Gennesareth, where the great 
road to Damascus leaves the lake side 
and strikes north. [The most valuable 
comparison of the two competing sites, 


a a a 


C2 es Se 






se a Deg os ae es 


, 
{ 


yy 
j; 
' 








I I—I5. 


od Todas udpas. 


dveBy cis ‘lepoodAupa 6 ‘Iqaods. 


mwdodvtas Boas kat mpdBata Kai mepiotepds, Kat Tos KEppatioTas 
‘ , : > , 
15. Kal towjoas dpayéA\uov €k gyowiwy, mdavTas 


xaOnpévous. 


eééBadev ex tod tepod, td te mpdBata Kal tods Pdas. 


ko\duBiotay éféxee TS Keppa, Kal 


Tell Hum and Khan Minyeh, will be 
found in the Rob Roy on the Fordan. 
Mr. Macgregor spent several days sound- 
ing along the shore, measuring distances, 
comparing notes, and making careful 
examination, and concluded in favour of 
Khan Minyeh. Tell Hum was thought 
to represent Kefr Nahum (Nahumston) ; 
which, when it ceased to be a town and 
became a heap of ruins, might have been 
called Tell Nahum, and hence Tell 
Hum. Authoritative opinion is, however, 
decidedly in favour of Khan Minyeh.] 
With Jesus there went to Capernaum 
TN pyTHp avTov kal ot adeAdot adtod 
kat... avrov. From the manner in 
which His brothers are here mentioned 
along with His mother the natural in- 
ference is that they were of the same 
father and probably of the same mother. 
At Capernaum no long stay was made, 
the reason being given in ver. 13, éyyvs 
hv To wacxa Tov lovdaiwy, the Passover 
was approaching, here called ‘‘of the 
Jews,” either for the sake of Gentile 
readers or because the Christian Easter 
was sometimes called waoya, and John 
wished to distinguish it.—kaldavéBy .. . 
6 *Inoots, the disciples also went, as 
appears from ver. 17. ‘‘ Went up” 
because Jerusalem was the capital, and 
because of its height (2500 feet) above 
sea level. On these movements Prof. 
Sanday (Fourth Gospel, p. 53) makes the 
remark; ‘If it is all an artificial com- 
position with a dogmatic object, why 
should the author carry his readers thus 
to Capernaum—for nothing? The 
apparent aimlessness of this statement 
seems to show that it came directly 
from a fresh and vivid recollection 
and not from any floating tradition.”’ 
—Ver. 14. On reaching Jerusalem Jesus 
as a devout Jew visited the Temple kat 
etpev ev TO iep@, that is, in the outer 
court of the Temple, the court of the 
Gentiles.—rots mwdotvtag Pdas Kai 
wpoBara «al mepiotepds, cattle and 
sheep and doves, the sacrificial animals. 
It was of course a great convenience to 
the worshippers to be able to procure on 
the spot all requisites for sacrifice. Some 
of them might not know what sacrifice 


EYATTEAION 


13. Kal éyyts fv * 
14. kal eGpev év TO tepd Tods 


707 


16 wdoxa Toy "Jou8atwy, Kalr Exod. xii. 

14. Chiv 
I; vi. 4; 
xi. 55. 


kat Tay 
Tas Ttpamelas dvéotpepe- 


was required for their particular offence, 
and though the priest at their own home 
might inform them, still the officiating 
examiner in the Temple might reject the 
animal they brought as unfit; and 
probably would, if it was his interest to 
have the worshippers buying on the spot. 
That enormous overcharges were some- 
times made is shown by Edersheim, who 
relates that on one occasion Simeon, 
the grandson of Hillel, interfered and 
brought down the price of a pair of doves 
from a gold denar, 15s. 3d., to half a 
silver denar, or 4d. This Temple 
tyranny and monopoly and these exorbi- 
tant charges naturally tended to make the 
Temple worship hateful to the people ; 
and besides, the old charm of sacrifice, 
the free offering by a penitent of what he 
knew and cherished, the animal that he 
valued because he had watched it from 
its birth, and had tested its value in the 
farm work—all this was abolished by this 
“convenient” abuse. That the abuse 
was habitual is shown by John Lightfoot, 
who quotes: ‘‘ Veniens quadam die Bava 
Ben Buta in atrium, vacuum pecoribus 
illud reperit,’’ as an extraordinary thing. 
It was not the presence of oxen and sheep 
which was offensive, for such animals 
must pass into the Temple with their 
usual accompaniments. But it was an 
aggravation to have these standing all 
day in the Temple, and to have the 
haggling and chaffering of a cattle 
market mingling with the sounds of 
prayer. But especially was it offensive to 
make the Temple service a hardship and 
an offence to the people of God. Not only 
were there those who provided sacrificial 
animals but also tous keppatiotas Kabn- 
pévous, money changers seated, at their 
tables, for a regular day’s business—not 
a mere accidental or occasional furnish- 
ing with change of some poor man who 
had hitherto not been able to procure it. 
—xéppa is asmall coin, from keipe, to cut 
short.—r6 xéppa used collectively in the 
next verse would be in Attic Ta xéppata. 
—Keppatiorys is one who gives small 
change, a money changer (such as may 
be seen sitting on the open street at a 
table in Naples or elsewhere). In tne 


708 


KATA ITQANNHN 


II. 


+ With obj, 16. kal Tots Tas meptorepds Twdovow elev, “"Apare taita évTed0ev * 


in gen., 4 


Rom. x.2, fil) Trovette Tov olkov TOU Tatpds pou olkov eu7ropiou.” 


Cp. Ps. 
Ixix. 9. 


fifteenth verse they are called xodAv- 
Bioral, from KéAAvBos, a small coin, this 
again from KodoBds, docked, snipped 
short. Maimonides, quoted by Liicke, 
says the xéAAvBos was the small coin 
given to the money changer for exchang- 
ing a shekel into two half-shekels. The 
receiver of the change “ dat ipsi aliquid 
superabundans,” gives the changer some- 
thing over and above, and this aliquid 
superabundans vocatur collybus. In 
fact the word was transliterated, and 
in the Hebrew characters was read 
“‘kolbon”, This kolbon was about 2d., 
which was pretty high for providing the 
sacred half-shekel, which could alone be 
received into the Temple treasury and 
which every Jew had to pay. It was not 
only on the exchange of foreign money 
brought up to Palestine by Jews of the 
dispersion these money changers must 
have made a good percentage; but 
especially by exchanging the ordinary 
currency of Galilee and Judaea into the 
sacred half-shekel, which was the poll- 
tax or Temple tribute exacted from every 
Jew. This tax was either paid a week 
or two before Passover in the provinces 
or at the Passover in the Temple itself. 
To Jesus the usage seemed an intoler- 


able abuse. «al moijoas ppayéAArov 
éx cyotviwv. dpayéAAvov is the Latin 
fiagellum. Many commentators repre- 


sent the matter as if Jesus made a whip 
of the littey ; but John does not say é« 
oxoivey, “ of rushes,” but éx cxotvlov, of 
ropes made of rushes. In the account of 
Paul’s shipwreck (Acts xxvii. 32) cxotvia 
are the ropes which held the boat to the 
ship; so that it is impossible on this 
ground to say with Dr. Whitelaw that 
“the whip could only have been designed 
as an emblem of authority”. It is quite 
probable it was not used; as Bengel 
says: ‘‘neque dicitur hominibus ictum 
inflixisse ; terrore rem perfecit ’.—mdavtas 
é&€Badev. Holtzmannand Weiss consider 
that the following clause is epexegetical 
of the wavtas, as, grammatically, it is ; 
and that mavras therefore refers to the 
sheep and oxen, not tothe men. Inthe 
Synoptical Gospels mavras éf€Badev 
certainly refers to the men, and as the 
masculine is here retained it is difficult 
to refer it to the mpéBata. After driving 
out the oxen and their owners, éf€xee 76 
képpa Kal Tas tpawéLas avéotpewev, or 


17. Epyne- 


Onoay S€ ot pabytat adtod, Gt. yeypappévoy éativ, ‘“O Laos * Tod 


as W.H. read avérpeev.—rpamélas 
were specifically ‘bankers’ tables,’ 
hence tpamefirat, bankers, so that we 
might translate ‘“‘ counters”. These He 
overturned, and poured the coin on the 
ground. We cannot evacuate of forcible 
meaning these plain terms. It was a 
scene of violence: the traders trying to 
protect their property, cattle rushing 
hither and thither, men shouting and 
cursing, the money changers trying to 
hold their tables as Jesus went from one 
to another upsetting them. It was 
indeed so violent a scene that the 
disciples felt somewhat scandalised until 
they remembered, then and there, not 
afterwards, that it was written: ‘O £4\0s 
Tov oikov gov Kataddyeral pe, words 
which are found in the sixty-ninth Psalm, 
the aorist of the LXX being changed 
into the future. In ordinary Greek 
éoSiw has for its future €Sopar, but in 
Hellenistic Greek it has @dyopar for its 
future. See Gen. iii. 3, Lk. xvii.8. The 
disciples saw in their Master’s act a con- 
suming zeal for God’s house. It was 
this zeal which always governed Christ. 
He could not stand by and wash His 
hands of other men’s sins. It was this 
which brought Him to this world and 
to the cross. He had to interfere. It 
might have been expected that the words 
of Malachi would rather have been 
suggested to them, ‘“‘ The Lord whom ye 
seek shall suddenly come to His temple: 
but who may abide the day of His 
coming? for He shall sit as a refiner and 
purifier of silver”. Their interpretation 
of His act was suggested by His words: 
Bh) Wowette Tov olkov Tov matpdés pov 
otkov éuropiov. At His first visit to the 
Temple He had called it His Father’s 
house. There is, no doubt, in the pov 
an appropriation from which others are 
excluded. He does not say ‘your 
Father’s house” nor ‘‘ our Father’s,” but 
‘““my Father’s’”. In this word and in 
His action His Messiahship was implied, 
but directly the act and even the word 
were no more than a reforming prophet 
might have felt to be suitable. Weiss 
(Life of Fesus, ii., 6) says: ‘‘ He felt Him- 
self to be the Son of Him who in a 
unique way had consecrated this place 
for His temple, and He exercised the 
authority of a Son against the turmoil 
which defiled His Father’s house. Those 








16—19. 


oikou cou katépayé? pe.” 


cs n , a a aA A 
etmov adtd, “*Ti onpetov Setkviers piv, St. tadta soveis ; 
> A A A XVi1. I. 

19. AtexpiOn 6 “Inoods kal etmev adtois, “Adcate Tov vadv TOUTOY, Cor. i. a2 


1 katagayerat in all uncials. 


who looked deeper must ultimately have 
seen that the Messiah alone had a right 
to feel Himself in this sense the Chosen 
of Jehovah. As yet, however, there were 
no such observers. The followers by 
whom He was already surrounded did 
not require to deduce His Messiahship 
from this: they knew He was the 
Messiah.”’ Make not my Father’s house 
otxov éprropiov. In Mk. xi. 17 the words 
are given as running, “Is it not written, 
My house shall be called of all nations 
the house of prayer? but ye have made 
it a den of thieves”; which seems to be 
a combination of Is. lvi. 7, ‘‘ Mine house 
shall be called a house of prayer for all 
people,” and Jer. vii. 11, ‘‘ Is this house 
which is called by my name become a 
den of robbers in your eyes?” In the 
oikos éwrroptov there may be a reminis- 
cence of Zech. xiv. 21. 

At ver. 18 the cleft begins to open 
between faith and unbelief. In the act 
in which the disciples had seen the fulfil- 
ment of a Messianic Psalm, the Jews see 
only an unauthorised interference and 
assumption, of authority. Characteris- 
tically they ask for a sign.—ot "lov8aiou, 
as frequent in John, means “ the Jewish 
authorities ’’; and arexpi@noav is used as 
elsewhere of a reply to what has been 
suggested or affirmed not by word but 
by deed.—rti onpetov Serxvvers qpiv, Stu 
TAUTG TWovets ; STt is used similarly in ix. 
17 = els éxetvo Ott. The blindness of 
the Jews is enough to put external 
evidence for ever out of repute. They 
never will see the sign in the thing itself. 
The fact that Jesus by one blow accom- 
plished a much needed reform of an 
abuse over which devout men must often 
have sighed and which perhaps in- 
genuous Levites had striven to keep 
within limits, the fact that this unknown 
youth had done what none of the consti- 
tuted authorities had been able to do, was 
surely itself the greatest onpetov. Might 
they not rather have said: Here is one 
who treats things radically, who does 
not leave grievances to mend themselves 
but effectively puts His hand to the work ? 
But this blindness is characteristic. They 
never see that Jesus Himself is the great 
Sign, but are always craving for some 
extraneous testimony. This Gospel 


EYATTEAION 


709 


18. “AmexpiOncay obv ot “louSator Kat 


»> t vi. 30. Mt. 
xii. 38 and 
I 


throughout is an exhibition of the com- 
parative value of external and internal 
evidence. To their request Jesus could 
not answer, ‘‘I am the Messiah”. He 
wished that to be the people’s discovery 
from their knowledge of Him. He 
therefore answers (ver. 19), Avcare tov 
vaov TovTov, kal év TpLoly Hpepais eyepa 
avtév. The saying was meant to be 
enigmatical. Jesus spoke in parables 
when He wished to be understood by 
the spiritual and to baffle the hostile. 
Those who cross-question Him and treat 
Him as a subject to be investigated find 
no satisfaction. John tells us (ver. 21) 
that here He spoke of the ‘‘temple of His 
body”. Bengel suggests that He may 
have indicated this, ‘‘adhibito nutu ges- 
tuve’’; others -uggest that He may have 
given such an emphasis to rodroy as to 
suggest what He intended; but this is ex- 
cluded by ver. 22, which informs us that 
it was only after the resurrection that 
the disciples themselves understood what 
was meant. Those who heard considered 
it an idle challenge which He knew 
could not be put to the proof. He knew 
they would not destroy their unfinished 
Temple. His words then had one mean- 
ing for Himself; another for those who 
heard. For Himself they meant: 
“Destroy this body of mine in which 
dwells the Father and I will raise it in 
three days”. He said this, knowing 
they would not now understand Him, 
but that this would be the great sign of 
His authority. Paul refers the resurrec- 
tion of Christ to the Father or to the 
Spirit ; John here, as in x. 17, 18, refers it 
directly to Christ Himself. 

Holtzmann suggests, as had previously 
been suggested by others, that ‘‘to do 
anything in three days”? merely meant 
to do it quickly. Reference is made to 
Hos. vi. 2, Mt. xiii. 40. This may be. 
Holtzmann further maintains that such 
an announcement as Jesus is here re- 
presented as making was impossible at 
so early a period of the ministry, that it 
must have been uttered on some other 
occasion and have been inserted here to 
suit John’s purpose. The origin of the 
expression he finds in the Pauline- 
Alexandrian conception of the body as 
the temple of God. If this was believed 


710 


u Of build- Kat dy tpioly Apdpats “éyep® addy.” 


KATA JQANNHN Il. 


» an 
20. Etwov oby ot ‘louvdaior, 
obTos, Kal od év 
éheye tepi * Tod 


22. Ste obv iyépOn ex vexpay, épvyaOnoay 


23. ds S€ Tv ev ‘lepoo- 


Keke: tn in "eeerapdeonas kat && Ereow wKodopyOn 5 vads 
v Col ii 9. Tptalv tpepats eyepets adtév;” I. "Exeivos Sé 
oc if vaod Tod odpatos aiToo. 
ot padytat attod St: TodTo Edeyev adtois!: Kat éniotevoov TH 
ypaby, kat TO Adyw @ elev 5 “Inoois. 
wi. is. 


1 Omit avrots with SABL it. vulg. 


of ordinary men much more must that 
body be the temple in which dwelt all 
the fulness of the Godhead bodily (Col. 
ii. Q). 
Tat the saying itself was historical 
is put beyond doubt by its quotation at 
the trial of Jesus, Mk. xiv. 58; cf. xv. 29. 
There were those who had heard Him 
say that He would destroy the Temple ; 
which gives this saying with just the 
kind of misunderstanding and perversion 
one would expect. But if the saying 
itself is historical, can Jesus have meant 
anything else by it than John tells us He 
meant? That He considered His body 
the Temple of God goes without saying. 

It is indeed extremely unlikely that 
Jesus should at the very beginning of 
His ministry have spoken of His death 
and resurrection openly. Hence even 
Weiss seems to think that the words 
meant: Destroy this Temple, as you are 
doing by allowing such abuses in it, 
prohibit me from those reforms on the 
Temple which can alone save it, and 
eventually this Temple must be com- 
pletely destroyed, its purpose gone, and 
its services extinct. But I will in its 
place raise a spiritual temple, the living 
Church. But if already Jesus had 
thought out the Messianic career, then 
He already was sure both that He 
would die and that He would rise again. 
Being in perfect fellowship with the 
living God He knew that He must be 
hated of men, and He knew that He 
could never fall from that fellowship but 
must conquer death. At no time then 
after His baptism and temptation could 
it be impossible to Him to speak covertly 
as here of His death and resurrection. 
On this point see Schwartzkopff, Die 
Weissagungen Christi. 

Ver. 20. The Jews naturally saw no 
reference to His own body or to its re- 
surrection, and Teplied to the letter of His 
words, teagepdkovra. . . . The Temple 
was begun to be rebuilt in the eighteenth 
year of Herod’s reign that is the autumn 


AUpots éy TH mdoxa, év TH doprH, woAAol éwioteucay ™ eis Td Svopa 


of 734-735. In Jewish reckoning the 
beginning of a year was reckoned one 
year. Thus forty-six years might bring 
us to the autumn of 779 and the Passover 
of 780, i.¢., 27 A.D. would be regarded as 
forty-six years from the rebuilding ; and 
this is Edersheim’s calculation. But 
several accurate chronologists think the 
following year is meant. 

The Synoptical Gospels insert a similar 
incident at the close of Christ’s ministry, 
and there alone. Harmonists accordingly 
understand that the Temple was twice 
cleansed by Him. ‘‘ Bis ergo Christus 
templum ... purgavit’’(Calvin). It is 
easy to find reasons for such action 
either at the beginning or at the close of 
the ministry. On the whole it seems 
more appropriate at the beginning. The 
Messiah might be expected to manifest 
Himself at the Temple. 

The next paragraph extends from ii. 
23 to iii. 21, and contains (1) a brief 
description of the general result of 
Christ’s manifestation in Jerusalem (ii. 
23-25), and (2) a longer description of an 
instance of the kind of faith and inquiry 
which were produced by this manifesta- 
tion and of the manner in which Christ 
met it.—Ver. 23. Time, place, and cir- 
cumstance are again given, as S¢ jv év 
Tois "lepocodvpois év TH waoyxa év TH 
éoptq. The last clause is added with a 
reference to ver. 13. Then the feast was 
near, now it had arrived. We are to 
hear what happened while Jesus resided 
in Jerusalem during the feast.—aodXol 
émiotevoay eis TO Svopa avTot, which 
can scarcely mean less than _ that 
they believed He was the Messiah. 
Nicodemus, however, seems willing only 
to admit He is ‘‘a teacher come from 
God’’. Their belief was founded on the 
miracles they saw.—Qewpotvres avTov 
Ta onpeta G érofer, seeing day by day 
the signs He was doing, and of which 
John relates none. This faith, resting 
on miracles, is in this Gospel never com- 
mended as the highest kind of faith, 








ao—25. III, 12, 


auto, Sewpodvtes adtod 1a onpeta & enoler. 


EYArrEArON 


711 


24. adtos Sé 6xLk. xvi, 
DL etc, 


> lel > Sat ey? « Q -) ~ Q > 8 s , , 
Inoous OUK " ETLOTEVEV EQUTOV aQuTols, nyted 10 QuToOv YiVWOKELV TAaVTQS * y xvi. 30; 


25. kai O7t ob xpelav etxey 7iva Tis paptupron epi Tod dvOpsdrrou - 
cya ee 4 A ) , 
autos yap *éyivwoxe Ti jy ev TO dvOpdTrw. 

III. 1. "HN 8€ *GvOpwros ek Tay bupicaiwy, NixéSypos ” dvopa 
auT@, Gpxwy Tov ‘loudatwy. 2. obtos HAVE mpds Tov “Inoouy } 
kai elev atta, ““PaBBi, otdapey Stt amd Ceod edirubas SiSac- 

d 2g 4 Q ~ 4 a , ~ a ‘ a 
Kahos- “ouSels yap taita tao onpeta Sivatar morety & od Trotels, 


cp. Thayer. 
tT. in) EE GH: 


although it is by no means despised. It 
is what Luther calls ‘‘ milk faith’? and 
may grow into something more trust- 
worthy. Accordingly, although Jesus 
had at once committed Himself to the 
men who were attracted without miracle 
by His personality and the testimony of 
the Baptist, to these attds “Ingots ox 
éwiotevey éauTov, “ Jesus on His part did 
not commit Himself”. It is necessary 
to consider not only whether we have 
faith in Christ but whether Christ has 
faith in us. Thoroughgoing confidence 
must always be reciprocal. Christ 
will commit Himself to the man who 
thoroughly commits himself to Him. 
The reason of this reserve is given in a 
twofold expression : positive, $14 75 avTdv 
yweoKe wavras, “because He Him- 
self knew all men”; negative, kat drt ov 
Xpetav etxev ivatis paprupyoy wept Tov 
avOpwrov, ‘and because He had no need 
that any one should witness concerning 
man”, Holtzmann, following Winer, 
thinks that the article is inserted because 
reference is made to the individual with 
whom Jesus had on each occasion to 
do. This seems quite unnecessary. 6 
avOpwaos is here, as in A.V., ‘‘man,” 
the ordinary generic use of the article. 
The reason for this again is given in the 
closing words, avtés yap . . . “‘ For He 
Himself knew what was in man,” knew 
human nature, the motives, governing 
ideas, and ways of man. This know- 
ledge was not supernatural. Westcott 
has an important note on this point, in 
which he points out that John describes 
the knowledge of Jesus “ both as relative, 
acquired (ywooKew) and absolute, 
possessed (ei8évar)”’. Each constitutes 
a higher degree of the kind of know- 
ledge found among men. Reynolds 
says: ‘‘ There are many other indica- 
tions of this thought mastery, which the 
evangelists appear to regard as proofs of 
divine power; so that I think the real 
significance of the passage is an ascrip- 


b Jobi.1; cp. Chi. 6 


see Bur- 
ton, 216, 
zi Sam. 
xvi.7. 2 
Sam. xiv 
17. Mt. 
ix 


C ihe 
VUKTOS, a=tTts, Mt 
XVil, 14, 
etc.; with 
aes, Mt. 
XViii. 12. 
0. Vv. 5; 


¢ vii. 50; xix. 39. d vii, He ix. 31. 


avToy in NABKL, etc, 


tion to Jesus of Divine power. The 
supernatural in mind, the superhuman 
mental processes of Jesus, are part of 
the proof we have that though He was 
man He created the irresistible impres- 
sion that He was more than man.” 
CuHapTER III. Vv. 1-21. A specimen 
is given of the kind of belief produced in 
the Fews of Ferusalem and of the 
manner in which ¥esus dealt with it.— 
jv 82 avOpwos, the Syriac adds “ there,” 
i.é., at Jerusalem. Gy@pwrros is simply 
equivalent to tts, and does not point 
back to the Gv@pwos of the preceding 
verse. He is described as éx Tov Papicaiwy 
that we may the better understand what 
follows. He belonged to that party 
which with all its bigotry contained a 
salt of true patriotism and could rear 
such cultured and high-toned men as 
Gamaliel and Paul. It is a mistake to 
suppose that all who belong to a mis- 
chievous party in a Church are themselves 
mischievous: it is also a mistake to ascribe 
without inquiry the goodness of indi- 
viduals to the influence of their party.— 
Nixddnpos Svopa atte. Many Jews had 
now Greek names. Lightfoot quotes from 
the Talmud passages which show that a 
certain Bonai surnamed Nicodemus was 
a disciple of Jesus, and that he lived 
through the destruction of Jerusalem, 
but lost in it all his wealth. He is, how- 
ever, very doubtful whether this is the 
Nicodemus of this passage. He is further 
described as adpxwy tev “lovdaiwy, a 
member of the Sanhedrim. See vii. 50, 
where he appears in the Sanhedrim. Lk. 
xiv. I speaks of one tév apxdvTwv Tav 
Papicaiwy. See also Lk. xviii. 18, viii. 
41; Mt. ix. 18.—Ver. 2. otros 7AGe 
mpos avtov. The pronoun instead of 
the name Jesus, as Holtzmann remarks, 
shows the close connection with the 
closing verses of the last chapter. 
Nicodemus came to the fountain head, 
dissatisfied with the way in which his 
colleagues were dealing with Jesus, and 


712 


e Acts vil. édy pd) 7 6 Ocds Sper abrod.” 
abté, “"Aphy dphy Adyw oo, *édv ph tes yervnO dvwOer, ob 


9; x. 38. 
1 Kings 
x. 10. 


{ Gal. vi. 15. 1 Pet. i. 23. 


resolved to judge for himself. Nothing 
could be more hopeful than such a state 
of mind. When a man says, I will see 
for myself what Jesus is, not influenced 
by what other men say ; before I sleep I 
will settle this matter, the result is fairly 
certain to be good. See chap. vii. 50, 
xix. 39. He came vuxrds, certainly with 
the purpose of secrecy, and yet for a 
man in his position to come at all was 
much. No timidity is shown in vii. 50. 
In xix. 39 John still identifies him as 
‘‘he that came to Jesus by night,” but 
adds ‘“‘ at the first’ in contrast to the 
courage he afterwards showed. Similarly, 
as Grotius tells us, Euclid of Megara 
visited Socrates by night when Athens 
was closed by edict against the 
Megarians. Modestly and as if not pre- 
suming to speak as an individual but as 
representing a party however small (ii. 
32), he says, ‘PaBBet otSapev Sti ard Geod 
éAyjAvbas Sidackadol, ‘ Rabbi, we know 
that Thou art come from God as a 
teacher”. We need not see in the words 
anything either patronising or flattering, 
but merely the natural first utterance of 
a man wishing to show the state of his 
mind. He was convinced that Jesus was 
a divinely commissioned teacher. He 
came to hear what He had to teach. His 
teaching, in the judgment of Nicodemus, 
was divinely authenticated by the 
miracles; but to Nicodemus at any rate 
the teaching was that for which the 
miracles existed. They were onpeta, and 
though not recorded, they must have 
been of a kind to strike a thoughtful 
mind tatra Ta onpeia & ov roveis, the 
emphatic pronoun, as if other miracles 
might not have been so convincing. At 
the same time the reply of Jesus shows 
that behind this cautious designation of 
“teacher”? there lay in the mind of 
Nicodemus a suspicion that this might 
be the Messiah. Nicodemus may have 
taken to heart the Baptist’s proclama- 
tion. Grotius supposes the conversation 
is abridged, and that Nicodemus had 
intimated that he wished to learn some- 
thing about the kingdom which formed 
the subject of our Lord’s teaching. 
‘“‘ Responsio tacite innuit, quod adjectum 
a Nicodemo fuerat, nempe, velle se scire, 
quandoquidem Jesus Regni coelestis inter 
docendum mentionem saepe faceret, 
quae ratio esset co perveniendi.” But 


KATA TQANNHN 


II. 


3: “Atrexpidn & "Incois Kal elev 


with the introduction to this incident 
(ii. 23-25) in our mind, it seems gratuitous 
to suppose that part of the conversation 
is here omitted. Jesus speaks to the 
intention and mental attitude of His 
interlocutor rather than to his words. 
He saw that Nicodemus was conceiving 
it as a possible thing that these miracles 
might be the signs of the kingdom ; and 
in this visit of Nicodemus He sees what 
may be construed into an overture from 
the Pharisaic party. And so He cuts 
Nicodemus remorselessly short. As 
when the Pharisees (Lk. xvii. 20) demand 
of Him when the Kingdom of God should 
come, He replied: The Kingdom of God 
cometh not with observation, not with 
signs which the natural man can measure, 
it comes within you; so here in strik- 
ingly similar language He says, éav py TLs 
yevyn0y dvwbev, ov Sivarar ldeiv tH 
Bactrciay rod Se0v. This allusion to 
the kingdom, which is not a favourite 
idea of John’s, is one of the incidental 
marks of his historical trustworthiness, 
—avw6ev is sometimes local = é£ ovpavod, 
from above; sometimes temporal = e& 
apxqs, de novo. The former meaning 
is advocated here by Baur, Liicke, Meyer, 
and others. But the use of waAtyyevecia 
and the difficulty stated by Nicodemus 
in ver. 4 rather indicate that the Syriac 
and Vulgate [nisi quis renatus fuerit], 
Augustine, Calvin, and among many 
others Weiss are right in adopting the 
temporal meaning and rendering with 
R.V. “anew”. [Wetstein, in proof of 
this meaning, quotes from Artemidorus, 
who tells of a father who dreamt that 
there was born to him a child exactly 
like himself; ‘‘ he seemed,” he says, “to 
be born a second time,” @vwev. And in 
the touching story which gave rise to the 
Domine quo vadis Church at Rome where 
Peter met Christ, the words of the Lord, 
as given in the Acta Pauli, are avwGev 
pAAw oravpwijvat.] The answer of 
Nicodemus might seem to indicate that 
he had understood dvw@ev as equivalent 
to his own Sevrepov. But it is impossible 
to determine with certainty which is the 
correct meaning. A man must be born 
again, says our Lord, because otherwise 
ov Svvara ideiv thy Bacidclay Tod Ged. 
Is idetv here to be taken in the sense of 
“seeing” or of ‘enjoying,’ “ partak- 
ing”? Meyer and Weiss, resting on 





ae 


Sdvatar iSetv thy © Baoihetav Tod Ocod.” 


Nukddypos, “Mas Sivatar dvOpwros 


Suvatat €is Thy KoiAlay THs pytpds adTod Sedtepov eiceNOetv Kat 
2 6. 
"Ingois, “Api dpury Aéyw oor, edv h Mk. i. & 


yevynOjvar;” 5. AmexpiOy 6 


py tes yervndg “ef GSatos Kai Mvedpatos, ob Suvatar cicehOety eis 


such expressions as i8eiv @dvarov (Lk. ii. 
26, Heb. xi. 5), StapPopay (Acts ii. 27), 
hpépas ayabds (1 Pet. iii. 10), under- 
stand that “ participation’ is meant. So 
Calvin, “‘ videre regnum Dei idem valet 
ac ingredi in regnum Dei,” and Grotius, 
‘“‘participem fieri”. Confirmation of 
this view is at first sight given by the 
eioeNOeiv of ver. 5. But it is of “signs” 
Nicodemus has been speaking, of ob- 
serving the kingdom coming; and 
Christ says: To see the kingdom you 
must be spiritual, born anew, for the signs 
are spiritual. In this language there 
should have been nothing to stumble 
Nicodemus. All Jerusalem was ringing 
with the echoes of the Baptist’s preach- 
ing, the essence of which was “ ye must 
be born again”. _To_be children of 


Abraham is nothing, There 1s nothing 
moral, nothing spiritual, nothing of the 
will, nothing related to the Kingdom oft 


EYATTEATION 


713 


4. Ad€yer mpds attéy 6 ¢ Only here 

os ; = , and ver. 5 

yevynOjvar yépwv oy; pr) injohn.y 
B. 7 en 


in XViil. 


Ezek. 
XXXVi. 25 


B. To remove as far as possible the 
difficulty of Nicodemus as to the was of 
the second birth our Lord declares that 


Se ae 
and ‘‘spirit”. Calvin thinks this is a év 


Sta Svotv, and that the two names cover 
one reality. ‘‘Spiritum et aquam pro 
eodem posuit.” ‘Aqua nihil aliud est 
quam interior Spiritus sancti purgatio et 
vegetatio.” And he defends this by a 
reference to the Baptist’s announcement 
that the Messiah would baptise with the 
spirit and fire. Grotius takes the same 
line, but cautiously adds: “Si quis 
tamen malit ista decernere, ut aqua 
significet mali fugam, spiritus vero 
impetum ad optima quaeque agenda, 
inveniet quo hanc sententiam fulciet”’. 
Lk. (vii. 30) tells us that the Pharisees, 
to whom belonged Nicodemus, were not 
baptised of John; their reason being 
that to submit to the same rite as Gentiles 
and acknowledge the insufficiency of 


“God in being children of Abraham. As 
regards your fies irth_you_are as their Jewish birth wasa humiliation they 
passive as stones and as truly outside could not suffer. To receive the Spirit 
“the kingdom, _In fact John had excom- from the Messiah was no humiliation; _ 
“municated i = on the contrary, it was a glorious 

~pressly told them that they must submit privilege, But to go down into Jordan 
to baptism, like Gentile proselytes, if before a wondering crowd and own their 
they were to be prepared for the Messiah’s need of cleansing and new birth was toe 
reign. The language may not have “much. Therefore to this Pharisee our _ 


puzzled Nicodemus. Had our Lord said: Lord declares that_an honest dying to 
the past is as needrul_as n if 


‘‘ Every Gentile must be born again,” he 
ture. To be born of the Spirit involves 


would have understood. It is the idea ; 
a dying to the past, and therefore it is 
only the Spirit that is spoken of in the 


that staggers him. His bewilderment 
he utters in the words:—Ver. 4. Was 
Sivarar avOpwros yevvnOijvat yépwv Gv; Subsequent verses ; but it_is_ essential 
ph Svvarat, etc. In this reply there is that our past be recognised as needing 
no attempt to fence with Jesus, but cleansing and forgiveness. These two 


merely an expression of the bewilder- factors, water and spirit, are not strictly 
ment created by His statement. The co-ordinate. Water is not an actual 








emphasis is on was, which asks for 
further explanation. The py of the 
second clause shows that _Nicodemus 
understood that Jesus could not mean a 
second physical birth (see Lucke). On 
yépev dy Grotius remarks: “ Exemplum 
in se ponit, qui senex jam erat”. That 
our Lord understood Nicodemus’ words 
as a request for further explanation 
appears from His at once proceeding to 
giveit.—Ver. 5. “Aphy, aunv héyw go, 
dav py tis yevvnOy @& vSaTos Kal 
"veUpaTos, ov Mavevas eloedOciy cls THY 


second birth there is ne 


spiritual agency in the second birth; it 
is only a symbol./ But in_ev ue 
ive as well _ 
as a positive side, a renunciation of the 
ast as treated. The 
same idea is found in Titus ili. 3-5, 
‘“‘ We were [of the flesh] but He saved 


wmaiy eine Belle ot eee arate cane 
renewal of the Holy Ghost”. The same 


combination is found in Ezek. xxxvi. 25- 
27, ‘* Then will I sprinkle clean water 
upon you and ye shall be clean: from 
all your filthiness and from all your idols 


714 


ix Cor. ii. thy Baodelay tod Geos. 
12. Gal 
v. 16. 

jiv.27. Lk. 
xi. 38. 
Gal. i. 6; 
with «i 


o. iii.13. ’ » 
k pres.indic, THEUPGATOS. 

Burton, 

313. 
will I cleanse you. A new heart also 
will I give you, and a new spirit will I 


put within you.” The water, then, is 
considered as that which cleanses from 


Sin: the Spirit as the principle of the 


new life.—Ver. 6. The necessity of the 
new birth is further exhibited by a com- 
parison of the first and second birth: 
TO yeyevynpévoy ex THS TapKds, capt 
éott* kal TO yeyevynpévov ex Tov MMvev- 
patos, mvetpa éott. The neuter is 
used because the speaker ‘‘ wishes to 
make His statement altogether general ” 
(Winer, 27, 5), whatever is born. The 
law is laid down in Aristotle (Eth. Maj., 
i., 10), ‘‘ Every nature generates its own 
substance,” flesh, flesh ;_spirit, spirit.— 
Ver. 7. Therefore it was no cause for 
wonder that a new birth was required 
for entrance into the spiritual kingdom. 
The argument implies that natural birth 
roduces only oa spirit. By his 
a 


ral Soh man is an animal, with 
nature fitting him to live in the material 


world in which fin s himself and 


‘spiritual world. These capacities may 


or_may not be developed. If they are 


developed, the Spirit of God is the 
gent, and the change wrought by their 


development may fitly be called a new 
evelopment may fitly be called a 


ae 


birth, because it gives a man entrance—as the wind tosses the trees. 


into a new world and imparts new life to 
live in it. (Cf. the second birth and 
second life of many insects.)—Ver. 8. 
TO Tvevpa Strov Veer vet. Two render- 
ings of these words are possible: ‘‘ The 
wind bloweth where it listeth,’’ as in 
A.V.; ‘The Spirit breatheth where He 
will,” as in margin of R.V. By the one 
rendering a comparison is instituted 
between the unseen but powerful opera- 
tion of the Spirit in regeneration and the 
invisible but mighty power of the wind. 
You hear the voice of the wind but 
cannot see where it comes from nor 
where it goes to. So in the new birth 
the Spirit moves and works unseen. 
Similarly Socrates (Xen., Mem., iv., 3) 
says: The thunder as it comes and goes 
is not seen: the winds also are invisible 
though their effects are manifest; the 


KATA IQANNHN 


' €ote> Kal Td yeyevynpévoy ex Tod mvedpaTos, mredpd éott. 
Baupdoys Ste etwdv cor, Act Gnas yerynPjvat dvwOev. 


secret and _invisi the results are 
apparent.— Ver. g. [his explanation did 
not satisfy Nicodemus. He falls back 
upon his bewilderment, was Svvarat 


Ill, 


6. ‘1d yeyevynpévov éx Tis gapKds, odpt 


7: pH 


8. 7d Tvetpa 


Strou Ger vet, kal Thy hwrhy adtod dxovers, AA’ ovK oldas wébev 
*€pxetar kat mod Omdyer oltws goti mas 6 yeyevynpévos ex Tod 
g. "AtrexpiOn NixdSnpos Kai elev ait, “Mads Suvara 


soul of man is itself unseen, therefore 
despise not the unseen but honour God. 
In favour of the other rendering it may 
be urged that there is nothing to warn 
us that we are now to understand that 
by the word wvetdpe ‘‘ wind” is meant. 
It occurs about 370 times in the N.T., 
and never means ‘*wind” except once 
in a quotation from the O.T. The 
Vulgate renders ‘Spiritus ubi vult 
spirat,” and if we could not only say 
“expire,” “ inspire,” but also “spire,” the 
best translation might be ‘the Spirit 
spires”. As this cannot be, we may 
render: “‘ The Spirit breathes where He 
will,’ that is to say, there is no limita- 
tion of His power to certain individuals, 
classes, races. Cf. v. 21, 6 vids ots OéAer 
Cwororet. The thought here is similar: 
there need be no despair regarding the 
second birth: the Spirit breathes where 
He will. So Bengel, ‘ Spiritus, proprie, 
nam huic, non vento voluntas et vox 
est’’.—xKal Thy dwvqv avtod akovers, the 
Spirit makes Himself audible in articu- 
late and intelligible sounds. The breath- 
ing of the Spirit is like man’s breath, not 
mere air, but articulated and significant 
voice. The Spirit works intelligible 
results. He does not roar like the wind 
and toss men in unavailing contortions 
It is a 
voice and the result is full of reason, in 
harmony with human nature and vivify- 
ing it to higher life. But for all this, ovx 
otdas wdbev Epyerat kal mov tmayer, you 
cannot observe and regulate the Spirit’s 
approach and departure.—otrws éott 
mas 6 yeyevynpevos ék TOU mwvevparos, 
thus it is in the case of every one who is 
born of the Spirit. _ You cannot see the 

rocess of rege : 1s 


Tavta yevéo§at; This question stirs 
Jesus to a fuller explanation, which is 
reported in vv. 10-15.—Ver. 10. He 
opens with an exclamation of surprise, 
Ed el 6 Si8acrKados Tod lopayA kal Tatra 
ov yivdoxers ; perhaps there is more of 








6—13. 


taita yevéobar ;” 


6 '8i8doKados tod “lapahd, Kal tadta od yidoxets ; 

duty A€yw cou, Sti 6 oidaper Aadodpey, kal 6 Ewpdkapev PapTupodper * 
x a 

Kai Tiv paptuptay Hpav od hapBdvere. 


EYATTEAION 


10. "AmexpiOn 6 *Inaods kal etrev adta, 


715 


6 $5 ef 1 Rom. ii.20. 
m 1 Cor. xv. 
40. 2Cor. 
Vee 
aE, 
ni Or. XV. 
12. el Ta “€mtyea etmoy 48. Phil. 
ll, 10, 


IT. apy 


en A a na 
bpiv, kal ob morteveTe, TOs, edv eiTw Gyiy Ta” éoupdvia, mLoTEU- o Deut. xxx. 


GETE ; 


13. kal °ovdels dvaBeBykey cis Tov ovpardy, Et pt 6 


~ 12.Baruch 
€k TOU iii. 29. 
Prov. 


t4 


otpavod PkataBds, 6 vids Tod dvOpdmou 6 ay év TO odpavO!- xx. 4. 


P vi. 33, 38. 


1 0 wy ev Tw ovpavw is found in ATA vet. Lat. vulg. syr., but is omitted in BL 33 


memph. Cyr.-Alex. 


sadness than either of indignation or 
irony in the words. Is this the state of 
matters I have to confront? If the 
teacher is so obtuse what must the 
taught be? The presence of the article 
is usually taken as indicating that 
Nicodemus was recognised as a great 
teacher, perhaps held the official position 
of Chakam in the Sanhedrim. But 
Westcott is right: ‘the definite article 
marks the official relation of Nicodemus 
to the people generally”. It is used to 
bring out sharply, not the relation he 
held to other teachers, but the relation 
he held to the people. ‘‘ Art thou the 
teacher of Israel and knowest not 
these things?” Bad enough for an 
Israelite to be blind to such things, but 
how much worse for one who teaches! 
But should a teacher of Israel have 
known these things? Westcott over- 
leaps the difficulty by saying that 
yivdokets refers to the knowledge of 
perception, and that Jesus is surprised 
that Nicodemus should not have been 
able during this conversation to appre- 
hend what was said.—Ver. II. aphy, 
api. . . ovAapBavere. From this point 
dialogue ceases, and we have now an 
unbroken utterance of Jesus. It starts 
with a certification of the truth of what 
Nicodemus had professed himself unable 
to understand.—@ otdapev Aahodpary. 
Why plural? Were the _ disciples 
present and are they included? Or does 
it mean Jesus and the prophets, or Jesus 
and the Baptist, or Jesus and the Father, 
or is it the rhetorical ‘‘ we”? Possibly it 
is merely an unconscious transition to 
the plural, as in this same verse the oot 
of the first clause becomes a plural in 
AapBavere in the last clause. Or there 
may be an indefinite identification of 
Himself with all who had apprehended 
the nature of the new birth—the Baptist 
and the best of his disciples. Jesus does 
not wish to represent Himself as alone 
able to testify of such matters. Weiss’ 


view is peculiar. He thinks that the con- 
tents of the paptupotpev consist of what 
John and Jesus saw at the Baptism, 
when the Spirit’s descent indicated Jesus 
as the Baptiser with the Spirit.—Ver. 
Iz. eb Ta émiyeia ... muorevoete; 
The reference of ta éwiyewa is fixed by 
the elrov tpiv. They are such things 
as Jesus had been speaking of: things 
verified in human, earthly experience, 
the necessity of a spiritual birth and the 
results of it. Regeneration was a change 
made in this earthly life. The kingdom 
of regenerate men was to be established 
on earth, as apprehensible in certain of 
its aspects as the kingdom Nicodemus 
was proposing to found. The éwovpdyia 
are matters not open to human observa- 
tion, matters wholly in the unseen, the 
nature and purposes of God. Cf. the 
remarkable parallel in Wisd. ix. 16. 
—Ver. 13. Kal ovdels avaBeBnnev .. . 
xataBdas. The connection is: You have 
not believed earthly things, much less will 
you believe those which are heavenly; 
for not only are they in their own nature 
more difficult to understand, but there is 
none to testify of them save only that 
One who came down out of heaven. 
The sentence may be paraphrased thus: 
No one has gone up to heaven and by 
dwelling there gained a knowledge ot 
the heavenly things: One only has dwelt 
there and is able to communicate that 
knowledge—He, viz., who has come 
down from heaven. ‘ Presence in 
heaven”? is considered to be the 
ground and qualification for communi- 
cating trustworthy information regarding 
“heavenly things”. Direct knowledge 
and personal experience of heavenly 
things alone justify authoritative declara- 
tions about them; as in earthly things 
one may expect to be believed if he can 
say, ‘‘we speak that we do know and 
testify that we have seen”. But this 
‘presence in heaven” Jesus declares to 
be the qualification exclusively of one 


716 


q ees xxi, T4. 


r iii. 28; 
xii. 32. 


aitév pi dmddntat, add’? 


KATA TQANNHN 


kal *kabas Moons vpwoe tov Sp ey TH eéphpe, 


HpwOFvar Set tov uidv tod dvOpwrrou - 


Ill. 


¥ od Tws 
J A , > 
wa Tas 6 TLuoTedwY ELS 


16. odTw yap 


15. 


Exn Lwivy aidvor. 


hyaayncev 6 Oeds Tov Kdopov, dote Tov vidy abtod Tov povoyerh 


ESwxev, iva was 6 miotedwy eis abtov ph dmrddnTat, GAN’ Exn Loh 


1 un aroAnrat add omitted in NBL 1, 33 vet. Lat. 


person. This person He describes as ‘‘ He 
that came down out of heaven,’ adding 
as a further description ‘‘the Son of 
Man” [whois in heaven]. This descrip- 
tion identifies this person as Jesus Him- 
self. He claims therefore to have a 
unique qualification for the declaration 
of truth about heavenly things, and this 
qualification consists in this, that He and 
He alone has had direct perception of 
heavenly things. He has been in heaven, 
By “‘ heaven”? it is not a locality that is 
indicated, but that condition which is 
described in the prologue as mpos Td 
Oedv. And when He speaks of coming 
down out of heaven He can only mean 
that lower level from which they had not 
been able to ascend to the knowledge of 
heavenly things. In short, we have here 
the basis in Christ’s own words of the 
statement in the prologue that the Word 
was in the beginning with God, and 
became flesh to be a light to men. Why 
is 6 vids rod avOpdmov introduced? It 
identifies the person spoken of, and it 
suggests that He who alone had the 
knowledge of heavenly things now wore 
human nature, was accessible, and was 
there for the purpose of communicating 
this knowledge. The words added in 
e T.R., 6 dv év TO ovpavea, affirm that 
although He had come out of heaven 
He was still in it, and they show that a 
condition of being, not a locality, was 
meant by ‘‘heaven’’.—Ver. 14. If the 
Son of Man alone has this knowledge, 
how is it to be disseminated and become 
a light to all men? This is answered 
in the words, kat xa@as Maoijs . . . Tod 
a&v8pamov [modern editors read Mavojs ; 
so also in LXX]. The emphatic word 
is woe. When Moses made the brazen 
serpent, he did not secrete it in his tent 
and admit a few selected persons to view 
it, but tWaoe tov Suv, gave it an eleva- 
tion at which all might see it. So must 
the Son of Man, the bearer of heavenly 
light and healing, tWwOfvat, that all may 
see Him. The “ lifting up” of the Son 
of Man is interpreted in xii. 33 to mean 
His lifting up on the cross, It was this 


which drew human observation and 
human homage. The cross is the throne 
of Christ. In the phrase Sei twOFvar 
the aorist is used in accordance with 
Greek usage by which an aorist infinitive 
is employed to express the action of the 
verb even though future after verbs 
signifying to hope, to expect, to promise, 
and such like, Thus Iph. in Aul., 462, 
otpat yap viv ikerevorar, where Markland 
needlessly changes the aorist into the 
future. Nicodemus could not see the 
significance with which these words were 
filled by the crucifixion. What would be 
suggested to him by the comparison oi 
the Messiah with the brazen serpent 
might be something like this: The Son 
of Man is to be lifted up. Yes, but not 
on a throne in Herod’s palace. He was 
to be conspicuous, but as the brazen 
serpent had been conspicuous, hanging 
on a pole for the healing of the people. 
His elevation was certain, but it was an 
elevation by no mere official appoint- 
ment, or popular recognition, or heredi- 
tary right, but by plumbing the depths 
of human degradation in truest self- 
sacrifice. There is no royal road to 
human excellence, and Jesus reached the 
height He attained by no blare of 
heralds’ trumpets or flaunting of banners 
or popular acclaim, but by being sub- 
jected to the keenest tests by which 
character can be searched, by passing 
through the ordeal of human life in this 
world, and by being found the best, the 
one only perfectly faithful servant of God 
and man.—Ver. 15. The words py 
amrdéAnrat add’ of the T.R. are omitted 
by Tisch., W.H.,and R.V. Further, the 
same editors replace the words eis avray 
by év avro, and the R.V. translates 
“that whosoever believeth may in Him 
have eternal life,” in accordance with 
Johannine usage, which does not support 
the rendering ‘ believeth in Him”. This 
is the object to be accomplished by the 
“elevation”? of the Son of Man, viz., 
that whoever, Jew or Gentile, believes 
that there is life in Him that is thus 
exalted, may have life eternal.—Ver. 
16. Several conservative theologians, 








{4— Ig. 


27 
QLWYLOV. 


kéopov, iva Kpivy tov Kécpov, GAN’ iva cw 6 Kdopos Su’ adrod. 
< , > ye. > , c 5 A , » 
18. 6 mortedwy eis adtév ob Kpiveraty 6 Bé€ pi mortedwv 7ndy 
Kéxpitat, Ste "ph memloteuKey eis TS Svoma Too povoyevots utod 
19. ‘adty Sé éotw * Kpiots Ste TS dds EAHAuBer Eis Tdv 
Koopov, Kat hydancay ot avOpwror paddov 16 oKdTos, 7 TO POs ° +t 


Tou Qcou. 


Neander, Tholuck, Westcott, are of 
opinion that the words of Jesus end with 
ver. 15, and that from vv. 16-21 we have 
an addition by the evangelist. There is 
much to be said in favour of this idea. 
The thoughts of these verses are ex- 
planatory rather than progressive. Vv. 
16 and 17 repeat the object of Christ’s 
mission, which has already been stated. 
Vv. 18 and 19 declare the historic 
results in faith and unbelief, results 
which at the date of the conversation 
were not conspicuous. Vv. 20 and 21 
exhibit the causes of faith and unbelief. 
The tenses also forbid us to refer the 
passage directly to Jesus. In His lips 
the present would have been more 
natural. To John looking back on the 
finished story aorists and perfects are 
natural, Also, the designation ‘ only 
begotten son”’ is not one of the names 
by which Jesus designates Himself, but 
it is used by the evangelist, i. 18 and 
I John iv. 9.—otrw yap 7yamnoev. . . 
{wnv aiwviov. The love of God for the 
world of men is the source o rist’s 
mission with all its blessings. It was 
this which prompted Him to ‘ give,” 
that is, to give not solely to the death of 
the cross alluded to in ver. 14, but to all 
that the world required for salvation, 

is only begotten Son. ‘‘ The change 
from the aorist (4adAnTat) to the present 
(€xy) is to be noted, the utter ruin being 
spoken of as an act, the possession of 
life eternal as an enduring experience” 
(Meyer, Weiss, Holtzmann).—Ver. 17. 
ov yap améorethev . . . 80 avtov. For 
whatever the result of Christ’s coming 
has been, in revealing a love of sin and 
bringing heavier judgment on men, this 
was not God’s purpose in sending His 
Son. The Jewish idea was that the 
Messiah would come “‘ to judge,” 7.e., to 
condemn the world.—-xptvw and kata- 
kpivw, though originally distinct, are in 
the N.T. sometimes identical in mean- 
ing, the result of judgment so commonly 
bem condemnation; cf. crime. But 
although the 

bringing to 


Jeet and the resulting co d the resulting condemnation of 
any, yet the object was tva ow0q 6 


EYATTEAION 


result is judgment, the 
ight a distinction among 


717 


17. 08 yap dméotekeyv 5 Oeds Tov vidv abToOd eis Tov 


s Excep- 
tional 
constr. ; 
see Bur 


ton, 474, 
Winer, 


594, 602. 
1 Jo. v.11, 


KdopLos. John repeats his favourite word 
kécpos three times in this verse that 
there may be no possibility of missing 
his point, that so far_as God’s purpose 
was concerned, it was one of unmixed 
love, that all men might be saved. The 
emphasis was probably due to the 
ordinary Messianic expectation which 
limited and misrepresented the love of 
God. Westcott remarks on this verse: 
‘« The sad realities of present experience 
cannot change the truth thus made 
known, however little we may be able to 
understand in what way it will be accom- 
plished”’. It might on similar grounds 
be argued that because God wills that 
all men be holy in this life, all men are 
holy.—Ver, 18. 6 wmioTevwv .. . TOU 
Qcov. Expansion of previous verse. God 
sent His Son not to judge but to save; 
and _whoso_accepts the Son—and His— 
revelation is not judged. It is no longer_ 
“every Jew,’ nor ‘“‘every one chosen by 
God,” but every one that believeth. All 
here is spiritual. Although judgment 
was _n ject it is the necessary _ 


“tesult of Christ’s presence in the world. 
ut it is a judgment very different from 


that which the Jews expected. It is 
determined by the attitude towards 
Christ, and this again, as afterwards 
shown, is determined by the moral con- 
dition of the individual.—6 py muotevwv 
75y Kéxpirat, “he that believeth not is 
already judged’: not only is left under 
the curse of his own evil actions ; but, 
as the next clause shows, lies under the 
condemnation of not believing.—7dy 
Kéxpitat, he is already judged: it is not 
some future assize he doubtfully awaits 
and which may or may not convict. He 
is judged, and on a ground which to John 
seems to indicate monstrous depravity, 
ori py wemlotevKev .. . TOV Geov. Not 
to perceive the glory of this august 
Being whom John so adored, not to 
receive the revelation made by the Only 
Begotten, is proof not merely of human 


infirmity and passion, but of wickedness 
chosen and preferred _in presence of-re- 
vealed” Sadness Ver. TOs) | Dhis}i1s 
further explained in the following, atrn 
... 7 @@s. The ground of the con- 


718 


u Prov.xxil. }y yap wornpd aitav ra Epya. 


8. Eph. 
v.53, 


KATA [QANNHN 


Il, 


20. wis yap 6 “gaia mpdoowy 


joel TO Os, Kal odx EpxeTat mpds Td has, tva pi eAeyx OG Ta Epya 


v Tobit xiii. adTod > «21. 6 S€ “rowdy thy GAnPeray Epxerar mpds Th GOs, va 
pavepw0f airod Ta Epya, St. dv Ged dot eipyaopéva.” 


demnation lies precisely in this, that 
since the coming of Christ and His 
exhibition of human life in the light of 
the holiness and love of the Father, 
human sin is no longer the result of 
GHorance-bur-of-tteliberate choice and 
man who says, ‘Evil, be thou my good”’. 
The reason of this preference of darkness 
and rejection of Christ is that the life is 
evil, iv yap x. tT. A.—Ver. 20. The prin- 
ciple is explained in this verse. Under- 
lying the action of men towards Christ 
during His historical manifestation was 
a general law: a law which operates 
wherever men are similarly invited to 
walk in the light. The law which governs 
the acceptance or refusal of light is given 
in the words was yap 6 data .. . épya 


avtov. avAos, originally ‘‘ poor,” 
“paltry,” “ugly”; of gavAo, “the 
vulgar,” ‘the common sort’. In 


Polybius, datAa wAota, wodrteia hadaAa, 
badly constructed; gatAos yepev, a 
foolish general, and in xvii. 15, 15 it 
is opposed to deliberate wickedness. 
Dull, senseless viciousness seems to be 
denoted. Here and in ver. 29 rpaooewv 
is used with adda, and troveiv in the 
next verse with GAyerav, on which 
Bengel remarks: ‘‘ Malitia est irrequieta ; 
est quiddam operosius quam veritas. 
Hinc verbis diversis notantur’’. Where 
a distinction is intended, mpacoetv 
expresses the reiterative putting forth of 
activities to bring something to pass, 
mo.eiy the actual production of what is 
aimed at. Hence there is a slight hint 
of the busy fruitlessness of vice. Paul, 
as well as John, uses wpdowety, in certain 
passages, of evil actions. The person 
thus defined puget 76 das, ‘hates the 
light,” instead of delighting in it, kat ob« 
epxeTat 1pos TO bas, and does not bring 
himself within its radiance, does not 
seek to use it for his own enlighten- 
ment; tva py éAeyxOG Ta Epya airod, 
**lest his works be convicted’ and so 
put to shame. According to John there 
is moral obliquity at the root of all 
refusal of Christ. Obviously there is, if 
Christ be considered simply as ‘‘light”’. 
To refuse the ideal he presents is to 
prefer darkness.—Ver. 21. 6 8é wot@y... 
**On the other hand, he who does the 
truth”... This is one of John’s com- 


prehensive phrases which perhaps lose by 
definition. ‘To do the truth” is at any 
rate to live up to what one knows; to 
live an honest, conscientious life. John 
implies that men of this type are to be 
found where the light of Christ has not 
dawned: but when it dawns they hail 
it with joy. He that doeth the truth 
comes to the light that his deeds may be 
manifested, Sri év 066 éoriv elpyaopéva. 
Is Ste expressive of a fact or declara- 
tive of a reason? Must we translate 
‘manifested, that they are,’ etc., or 
“manifested, because they are,’’ etc. ? 
The R.V. has ‘“‘ that” in the text, and 
“because” in the margin. Godet and 
Westcott prefer the former; Liicke, 
Meyer, Weiss and Weizsacker the latter. 
It is not easy to decide between the two. 
On the whole, the latter interpretation is 
to be preferred. This clause gives the 
reason of the willingness shown by the 
man to have his deeds made manifest : 
and thus it balances the clause jv yap 
Tovnpa avTav Ta épya, which gives the 
reason for evil doers shunning the light. 
He who does the truth is not afraid of 
the light, but rather seeks increased light 
because his deeds have been done éy 8€@ ; 
that is, he has not been separated from 
God by them, but has done what he has 
done because he conceived that to be th 

will of God. Where such light as exist 

has been conscientiously used, more i 

sought, and welcomed when it comes, 
“Plato was like a man shut into a vault, 
running hither and thither, with his poor 
flickering Taper, agonizing to get forthe, 
and holding himself in readinesse to 
make a spring forward the moment a 
door should open. But it never did. 
‘Not manie wise are called.’ He had 
clomb a Hill in the Darke, and stood 
calling to his companions below, ‘ Come 
on, come on, this way lies the East: Iam 
avised we shall see the sun rise anon’, 
But they never did. What a Christian 
he would have made. Ah! he is one 
now. He and Socrates, the veil long 
removed from their eyes, are sitting at 
Jesus’ feet. Sancte Socrates, ora pro 
nobis” (Erasmus to More in Sir T, 

More’s Household). Woltzmann quotes 
from Hausrath: ‘‘ As a magnet attracts 
the metal while the dead stone lies un- 
moved: so are the children of God drawn 








20—26. 


22. Meta tata 7AAOev 6 “Inoods Kal ot padytat adtod eis Thy 


“"loudatay yi. Kat éxet SétpiBe 


23. Hv Sé Kal “lwdvyns Bamrilwy év Aivav éyyds Tod Eaheip, Ste 
* GSara Woda Fy exet* Kai Tapeylvovto kal éBanrtiLorto. 


yap jv BeB\npévos eis Thy pudaxihy 


Lynas ék tay pabytav “lwdvvou peta ‘loudatwy! mepi kafapropoi - 

A a A x 2 , ‘ > 2A cee sa 2 

26. Kat 7AOov mpds Tov ‘Iwdvyny, Kal Eloy AUTO, PaBBi, ds qv 
~ A e 

peTa cod mepay Tod ‘lopSdvouv, w od pepaptupykas, tS obTos 


EYATTEAION 


719 


w Adj. with 
yn here 
and in 
Mk. i. 5 
only. Cp 
Acts xvi. 
I; xxiv. 
24. 

x Ps. xxxii. 
6. Nah. 
i.12. Rev 
15) 

y Mt. iv. 12 
xiv. 3. 


> > “a A > , 
pet altay nal éBdnrilev. 


24. 7 oUTw 


"lwdvyns. 25. Eyéveto obv 


1 Jovdacov in ScABL, adopted by T.Tr.W.H.R. 


by the Logos and come to the Light”. 
Cf. chap. xviii. 37. 

Vv. 22-36. The ministry of Fesus in 
Fudaea after He left Ferusalem, This 
falls into three parts: (1) a brief account 
of the movements and success of Jesus 
and the Baptist which provoked a com- 
parison between them, 22-26; (2) the 
Baptist’s acceptance of the contrast and 
final testimony to Jesus, 27-30; (3) the 
expansion by the evangelist of the 
Baptist’s words, 31-36.—Ver. 22. peta 
ravta, subsequent to the ministry in 
Jerusalem Jesus and His disciples came 
eis THY lovdaiay yy, ‘into the Judaean 
country,’”’ the rural parts in contradis- 
tinction to the metropolis. ‘‘ Nam quum 
ex Judaeae metropoli exiret Jesus, non 
poterat simpliciter dici proficisci in 
Judaeam; . . . maluimus ergo terri- 
torium convertere quam terram,” Beza. 
So in Josh. viii. 1 (Codex Ambrosianus), 
‘“«] have given into thy hand the King of 
Gai cal Thy wodAw avtod Kat THY yqY 
avrod’’. Cf. also John xi. 54.—Kal eléx 
SiérpiBev, ‘and there He spent some 
timg with them”; whether weeks or 
months depends on the interpretation of 
iv. 35.—kal éBamrilev, that is, His 
disciples baptised, iv. 2.—Ver. 23. jv 8é 
kat...éxet. And John also was 
baptising, although he had said that he 
was sent to baptise in order that the 
Messiah might be identified; which had 
already been done. But John saw that 
men might still be prepared for the 
reception of the Messiah by his preach- 
ing and baptism. Hence, however, the 
questioning which arose, ver. 25. The 
locality is described as Aivav éyyts Tod 
Yadeip. ‘ The Salim of this place is no 
doubt the Shalem of Genesis xxxili. 18, 
and some seven miles north is ’Ainin 
[= Springs], at the head of the Wady 
Far’ah, which is the great highway up 
from the Damieh ford for those coming 
from the east by the, way of Peniel and 


Succoth’” (Henderson’s Palestine, p. 
154). The reason for choosing this 
locality was St: USata toda Hv éxet, 
“ because many waters were there,’ or 
much water; and therefore even in 
summer baptism by immersion could be 
continued. It is not ‘the people’s 
refreshment ” that is in view. Why 
mention this any more than where they 
got their food ?—«at wapeyivovro, the 
indefinite third plural, as frequently in 
N.T. and regularly in English, ‘“‘ they 
continued coming’’.—Ver. 24. oviw 
yap ... 6 ‘lwdvvys, ‘for not yet had 
John been cast into prison”: a clause 
inserted for the sake of those who might 
have gathered from the synoptic narrative 
that John was cast into prison immedi- 
ately after the temptation of Jesus, Mk. 
i. 14, Mt. iv. 12. John having been 
present with Jesus through all this 
period can give the sequence of the 
events with chronological precision.— 
Ver. 25. éyévero ovv (Cytnois... 
There arose therefore—that is, in con- 
sequence of the proximity of these two 
baptisms—on the part of John’s disciples 
[éx, cf. Herod, v. 21 and Dionys, Hal. viii. 
p- 556] a questioning, or discussion, with 
a Jew about purifying, that is, generally, 
including the relation of those two 
baptisms to one another, and to the 
Jewish washings, and the significance of 
each. The trend of the discussion may 
be gathered from the complaint to the 
Baptist, ver. 26. As the discussion was 
begun by the disciples of John, it would 
seem as if they had challenged the Jew 
for seeking baptism from Jesus. For 
their complaint is (ver. 26) “PaBBt.. . 
amposautév. That Jesus should baptise 
as well as John they could not under- 
stand. Really, the difficulty is that Jesus 
should have allowed John to go on 
baptising, and that John should not him- 
self have professed discipleship of Jesus. 
But so long as John saw that men were 


KATA IQANNHN 


Ill. 


27. “AmexpiOy 


*bwdvyns Kal elirev, “Od Sdvatat avOpwros apBdvew obdev, edv 


28. adtol Gpets por pap- 


Tupeite Ste etmov, Odx eipl ey 6 Xprotds, GAN Ste dweotadpévos 


720 
Barrifer, nal mdvres eEpxovrar mpds adtdv.” 
pa) 7 Sedopevoy attd éx tod obdpavod. 

siio. Is. eit Epmpoodev exetvou. 


liv. 5. 


29. 6 é€xwv thy vipdny, "vupdhios éotiv: 


Eph.v.25.6 8é idos Tod vupdiou, 6 éoTnKws Kal dkodwy adTod, xapa xalpe 


Sra Thy paviy tod vupdiou. 


led by his preaching to accept the 
Messiah he might well believe that he 
served Christ better thus than by follow- 
ing in His train.—Ver. 27. His answer 
sufficiently shows that it was not rivalry 
that prompted him to continue his 
bapusm.—odv Stvarat. . . ovpavod. The 
general sense is obvious (cf. Ps. Ixxv. 6, 7, 
CxxVil. 25) fas, 1.07 sae Cor. Ii. 7) 7bue 
did John mean to apply the principle 
directly to himself or to Jesus ? Wetstein 
prefers the former: “‘non possum mihi 
arrogare et rapere, quae Deus non 
dedit”. So Calvin, Beza [‘ quid cona- 
mini meae conditioni aliquid adjicere ? ”’], 
Bengel [‘‘ quomodo audeam ego, inquit, 
homines ad me adstringere?”’], and 
Liicke. But, as Weiss points out, it isa 
justification of Jesus which the question 
of the disciples demands, and this is 
given in John’s statement that His 
popularity is God’s gift. But John 
avails himself of the opportunity to 
explain the relation he himself holds to 
Jesus.—Ver. 28. aivtol tpeis ... 
éxetvov. John’s disciples should have 
been prepared for what they now see 
happening. He had emphatically declared 
that he was not the Christ, but only His 
forerunner (i. I9-27, 30).—Ver. 29. 6 
éxov Thy vipdnvy ... The bride is the 
familiar O.T. figure expressive of the 
people in their close relation to God (Is. 
liv. 5, Hos. ii. 18, Ps. xlv.). This figure 
passes into N.T. Cf. Mt. xxii. 2, Eph. 
Vv. 32, Jas. iv. 4.—6 €yov, he that has and 
holds as a wife. Cf. Mk. vi. 18, Is, liv. 
1. lxii. 5.—-vupdtos éoriv, it is the bride- 
groom, and no one else, who marries the 
bride and to whom she belongs. There 
is only one in whom the people of God 
can find their permanent joy and rest; 
one who is the perennial spring of their 
happiness and life—é6 82 ¢iAos rod 
vupdiov, the friend, par excellence, the 
groomsman, Tapavipdtos, vundaywyos, 
or in Hebrew Shoshben, who was em- 
ployed to ask the hand of the bride and 
to arrange the marriage. For the stand- 
ing and duties of the Shadchan and 
Shoshben see Abraham’s ¥ewish Life in 


30. ality ody H Xapa 1) eur) weTAypwrae. 


the Middle Ages, pp. 170, 180. The 
similar function of the Hindu go-between 
or ghatak is fully described in The City 
of Sunshine. The peculiar and intense 
gratification [xapq@ yatpe, intensely 
rejoices, see especially Licke, who 
renders “‘ durch und durch’’; Weizsacker, 
“freut sich hoch”; R.V., “ rejoiceth 
greatly ’’] of this functionary was to see 
that his delicate task was crowned with 
success ; and of this he was assured when 
he stood and heard the bridegroom 
directly welcoming his bride [‘‘ voice of 
bridegroom ” as symbol of joy, Jer. vii. 
34, xvi. g].—atry otv Hh xapa H epy 
metwAnpwrat. This is the joy which 
John claims for himself, the joy of the 
bridegroom’s friend, who arranges the 
marriage, and this joy is attained in 
Christ’s welcoming to Himself the people 
whom John has prepared for Him and 
directed to Him. Cf. 2 Cor. xi. 2, where 
Paul uses similar language. It is not 
John’s regret that men are attracted to 
Jesus: rather it is the fulfilment of his 
work and hope. This was the God- 
appointed order.—Ver. 30. éketvov Set 
avédvev, éwe 8€ éAatrovaGar. Paley 
translates, ‘it is for Him to go on grow- 
ing and for me to be ever getting less,” 
and adds, ‘‘the language seems to be 
solar”. In the Church Calendar, no 
doubt, John the Baptist’s day is Mid- 
summer Day, while our Lord’s “natalitia” 
is midwinter, but scarcely founded on 
solar considerations of the day’s increase 
after Christmas and decrease after 24th 
June. Rather John is the morning star 
“fidelis Lucifer ’? whose light is eclipsed 
in that of the rising sun (cf. Bernard’s 
““Lucet ergo Johannes, tanto verius 
quanto minus appetit lucere,’”’ and 
Euthymius, éAatrotc@a: as *7Atov 
avatetkavros éwopdpov). If the style 
of the following verses is any clue to 
their authorship we must ascribe them to 
the evangelist. Besides, some of the 
expressions are out of place in the 
Baptist’s lips: ¢.g., Thy paptuplay avTou 
ovdeis AanBaver could scarcely have been 
said at the very time when crowds were 








27-34. 


éxeivoy Set * adgdverv, eve Sé €XatTodcbar. 


*éndvw mdavtwv éotlv. 


tis yijs Nader: 6 4 


EYATTEAION 


6 av ék THs ys, €K THS ys éoTt, kal ék 
€k TOU ovpavod épydpevos, emdvw TavTwy oti, 


721 


31. "6 dvwbev épydpevos, a intrans. in 

Mt. vi. 28; 

xiii. 32, 

1 etc.; trans 
in 1 Cor, 
iii, 6, 7. 


rot a . 
32. Kal 0 éWpaKxe Kal HKOUGE, TOUTO PapTUpEL* Kal TiY wapTUpiaY b viii. 23. 


adtod “ovdeits AapBdver. 


eoppdyicey Sti *6 Ocds aANOYS eotw. 
Geds, TA Pypata Tod Ocod Aadet ob yap ek pétpou Sidwow 6 Geds ” 


in Gospp. 


d xvi. 28. 


1 Cor. xv 


c ~ ‘ , 
33: & AaBav attod thy paptupiay, 47. Phil 
a Gre tars 
34. Ov yap dméotertey Oc Lk. xix, 
17, 19; in 
local 
E - sense freq. 
ei.1z. Is. liii. 1. f vii. 18. Rom, iii. 
3- 


lerave wavrwv ext. omitted in SD vet. Lat., etc., but found in cABL. The 
words are omitted by W.H., but are almost necessary as a balance to ex tys yns ear. 


2 9 Beos omitted in NBC*L 1, 33, and therefore by Tisch., W.H.and Weiss; T.R. 


im AC*D vet. Lat. 


flocking to Him. The precise point in 
the Baptist’s language to which the 
evangelist attaches this commentary or 
expansion [‘‘theils erklarende, theils 
erweiternde Reflexion,” Liicke] is his 
affirmation of the Messiah’s superiority 
to himself. To this John adds (ver. 31): 
He is superior not only to the Baptist 
but to all, éwavw waytwv éoriv, the 
reason being that He comes from above, 
avwOev; which is the equivalent of é« 
Tov ovpavov in the latter part of the 
verse. These expressions are contrasted 
with éx tas yas, the ordinary earthly 
origin of men, and they refer Christ’s 
origin to a higher and unique source: 
unique because the result of this origin 
is that He is supreme over all, émwavw 
mavtwy. His origin is superior to that 
of all, therefore His supremacy is 
universal (cf. ver. 13). The results of 
origin, whether earthly or heavenly, are 
traced out in a twofold direction: in the 
kind of life lived and in the words spoken. 
On the one hand 6 éx tis yijs . . . eos. 
The first é« expresses origin: the second 
moral connection, as in xviii. 37, xv. Ig: 
he whose origin is earthly is an earthly 
person, his life rises no higher than its 
source, his interests and associations are 
of earth. Another result is given in 
the words é« tis yis Aadct, from the 
earth his ideas and his utterance of 
them spring. A man’s talk and teach- 
ing cannot rise above their source. So 
far as experimental knowledge goes 
he is circumscribed by his origin. In 
contrast to persons of earthly origin 
stands 6 ék Tov ovpavod épydpevos; épy. 
is added that not only his origin but his 
transition to his present condition may 
be indicated. His origin in like manner 
determines both his moral relationships 
and his teaching. The one is given in 


érdve wavtwyv éori. He lives in a higher 
region than all others and is not limited 
by earthly conditions.—Ver. 32. The 
result is 6 €dpake... paptupet. Seeing 
and hearing are equivalent to having 
direct knowledge. The man who is of 
earth may be trusted when he speaks of 
earth: he who is from heaven testifies 
to that of which he has had experimental 
knowledge (cf. ver. 13), and might there- 
fore expect to be listened to, but rhv 
paptuptay avrov ovdels AapBaver. The 
kai which connects the clauses implies 
the meaning ‘‘and yet”’. This statement 
could not have been made when crowds 
were thronging to Jesus’ baptism. They 
are the reflection of the evangelist, who 
sees how sporadically the testimony of 
Christ has been received. Yet it has not 
been universally rejected: 6 AaBov .. . 
G@AnOy4s éoriv. He who received His 
testimony sealed that God is true. 
odpay. means to stamp with approval, 
to endorse, to give confirmation. Wet- 
stein quotes from Aristides, Platonic., i., 
p- 18: Atoxtvys paptupet MAdrevn... 
kal Thy Tovde paptupiav wowep éemic- 
dpaylferar. But he who believes Christ 
not only confirms or approves Christ’s 
truthfulness, but God’s. 6v yap aréo- 
Tethey . . . AaAet. For Christ is God’s 
ambassador and speaks God’s words. 
This is a thought which pervades this 
Gospel, ‘see vill. 26, 28);)' xv...5;, etc: 
‘“‘ He that sent me,” or ‘‘ the Father that 
sent me,” is a phrase occurring over 
twenty times in the Gospel and is char- 
acteristic of the aspect of Christ pre- 
sented in it, as revealing the Father.— 
Ver. 34. The reason assigned for the 
truth and trustworthiness of Christ’s 
words is scarcely the reason we expect: 
ov yap... Iveta. John has told us 
that Christ is to be believed because He 


46 


722 


gv. 20; xiii. TS Mvedpa. 

3: e Z 
h Jud. iti. 28. TH XEtpl adtod. 
i Ps. xlix. ¥ 


KATA IQANNHN 


35. "0 watip dyawd tov uldv, kal mavta SédwKev 


Til. 35—36. 


Bey 


36. 6 moredwy eis Tov uldv exer Cwiy aidviov: 6 


19; Sé dreOdv TH vid obk Setar Lwhv, AAN 4 4 dpyh Tod Ocod péver 


Ixxxix. 48. 
j Rom. i. 18,ém abtév.” 


testifies of what He hath seen and heard: 
now, because the Spirit is given without 
measure to Him. The meaning of the 
clause is contested. The omission of 
6 @eds does not materially affect the 
sense, for 6 86s would naturally be 
supplied as the nominative to 8{8wor 
from tov Qeod of the preceding clause. 
There are four interpretations. (1) 
Augustine, Calvin, Liicke, Alford, sup- 
pose the clause means that God, instead 
of giving occasional and limited supplies 
of the Spirit as had been given to the 
prophets, gives to Christ the fulness of 
the Spirit. (2) Meyer thinks that the 
primary reference is not to Christ but 
that the statement is general, that God 
gives the Spirit freely and abundantly, 
and does thus dispense it to Christ. (3) 
Westcott, following Cyril, makes Christ 
the subject and understands the clause 
as meaning that He proves His Messiah- 
ship by giving the Spirit without measure. 
(4) Godet makes +6 mvetpa the subject, 
not the object, and supposes the meaning 
to be that the Spirit gives to Christ the 
words of God without measure. The 
words of ver. 35 seem to weigh in favour 
of the rendering of A.V.: ‘‘God giveth 
not the Spirit by measure unto Him”, 
The R.V. is ambiguous. ék pérpov, out 
of a measure, or, by measure, that is, 
sparingly. So év pétpw in Ezek. iv, 11. 
Wetstein quotes: “R. Achan dixit: 
etiam Spiritus S. non habitavit super 
Prophetas nisi mensura quadam: quidam 
enim librum unum, quidam duos vatici- 
niorum ediderunt”’. The Spirit was given 
to Jesus not in the restricted and occa- 
sional manner in which it had been 
given to the O.T. prophets, but wholly, 
fully, constantly. It was by this Spirit 
His human nature was enlightened and 
guided to speak things divine; and this 
Spirit, interposed as it were between the 
Logos and the human nature of Christ, 
was as little cumbrous in its operation 
or perceptible in consciousness as our 
breath which is interposed between the 
thinking mind and the words which utter 
it.—Ver. 35. 6matnp...avtov. These 
absolute expressions, ‘‘the Father,” “the 
Son,” are more naturally referred to the 
evangelist than to the Baptist. This 
absolute use of “‘ the Son’”’ as a designa- 
tion of Christ certainly suggests, if it 


does not prove, the proper Divinity of 
Christ. It is the favourite designation 
in this Gospel. The love of the Father 
for the Son is the reason for His giving 
to Him the Spirit: nay, it accounts for 
His committing all things to His hand; 
mwavrTa SéSwkev ev TH XEtpt avo, that is, 
to possess andtorule. ‘ Facit hic amor, 
quo Filium amplexus nos quoque in eo 
amplectitur, ut per illius manum nobis 
bona 3ua omnia communicet’’—Calvin. 
But Calvin does not make the mistake of 
supposing that the words signify ‘ by 
means of His hand”’; cf. Beza. God has 
made Christ His plenipotentiary for this 
world and has done so because of His 
love. It was a boon then to Christ to 
come into this world and win it to Him- 
self. There is no history, movement, or 
life of God so glorious as the history of 
God incarnate.—Ver. 36. 6 miotevav 
... @w avtév. Christ has been repre- 
sented as Sovereign, commissioned with 
supreme powers, especially for the pur- 
pose of saving men and restoring them 
to God. Hence “he that believeth on 
the Son hath eternal life”. He who 
through the Son finds and accepts the 
Father has life in this very vision and 
fellowship of the Supreme; cf. xvii. 3. 
But ‘‘he that refuses to be persuaded,”’ 
lit. ‘he that disobeyeth”. Beza 
points out that in N.T. there is a twofold 
ameifera, one of the intellect, dissenting 
from truth presented, as here and in 
Acts xiv. 2; the other of the will and 
life, see Rom. xi. 30. But will enters 
into the former as well as the latter. 7 
épyy Tov God, the wrath of God denotes 
“the fixed and necessary hostility of the 
Divine nature to sin’’; what appears in 
a righteous man as indignation; and 
also the manifestation of that hostility in 
acts of retributive justice. This is the 
only place in the Gospel where it occurs ; 
but in Rev. vi. 16, we have “the wrath 
of the Lamb”’; also xvi. 19, ‘‘ the wine ot 
the fury of His wrath” ; also xiv. ro, xi. 
18,xix.15. In Paul ‘“‘the coming wrath” 
is frequently alluded to; as also ‘the 
day of wrath,” “the children” of 
“vessels”” of wrath. On the refuser of 
Christ the wrath oi God, instead of 
removing from him, abides, pever; not, 
as Theophylact reads, pevei, ‘“ will 
abide”. 








iV. TF 


EYATTEAION 


723 


IV. 1. ‘QE obv 2yvw *6 Kupios, Stt HKougay of Saptoator, Sta vi. 23; xi 


2, etc., 


"Inaois Telovas ” pabytas ” woret kal Bamtifer 7H lwdvyns: 2. (° kal- Bah 


Toye Inoods 
"apiKe Thy “lovdalav, Kal drAdOe 


4. er Sé adrdv drépyecbar Sid tis Lapapetas.! 
ody eis méAw THs Lapapetas Aeyopevyvy Luxdp, ‘wAnoiov tod 
13. 


1 Yapapias Tisch. and W.H. 


CHAPTER IV. Vv. 1-42. Fesus leaves 
Salim and the south for Galilee, and is 
received by the Samaritans on His way. 
—Vvy. 1-4 account for His being in 
Samaria; 5-20 relate His conversation 
with a Samaritan woman; 27-38 His 
consequent conversation with His own 
disciples ; 39-42 the impression He made 
upon the Samaritans. The circumstances 
which brought our Lord into Samaria 
seem to be related as much for the sake 
of maintaining the continuity of the 
history and of exhibiting the motives 
which guided His movements as for the 
sake of introducing the incident at 
Sychar.—Ver. 1. The first verse gives 
the cause of His leaving Judaea, to wit, 
a threatened or possible collision with 
the Pharisees, who resented His baptis- 
ing.—‘Qs otv éyvw . . . 4H’ lwdvvys. obv 
continues the narrative with logical 
sequence, connecting what follows with 
what goes before ; here it connects what 
is now related with the popularity of 
Jesus’ baptism, iii. 22, 26.—é6 kvptos, 
so unusual in this Gospel that some 
editors read *Ingots, for which there is 
scant authority. But where the evangelist 
is not reporting contemporary speech 
but speaking for his own person kvUptos 
is natural.—é€yvw rightly rendered in the 
modern Greek translation by épaQev ; the 
knowledge that comes by information is 
meant.—6tt qKovoay, that the Pharisees 
had heard, the aorist here, as frequently 
elsewhere, representing the English 
pluperfect. What they had heard is 
given in direct narration under an intro- 
ductory 6tt, and hence not the pronoun 
but *Incots appears as subject: ‘ Jesus 
is making and baptising more disciples 
than John”.—pa€ytas ore (cf. 
padntevoate Bamrilovres, Mt. xxviii. 
1g), ‘‘ disciples” being here used in the 
wider sense and not involving permanent 
separation from their employments. The 
Pharisees had resented John’s baptising, 
much more that of Jesus, because 
more popular.—Ver. 2. Here John in- 
serts a clause corrective of one impres- 


Tattds otk éBdmrilev, GAN’ ot padyntal adrod -) 3. b Cp. Acts 


ii. 36. 
maddy eis THY FadtXalav. Constr. 
aS cp. i. 40. 
5. €pX€Tal c Acts XIV. 
17; XVil. 
27 only. 
dx Cor. i. 


eMk.i.14. f Num. xxxiii. 37. Josh. xii. 9. 


sion which this statement would make: 
Kaito.ye . .. avtov. Kalrorye is slightly 
stronger than “although,” rather 
“although indeed”. Hoogeveen (De 
Particulis, p. 322) renders ‘‘ quanquam 
re vera’’ ; see also Paley, Greek Particles, 
pp. 67-8. ot is the old form of 76, 
CTHELEDYapanatL yaar cel ACE ye 
clause is inserted to remind us, as Bengel 
says, that ‘‘baptizare actio ministralis 
(cf. Paul’s refusal to baptise). Johannes 
minister sua manu baptizavit, discipuli 
ejus, ut videtur, neminem; at Christus 
baptizat spiritu sancto.”” So too Nonnus, 
who says that the king did not baptise 
with water. ‘ By leaving the baptism 
of water to the apostles, He rendered 
the rite independent of His personal 
presence, and so provided for the main- 
tenance of it in His Church after His 
departure,”” Godet.—Ver. 3. On this 
coming to the ears of Jesus adjKxe thy 
*lovSatav, He forsook or abandoned 
Judaea. The verb is used of neglecting 
or dismissing from thought, hence of 
forgiving sin; but there is here no 
ethical sense in the word, and it may be 
translated ‘left’. — Kat amndOe wad.y, 
‘“‘aoain”’ in reference to the visit to 
Galilee already narrated, i. 44, ii. 1. 
Jesus feared a collision with the Pharisees 
at this early stage, because it could only 
mar His work. He refuses to be hurried, 
and remains master of the situation 
throughout. He therefore retired to 
Galilee, where He thought He would be 
hidden. Cf. ver. 44.—Ver. 4. ev... 
Yapapetas.- The Seu is explained by the 
position of Samaria interposed between 
Judaea and Galilee. Only the very 
sensitive Jews went round by Peraea. 
The Galileans were accustomed to go 
through Samaria on their way to the 
feasts at Jerusalem (Josephus, Antiq., xx. 
6,1). Samaria took its name from the 
city Samaria or Shomron, built by Omri 
as the capital of the kingdom of Israel 
(x Kings xvi. 24). After being destroyed 
by Hyrcanus, the city was rebuilt by 
Herod and called Sebaste in honour 


’ 


KATA IQANNHN 


IV. 


6. tv Be exer 
kekoTrLaKs €k THS Sdoumopias 
7. "Epxetat 


724 
eGen. ywplou *8 eSwxey “laxwB ‘lwoh TO uld adrod. 
LEXI, 19; a? , Ce | a h 
1 zit a2 Tyy} Tod “laxwB. 46 obv ‘Inaois 
ix Mac. vi, !exadLeto obrws emt tH my. Spa fv doet exry. 
gree yurt) éx Tis Zapapetas dvtdfjoar dwp. A€yer adri 6 ‘Inaods, 
Heb. ii. 


1y. j Exod. ii. 15. 


of Augustus. The territory of Samaria 
in the time of Christ was included in the 
tetrarchy of Archelaus and was under 
the procurator Pontius Pilate. Herod 
Antipas’ domain marched with it north 
and east.—Ver. 5. épxetarowv .. . TO 
vig avrot. ‘So He comes toa city of 
Samaria called Sychar.” Aeyopévyy, cf. 
Xi eTOy oat. 5 45) XIX. TS etc.) lite the 
Itinerary of Ferusalem (A.D. 333) Sychar 
is identified with ‘Askar, west of Salim 
and near Shechem, the modern Nablis. 
The strength of the case for ‘Askar, 
according to Prof. G: A. Smith (Hist. 
Geog., p. 371), is this: ‘That in the 
fourth century two authorities indepen- 
dently describe a Sychar distinct from 
Shechem; that in the twelfth century at 
least three travellers, and in the thirteenth 
at least one, do the same, the latter also 
quoting a corrupt but still possible 
variation of the name; that in the 
fourteenth the Samaritan Chronicle men- 
tions another form of the name; and 
that modern travellers find a_ third 
possible variation of it not only applied 
to a village suiting the site described by 
the authorities in the fourth century, 
but important enough to cover all the 
plain about the village”. The difficulty 
regarding the initial Ayin in the name 
‘Askar is also removed by Prof. Smith. 
See further Conder’s Tent-work, i. 71. 
Sychar is described as wAnolov .. . 
avrov, near the “parcel of ground” 
(particella, little part; the Vulgate has 
**praedium,” estate) which Jacob gave 
to Joseph his son; according to Gen. 
xlvili. 22, where Jacob says, ‘I have 
given thee one portion (Shechem) above 
thy brethren”; cf. Gen. xxxiii. I9. 
Shechem in Hebrew means “the shoul- 
der,” and some have fancied that the 
shoulder being the priest’s portion, the 
word came to denote any allotment. 
Gesenius, however, is of opinion that 
the word was transferred to a portion of 
land, on account of the shape resembling 
the back across the shoulders.—Ver. 6. 
jy Se éxet mHyt Tod ’laxw@B. Both wnyy 
and ¢$péap are used in this context ; the 
former meaning the spring or well of 
water, the latter the dug and built pit or 
well. In ver. 11 $péap is necessarily 


k Gen. xxiv. a0. Exod. ii. 16. 


used. Whether in this verse 6 él rf 
m™ny{] is to be rendered ‘‘at,” keeping 
mny7q in its strict sense, or ‘‘on”’ as if 
for dpéate is doubted; but the former is 
certainly the more natural rendering; 
cf. Atistoph., Frogs, 191, where éai with 
accus. gives rise to misunderstanding of 
sitting ‘‘on”’ an oar instead of “at”? it. 
Jacob’s well lies ten minutes south of 
the present village ‘Askar, and a good 
spring exists in ‘Askar. This has given 
rise to the difficulty: Why should a 
woman have come so far, passing good 
sources of water supply? Most probably 
the reason is that this well was Jacob’s, 
and special virtue was supposed to attach 
to it; or because in the heat of summer 
other wells and streams were dry. The 
real difficulty is: Why was there a well 
there at all, in the neighbourhood of 
streams? Possibly Jacob may have‘dug 
it that he might have no quarrelling with 
his neighbours about water-rights. As 
a stranger with a precarious tenure he 
might find this necessary. Travellers 
agree in accepting as Jacob’s well here 
mentioned the Ain-Jakub, or Bir-et- 
Jakub, some twenty minutes east of 
Nablus.—é otv “Ingots ... éry. It 
was “‘about,”’ as (Theophylact calls atten- 
tion to this as a mark of accuracy), the 
sixth hour, that is, midday (the Jews 
dined on Sabbath at the sixth hour, see 
Josephus, Vita) (see on c. i. 40); and 
they had probably been walking for 
several hours, and accordingly Jesus 
was tired, kexomaxws (kémos, excessive 
toil), fatigued (Wetstein quotes ov ya 

2E S8oumropias tas pAéBas komig ahAa Ta 
vevpa), and was sitting thus, tired as He 
was (oUtws, in the condition in which He 
was, that is, tired as He was, Elsner 
thinks it only indicates consequence 
(nihil aliud quam consequentiam signi- 
ficat] and should be omitted in trans- 
lating. So Kypke, who cites instructive 
instances, concludes: ‘‘solemne est 
Graecis, praecedente participio, voculam 
ottws pleonastice ponere”. But in all 
his instances ottws precedes the verb), 
at the well (cf. Josephus, Ant., v. 1; 
orpatomedeveapevous emt tive mnHy7q))- 
As to the hour, two circumstances con 

firm the opinion that it was midday 


é 








6—I0. 


~* Aés pou meety. * 


EYATTEAION 


7125 


8. of yap pabytat adtod dareknAUOercay Eis Thy! Gen. xxiv, 


o 3 Ai he < 43° 
modu, iva ™tpopas ayopdowar. 9g. Aéyer ody adTS H yuvth) } Lapa- m Pi. here 


pettis, “"Mas ad “loudatos ay “map é00 meiv aitets, ovons 


only; cp. 
2 Chron. 
Xi. 23. 


N 7 2 > \ a > 5 ca) My 2 saa 
yuvarkds Lapapettidos ; 00 yap cuyxp@vTat lovdator Zapapettats.~ n viii. 48. 


an nl ” fol 
10. "AmexpiOn “Inoods Kal eimevy atty, “Et des thy ° Swpedy tot 


Ezra iv. 9. 
2 Kings 
XV1i. 24. 


nw ~ 4 ” > ‘ 
@co0, kal Tis eat 6 Aéywv cor, Ads por Tety, OU ay yTHOAS AUTO, > Only in 


ix. 2. Jas. i. 5. 


[1 Jo. v. 15. 


Acts iii. 2; 


Mt. xx. 20.] p Here only in Gospp. 


1 wew in Tisch., W.H.; mv in Lachmann. 
2 This clause, a supposed gloss, omitted in §§*D, found in RaABCL. 


First, that apparently there was no 
intention of halting here for the night, 
as there would have been had it been 
evening. And, second, while it is truly 
urged that evening is the common time 
for drawing water, it is obvious that only 
one woman had come at this time, and 
accordingly the probability is it was not 
evening. See also Josephus, Ant., ii. 11, 
1, where he describes Moses sitting at the 
well at midday wearied with his journey, 
and the women coming to water their 
flocks.—Ver. 7. €pyxetat Udwp, 
apparently this clause is prepared for by 
the preceding, ‘‘ There comes a woman of 
Samaria,’”’ that is, a Samaritan woman, 
not, of course, ‘‘from the city Samaria,” 
which is two hours distant from the well, 
avtAfoar v8wp, infinitive and aorist, 
both classical; cf. Rebecca in Gen. 
xxiv. II, etc., having her t8pia on her 
shoulder or on her head, &yyos émt rq 
Kehadq €xovea, Herod., v. 12; and Ovid’s 
“Ponitur e summa fictilis urna coma”’. 
[Elsner] @vtAos is the hold of a ship 
where the bilge settles: avtéw, to bale 
a ship; hence, to draw water. To her 
Jesus says, Ads pou meiy, the usual for- 
mula; cf. 860 muetv, Pherecrates, Frag., 
67, and Aristoph., Pax, 49.—Ver. 8. ot 
yap pa@ntal . . . ayopdcwor. This 
gives the reason for the request. Had the 
disciples been present they would have 
made the request: an indication of the 
relations already subsisting between the 
disciples and the Lord. Probably the 
five first called were still with Him. 
That the disciples had gone to buy in 
Sychar, shows either that the law allowed 
trading with Samaritans, or that Jesus 
and His disciples ignored the law. But 
the woman is surprised at the request of 
Jesus.—Ver. 9. TGs av “lovdaios av. 
How did she know He was a Jew? 
Probably there were slight differences in 
dress, feature and accent. Edersheim 
says “the fringes on the Tallith of the 
Samaritans are blue, while those worn 
by the Jews are white”. He also ex- 


poses the mistake of some commentators 
regarding the words uttered by Jesus: 
**Teni li lishtoth”. The reason of the 
woman’s surprise is given by the Evange- 
list in the words ov yap ovyxpavTar 
*lovSator Zapapetrats. ‘‘ For Jews have 
no dealings with Samaritans.” Zuvyypa- 
o@ar literally signifies ‘“‘to use together 
with,’’ so that the sense here might be 
that the woman was surprised that Jesus 
should use the same vessel she used ; rather 
it has the secondary meaning “to have 
intercourse” or ‘‘ dealings with”; simi- 
larly to the Latin utor, see Hor., Ef., i. 
xii. 22, ‘‘utere Pompeio Grospho,” and 
xvii. 13, ‘‘regibus uti,” to make a friend 
of, or ‘‘be on terms of intimacy with’’. 
The classical phrase is olow ovx émo- 
tpodat, Eurip., Helena, 440. The later 
tradition said; ‘‘Samaritanis panem 
comedere aut vinum bibere prohibitum 
est’’. Of course the hostile feeling ran 
back to the days of Nehemiah. And see 
Ecclus. 1. 25, 26. ‘* With two nations is 
my soul vexed, and the third is no nation: 
they that sit upon Mount Seir and the 
Philistines, and that foolish people that 
dwelleth in Sichem.” For the origin of 
the Samaritans see 2 Kings xvii., and cf. 
Farrar’s Life of Christ in loc, Tristram, 
Land of Isvael, 134.—Ver. 10. *Amexpl0y 

. U8wp Cav. “If thou knewest;” the 
pathos of the situation strikes Jesus. 
The woman stands on the brink of the 
greatest possibilities, but is utterly un- 
conscious of them. Two things she did 
not know: (1) tHv Swpeav tov Geod, the 
free gift of God. This is explained in 
the last words of the verse to be ‘‘ living 
water”; but in its first occurrence it is 
indefinite: ‘‘ If thou knewest the freeness 
of God’s giving, and that to each of His 
children He has a purpose of good”’. 
But in God’s direction the woman 
cherished no hope. (2) She did not 
know tis éotiv 6 éywv cor, Ads por 
mueiv. So long as she thought Him an 
ordinary Jew she could expect nothing 
from Him. Had she known that Jesus 


726 


KATA IQANNHN 


IV. 


q Gen. xxvi. kal ESwxey dy gor *iSwp Lav.” 11. Adyer ait H yuvh, “‘ Kupre, 
i. oUre GyTAnpa Exets, Kat TO ppéap éoti Babd- wébev obv Exers 7d 


USwp 15 Lav; 


12. ph od petLov ef tod matpds dv “laxwB, ds 


r vv. 13, 14. ESwKev Huiy TO ppéap, Kat adtés "2 adtoo Eme, Kat ot uioi adtod, 


Mt. xxvi. peer. ay Sn 8 
a7. kal Ta Opéupara adrod ; 


13. "AmekpiOn 6 “Inoods kal elmev airy, 


“Tas 6 mwivwy ék tod Gatos totTou, Supynoe. wdduv: 14. ds 8 av 


min ék Tod USatos ob éyw Sdow abtG, of ph Supjoy! eis Tv aidva- 
GAAA TS USwp 6 Show attd, yernoetar év adtG my?) bdaTos &ddo- 


s Ver. 16. ; 2 . ae = 
Six times HEvou €ls Lwhy at@vov. 
in Lk. an 


15. A€yet mpos adtov % yur, ‘ Kupte, 


Acta, and 965 Lot TOUTO TO Ddwp—, tva ph Supd, pnde Epxwpar? * evOdde dvtheiv.” 


nowhere 
else. 


1 Sipnoet in NABDL. 
2? Stepxwpar in Tisch., W.H., R.V. 


was the bearer of God's free gift to 
men, she would have asked of Him. 
av av qTHoas av’tév, ov is emphatic. 
You would have anticipated my re- 
quest by a request on your own behalf. 
And instead of creating difficulties I 
would have given thee living water.— 
t8wp fav, by which the woman under- 
stood that He meant spring water. 
What He did mean appears imme- 
diately. Ver. 11. Aé€yer at7T@ ... Td 
fav; She addresses Him with «vpte, 
perhaps fancying from His saying, “ If 
you had known who it is that says to 
you,” that He was some great person 
in disguise. But her answer breathes 
incredulity: otre avtAnpa exerts. She 
began her sentence meaning to say, 
“You neither have a bucket, nor is the 
well shallow enough for you to reach 
the water without one,” but she alters 
its construction and puts the second 
statement in a positive form. The depth 


of the well is variously given, Conder 
found it 75 feet.—md@ev . . . She is 
mystified. pov peifov ... Opeupara 


avtov. Jesus had spoken as if inde- 
pendently of the well He could procure 
living water: but even Jacob (claimed 
by the Samaritans as their father, and 
whose bones lay in their midst), great 
as he was, used this well.—Opéppara. 
“What is nourished.” Kypke adduces 
several instances in which it is used of 
““domestics”. Plato, Laws, 953 E, uses 
it of “nurslings of the Nile,” the Egyp- 
tians. But Wetstein adduces many in- 


stances of its use in the sense of “ cattle”. - 


Theophylact thinks this points to the 
abundant supply of water.—Vv. 13, 14. 
Jesus in reply, though He does not quite 


16, Aéyet adt® 6 "Inoods, ““Yraye, povycoy tov dvipa cou, Kal 


break through the veil of figure, leads 
her on to think of a more satisfying gift 
than even Jacob had given in this well. 
—Gs 6 tive... fwiv aidviov. He 
contrasts the water of the well with the 
water He can give; and the two char- 
acteristic qualities of His living water 
are suggested by this contrast. The 
water of Jacob’s well had two defects: 
it quenched thirst only for a time, and 
it lay outside the town a weary distance, 
and subject to various accidents. Christ 
offers water which will quench thirst 
lastingly, and which will be “in” the 
person drinking, év att@ why BSaros 
GhAopévov eis Cwny aiwvioy. For this 
figure. put to another though similar 
use, see Marcus Aurelius, vii. 59, and viii. 
51, with Gataker’s notes. The living 
water lastingly quenches human crav- 
ings and is within the man, inseparable 
from him, and always energetically and 
afresh shooting up.—Ver. 15. The 
woman, with her mind still running on 
actual water, says Kupte ... avrdeiv. 
She is attracted by the two qualities of 
the water, and asks it (1) tva ph duba, 
(2) pndé Epxwpar evOade avrAetv.—Ver. 
16. To this request Jesus replies 
“Yraye, dovngov . . . evOdde. His 
purpose in this has been much debated, 
Calvin thinks He meant to rebuke her 
scurrility in mockingly asking for the 
water. This does not show Calvin’s 
usual penetration. Westcott says that in 
the woman’s request “she confessed by 
implication that even the greatest gift 
was not complete unless it was shared 
by those to whom she was bound. If 
they thirsted, though she might not 
thirst, her toilsome labour must be con- 





1I—2I. 


eOe évOdde.” 


EYATTEAION 


727 


17. "AmwexpiOn % yur) kal etaev, “OdK exw dvSpa.” 


Adyet adtH 6 “Incois, ‘‘ Kahas ettras, “Ore dvdpa odk €xw: 18. wévte 
Y q y P X 


yap dvdpas goyes- Kat viv ov Exers, ob ot: cou dvip* ToUTO 


&AnGes etpyeas.” 
Tpodytys et ov. 


20. ot Watepes tpav év ToUTw TO Spei wpoceKU- 


19. Adyer att  yuvh, “Kupre, *Pewpad Stet Mt. xii.19; 


xvi. 13, 
etc.; 1.49. 


yygav~ Kat Gets Adyete, Ste €v ‘lepooodtpors eotiv 6 Td1os, Saou 


Set mpockuvetv.” 


~ ~ , 
21. A€yet adtH 6 ‘Ingots, “Tuva, mictevody 


le? ” ) e ” a M , 4 3 € AG 
pot, OTL €pxXeTar @pa, OTE OUTE év To opet TOUT OUTE €V lepoco UpLOLS 


' T.R. in AC, but muoreve por yuvat in SBC*DL. 


tinued still.’” Jesus, reading this thought, 
bids her bring the man for whom she 
draws water. The gift is for him also. 
But this meaning is too obscure. Meyer 
thinks the request was not seriously 
intended: but this detracts from the 
simplicity of Christ. The natural in- 
terpretation is that in response to her 
request Jesus gives her now the first 
draught of the living water by causing 
her to face her guilty life and bring it 
to Him. He cannot give the water 
before thirst for it is awakened. The 
sure method of awaking the thirst is 
to make her acknowledge herself a 
sinful woman (cf. Alford).—Ver. 17. 
The woman shrinks from exposure 
and replies otk €yw Gvdpa, “I have 
no husband”. A literal truth, but 
scarcely honest in intention. Jesus at 
once veils her deceit, kad@s elras, etc., 
and disposes of her equivocation by 
emphasising the av8pa. Thou hast well 
said, Ihave no husband.—wévre yap .. . 
eipykas. ‘He whom thou now hast is 
not thy husband: in this [so far] you 
said what is true.” In Malachi’s time 
facility for divorce was _ producing 
disastrous consequences, and probably 
many women, not only in Samaria but 
among the poorer Jews, had a similar 
history to relate. The stringency with 
which our Lord speaks on this subject 
suggests that matters were fast approach- 
ing the condition in which they now are 
in Mohammedan countries. Lane tells 
us that “there are certainly not many 
persons in Cairo who have not divorced 
one wite if they have been long married,” 
and that there are many who have in the 
course of ten years married twenty or 
thirty or more wives (cf. Lecky’s 
European Morals for the state of matters 
in the Roman world). Jerome, Ep. ad 
Ageruch, 123, mentions a Roman woman 
who had had twenty-two husbands. 
Serious attention need scarcely be given 


to the fancy of “the critical school” 
that the woman with her five husbands 
is intended as an allegorical representa- 
tion of Samaria with the [seven] gods of 
the five nations who peopled the country. 
See 2 Kings xvii. 24-31. Consistently the 
man with whom the woman now lived 
would represent Jehovah. Holtzmann, 
shrinking from this, suggests Simon 
Magus. Heracleon discovered in the 
husband that was not a husband the 
woman’s guardian angel or Pleroma 
(Bigg’s Neoplatonism, 150).—Ver. 19. 
The woman at once recognises this 
knowledge of her life as evidence of a 
supernatural endowment.—Kupre Oewpa 
STL mpopytys eb ov. Cf. ver. 29 and ii. 
24. Q@ewp@ is used in its post-classical 
sense. It is not unnatural that the 
woman finding herself in the presence of 
a prophet should seek His solution of the 
standing problem of Samaritan religion. 
His answer would shed further light on 
his prophetic endowment, and would 
also determine whether He had any light 
and hope to give to a Samaritan. 
Josephus (Antiq., xiii. 3, 4) narrates that 
a disputation on this point before 
Ptolemy Philometor resulted in the 
death according to contract of the two 
Samaritan advocates, they not being 
able to prove their position.—Ver. 20. 
ot watépes ... Sei mpookvvetv. Our 
fathers worshipped in this mountain, 
Gerizim, at whose base we are standing, 
etc. On Gerizim were proclaimed the 
blessings recorded Deut. xxviii. Sanballat 
erected on it a rival temple (but see the 
Bible Dict. and Josephus) which was 
rased by John Hyrcanus, B.c. 129. A 
broad flat surface of rock on the top of 
Gerizim is still held sacred by the few 
Samaritans who now represent the old 
race and customs. Especially consult 
G. A. Smith’s Hist. Geog., p. 334, who 
shows that Shechem is the natural 
centre ot Palestine, and adds: ‘‘It was 


728 


: s a , 
a With ace. “ mpooxurijoete TH Tartpt. 


ver. 23, , 


KATA IQANNHN 


IV. 


22. ‘dpeis mpooxuvette 6 odx oldarte- 


a A a , 
etc, and pers Tpookuvodpey 8 otdapev* Ste 7 “owrnpla ék tay “loudatwy 


in older 
writers ; 
see 
Thayer. 
vwa2Kings . 
XVii. 27. 
w Hereonly 
in John. 
Lk. i. 69, 


éotiv. 


a 


a 2 
TPOOKUVELY. 


only in 
Gospp. | 
x Here andi. 42 only. 


by this natural capital of the Holy Land, 
from which the outgoings to the world 
are so many and so open, that the 
religion of Israel rose once for all above 
every geographical limit, and the charter 
of a universal worship was given”. év 
‘lepoooAupos may either mean that the 
place of worship, the temple, is in 
jerusalem, or that Jerusalem is itself 
the place—more probably the latter.— 
Ver. 21. Tuva, wiotevodv por... T@ 
matpt. One of the greatest announce- 
ments ever made by our Lord; and 
made to one sinful woman, cf. xx. 16. 
—épxeTat Spa a time is coming; in ver. 
23 kat viv éotiv is added. A great 
religious revolution has arrived. Localism 
in worship is abolished, ovre év T@ Sper 
rovT#, etc., ‘neither in this mounten 
nor in Jerusalem,’’ exclusively o pre- 
ferentially, ‘‘shall ye worship the 
Father”. What determines tnis “hour”? 
The manifestation of God in Christ, and 
the principle announced in ver. 24 and 
implied in t@ watpt; for God being abso- 
lutely ‘‘ the Father ’’ all men in all places 
must have access to Him, and being of a 
like nature to man’s He can only receive 
a spiritual worship. Cf. Acts xvii. 29.— 
Ver. 22. tpeis mpookuvette 5 ovk otSare. 
The distinction between Jewish and Sa- 
maritan worship lies not in the difference 
of place, but of the object of worship. 
The neuter refers abstractly to the object 
of worship. ‘You do not know the 
object of your worship;” suggested by 
the t@ mwartpi of the preceding clause. 
Cf. Acts xvii. 23. tpets mpooxuvotpev & 
oitsapev. The Jews worshipped a God 
who had made Himself known to them 
in their history by His gracious and 
saving dealings with them. That it is 
this knowledge which is meant appears 
in the following clause: 8tt % owtnypia 
éx Tov ‘lovdatwy éoriv, that is to say, 
God has manifested Himself as Saviour 
to the Jews, and through them to all. 
‘*A powerful repudiation of the theory 


6 mathp Toovtous {ntet Tods TpocKuvodvTas abrtév. 


23. GAN Epxerar Spa Kal viv éotww, Ste ot ddnOvoi mpoo- 
Kuynral mpooKkuyycoucr TO warpl év Tvedpate Kat ddnbeia> Kai yap 


24. Nveipa 6 


Ocds* Kal Tods mpockuvodvtas adtov, év mvedpaTe Kai GAnOeta, det 
25. A€yer attd * yurh, “ OiSa St. * Meocias 
epxetar:” (& Aeydpevos Xprotds:) ‘Stay EAOy Ekeivos, dvayyenet 


which makes the author of this Gospel a 
Gentile of the second century with a 
Gnostic antipathy to Judaism and Jews,” 
Reynolds.—Ver. 23. There is this great 
distinction between Jew and Samaritan, 
GAN EpxeTat Gpa .. . Kat adnGeig, but 
notwithstanding that it is to the Jews 
God has especially revealed Himself as 
Saviour, the hour has now come when 
the ideal worshippers, whether Jew or 
Samaritan, shall worship the one uni- 
versal Father in sfivit, not in either 
Gerizim or Jerusalem, and in truth, not 
in the symbols of Samaritan or Jewish 
worship, év mvevpatt kai Gdnfeiqg. Two 
defects of all previous worship are aimed 
at; all that was local and all that was 
symbolic is to be left behind. Worship 
is to be (1) év mvevpare [on év here, see 
Winer, 528], in the heart, not in this place 
orthat. The essential thing is, not that 
the right place be approached, but that 
the right spirit enter into worship. And 
(2) it is to be év aAmGeiq, in correspond- 
ence with reality, both as regards the 
object and the manner of worship. The 
Samaritans had not known the object of 
their worship: the Jews had employed 
symbolism in worship. Both these de- 
fects were now to be removed. kat yap 
6 waryp ... avtdév. Kal ydp is not 
merely equivalent to ydp, but must 
be rendered, ‘‘For of a truth”. The 
characteristics of the ideal worshippers 
have been declared; and now, in con- 
firmation, Jesus adds, ‘‘ For of a truth 
the Father seeks such for His worship- 
pers”.—Ver. 24. The reason of all 
this is found in the determining state- 
ment mvedpa 6 Geds, God is Spirit. Cf. 
God is Wight; God is Love. The pre- 
dication involves much; that God is 
personal, and much else. But primarily 
it here indicates that God is not corporeal, 
and therefore needs no temple. Rarely 
is the fundamental fact of God’s spiritu- 
ality carried to all its conclusions, Cf. 
James i. 27; Rom, xii. 1.—Ver. 25. This 





22—29. 


e A , » 
hpiv wavra. 
co.” 


St. peta yuvarkds eAdder- odSels peévTor etre, 


“Ti Nadels pet adtiis ;” 


EYAITEAION 


729 


26. Adyer atti 6 ‘Ingots, “’Eyd eipr, 6 addy 
27. Kat 7 émt toutw AAOov ot pabytat adtos, Kai ebadpacay! y Cp. Phil. 


1.3; 11.17, 


i, etc. 


‘ 


se Tie inreis; : 


z Gen. 


28. “Apikev otv Thy SSpiay adtis  yuvh, Kat dwydev eis Thy  xxxvii-15 


modu, Kat Aéyer Tois dyOpudrois, 29. 


“ Acite, idete avOpwirov, 8s 


1 Pavpafov in NABCDGKL,; T.R. in ESU. 


great statement rather overwhelms and 
bewilders the woman. ‘lAtyylace mpds 
7O TOY pyPévTwV Vos, Euthymius, after 
Chrysostom. Somewhat helplessly she 
appeals to the final authority, oi8a ér 
Meooias . .. mavta. The Samaritan 
expectation of a Messiah was based on 
their knowledge of Deut. xviii., and other 
allusions in the Pentateuch, and on their 
familiarity with Jewish ideas. He was 
known as Hashab or Hathab, the Con- 
verter, or as El Muhdy, the Guide. For 
the sources of information, see Westcott’s 
Introd. to Gospels, chap. ii., note 2. ‘It 
appears from Josephus (Ant., xvili. 4, 1) 
that in the later years of the procurator- 
ship of Pilate, there was an actual rising 
of the Samaritans, who assembled on 
Mount Gerizim, under the influence of 
these Messianic expectations. Who 
can say that they may not have been 
griginally set in motion by the event 
recorded in the Fourth Gospel?’ San- 
day. It was His prophetic endowment 
which this woman especially believed in, 
“ He will tell us all” ; and for Him she 
was willing to wait.—Ver. 26. The 
woman’s despairing bewilderment is at 
once dissipated by the announcement 
éy® eit, 6 AaA@yv gor. “I that speak to 
thee am He.” This declaration He was 
free to make among a people with whom 
He could not be used for political ends. 
‘I think, too, there will be felt to 
be something not only very beautiful, 
but very characteristic of our Lord, 
in His declaring Himself with greater 
plainness of speech than He had Him- 
self hitherto done even to the Twelve, 
to this dark-minded and sin-stained 
woman, whose spiritual nature was just 
awakening to life under His presence 
and His words” (Stanton, fewish and 
Christian Messiah, p. 275).—Ver. 27. 
But just at this critical juncture, éqi 
tovTw, ‘on this,” came His disciples 
kal eBavpacay. The imperfect better 
Buits the sense; ‘‘they were wonder- 
ing’’: the cause of wonder being 6rt 
BeTa yuvatkos éAdder, ‘‘that He was 
speaking with a woman”; this being 
forbidden to Rabbis. ‘‘ Samuel dicit : non 
salutant feminam omnino.” ‘ The wise 


have said, Each time that the man pro- 
longs converse with the woman [that is, 
his own wife] he causes evil to himself, 
and desists from words of Thorah and in 
the end inherits Gehinnom” (Taylor, 
Pirke Aboth, p. 29; see also Schoettgen 
in loc.). But although the disciples 
wondered ovdels pévror elzre, “no one, 
however, said” r¢ Enreis, ‘‘ what are you 
seeking?’’ nor even the more general 
question tf Aadeis pet’ adris, ‘‘ why are 
you talking with her?” Their silence 
was due to reverence. They had already 
learned that He had reasons for His 
actions which might not lie on the 
surface.—Ver. 28. aijKey otv... % 
yvuvn. “The woman accordingly,” that 
is, because of the interruption, ‘left her 
pitcher,” forgetting the object of her 
coming, in the greater discovery she had 
made ; and also unconsciously showing 
that she meant to return.—xal am7dOev 
. . . 6 Xptords; and went to the city 
and says to the men, easily accessible 
because lounging in groups at the hottest 
hour of the day, ‘‘ Come, see a man who 
told me all I ever did”. The woman’s 
absorption in the thought of the prophet’s 
endowment causes her to forget the 
shame of the declaration which had con- 
vinced her. She does not positively 
affirm that He is the Christ, but says 
pyTL ovTés éotiv 6 Xpiotds; This is 
what grammarians call the ‘‘ tentative” 
use of pyt. The A.V. “13 not this the 
Christ ?” is not so correct as R.V. “ Can 
this be the Christ?” The Syriac has 
“Ts not this perhaps the Christ?” 
The Vulgate has ‘‘ Numquid ipse est 
Christus?”’ In some passages of the 
N.T. (Mt. vii. 16, Acts x. 47) pyre is 
used in questions which expect a more 
decided and exclusive negative than the 
simple py, “certainly not,” “not at 
all’’. But here and in Mt. xii. 23 mere 
doubt expresses itself, doubt with rather 
a leaning to an affirmative answer (cf. 
Hoogeveen, Doctrina Partic., under 
pyte; and Pape’s Lexicon, where it is 
rendered ‘ob etwa”’). The Greek com- 
mentators unite in lauding the skill with 
which the woman excites the curiosity of 
the men and leads without seeming to 


730 


KATA IQANNHN 


IV. 


axviii3s. elré por mdvta boa eroinoa: “pyte obtés ore 5 Xptords ;” 


30. "ESqNGov odv ek THs TéAEWS, Kal HpXovTO Tpds adTév. 


b oy here 
with ev; 
cp. Acts =e “PaBBi, aye.” 
Xili. 42, 

c Constr. 
ver. 7. 

d Constr. 
XV. 12. 


dayeiv, Hy Gpets odx oidare.” 
GAAj ous, “ Mrjtis *HveyKey alta aye ;” 


31. “Ev 8€ "r@ petagfd jpdrwvy adtrdv ot pabytal, éyovtes, 
32. ‘O S€ elwev adtois, “Ey Bpaow exw 


33- “Edeyov obv ot pabntat mpds 
34+ Adyer adrois 6 


Lk. i. 43, Inoods, “"Epov Bpdpd éotuy, Siva mod 7d OAAynpa rod wéppavtds 


etc., Bur- 
ton, 213. 
Cert... Kal 


at, , > ‘ < Q ” 
Gen. vii, TETPGpNVdv éoTt, Kat 6 Bepiopds EpyxeTat ; 


4. 
f vi. 5. 


lead. [Euthymius says: 1d 8 pate 
ottés toriv 6 Xpiords ; avti Tov, pry Tote 
ottés éoriv; tmwoxpiverat yap, olov 
émiStoralew, dote wap avtav yevéo8ar 
rv Kptovv.}|—Ver. 30, é&9Gov otv. .. 
mpos attév. The men, moved by the 
woman’s question, left the city and were 
coming to Jesus.—Ver. 31. But mean- 
while év TO petagv, between the woman’s 
leaving the well and the men’s return to 
it, the disciples, having brought the 
purchased food, and observing that not- 
withstanding His previous fatigue Jesus 
does not share with them, say ‘PaBBt 
aye. But in His conversation with the 
woman His fatigue and hunger had dis- 
appeared, and He replies (ver. 32) éyo 
Bpoow ... ovx oidare. John does not 
distinguish between Bpa@ots and Bpapa, 
eating and the thing eaten, cf. ver. 34; 
Paul uses both words in their proper 
sense, I Cor. viii. 4, vi. 13. Weiss and 
others, strangely enough, maintain that 
Bpaots has here its proper meaning ‘an 
eating’’. The pronouns are emphatic: 
I am refreshed by nourishment hidden 
from you. The proof of which they at 
once gave by asking one another Mytts 
HveyKev avT@ gayeiv; “ Surely no one 
can have brought Him anything to 
eat?’? Winer, p. 642, adds “ especially 
here in Samaria”. Perhaps evidence 
that Jesus had such an appearance 
as would not forbid any one offering 
Him food. But we must keep in view 
the easier manners of Oriental life.— 
Ver. 34. Jesus answers their question 
though not put to Him: *Epov Bpopa 
: . 7 €pyov. Westcott thinks the 
telic use of tva can be discerned here ; 
“the exact form of the expression em- 
phasises the end and not the process, 
not the doing and finishing, but that I 
may do and finish’, Licke acknow- 
ledges that it is not always easy to 
distinguish between the construction of 


pe, Kal TeNetwow aiTod TO Epyor. 


35- obx pets Adyere, Ste Ete 
iSod, A€yw Syiv, 


“Emdpate tos dpbadpods tuav, Kat Oedoacbe tas xdpas, St 


airy or Tovro with tva and with dm, 
but that here it is possible to discrim- 
inate; and translates ‘‘Meine Speise 
besteht in dem Bestreben,” etc. It is 
much better to take it as the Greek com- 
mentators and Holtzmann and Weiss 
take it, as equivalent to 7d morqoat. 
See especially 3 John 4. [‘* Sometimes, 
beyond doubt, tva is used where the 
final element in the sense is very much 
weakened—sometimes where it is hard 
to deny that it has altogether vanished.” 
Simcox, Grammar, 177.] The idea that 
mental or spiritual excitement acts as 
a physical stimulant is common. Cf. 
Plato’s Aédywv éoriacts, Tim., 27 B; 
Thucydides, i. 70, represents the Co- 
rinthian ambassadors as saying of the 
Athenians pyre éopryv ado tt nyetoPar 
4 76 Ta S€ovta mpatar. - See also Soph., 
Electra, 363, and the quotations in 
Wetstein; also Browning’s Fra Lippo 
Lippi, “to find its [the world’s] meaning 
is my meat and drink”. Jesus does not 
say that His meat is to bring living 
water to parched souls, but ‘to do the 
will of Him that sent me, and to ac- 
complish His work’’. First, because 
throughout it is His aim to make 
Himself a transparency through which 
the Father may be seen; and second, 
because the will of God is the ultimate 
stability by fellowship with which all 
human charity and active compassion 
are continually renewed.—Ver. 35. ov 
tpets A€yere, etc. These words may 
either mean ‘Are you not saying ?’’ or 
“Do you not say?” that is, they may 
either refer'to an expression just used by 
the disciples, or to a common proverb. 
If the former, then the disciples had 
probably been speaking of the dearness 
of the provisions they had bought, and 
congratulating themselves that harvest 
would lower them. Or sitting by the 
well and looking round, some of them 





30—39. 
Neukal eior “mpds Oepropdy dy. 


60d xaipy Kal 6 OepiLov. 


"Gdn Ouvds, Ste GANos é€oTiv 6 orreipwr, Kat Gos 6 CepiLwy. 


EYATTEAION 


36. Kat ™6 Oepifwy piobdr g Acts iii. 
aN ‘ , x > Q 27 ¢ ke , 10, 
apBdver, Kat ouvdyer kaptov eis Lwty aidvov: tva kal 6 oTetpwy 


731 


Col. 


ii. 23. 
a UIE Fae 
37. €v yap tote & Néyos éotiy 6 x Cor. ix. 
Se oebim 
38. éya ii. 6. 


i Mic. vi. 15. 


dméotetha pas Oepifer “8 ox Gets Kexomidkate* GAou KEKO-j xix. 35. 2 


Lal A » 

TidKact, Kal duets eis Tov KOTTOY adTaV eioehnuOate. 

Tis Toews exetvns WoAAol ewloteucay Els adTov TOY Lapapertar, 
By Q lol a , “cg? [ a 4 a 

Sua Tov Adyoy Tis yuvatKds paptupovans, “Ort etme por TdvTa ooo 


may have casually remarked that they 
were four months from harvest. In 
this case the time of year would be 
determined. Harvest beginning in April, 
it would now be December. But the 
phrase otx tpets A€yere is not the 
natural introduction to a reference to 
some present remark of the disciples ; 
whereas it is the natural introduction to 
the citation of a proverb (Matt. xvi. 2). 
That it is a proverb is also favoured by 
the metrical form étt tetpdpynvév éote 
kal 6 Qepicpds gpxetar, No trace of 
such a proverb has been found, but that 
some such saying should be current was 
inevitable, the waiting of the husband- 
man being typical of so much of human 
life. (Wetstein quotes from Ovid (Heroid., 
xvii. 263), “‘adhuc tua messis in herba 
est,’ and many other parallels.) If this 
was a proverbial expression to give en- 
couragement to the sower, we cannot 
infer from its use here that the time 
was December. Our Lord quotes it for 
the sake of the contrast between the 
ordinary relation of harvest to seed-time, 
and that which they can recognise by 
lifting their eyes.—émdpate Tots dp0ad- 
povs tpov. . . . Your harvest is already 
here. What the disciples see when they 
lift their eyes from their food is the crowd 
of Samaritans ripe for the kingdom 
and now approaching them, In Samaria 
a long time might have been expected 
to elapse between sowing and reaping; 
but no!—Aevxat cigt . . . the fields 
are already ripe for cutting. [Aevxat 
Wetstein illustrates from Ovid, ‘‘ maturis 
albescit messis aristis’’.}—Ver. 36. «al 
6 OepiLwy .. . W.H. close ver. 35 with 
Bepiopdy and begin 36 75n 6 Oepiflov. 
Already, and not after four months 
waiting, the harvester has his reward 
and gathers fruit to life eternal. The 
reaper has not to wait, but even now 
and in one and the same action finds his 
teward (cf. 1 Cor. ix. 17) and gathers 
the great product of this world which 
nourishes not merely through one winter 
till next year’s crop is gathered but to 


Chron. ix. 

39- Ex dé 5. 

k emi in 
Josh. 
XXiv. 13. 


life eternal.—iva 6 oreipwv dpod xaipy 
kal 6 Oepifwy, “that sower and reaper 
may rejoice at one and the same time”’, 
Here among the Samaritans this extra- 
ordinary spectacle was seen, Jesus the 
Sower and the disciples the reapers 
working almost simultaneously. So 
quickly had the crop sprung that the 
reapers trod on the heels of the Sower.— 
Ver. 37. év yap tovTw. For in this, 
i.¢., in the circumstances explained in 
the following verse, namely, that I have 
sent you to reap what others sowed, is 
the saying verified, ‘‘one soweth and 
another réapeth’’.—é Adyos, ‘the say- 
trees ef mt ADE Th GS ii an Ge 
GAnO.vds without the article is the predi- 
cate and scarcely expresses that the 
saying receives in the present circum- 
stances its ideal fulfilment, rather that 
the saying is shown to be genuine; the 
saying is G\dos éotly 6 omeipwy Kal 
GXos 6 GepiLwyv, various forms of which 
are given by Wetstein; as, GAAo pev 
ometpovoty, ardor 8 ad apyjoovran, “sic 
vos non vobis”; ¢f. Job xxxi. 8; Micah 
vi. 15; Deut. vi. 11. [‘‘It was objected 
to Pompey that he came upon the 
victories of Lucullus and gathered those 
laurels which were due to the fortune and 
valour of another,” Plutarch.]—Ver. 38. 
The exemplification in our Lord’s mind 
is given in ver. 38, where the pronouns 
éy® and vpas are emphatic. ‘I sent 
you to reap.” When? Holtzmann 
thinks the past tenses can only be ex- 
plained as spoken by the glorified Lord 
looking back on His call of the twelve as 
Apostles. That is, the words were not 
spoken as John relates. But may not 
the reference be to the baptising of many 
by the disciples in the preceding months ? 
This would be quite a natural and obvious 
reference. The work in Judaea which 
justifies the preterites was now alluded 
to, because now again the same division 
of labour is apparent. The Samaritans 
come not because of anything the dis- 
ciples had said while making purchases 
in the town, but because of their Master's 


732 


ILk.v. 3. éroinoa.” 

m i. 40. 

ni Mac. xi. 
40. 


KATA IOQANNHN 


adtév ™ etvar map’ adrois* Kai " Enewev éxet duo hyepas. 
A “a “A + 
TWOANG telous eriotreucay Sid Tov Adyov adTod, 42. TH Te yuvatKt 


IV. 


40. ‘Qs obv FMov mpds adrdy of Lapapetrar, 'hpdrwy 


41. kat 


Edeyor, “Ore obxéte Sid Thy ohv Aadtav motedoner> adtol yap 
dxykdapev, Kal otdapev Ste obtds €otiv GAnPds 6 GwThp Tod Kdcpou, 


6 Xptords.” } 
o Mk, i. 14. 
Mt. iv. 12. : z 
Th FodtXatav. 


43. Meta S€ tas B00 Hpdpas eénOev exetdev, kal ° dwaOev? cis 
44. abTds yap 6 "Ingods éuaptipyaer, ott mpopyTys 


1 9 Xptoros omitted in SBC vulg. and Memph.; found in AC*DL. 
2 Omit cat amyAGev with NBCD, T., Ti., W.H. 


talk with the woman.—Vv. 39-42 briefly 
sum up the results of the Lord’s visit.— 
Ver. 39. Out of Sychar many of the 
Samaritans believed on Him. This 
faith was the result of the woman’s 
testimony, 81a tov Adyov THs yuvatkds 
BapTupovons ; her testimony being, etié 
pol TavTa 6oa évroinaa.—Ver. 40. Their 
faith showed itself in an invitation to 
Him to remain with them; in compliance 
with which invitation, impressive as com- 
ing from Samaritans, He remained two 
days.—Ver. 41. The result was that 
ToAA@ tAetous, a far larger number than 
had believed owing to the woman’s 
report now believed 81a Tov Adyov avrod, 
on account of what they heard from Jesus 
Himself. This is a faith approved by 
John, because based not on miracles 
but on the word of Christ.—otkért ... 
Kai oiSayev. No longer do we believe 
on account of your talk [AaAidy, not 
Adyov], for we ourselves have heard and 
know. This could only be said by those 
who went out first from the city, not by 
those many more who afterwards believed. 
They felt that their faith was now firmer 
and stronger, more worthy to be called 
faith. This mature belief expressed itself 
in the confession ottés éotiv dAnOds 6 
cwTnp Tov Kdopov 6 Xpiorés. The title 
“Saviour of the World” was of course 
prompted by the teaching of Jesus Him- 
self during His two days’ residence. To 
suppose, with several interpreters, that 
it is put into the mouth of the Samaritans 
by the evangelist is to suppose that 
during these two days Jesus did not 
disclose to them that He was the Saviour 
of the World. [‘ It probably belongs not 
to the Samaritans but to the evangelist. 
At the same time it is possible that such 
an epithet might be employed by them 
merely as synonymous with ‘ Messiah’’”’ 
—Sanday.] 

Doubt has been cast on the historicity 


of this narrative by Baur, who thinks the 
woman is a type of susceptible heathen- 
dom ; and by Strauss, who thinks it was 
invented for the purpose of showing that 
Jesus personally taught not only in 
Galilee, Judaea, and Perea, but also in 
Samaria. ‘How natural the tendency 
to perfect the agency of Jesus, by repre- 
senting Him to have sown the heavenly 
seed in Samaria, thus extending His 
Ministry through all parts of Palestine; 
to limit the glory of the apostles and 
other teachers to that of being the mere 
reapers of the harvest in Samaria; and 
to put this distinction, on a suitable 
occasion, into the mouth of Jesus!” 
Holtzmann’s idea of this section of the 
Gospel is similar. The fictitious character 
of the narrative seems to be mainly 
based on its great significance for the 
life of Christ. As if the actual events of 
His life were not significant. Stress too 
is laid on the circumstance that among 
simple peoples all striking incidents, 
conversations, recognitions, take place 
at wells. In other words, wells are 
common meeting-places, therefore this 
meeting at a well cannot have taken 
place. 

Vv. 43-54. Fesus passes into Galilee 
and there heals the son of a nobleman.— 
Ver. 43. Mera 8€ tas Svo Hpépas. “And 
after the two days,”’ see ver. 40.—e&qOev 
éxeiOev, “He departed thence,” i.e., 
from Sychar.—ets thv FadiAatav, ‘into 
Galilee,” carrying out the intention which 
had brought Him to Sychar, iv. 3.— 
Ver. 44. The reason for His proceeding 
to Galilee is given in ver. 44.—attds 
yap 6 “Incots éuaptupycer, ‘for Jesus 
Himself testified”. The evangelist 
would not have presumed to apply to 
Jesus the proverbial expression, mpo¢7- 
TS... ovK ێxer, but Jesus Himself 
used it. The saying embodies a common 
observation. Montaigne complained that 





40-46. 


év TH (Sia warpid. tity odK Exel. 


EYATTEAION 


733 


45. P"Ore ody HAOev eis Thy P Lk. iv. 24. 


FadtNaiay, *édeavto adtéy of TadtAator, mdvra éwpakdtes & errol-qi. xr. 
a a ‘ 
noev év ‘lepocoddpots ev TH opty’ Kal adrol yap 7AOov eis Thy 


éoptyy. 


46. "HdOev ody & "Ingods * mddw eis Thy Kava tis FahiAatas, 
Kal ny tes *Baotdtkds, 08 6 uids Hobever ev as subse. 
u| 4 


érroinae Td Udwp otvov. 


in his own country he had to purchase 
publishers: while elsewhere publishers 
purchased him. The difficulty lies in 
the present application of the saying. If 
Galilee was His ‘‘ fatherland,” how can 
He use this proverb as a reason for His 
going there? To escape the difficulty 
Cyril, followed by Calvin, Grotius, and 
many more, says Nazareth was His 
mwatpis, and here [d@vayxatav otetrar 
viv Gmohoyiay THs mapadpopys) he 
assigns the reason for His passing by 
Nazareth. marpis can be used of a 
town as in Philo’s Leg. ad Caium, 
Agrippa says éott 8€ pou ‘lepooddvpa 
matpis (Kypke). See also Achilles Tat., 
22; Lk. iv. 23. But the objection is 
that Lk. tells us He did go to Nazareth. 
Origen says Judaea was the watpis Tov 
wpedytav ; and Liicke, Westcott, Reith, 
and others believe that Judaea is here 
meant; and that Jesus, by citing the 
proverb, gives the reason for His rejec- 
tion in Jerusalem. But this is out of 
place, as He had long since left Jeru- 
salem. Meyer thinks the meaning is 
that Jesus left Galilee in order to sub- 
stantiate His Messianic claim in Jeru- 
salem, and this having been accom- 
plished, He returns with His credentials 
to His own country. This agrees with 
ver. 45, “having seen the miracles which 
He had done in Jerusalem”. Weiss 
interprets the words as meaning that 
Jesus leaves Samaria, where honour had 
come unbidden, in order to evoke faith and 
honour where as yet He had none: thus 
continuing the hard work of sowing and 
leaving to the disciples the glad harvest- 
ing. This is ingenious; but the obvious 
interpretation is that which finds in the 
statement (vv. 43, 44) a resumption of the 
narrative of vv. 1-3, which had been 
interrupted by the account of the Lord’s 
experience in Samaria. That narrative 
had assigned as the reason for our 
Lord’s leaving Judaea and making for 
Galilee, His own over-popularity, which 
threatened a collision with the Pharisees. 
To avoid this He goes to Galilee, where, 
as He Himself said, there was little risk 
of His being too highly honoured.—Ver. 
45. Neither is ovv of ver. 45 inconsistent 


o s 
OTrou Tf ll. I. 
s Here only 


with this interpretation. It merely con- 
tinues the narration: ‘* when, ther, He 
came into Galilee”. The immediate 
result of His coming was not what He 
anticipated, and therefore é8éfavro is 
thrust into the emphatic place, ‘‘a wel- 
come was accorded to Him by the 
Galileans”. And this unexpected result 
is accounted for by the fact stated, mavra 
Ewpakdtes .. . eis THY Eoptyv; they had 
been at the Passover at Jerusalem, and 
had seen all He haddone there. ‘“ They 
received Him... on account of His 
fame in Jerusalem, the metropolis, which 
set them the fashion in their estimate of 
men and things” (Alford). According to 
John’s usual method of distinguishing 
various kinds of faith, this note is inserted 
to warn the reader that the reception 
was after all not deeply grounded, and to 
prepare for the statement of ver. 48. 
[mA9ov, and even émofnoev, may be ren- 
dered by pluperfects.]}—Ver. 46. 7A0ev 
ovv 6 “Ingots. May we conclude from 
the circumstance that no mention is made 
of the disciples until vi. 3, ‘‘ that they 
had remained in Samaria, and had gone 
home”? amdAw édOety means “to re- 
turn’’; here with a reference to ii. 1. 
The further definition of Kava, S7rov 
érrolnoe Td VSwp olvoy, is to identify the 
place, to prepare for ver. 54, and to re- 
mind us He had friends there. Weiss 
and Holtzmann suppose the family of 
Jesus was now resident at Cana. That 
we have no reason to suppose. From 
the period of the nanistry in Galilee now 
beginning, the Synoptists give many 
details: John gives but one. jv ts 
BaciAukds. Euthymius gives the mean- 
ings of BaotAtkéds thus: BagtAuKds édé- 
yeTo, 4 @s ek yévous BactAikod, 4 &s 
atlopd Te KekTHHEvos, Ad ovmep exaheiro 
Bacthixds, 4 os varnpérns BactdAiKds. 
Kypke gives examples of its use by 
writers of the period to denote soldiers 
or seryants of a king, or persons of royal 
blood, or of rank and dignity, and thinks 
it here means ‘vir nobilis, clarus, in 
dignitate quadam constitutus”. Lampe 
thinks it may imply that this man was 
both in the royal service and of royal 
blood. Lightfoot suggests that this may 


KATA IQANNHN IV. 


734 


Kamepvaolp. 47. obTos dkovoas Sti “Ingots ker ex THs “loudatas 
eis Thy FadtXalav, daAAOe pds adtov, kat hpdta adrov (va KaTaBA 


ta Mae. vii. 
18. 
avi. 30. I 
Cor.i.22. . ; my 
pe) TioTevonTe. 


katdéByO. mply darobavety 15 tatdiov pou.” 
*Incods, “ Mopedou: 6 vids oou 27.” 


~ , = * > mle a Mi7LD , 
TO Ady w eEitrey adTG 6 ‘Ingots, kal EmopeveTo. 


v With acc. 
here and 
Acts xxiii. 
20 only. 


kal idonrat adtod Tov uidv: *HpedXe yap dmoOvijoKe. 


héyovtes, ““Ort 6 tats cou £7.” 


48. elev 


obv “Ingots mpds adrév, “*’Edv pi) onpeta Kai tépata tdynte, ob 
49. Aéyet mpds atrov 6 Bacthtkds, ‘‘ Kupte, 


50. Adéyer adté 6 
Kai émiotrevcey 6 avOpwros 
51. 7dy Se adtod 


kataBatvovtos, ot S0dAot adtod dmynytncay! adtd, Kai danyyethay 


52. ‘’Emd@ero ody map adtay 


~ 2 
Ti doav év 7 Komipdtepoy Eoye* Kat elroy aiTd, ““OT xbes Spay 


1 vrnvtyoay (always used in John, xi, 20, 30; xii. 18) found in BCDKL. 


have been Chuza, Herod’s chamberlain. 
Most probably he was an officer of 
Herod’s court, civil or military. His 
prominent characteristic at this time is 
given in the words, od 6 vids yoGever ev 
Kagapvaotp. The place is named be- 
cause essential to the understanding of 
what follows.—Ver. 47. Having heard 
Sti ‘Ingots AKet, ‘‘that Jesus has come 
into Galilee,’ he traces Him to Kana, 
and begs Him not simply to heal his son, 
but pointedly tva kataBq, to go to Caper- 
naum for the purpose. He considered 
the presence of Jesus to be necessary 
[‘‘non putat verbo curare posse,” Melan- 
chthon] (contrast the centurion of Matt. 
Viii.); and, being a person of standing, 
did not scruple to trouble Jesus. Jesus 
neither refuses nor grants the request at 
once, but utters the reflection: Ver. 48. 
éav ph onpeta ... muotevonte. Not 
as a prophet uttering truth, but as a 
miracle worker He is sought in His own 
country: Samaria had received Him 
without miracle, as a Prophet. To seek 
for a sign, says Melanchthon, “est velle 
certificari alio modo quam per ver- 
bum”. tépata here only in John, 
though frequent in Acts. Faith rooted 
in ‘‘marvels” Jesus put in an inferior 
place. But the father in his urgent 
anxiety can only repeat his request (ver. 
49) kaTaBnOe wplv amobavety Td watdiov 
pov. ‘‘ Duplex imbecillitas rogantis, quasi 
Dominus necesse haberet adesse, nec pos- 
set aeque resuscitare mortuum” (Bengel). 
But Jesus, unable to prolong his misery, 
Says Topevou’d vids couly. He did not 
go with him. His cures are independent 
of material media and even of His pres- 
ence.—Ver. 50. And now the man be- 
lieved +@ Adyw & [or by] elev aiTd 
6 *Iqgovs. His first immature faith has 


grown into something better. The 
evident sincerity of Jesus quickens a 
higher faith. On Christ’s word he 
departs home, believing he wiil find his 
son healed.—Ver. 51. And while already 
on his way down [78n showing that he 
did not remain with Christ until from 
some other source he heard that his son 
was healed], his servants met him and 
gave him the reward of his faith.—6 ais 
gov fy, an echo, as Weiss remarks, of 
the words of Jesus, ver. 50. The ser- 
vants seeing the improvement in the 
boy and not ascribing it to miracle, set 
out to save their master from bringing 
Jesus to Capernaum.—Ver. 52. éav8ero 
ovv . . . Kopdtepov €oxe. “ Amoenum 
verbum, de convalescente, puero prae- 
sertim”’—Bengel. Theophylact explains 
by émwi +d BéATiov Kai evpwordtepov 
peTnAGev Go mwais: Euthymius by tod 
padtepov, To Kouddtepov, as we speak of 
a sick person being “ easier,” “lighter”. 
The best illustration is Raphel’s from 
Epictetus (Diss., 3, 10), who bids a 
patient not be too much uplifted if the 
physician says to him kopwas eyets, you 
are doing well. The servants name the 
seventh hour, 7.e., 1 p.m. of the previous 
day, as the time when the fever left him. 
[Accus. of time when, rare; Winer ex- 
plains as if it meant the approximate 
time with a wept or ooet understood ; 
Acts x. 3; Rev. iii. 3.] And this the 
father recognised as the time at which 
Jesus had said ‘‘ Thy son liveth”. The 
distance between Cana and Capernaum 
is about twenty-five miles, so that it 
would appear as if the father had need- 
lessly delayed on the road. But he may 
have had business for Herod or for him- 
self on the road, or the beast he rode 
may have been unequal to the double 





47—54. V.1. 


EBScuny adjxevy adrov 
éxetvy TH Gpa, ev q 


Nios, eos 
Kal é€mioteucevy auTog Kal H 


EYATTEAION 


SP. > na 
oikia, avTod Oy. 


735 


6 mupetds. 53. Eyvw odv 6 wartip, Ste év 
> 


nw fol J 
q eltevy abt 6 “Ingots, ““Ott 6 vids cou Lf.” 


54- "ro0To walty wii. 1-12. 


Sevtepov onpetov éroinoey 6 “Incods, eAOdv ek THs “loudalas eis 


Thy FadtXatav. 


V. 1. META tadta hv éopth?! trav “loudalwy, Kat dvéBy 6 “Inoods 


1 eopty SCEFHL Memph. Theb, Cyr.-Alex. Tisch. 


ABDGK Orig. Chrys. Tr.W.H.R. 


journey. Atany rate it seems illegitimate 
to say with Weiss that ‘yesterday ”’ 
means before sundown; or to ascribe 
the father’s delay to the confidence he 
had in Jesus’ word. The discovery of 
the coincidence in point of time produces 
a higher degree of faith, éwiotevorev attos 
kal 7H olxia avTov GAn. The cure brings 
into prominence this distinctive pecu- 
liarity of a miracle that it consists of a 
marvel which is coincident with an ex- 
press announcement of it.—Ver. 54. 
ToUTo Tad... THY TadtAalay. mdi 
SevTepov a common pleonasm, “again a 
second’’; cf. xxi. 16. In Mt. xxvi. 42, 
awadw ék devtépov; and Acts x. 15. By 
this note John connects this miracle with 
that at the wedding, ii. 1-10, of which he 
said (ii. 11) TavryHv érolnoe apyny tev 
onpelov 6 “Incots. It does not mean 
that this was the second miracle after 
this return to Galilee, although the words 
might bear that interpretation. Why 
this note? Bengel thinks that attention 
is called to the fact that John relates 
three miracles wrought in Galilee and 
three in Judaea. Alford supposes that 
John wishes to note that as the former 
miracle had called forth the faith of the 
disciples, so this elicited faith from a 
wider circle. 

Not only Strauss, Baur, and Keim but 
also Weiss and Sanday suppose that this 
is the same healing as is recorded in 
Mt. viii. 5-13. But the differences are 
too great. In the one it is a Gentile 
centurion whose servant is paralysed; 
in the other it is the son of a (probably 
Jewish) court official who is at the point 
of death from fever, In the one the cen- 
turion insists that Jesus shall not come 
under his roof; in the other the supplicant 
beseeches Him to do so. The half-faith 
oi the father is blamed; the extraordinary 
faith of the centurion is lauded. 


Chapters v.-xi. depict the growth of 
the unbeliet of the Jews. In this part of 
the Gospel three Judaean miracles and 


eoptn without article 


one in Galilee are related in full, and 
the impulse given by each to the hatred 
of the Jews is pointed out. These 
miracles are the healing of the impotent 
man (chap. v.), the miraculous feeding 
(chap. vi.), the cure of the man born 
blind (chap. ix.), and the raising of 
Lazarus (chap. xi.). This section of the 
Gospel may be divided thus :— 

1. Chaps. v. and vi., Christ manifests 
Himself as the Life first in Judaea, then 
in Galilee, but is rejected in both places. 

2. Chaps. vil. to x. 21, He attends the 
Feast of Tabernacles and manifests Him- 
self by word and deed but is threatened 
both by the mob and by the authorities. 

3. Chaps. x. 22 to xi., Jesus withdraws 
from Jerusalem but returns to raise 
Lazarus, in consequence of which the 
authorities finally determine to slay Him. 

CuHaPTER V. Fesus in Ferusalem 
manifests Himself as the Life by com- 
municating strength to an impotent man. 
—Ver. I. peta tatra, “after this”; 
how long after does not concern the 
narrative.—v €opti tay lovdaiwv. See 
critical note. Even if the article were 
the true reading, this would not, as 
Liicke has shown, determine the feast 
to be the Passover. Rather it would 
be Tabernacles, see W.H. ii. 76. Weare 
thrown upon general considerations :and 
that these yield a very uncertain result 
is shown by the variety of opinion ex- 
pressed by commentators. The feasts 
we have to choose from are: Purim in 
March, Passover in April, Pentecost in 
May, Tabernacles in October, Dedica- 
tion in December. It is chiefly between 
Purim and Passover that opinion is 
divided, because some feast in spring is 
supposed to be indicated by iv. 35. 
Against Passover it is urged thatin chap. 
vi. another Passover is mentioned ; but 
this is by no means decisive, as John 
elsewhere passes over equally long 
intervals of time. Lampe, Lightfoot, 
Grotius, Whitelaw, and Wordsworth 
argue for Passover: Tischendorf, Meyer, 


736 


a Neb. iii.1. els “lepooddupa. 


KATA IQANNHN 


IV, 


2. “Eat: 8é ev ois ‘lepowoddpors ewl rH * mpo- 


Barixy KodkupByOpa, % emAeyopévn “EBpaiotl ByOeoa,! mévre 


b Mk.i, 30. oTods Exouga. 3. ev tatdrats "Kkaréxerto mAHO0s wohd tdv dobe- 
Acts ix. ‘ P _ A k ye 
33: vouvtwr, Tuphav, xwhay, Enpav, exdexopévav Thy Tod Datos kivnow.? 


4. dyyeXos yap Kata katpdy xatéBawev év TH KodkupByOpa, Kal 


érdpagce Td Udwp* 6 obv mpOtos éuBds peta Thy tapaxhy Tob 


Gatos, byrjs éylvero, @ Sywote KateixeTo voonpat..® 5. "Hy 8é 


¢ iii. . 
d viii. 57; 
ph & A 


1 Bybeoda ACI Syr. Cur. Pesh. Orig. Chrys. 
oatSa B vulg. Memph. Theb. Syr. Harcl. 


“tts avOpwiros éxet xt etn “éywv ev TH Gobeveia 
Ss pwmros e€Kel TpLAkOVTAOKT ETH x TH as 


6. todrov iSav 6 “Incods Katakeipevov, Kat yvods Ste mohdy Sq 


Bnbfaba (or Bynlaba) RL 33. Bye 


2 exSexopevov THY Tov vsarTos Kivyotv in A*C*DI vet. Lat. codd. plur. syrr. (Pesh. 
Harcl. Hier.); omitted from §$A*BC*L and by recent editors. 
8 Ver. 4 found in ACS7EFGHIKL vet. Lat., etc., but omitted from ${BC*D vulg. 


Memph. Theb. Arm. and by recent editors. 


But Oscar Holtzmann pronounces it 


necessary for the understanding of the narrative ; and it is quite in keeping with the 
Jewish conception of the ministry of angels. 


Godet, Farrar, Weiss, and others strongly 
favour Purim; while Liicke seems to 
prove that no sure conclusion can be 
reached, [For a full and fair presentation 
of opinions and data see Andrew’s Life 
of our Lord, p. 189 sqq.] The feast, what- 
ever it was, is mentioned here to account 
for Jesus being again in Jerusalem.— 
Ver. 2. xr S€ év tots ‘lepocodvpors. 
From the use of the present tense Bengel 
concludes that this was written before 
the destruction of Jerusalem [* Scripsit 
Johannes ante vastationem urbis”’]. But 
quite probably John considered the pool 
one of the permanent features of the city. 
Its position is more precisely defined in 
the words éwt tq mpoBartxq, rendered in 
A.V. ‘‘by the sheep market”? and in 
R.V. “ by the sheep gate”. Others read 
kodupByOpa, and render ‘by the sheep- 
pool a pool”; Weiss, adopting this 
reading, supplies oixia or some such 
word: “there is by the sheep-pool a 
building”. But this does some violence 
to the sentence; and as the “sheep 
gate’ is mentioned in Neh. iii. 32, xil. 
39, the reading, construction, and render- 
ing of R.V. are to be preferred.—¥ ém- 
Aeyouevy “EBpaiort Bnbecda. The pool 
has recently been identified. M. Clermont 
Ganneau pointed out that its site should 
not be far from the church of St. Anne, 
and in 1888 Herr Shick found in that 
locality two sister pools, one fifty-five 
and the other sixty feet long. The former 
was arched in by five arches, while five 
corresponding porches ran alongside the 
pool. By the crusaders a church had 


been built over this pool, with a crypt 
framed in imitation of the five porches 
and with an opening in the floor to get 
down to the water. That they regarded 
this pool as that mentioned here is shown 
by their having represented on the wall 
of the crypt the angel troubling the 
water. [Herr Shick’s papers are con- 
tained in the Palestine Quarterly, 1888, 
pp. 115-134, and 1890, p. 19. See also 
St. Clair's Buried Cities, Henderson’s 
Palestine, p. 180.) The pool had five 
porches. Bovet describes the bath of 
Ibrahim near Tiberias: ‘‘ The hail in 
which the spring is found is surrounded 
by several porticoes in which we see a 
multitude of people crowded one upon 
another, laid on couches or rolled in 
blankets, with lamentable expressions of 
misery and suffering”. Here lay rA78os 
Tov agbevovvtwv, and these were of three 
kinds, tud\Gv, xwA@v, Enp@v.—Ver. 3. 
éxSexouevwv . . . vooypari. See critical 
note.—Ver. 5. %v S€ tis Gv@pwros . . . 
doGevelq. ‘ And there was a certain man 
there who had spent thirty-eight years in 
his infirmity: ” éry éxov, cf. v. 6 and viii. 
57; and Achil. Tat., 24. How long he had 
lain by the water is not said. To find in 
the man’s thirty-eight years’ imbecility a 
symbol of Israel’s thirty-eight years in the 
wilderness is itself an imbecility.—Ver. 6. 
Jesus when He saw the man lying and 
had ascertained (yvots, having learned 
from the man or his friends) that already 
he had passed a long time (in that in- 
firmity) says: @éXeus vyrys yevéo8ar; 
“Do you wish to become whole 





2—13. 


, 
Xpovov éxet, Neyer abt, “Odes Sys yevéoar ;” 


EYALCTEAION 


737 


7+ Grexpiy 


EP ey LS ~ , ” 4 a 
auT@ 6 dadevay, “Kupre, dvOpwmrov odk exw, iva Stay *rapaxOyq Td ¢ Ezek. 


Udwp, Paddy pe eis Thy KohupByPoay - 
™po €uod kataBaiver.” 
Tov *xpdBBatdéy cou, kai mwepurdre.” 


” Wok A > a ‘ 4 
6 dvOpwes, Kal jpe tov KpdBBarov adrod, Kat TEPLETTATEL. 


3€ odBBarov !év exeivy TH Huépa. 


n 


8. A€yer atta 


‘ 


XXXli. 2. 


*év 6 8é Epyouar €y, GAXosg f Mk. ii. 19, 


: ) etc. 
6 “Ingois, “ ®"Eyevpat,) Gpov g Mk. ii. 11 


9. Kat ev0ws éyévero Gyuns b Mk. ii. 4, 
9. 
‘av i Mk. iii. x. 


10. "EXeyov ovv ot ‘loudaior j Josh. vi. 
20. 


TG telepameupevw, “EdBBatdv eat: od ebeatl cor dpa. tov 


xpéBBatov.” 


a ? 
€xelvds poor elev, “Apov tov KpdBBatdv cov, Kal mepimdrer.” 


II. “Amexpi0n adtots, “‘O “oujoas pe * byef, k ver. 15: 


Vii. 13. 


, 
12. ‘Hpdtnoav ody attiv, “Tis éotw 6 dvOowmos 6 eimdv cor, 


"Apov tov kpdBRBatdvy gou, kal mepumdrer ;” 
on 7S Mll-> Re cae ttaienn®, A m 267 ” ” Phin 
yoet tis 'éotiv: 6 yap ‘Inaods ™ eg€veucer, Ox\ou GvTos év TO TOT. 


li. 40. 
13. ‘O 8€ iadets obk m viii. 50. 
2 Kings ii 
24. 


1 eyetpe as in ABCD; restored by modern editors in all places of its occurrence. 
_Intrans. in Eph. v. 14, etc. ; vide Thayer, cp. ver. 21. 


(healthy) ?” This question was put to 
attract the man’s attention and awaken 
hope. But the man is hopeless: it is 
not a guestion of will, he says, but of 
opportunity. His very weakness enabled 
others to anticipate him; év & épxopar 
éyo, ‘while Iam coming,” he could, then, 
move a little, but not quickly enough. At 
each bubbling up of the water, apparently 
only one could be healed. The Gddos 
3p éu.00 kataBaiver was a great aggra- 
vation of his case.—Ver. 8. The impo- 
tent man having declared his helpless- 
ness, Jesus says to him, “Eyeupe, a 
command to be obeyed on the moment 
by faith in Him who gave it. Cf. vi. 63, 
and Augustine’s ‘‘ Da quod jubes, et jube 
quod vis”. adpov tov KkpaBBardv cov, 
“take up your pallet”. xpdé&BBatos is 
the Latin grabatus, and is late Greek; 
see Rutherford’s New Phryn., 137; and 
McLellan’s Greek Test., p. 106, for re- 
ferences and anecdote. He was com- 
manded to take up his bed that he might 
recognise that the cure was permanent. 
No doubt many of the cures at the pool 
were merely temporary. wepimarter 
“walk,” ability was given not merely to 
rise, but to walk. The cures wrought by 
Christ are perfect, and do not only give 
some relief.—Ver.g. kat ev@éws .. . Im- 
mediately on Christ’s word he became 
strong, and took up his bed and walked: 
Hpe aorist of one act, weptemater im- 
perfect of continued action. Ver. 10 
should begin with the words jv 8é 
oaBBarov, as this is the starting-point 
for what follows.—Ver. 10. ‘It was a 
Sabbath on that day,” the Jews there- 


fore said to him that had been healed, 
LaPBardv eo, “It is Sabbath”. ov« 
éeoti gor Gpar tov kpaBBatov. The 
law is laid down in Exod. xxiii. 12; Jer. 
xvii. 21. ‘‘ Take heed to yourselves and 
bear no burden on the Sabbath day ;”’ ¢f. 
Neh. xiii. 15. The rabbinical law ran: 
‘“Whosoever on the Sabbath bringeth 
anything in, or taketh anything out from 
a public place to a private one, if he hath 
done this inadvertently, he shall sacrifice 
for his sin; but if wilfully, he shall be cut 
off and shall be stoned” (Lightfoot in 
loc.).—Ver. 11. The man’s reply reveals 
a higher law than that of the Sabbath, 
the fundamental principle of all Christian 
obedience: ‘O mwowjoas . . . wepimdrer. 
He that gives life is the proper authority 
for its use.—Ver. 12. As the healed man 
transferred the blame to another, ypo- 
Tyoav ... wepimater. ‘Who is the 
man,” rather, ‘‘the fellow?” 6 av@pwires 
used contemptuously. As Grotius says: 
**Quaerunt non quod mirentur, sed quod 


calumnietur’’.—Ver. 13. But the man 
could give them no information. He did 
not know the name of his healer. 6 ya 


*Iqocots éfévevoev, ‘for Jesus had with- 
drawn” or ‘turned aside”. ékxveva, 
from vevw, to bend the head, rather than 
éxvéw, to swim out. Cf. Judges iv, 18 
(where, however, Dr. Swete reads éx- 
KAtvov), xviii. 26. See also Thayer and 
Wetstein. The reason why Jesus took 
Himself away, and the explanation of 
His doing so without observation, are 
both given in dxAou Svtos ev TO TOT w. 
He did not wish observation and it was 
easy to escape in the crowd.—Ver. 14. 


47 


738 


KATA IQANNHN 


V: 


7 lol a a ~ 
14. Mera tadra edpfoxer adtév 6 "Ingoids év TO tepd, kal elev atta, 


“"ISe dyijs yéyovas: pete dpdptave, iva ph xetpdv ti oor 


yevnra.” 


Li. 40. 
k ver. 15; 
Vii. 13. 


avrov dtroKxteivat,! 


n ii. 10. 
O Vii. 23; x 
35. Mt. 


Vv. 19. 


“épyatopar.” 


1 The clause kat... 
posed to have been derived from ver. 18. 
this clause be read. 


Though the healed man had failed to 
keep hold of Jesus, Jesus does not lose 
hold of him, but evptoxe: aitév év TO 
iep@, ‘finds him,” -as if He had been 
looking out for him, cf. i. 44, 46, ‘‘in the 
temple,” where he may have gone to 
give God thanks. Jesus says to him 
"ISe vyins yéyovas .. . yévnTat. pyKéete 
a&papTave, present imperative, ‘‘ continue 
no longer in sin”. yetpov. There is 
then some worse consequence of sin than 
thirty-eight years’ misery and useless- 
ness. Apparently Jesus feared that health 
of body might only lead the man to 
further sin. His physical weakness was 
seemingly the result of sin, cf. Mark ti. 
5-10. Jesus is not satisfied with giving 
him physical health. Oscar Holtzmann 
observes that we have here the two lead- 
ing Pauline ideas, that the. Saviour frees 
from many O.T. precepts, and yet that 
Ilis emancipation is a call to strive 
against sin (fohan., p. 60).—Ver. 15. 
amrqr§ev 6 avO@pwros. ‘ The man went off 
and reported to the Jews that the person 
who heaied him was Jesus. He had 
asked His name, and perhaps did not 
consider that in proclaiming it he was 
endangering his benefactor.—Ver. 16. 
The consequence however was that “ the 
Jews persecuted Jesus,” éStwkov, not in 
the technical sense ; but, as the imperfect 
also suggests, they began from this 
point to meditate hostile action; cf. 
Mark iii. 6. Kat é{yrovy avrév aok- 
retvat, on the ground that He was a 
Sabbath-breaker, ‘and therefore worthy 
of death; Ott Tatra émoter év caBBarw. 
The plural and the imperfect show that 
the cure of the impotent man was not 
the only case they had in view. Their 
allies in the provinces had made them 
acquainted with similar cases. It would 
almost seem as if He was in the habit of 


Sti TadTa emote ev caBBartw. 


15. Am\Oev 6 dvOpwros, Kat dvyyyetde Tots ‘loudators, 
a > rae | ek , re el a 
Ste “Ingods | éotiw 6 * roujoas adtov byti. 

16. Kat 8d todo €Siwkoy Tov “Inoody ot “lovBator, Kal éLyTouv 


17. 6 8€ “Inoods 


dtmekpivato avTots, ““O matyp pou “"Ews apte épydLerar, Kaya 
18. Ava Toto ody paddov eLntouy addy ot “loudator 
Gmoktetvat, OTL oF pdvoy °eXue TO GhBBatov, GAG Kal Tatépa 


amroxtetvat is found in A, but not in §BCDL, and is sup- 


But paddoy in ver. 18 is pointless unless 


thus signalising the Sabbath.—Ver. 17. 
In some informal way these accusations 
were brought to the ears of Jesus, and 
His defence was: ‘O matyp pov . 
épyafopar. “My Father until now 
works, and I work”; as if the work of 
the Father had not come to an end on 
the seventh day, but continued until the 
present hour. Nay, as ifthe characteristic 
of the Father were just this, that He 
works. Philo perceived the same truth ; 
mraveTat ovderote Toi@y 6 Beds GAN’ 
Gotrep tStoy TO Kaley updos Kal xlovos 
TO wWuyerv, oVT@ Kal Oeod Td TroLetv. 
God never stops working, for as it is the 
property of fire to burn and of snow to 
be cold so of God to work (De allegor., 
ii. See Schoettgen im loc.). Jesus means 
them to apprehend that there is no 
Sabbath, such as they suppose, with 
God, and that this healing of the im- 
potent was God’s work. The Father 
does not rest from doing good on the 
Sabbath day, and I as the Father’s hand 
also do good on the Sabbath. In charging 
Him with breaking the Sabbath (ver. 18), 
it was God they charged with breaking it. 
But this exasperated them the more “‘ be- 
cause He not only was annulling (€Ave, 
‘laws, as having binding force, are likened 
to bonds, hence Aveuv is to annul, subvert, 
deprive of authority,’ Thayer) the Sab- 
bath, but also said that God was His own 
Father, making Himself equal to God”. 
The Jews found in 6 watzp pov (ver. 17) 
and the implication in kayo épyafopat 
a claim to some peculiar and exclusive 
({$.ov) sonship on the part of Jesus; that 
He claimed to be Son of God not in the 
sense in which other men are, but in a 
sense which involved equality with God. 
Starting from this, Jesus took occasion to 
untold His relation to the Father so far 
as it concerned men to know it. 


~ 





I4—22. 


Pidioy EXeye Tov Oedv, ivov EauTov Toray TH Od. 


EYATTEAION 


139 


19. dtexpivato p Ron viii 
1 Cor 


ouv 6 “Ingods Kal elirev attots, “"Aphy dpny Aéyw Spiv, od Sdvarar ate 


6 ulds tovety Tadd EauTod oddév, edv py te BAewyH Tov TWatépa q viii. 28;ix 


an A an A A , “a 
tovouvTa’ & yap av ékeivos mor, Taita Kat 6 ulds dpotws Trovet. 


20. 


4; x. 18. 


+ a SY AY ~ x ey ‘ , , SA aA eyes \ 
6 yap tatip idet Tov uidv, Kal TdavTa Setkvuow alto & adTodsr xv. 9. 


a \os , , sa |, ° « a“ , 
TOLEL* KQL petlova toutwy Seiger GQUTW Epya, LYG UJLELS Baupdlyte. 8 xiv. 12. 


, A eS 
21. Gowep yap 6 wathp éyelper Tods vexpods Kal Lwomoret, * obTw ¢ xi. 25. 


Kai 6 ulds ots Oéder Lwotroret. 


The passage 19-30 divides itself thus: 
vv. 19, 20 exhibit the ground of the 
Son’s activity in the Father’s activity 
and love for the Son; vv. 21-23, the 
works given by the Father to the Son 
are, generally, life-giving and judging; 
vv. 24-27, these works in the spiritual 
sphere; vv. 28-29, in the physical 
sphere; and ver. 30, reaffirmation of 
unity with the Father.—Ver. J9- The 
fundamental proposition | is o¥ Svvarat 
0 vids arovety ad’ EavTov ovdev. ‘‘ The 
Son can do nothing of Himself.” This 
is not, as sometimes has been supposed, 
a general statement true of all sons, but 
is spoken directly of Jesus. Sivarat is 
moral not physical ability—though here 
the one implies the other; but cf. ver. 
26. So perfect is the Son’s sympathy 
with the Father that He can only do 
what He sees the Father doing. He 
does nothing at His own instance. That 
is to say, in healing the impotent man 
He felt sure He was doing what the 
Father wished done and gave Him 
power to do.—& yap... qovei, as 
Holtzmann observes, the force of the 
repetition lies in épolws, pariter, ‘in 
like manner”’.—Ver. 20. And the Son 
is enabled to see what the Father does, 
because He loves the Son and shows 
Him all that He Himself does. The 
Father is not passive in the matter, 
merely allowing Jesus to discover what 
He can of the Father’s will; but the 
Father Seixvuowv, shows Him, inwardly 
and in response to His own readiness to 
perceive, not mechanically but spiritually, 
all that He does; wdvra apparently 
without limitation, for totet is habitual 
present as tet in previous clause, and 
cannot be restricted to the things God 
was then doing in the case of the im- 
potent man. Besides, a merely human 
sonship scarcely satisfies the absolute 6 
matnp and 6 vids of this passage.—kal 
peiLova . . . Oavpdlynre, the Father 
through the Son will do greater works 
than the healing of the impotent man; 
of. xiv. 12; ‘that ye may marvel”; 


"oddé yap 6 taThp Kplve, apa 
this seems an inadequate motive, but 
ver. 23 explains it. In the following 
passage, spiritual quickening is meant 
in vv. 21-27, while in vv. 28, 29, it is 
the bodily resurrection that is in view.— 
Ver. 21. @omwep yap .. . {Cwororet. 
This is one of the “ greater works ” 
which the Father shows to the Son. 
The Jews believed in the power of God 
to give life and to raise the dead; see 
Deut. xxxii. 39; 1 Sam. ii. 6; Is. xxvi 
1g. In our Lord’s time there was in use 
the following prayer: ‘Thou, O Lord, 
art mighty for ever; Thou quickenest 
the dead; Thou art strong tosave; Thou 
sustainest the living by Thy mercy; 
Thou quickenest the dead by Thy great 
compassion; Thou makest good Thy 
faithfulness to them that sleep in the 
dust; Thou art faithful to quicken the 
dead. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who 
quickenest the dead.” There is there- 
fore no need to ask, what quickening of 
the dead is here meant? What was 
meant was that the power which they all 
believed to be in God was likewise in the 
Son. He quickens ots @¢Aet, 7.e., no 
matter how dead the person is; even 
though he has lain as long useless as the 
impotent man. The question of the 
human will is not touched here, but it 
may be remarked that the will of the 
impotent man was consulted as the prime 
requisite of the cure.—Ver. 22. But not 
only does the Son quicken whom He 
will, but He also judges; ov6é yap .. . 
vio. ‘‘For not even does the Father 
judge any one, but has given all judgment 
to the Son.” ‘For since He knows 
Himself to be the sole mediator of true 
life for men, He can also declare that all 
those who will not partake through Him 
of this blissful life, just therein experience 
judgment whereby they sink into death. iy 
Wendt, ii. 211; andcf. ver. 27. ov8é yap 
introduces the fresh statement, that He 
judges, not only as the reason for what 
goes before, but on its own account also, 
as an additional fact to be noticed. It 
would seem an astonishing thing that 


740 


KATA IQANNHN 


Vv. 


obdéva, GANA Thy Kpiow wacavy Sédwxe TO vid: 23. twa mdvres 


-~ D1 « ‘4 ~ 4 
Tin@or Tov uldv, Kas TYLdor Tov Tatépa. 


> a 4 , 4 [EY 4 
ov Tid Tov Tatépa Tov Téppavta adTdv. 


6 pi) Tyndy Tov vtdv, 
24. “Apiy dpihy Aéyw 


« “ @ © ‘ , , . , ~ la 
Spiv, OTe 6 Tov Aédyov pou dkodwy, Kal moTedwy TH TéppavTl pe, 


v1 Jo. iii. 
14. 


w iv. 23. 


éx Tod Bavdrou eis thy Lwrp. 


exer Lwiy aidviov: Kal eis Kplow ok Epxerar, dAAG * peTaBEByKev 


25. “Aphy dphy Aéyw Sytv, Ste 


wr ‘ A > iJ c ‘ , 1 ~ lel 
Epxetat dpa kal vov €otw, OTE ot veKpot dxovcovtar! THS Hwvis 


1 axovoovrat in ADI ; axovgovow in B, adopted by T.Tr.W.H.R. Soin ver. 28. 


even ‘judgment,’ the allotting of men 
to their eternal destinies, should be 
handed over to the Son. but so it is: 
and without exception, thy kpioiv wacay, 
‘all judgment,” of all men and without 
appeal.—Ver. 23. This extreme pre- 
rogative is given to the Son tva waves 
Tin@ot Tov viov ... This is one pur- 
pose, though not the sole purpose, of 
committing judgment to the Son; that 
even those supremely and inalienably 
Divine prerogatives of giving life and 
judging may be seen to be in Him, and 
that thus Deity may be honoured in and 
through Him. The great peril threaten- 
ing the Jews was that they should deny 
honour to the Son, and hereby incur the 
guilt of refusing honour to the Father. 
In denouncing Him for breaking the 
Sabbath they were really dishonouring 
the Father. dpytidv... avtév. py 
Ti.@v a supposed case, therefore py: od 
Tina actual negation. To dishonour the 
Father’s messenger is to dishonour the 
Father. Having explained the relation 
of His work to the Father’s, and having 
declared that life-giving and judging are 
His prerogatives, Jesus now, in vv. 24- 
30, more definitely shows how these 
powers are to be exercised in the spiritual 
regeneration, and in the resurrection and 
final judgment of men. Vv. 24-26. 
The voice of Jesus gives life eternal. 
apnv, aunv, however incredible what I 
now say may seem.—Ver. 24. 6 Tov Adyov 
pov akovwv ; it was through His word 
Jesus conveyed life to the impotent man, 
because that brought Him into spiritual 
connection with the man. And it is 
through His claims, His teaching, His 
offers, He brings Himself into connection 
with all. lt is a general truth not con- 
fined to the impotent man. But to 
hear is not enough: kal miotevav TO 
meuwavTt pe, belief on Him that sent 
Jesus must accompany hearing. Not 
simply belief on Jesus but on God. The 
word of Jesus must be recognised as a 
Divine message, a word with power to 


fulfil it. In this case, by the very hearing 
and believing, xe. Conv aidviov. As 
the impotent man had, in his believing, 
physical life, so whoever believes in 
Christ’s word as God’s message receives 
the life of God into his spirit. Faith has 
also a negative result; els kplow ov« 
Epxetar [cf. od« eBedovrwv vay édOeiv 
eis kpiowv, quoted from Demosthenes by 
Wetstein. Herodotus also uses the ex- 
pression]. Literally this means ‘he 
does not come to trial’’; but has it not 
the fuller meaning ‘‘come under con. 
demnation”’? Meyer says ‘“‘ yes”: Godet 
says ‘‘no”’. Meyerisright. This clause 
is the direct negative of the former: to 
come to judgment is to come under 
condemnation, cf. iii. 19, attn Sé €or 
W Kpiows, etc. adda peraBeBnkev ex Tod 
Bavarov eis THY Lwyv. The perfect shows 
(x) that the previous €xe. is an actual 
present, and does not merely mean “has 
In prospect”’ or ‘‘has a right to”; and 
(2) that the result of the transition con- 
tinues. Had the impotent man not 
believed and obeyed, he would have re- 
mained in his living death, in now a self- 
chosen and self-fixed condemnation: but 
accepting the life that was in Christ’s 
command, he passed there and then from 
death to life—Ver. 25. “Anny ... in- 
troducing a confirmation of the preced- 
ing statement, in the form of an an- 
nouncement of one characteristic of the 
new dispensation; €pxetat @pa Kai viv 
éotwv, cf. iv. 3. In this already arrived 
“hour” or epoch, the message of God 
is uttered by the voice of Jesus, THs 
Pavys TOV viov ToV Oeod and oi vex- 
pot, they who have not made the transi- 
tion spoken of in the preceding verse, 
akovoovrat, Shall hear it; Kat ot axov- 
aoavtes CyoovtTat [or fycovorv], not ‘and 
having heard shall live,” nor ‘ and 
when they hear shall live”; but ‘‘and 
those who have heard [or hear] shall 
live”. The insertion of the article in- 
dicates that not all, but only a certain 
class of the vexpot are meant: all the 








23—27. 


A a A A c , 
TOU viod ToD Oeod, Kal ot dxovcavtes LycovTar. 
x ” Q > c an a i A ~ Ca AY > > 
Tatip exer Lwhy ev Eaut@, oUTws EdwkEe Kal TH ULO Lwiy Exew ev 


~ lo “I , a c 
éauT@* 27. kal *éfouclay edwKey alTO Kal 7 kpiow Toteiv, STL ulds 


EYATTEAION 


741 


1 o Q ¢ - 
26. domep yap 6 xi. r2. 
Pee Wisd. 
XVii. 2. 
y Gen. xviii 
25. 


1 Modern editors read {yoover with NBDL 1, 22, 33. 


dead hear but not all give ear (Weiss). 
akovgova.v in the former clause means 
hearing with the outward ear, dxovoavres 
hearing with faith. The question, how 
can the spiritually dead hear and believe ? 
is the question, how could the impotent 
man rise in response to Christ’s word? 
Perhaps psychologically inexplicable, it 
is, happily, soluble in practice. —Ver. 26. 
The 26th verse partly explains the 
apparent impossibility.—@owep yap . . . 
éxewv év €aut@. ‘‘ The particles mark 
the fact of the gift and not the degrees of 
it’? (Westcott), As the Father has in 
Himself, and therefore at His own com- 
mané, life which He can impart as He 
will: so by His gift the Son has in Himself 
life which He can communicate directly 
to whom He will.—év éavr@ [similarly 
used Mk. iv. 17, John iv. 14, etc.] excludes 
dependence for life on anything external 
toself. From this it follows that what is 
so possessed is possessed with uninter 
rupted fulness, and can at will be im- 
parted. —é8wxe, ‘“‘the tensecarries us back 
beyond time,” says Westcott. This is 
more than doubtful ; although several in- 
terpreters suppose the eternal generation 
of the Son is in view. That is precluded 
both by the word “‘ gave ”[ which “‘ denotat 
id quod non per naturalem generationem, 
sed per benevolam Patris voluntatem est 
concessum,” Mt. xxviii. 18 Lk. i. 32; 
John ui. 34, vi. 37, Lampe] and by the 
context, especially by the last clause of 
ver. 27. The opinions of the Fathers 
and Reformers are cited in Lampe. See 
further Stevens, fohan. Theol., p. 60.— 
Ver. 27. Not only has the Father given 
to the Son this great prerogative, but 
kai éfouvclay . . . avOpamrov éori. 
Kptow troetv, like judicium facere, and 
our do judgment, is used by Demosthenes, 
Xenophon, Polybius, etc., in the 
sense ‘‘to judge,” “to act as judge”’. 
This climax of authority [although kat 
is omitted before cpio. by recent editors 
on good authority] is based upon the 
fact Sti vids avOpw7ov eori. [Strangely 
enough, Chrysostom ascribes this 
punctuation to Paul of Samosata, and 
declares it to be an inconsequence. He 
himself begins ver. 28 with this clause, 
and reads ‘ marvel not at this, that He 
is the Son of Man”.] The absence ot 


the article condemns all interpretations 
which render these words ‘‘ the Son of 
Man ” and understands that Jesus claims 
the prerogative of judgment as the 
Messiah. Where “the Son of Man” 
means the Messiah the articles regularly 
appear. Besides, direct allusion to the 
Messianic functions would here be out 
of place. The words must be rendered 
‘because He is a son of man,”’ that is, 
a man. How is this a reason for His 
being Judge of men? Various explana- 
tions are given: the Judge must be 
visible since the judgment is to take 
place with human publicity (Luther. 
Maldonatus, Witsius), because as man 
the Son carries out the whole work of 
redemption (Meyer, etc.), because men 
should be judged by the lowliest and 
most loving of men (Stier), because the 
Judge must share the nature of those 
who are brought before Him (Westcott), 
because only as man could Jesus enter 
into the sphere in which the judicial 
office moves or have the compassion 
which a judge of men should possess 
(Baur), because the judgment of 
humanity is to be a. homage rendered 
to the holiness of God, a true act of 
adoration, a worship ; and therefore the 
act must go forth from the bosom of 
humanity itself (Godet). But un- 
doubtedly Beyschlag is right when he 
says: ‘“‘ The eternal love condemns no 
one because he is a sinner; as such it 
does not at all condemn; it leaves it to 
men to judge themselves, through rejec- 
tion of the Saviour who is presented to 
them. The Son of Man is the judge of 
the world, just because He presents the 
eternal life, the kingdom of heaven to 
all, and urges all to the eternal decision, 
and thus urges those who continue un- 
believing to a continuing self-judgment”’ 
(Neutest. Theol.,i. 290). By His appear- 
ing in human form as God’s messenger, 
and by His offer of life eternal, He 
necessarily judges men. As His offer of 
life to the impotent man tested him and 
showed whether he would abide in death 
or pass into life: so are all men judged 
precisely by that appearance among 
them in human torm which stumbles 
them and tempts them to think His 
claims absurd, and which yet as the em- 


742 


z Acc. of dvOputrou éoti. 
obj.in Lk. 
Vil. 9; 
XXiv. 12. 
Jude 16. 
Acts vii. a 
31. Com- Ta “adda mpdgéavtes, ” 
monly 
with éri, 

a ili. 20. 

b Dan. xii. 


a 


¢ ver. 19. 
d vii. 18; 
Viii. 50. 


e , 


KATA IQANNHN 


> , / 
Els GvdoTaci KpiceEws. 


éy® trovety °dm éuautod oder. 


BAnpa tod wépavtds pe tatpds.! 


Vv. 


28. pi) *Oaupdlere toiro: dr. Epyetar Gpa, év 
}) TuvTes Ol €v Tots pyypelots GkovcovTat THs Pwrys adTod, 29. kal 
éxtropedoovTat, ol Ta dyad toijoavtes, els dvdotacw Lwis: ot de 


30. od Sdvapar 
Kaas dkodw, Kpivw: Kal i Kplows 


Hy €ph Sixala éoriv: Ore od “LnTa 17d OAnpa TO epdv, GAAG TO 


31. “Eav éy® paptup& epi 


1 Modern editors omit watpos in accordance with RABDK. 


bodied love and life of God necessarily 
judges men. Therefore py Oavpalete 
rovro.—Ver. 28. And another reason 
for restraining surprise is 6Tt €pxera 
@pa, etc. It has been proposed to 
render this as if rt were explanatory of 
rovrTo, do not wonder at this, that an 
hour is coming. But (1) Totro usually, 
though not invariably, refers to what 
precedes ; and (2) when John says ‘‘ Do 
not wonder that’’ so and so, he uses py 
Oavpaoys Sti without totro; and (3) 
the ordinary rendering suits the passage 
better : Marvel not at this [that my voice 
gives life] because a time is coming when 
there will result from my voice that 
which if not really greater will strike you 
more sensibly. The bodily resurrection 
may be said to be greater than the 
spiritual as its consummation, comple- 
tion, and exhibition in results. Besides, 
the Jews of our Lord’s time looked upon 
the resurrection as the grand demonstra- 
tion of God’s power. But here the ot év 
Tots p.vnpetots Shows that the surprise is 
to be occasioned by the fact that even 
the physically dead shall hear.—ravres 
. .. kptoews. That the resurrection is 
alluded to is shown by the change from 
ot vexpot of ver. 25 to of év Tots pvqpeiots. 
Some rise to life, some to xptow, which 
from its opposition to fwyv must here be 
equivalent to kataxpiow. If it is asked 
with regard to the righteous, With what 
body do they come? much more may 
it be asked of the condemned. The 
entrance into life and into condemnation 
are determined by conduct; how the 
conduct is determined is not here stated. 
For the expressions defining the two 
types of conduct see on chap. iii. 20, 21. 
That the present reception of life is the 
assurance of resurrection is put strikingly 
by Paul in 2 Cor. v. 5. The fact that 
some shall rise to coridemnation dis- 
closes that even those who have not the 
Spirit of God in them have some kind 01 
continuous life which maintains thein in 


existence with their personal identity 
intact from the time of death to the time 
of resurrection. Also, that the long 
period spent by some between these two 
points has not been utilised for bringing 
them into fellowship with Christ is 
apparent. In what state they rise or to 
what condition they go, we are not here 
told. Beyond the fact of their condem- 
nation their future is left in darkness, and 
was therefore probably meant to be left 
in darkness.—Ver. 30. This judgment 
claimed by Jesus is, however, engaged 
in, not in any spirit of self-exaltation or 
human arbitrariness, nor can it err, 
because it is merely as the executor of 
the Father’s will He judges.—ov Svvapar 

. . ovdéy, The first statement of the 
verse is a return upon ver. 19, ‘“‘ The Son 
can do nothing of Himself’; but now it 
is specially applied to the work of judg- 
ment.—xalds axotw kpivw. As He said 
of His giving life, that He was merely 
the Agent of God, doing what He saw 
the Father do: so now He speaks what 
He hears from the Father. His judgment 
He knows to be just, because He is con- 
scious that He has no personal bias, but 
seeks only to carry out the will of the 
Father. In vv. 31-40 Jesus substantiates 
these great claims which He has made 
in the foregoing verses. He refers to the 
paptupia borne by John the Baptist, by 
the works given Him by the Father, and 
by the Father in Scripture.—Ver. 31. 
*Eav eyo paptup®... d&Anfys. Jesus 
anticipates the objection, that these great 
claims were made solely on His own 
authority [€yvw tots “lovdalous évOupov- 
pévous avTiGetvat, Euthym.]. The Jewish 
law is given by Wetstein, ‘‘ Testibus de 
se ipsis non credunt,” or ‘‘ Homo non 
est fide dignus de se ipso,” and cf. Deut. 
xix. 15. The same law prevailed among 
the Greeks, paptupeiv yap ot vépor ovK 
é@ow avitov €avt@ (Demosth., De Cor., 
2), and among the Romans, ‘ more 
majorum comparatum est, ut in minimis 





28—35. 


€pautod, 4 paptupia pou obk eat ddnOys. 


EYATTEAION .- 


7143 


*GdXos éotiv e viii. 18. 


32. 


paptupav wepl épod, Kal oda Ste ddnOys éotw  paptupla fv 


paptupet mepl pod. 


33- “‘Ypeis dareotddkate mpds “ludvvyy, Kal pepaptupyKe * ri f xviii. 37. 


GdyPeia: 34. éy S€ ob wapd dvOpdmou Thy paptupiay LapBdve, g Ps. cxxxii 


GAG Taita Aéyw va pets owO7Te. 


xardpevos Kal "daivwr, spets S€ AOeAjoate dyaddracOFvar * 


1 ayadArabnvar in SAD; T.R. in BL. 


rebus homines amplissimi testimonium 
de sua re non dicerent’’ (Cicero, pro 
Roscio, 36, Wetstein). Grotius says: 
“Romani dicunt neminem idoneum 
testem esse in re sua’’, But how can 
Jesus say that if His witness stands 
alone it,is not true? Chrysostom says 
He speaks not absolutely but with 
reference to their suspicion [mpos thy 
éxeivov vadvotay]. And on occasion He 
can maintain that His testimony of 
Himself is true, chap. viii. 13, where He 
says ‘‘ Though J witness of myself my 
witness is true,” and demands that He 
be considered one of the two witnesses 
required. Here the point of view is 
different, and He means: Were I stand- 
ing alone, unauthenticated by the 
Father, my claims would not be worthy 
of credit. But GAXos éotiv 6 paptupav 
mept éuov (on the definite predicate with 
indefinite subject vide Winer, p. 136). 

“Tt is another that beareth witness of 
me,” namely, the Father [onpaiver tov 
év Tois ovpavois ovtTa Gedy Kai Marépa, 
Cyril, Melanchthon, and the best modern 
interpreters, Holtzmann, Weiss, West- 
cott]. Grotius, following Chrysostom 
and Euthymius, says “ facillimum est ut 
de Johanne sumamus, quia de eo sunt 
quae proxime sequuntur’’. Against this 
is (1) the disclaimer of John’s testimony, 
ver. 34; (2) and especially the accentu- 
ated opposition of dpeis, ver. 33, and éy, 
ver. 34. For other reasons, see Licke. 
Of this witness Jesus says ol8a 6tL. . 

épov. Why this addition? Is it an 
overflow of satisfaction in the unassail- 
able position this testimony givés Him? 
Rather it is the offset to the supposition 
made in ver. 31, ‘‘my witness is not 
true’ [Cyril’s interpretation is in- 
exact, "but suggestive : povovovyxl TovUTO 
BiSdoxuy, ort co av ahnO.vos, oda, 
dyciv, épavtov, kexapiopevoy Se ovdéev 
6 Vlaryp épet wept épov.|—Ver. 33. 
Before exhibiting the Father’s testimony 
Jesus meets them on their own ground: 

Upets, ye yourselves, dmeord\kure ar pos 


Jo. 6 
Ae 5 e 17. Mk 

35. exetvos Hv ©6 AUXVOS 6 vi. 20. 
h Phil. ii. 15. 


Tpos Mt. ii. 7. 


*lwavvynv, sent, by the deputation men- 
tioned chap. i., to John; which they would 
not have done had they not thought him 
trustworthy (Euthymius). The perfect 
is used, indicating that the result 
continued ; as the perfect pepaptvpyke 
indicates that ‘ the testimony preserves 
its value notwithstanding the disappear- 
ance of the witness”.—rq GAnGeiq to 
the truth, especially of the Messianic 
dignity of Jesus.—Ver. 34. éya 8 ov 

. . but for my part I do not depend 
upon a man’s testimony. In what sense 
is this to be taken? In iii. 11 AapBaverv 
THY paptupiay means “to credit testi- 
mony,” but this sense does not satisfy 
the present use. Grotius says, ‘ Hic 
LapBdve est requiro, ut infra 41, 44, ubi 
in opposito membro ponitur Cyretv ut 
idem valens”. So too Liicke. Godet 
and Westcott prefer to emphasise the 
article, ‘‘ the testimony,’’ ‘‘ the only real, 
infallible, unexceptionable testimony,”’ 
I do not accept from man. The sense 
s: You sent to John and he testified to 
the truth; but the testimony which | for 
my part accept and rely upon is not that 
of a man. The testimony which con- 
firms Him in the consciousness that He 
is God’s messenger is not a human but 
a Divine testimony.—aAAa tatta Aéyw 
but this I say, that is, this regarding the 
truth of John’s testimony I now mention 
tva vets owOATe, for your sakes, not for 
my own, that even on a man’s testimony 
you may be induced to believe.—Ver. 35. 
éketvos Av 6 Avyvos G6 Katdpevos Kal 
daivev, ‘He was (suggesting that now 
the Baptist was dead) the lamp that 
burneth and shineth”.—6 Avxvos; for 
the difference between Avyvos a lamp 
and hapadas a torch, see Trench, 
Synonyms, p. 154, and cf. Naprady- 
Spopia the Athenian forch-race. The 
article ‘simply marks the familiar piece 
of household furniture”? (Westcott). 
“The article simply converts the image 
into a definition’ (Godet). ‘ The article 
points him out as the definite light which 


74.4 


i Constr. ep. Spay év TO hwrti adtou. 
Mt. v. 20, 


KATA IQANNHN Vv. 


36. éyd 8€ exw Thy paprupiav peiLw rod 


lwdvvous ta yap Epya & eSwxé! por 6 martip twa tedewow aita, 


adta Ta Epya & €y® mo, paptupet epi euod Gt. 6 TaTHp pe 


dméotahke* 37. kal 6 wéumpas pe mathp, adtds” pepaptipyKe mept 


j Exod. 


Si eet 
€uou. 
XXVii. 17. B 


EWPAKaTE. 


rPs.cxix.2. Ott Ov dtréotekey Exetvos, ToUTwW dpets oF morTeveTe. 


ote wry atitod dkykdate momote, otte JelSos adtod 


38. Kal tov Néyov adtod odk exere pévovta ev dyiv, 


39. *Epeu- 


\ Mt. iii.9. vare® tag ypahds, OTe Spets ' Soxeite év adtais Lwhy aidvov exe, 


1 SeSwxev in NBL 1, 33. 
8 epauvate in NB*; Tr.Ti.W.H. 


could have shown them the way to salva- 
tion, ver. 34” (Weiss). Others find a 
reference to Ps. cxxxii. 17, jrotpaca 
Avxvoy T@ Xptor@ gov. Grotius and 
Liicke think the reference is to Ecclus. 
xviii. 1, kal dvéorn “EXlas mpopytys ws 
TUp Kal 6 Adyos aUTOD ws AapTas éxaleTo. 
In the medizval Latin Hymns the Baptist 
is ‘*non Lux iste, sed lucerna”’. [Cicero, 
pro Milone, 21, and elsewhere, calls 
certain illustrious citizens ‘‘ lumina,” 
but with a somewhat different signifi- 
cance.]— 6 katdpevos, ‘burning and 
shining are not two different proper- 
ties,’ Meyer; a lamp must burn if it 
is to shine.—Upeis 5¢ AOeAtjoate ayah- 
AracOAvar mpos Gpav év TO Hwtl avTov; 
the expression seems intended to 
suggest the thoughtless and brief play 
of insects in the sunshine or round 
alamp. [‘‘ Wie die Miicken im Sonnen- 
schein spielen,” Hausrath in Holtzmann.] 
Like children following in a bridal pro- 
cession, dancing in the torchlight: the 
type of sentimental religionists revelling 
in their own emotions.—Ver. 36. éya 8é 
“But I” in contrast to the tpets of ver. 
33, Exw THv paptrupiav peilw, ‘have the 
witness which is greater,” 7.e., of greater 
weight as evidence than that of John.— 
Ta yop épya .. . awéoradke, ‘the 
works which the Father €$wxe [or as 
modern editors read $€3wkev] to Him” 
comprise all that He was commissioned 
to do, but with a more special reference 
to His miracles. Licke well says, ‘‘ He 
who looked at the miracles as separate 
and individual displays of supernatural 
power and did not view the entire mani- 
festation of Christ in its solidarity, was 
bound to find the miracles without signifi- 
cance and the latter incomprehensible”. 
The €pya are cited as evidence, chaps. x. 
25, 38, and xiv. 11; evidence as here to 
the fact that the Father had sent Him.— 
Ver. 37. But over and above the evidence 


2 exewvos in NBL. The difference here is slight. 


of the works kai 6 wéuwas pe warip, 
avTos pepaptipyKe, “And the Father 
who sent me has Himself also testified”’. 
Where and how this testimony of the 
Father’s separate from the works has 
been given, is explained, vv. 38 and 4o 
But, first, Jesus states how it has no 
been given: otte gwvnv avrou 

éwpdkate. It is not by coming into your 
midst in a visible form and speaking as 
I speak that the Father has testified. 
‘His voice you have never heard: His 
form you have never seen.” It is not 
by sensible sights and sounds the Father 
has given His testimony. [This inter- 
pretation is however ignored by most: 
by Meyer, who thinks the reference is to 
their insensibility to the revelation of 
God in Scripture; by Westcott, who 
says ‘the Jews by their disbelief of 
Christ failed to hear and see Him”; 
by Godet, who finds “a declaration of 
man’s natural impotence to rise to the 
immediate and personal knowledge of 
God’’. Reference to the baptism is put 
out of the question by woore. The 
reference to the two chief forms of 
prophetic revelation (Weiss) is too re- 
mote.]—Ver. 38. kal tov Adyov... 
you have not heard His voice—as you 
have heard mine (ver. 25)—and His word 
which you have heard, and which has 
been coming to you through all these 
centuries, you do not admit to an abiding 
and influential place within you.—vév 
Adyov avtov is God’s revelation, which 
the Jews were conscious they had re- 
ceived; but though the word of God 
had come to them, they did not have it 
“ abiding in”’ them; cf. 1 John iii. 15; a 
phrase which in John denotes permanent 
possession and abiding influence. God’s 
message does no good until it inwardly 
possesses those to whom it comes. The 
proot that the Jews had not thus received 
itis: Ort év areorerkey . . . “whom God 


36—47. 


EYATTEAION 


7145 


MS ~ ~ A 
kal ™ékelval €lgiv at paptupodcat wept euod* 40. Kal od OéXere m: Pet. i. 


eMeiv mpds pe, wa Lwhy eynrte. 


hopBdve: 42. GAN eyvwxa Spas, Ste °Thy dydayy Tod Geod od 


€XETE Ev EauTots. 


rE) We > ree BEN “A / 
43. €ym éXnjdufa év TH dvdpate Tod watpds pou, 


Io, 12. 


41. "Adfav mapa dvOpdawv ov nx Thess. 


ii. 6. Ch, 
vi. 15. 
© xii. 13, 41 


kai ob hapBdveré pe- dv GAAos ENOH ev TO dvdpate TH idlw, 


éxevov Arjpeoe.! 


44. Ts Sivacde Spets mortetioa, Sdfav mapa 


GAMO Aap Bdvorytes, Kal Thy Sdgav thy wapa Tod ?pdvou Ocod p xvii2. 1 


; 2 
ou {ytette ; 


, »” € ~ rel lol > a € A > s 
TWATEPA* EOTLY O KATY YOPwy ULOY, Moons, €lg OV UJLELS HATiKate. 


Tim. ii. 


45+ ph Soxette Ott eyo Katnyopyow Suav tmpds Tov 17. Jude 


25. Cor. 
Viii. 6. 


- a , 2. _xn q pos, 2 
46. €l ydp émotevete Mwo7, emoteveTe Gy epol- Tept yap époo 7 Macias: 


> A ” 
EKELVOS Eypaiber. 
TOS TOS Epols Aypact TroeTevceTe ;” 


47. el 3€ Tots exeivou "ypdupacw ob moTEveETE, r 2 Tim. iii. 


15. Esth. 
Vi. I. 


1 AnptbeoBe in SABDL, adopted in modern editions. 


hath sent, Him ye believe not”. Had 
the revelation or word of God in law 
and prophets possessed them, they would 
inevitably have recognised Jesus as from 
the same source, and as the consummia- 
tion of the message, the fulfilment of the 
promise. Not that the Jews held their 
Scriptures in no esteem, no, (ver. 39), 
épevvare Tas ypadds; the indicative is 
to be preferred, ‘‘ Ye search the Scrip- 
tures’’; the reason being 6t1 tpets Soxetre 
év avtats Cwhy aiwvioy éxeww, ‘ because 
you suppose that in them you have life 
eternal”’—already it is hinted, by the 
emphatic tmets implicitly opposed to a 
contrasted éyé, and by the emphatic év 
avtais suggesting another source, that 
eternal life was not to be had in the 
Scriptures, but in something else. But 
it is of me these Scriptures themselves 
into which you search testify. kat éxetvat 
... pov. ‘They testify that in me 
is life eternal; and yet you will not come 
to me that you may have life.” —Ver. 4o. 
katov... €ynts. The true function of 
Scripture is expressed in the words, 
2xetvat eloLv al paptupovaat wept enov: 
they do not give life, as the Jews thought ; 
they lead to the life-giver. God speaks 
in Seripture with a definite purpose in 
view, to testify to Christ; if Scripture 
does that, it does all. But to set itona 
level with Christ is to do both it, Him, 
and ourselves grave injustice. 

This closes the description of the three- 
fold witness to Christ, and in vv. 41-47, 
He exposes the source of their unbelief. 
This exposure is introduced by a dis- 
claimer on His part of any chagrin 
at the want of homage and acceptance 
He received.—Ver. 41. AdSav mapa 


avOpworewv ot AapBavew, not “ glory from 
men I am not receiving,” not quite 
‘‘slory from men I do not seek,’ but 
rather, that which is in my judgment 
glory, I do not receive from men: not 
what men yield me is my _ glory. 
Ambition is not my motive in making 
these claims.—Ver. 42. GAN’ éyvwxa ... 
but I know you, etc.; that is, I know 
why you do not receive me; the reason 
is that you have not the love of God 
in yourselves, and therefore cannot ap- 
preciate or understand one who acts in 
concert with God ; if therefore they did 
offer Him homage, it could not be God 
in Him they worshipped (Holtzmann). 
[The motive of Jesus in making His 
claims is a subject inviting inquiry and 
full of significance.])—Ver. 43. éyo 
éAyjAvda . . . It is just because I have 
come in the Father’s name that you do 
not receive me. Not really loving God, 
they could not appreciate and accept 
Jesus who came in God’s name, that is, 
who truly represented God. But éayv 
GdAos EXO . . . AjwWeoGe, “if another 
come in his own name,” and therefore 
seeking only such glory as the Jews 
could give, him ye will receive; cf. Matt. 
XXIV. 5, 23, 24. ‘‘He did not say, ‘If I 
had come in my own name,’ because the 
thing was so inconceivable.’’ Mason, 
Conditions of our Lord’s Life, etc., p. go. 
Possibly Jesus had here in view Anti- 
christ (see Bousset’s Antichrist, 133) ; but 
neither Bar Cochba nor any other definite 
Pseudo-Christ. Schudt mentions sixty- 
four.—Ver. 44. The Jewish inability to 
believe arose from their earthly ambition: 
mas SuvacGe . . . ov Lyreite. The root 
of their unbelief was their earthly idea of 


746 


a Deut. xxx. 


13; cp. : 5 i 
Hava aad FadtXaias tis TiBeprddos - 


KATA IQANNHN 


Vi. 


VI. 1. META tadta daa Oev 6 "Incods * répav tis Oaddoons Tis 


2. Kal HKohoUBer adT@ Sxdos Todds, 


see as a ‘ A 
Sophocles’ Ott €dpwv)! adrod? Ta onpeia & ewole. Yemwt trav dobevodvTur. 


b Mer hats: 3. avidOe BE eis TS Gpos 6 “Ingods, Kal exer exdOyTo pera Tay 


‘ ewpwv in NIA Chrys.; €8ewpovv in BDL. 


2 avrov omitted in NABD it. vulg. syr. 


glory, what they could win or bestow. This 
incapacitated them from seeing the glory 
of Christ, which was divine and heavenly, 
which men could not give or remove. 
The glory wapa a@AAnjAwv is contrasted 
with that mapa Tot pdvov Ocod from the 
only God, the only source, arbiter, and 
dispenser of praise. Seeking credit as 
religious men from one another, they 
necessarily habituated themselves to cur- 
rent ideas, and blotted out Divine glory 
from their mind.—Ver. 45. py Soxeire 
. . . These words bear in them the mark 
oftruth. They spring from Jesus’ own 
consciousness of His intimacy with the 
Father. To suppose that the Jews feared 
He would accuse them, is to suppose 
that they believed Him to have influence 
with God. Chiefly in view is the fact 
that Moses will accuse them. They 
thought they were defending Moses’ law 
in accusing Christ for Sabbath-breaking: 
but, on the contrary, they were them- 
selves open to the accusation of Moses; 
eis bv Upets HAmikate, in Vulgate ‘ Moy- 
ses in quo vos speratis”’.—Ver. 46. They 
will be accused by Moses because their 
unbelief in Christ convicts them of un- 
belief in Moses, eb yap . . . éuoi. Had 
they believed the revelation made by 
Moses and understood it, they would 
necessarily have believed in Christ. 
‘Disbelief in me is disbelief in him, in 
the record of the promises to the patri- 
archs, in the types of the deliverance 
from Egypt, in the symbolic institutions 
of the Law, in the promise of a prophet 
like to himself; for it was of me (the 
order is emphatic) he wrote,” Westcott. 
—Ver. 47. The converse is true, and 
true with an a fortiori conveyed by the 
contrast between ypdppacty and pypact. 
If the writings you have had before you 
for your study all your life, and which 
you have heard read in the Synagogues 
Sabbath after Sabbath, have not produced 
faith in you, and enabled you to see God 
and appreciate His glory, how shall ye 
believe the once heard words of one 
whose coming was prepared for, and His 
identification made easy by all that 
Moses wrote? 


CHAPTER VI. Yesus miraculously 
furnishes a meal for 5000 men with 
women and children, and thus manifests 
Himself as the Bread from heaven. This 
provokes the crisis in Galilee.—Vv. 1-13. 
The miracle narrated.—Ver. 1. peta 
ravta, John’s indefinite note of time. 
The interval between chap. v. and chap. 
vi. depends on the feast alluded to, v. 1. 
If it was Purim, only a month had 
elapsed ; if it was Passover, a year. In 
any case Jesus had left Jerusalem, the 
reason being that the Jews sought to 
slay Him (vii. 1).—ar7qdOev 6 “lncots, 
“Jesus departed,” but whence? 
Evidently from Capernaum and the 
neighbourhood ; cf. Mt. xiv. 13, Mk. vi. 
30, Lk. ix. 10.—épav . . . TiPepiddos, 
“to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, 
of Tiberias”. In xxi. 1 it is called 
simply trys TtBeptddos. The second 
title may here be a gloss, either by the 
evangelist himself or by a later hand, to 
distinguish the lake from Merom, or 
possibly because the latter name was 
more familiar to some of John’s readers 
than the former. [Pausanias, v. 7, 3, calls 
it Aipvy TiBepis.] Grotius, followed by 
Meyer, says: ‘‘ Proprius denotat lacus 
partem quae ab adsito oppido, ut fieri 
solet, nomen habet proprium”. Con- 
sequently he thinks of Jesus as crossing 
the Jordan below the lake. This is 
groundless. The town Tiberias was 
only built by Herod about the year 20 
A.D. (Smith’s Hist. Geog., 448). The 
exact locality where the following scene 
is laid seems to have been at the north- 
east corner of the lake, not far from 
Bethsaida Julias.—Kat 7KohovGer... 
acGevotwvTwy. “A great crowd followed 
Him,” out of Galilee into Gaulanitis, the 
reason being 6tt édpwy [plural although 
qkoAovder is singular], ‘‘ because they had 
seen the miracles which He was doing 
{imperfect of continuous action} on the 
sick”’.—émt with genitive denotes the 
object towards which action is directed, 
ém’ otkov, homewards, etc. Meyer, Weiss 
(and Holtzmann) take it as meaning 
‘*among ”.—avqdOe 82 els To Gpos G 
*Invots, ‘and Jesus went up,” from the 





1—8, 


pabyrav adtou. 


EYATTEAION 


147 


4. fv 8 éyyts ° To wdécxa H Copth Tay "loudatuy. cil. 13. 


5. “emdpas otv 6 "Inaols Tots df0adpods, kal Oeardpevos Ott Todds d xvii. r. 


dxdos °Epxetar mpdos adtov, eyes mpds Tov PiduTToy, “*MdBev 10. 

Gyopdcopev! dptous, iva pdywow oto ;” 

> e) A , f 

teipdiwy adtév: adtés yap moe Ti euehde Toretv. 7. darexpiOy 
tear , «c , , »” > A > aA 

adt@ ihumtos, “ Atakociwy Syvapiwy GpTor obk dpKovow adTois, 

va Exaoros attav” *Bpaxd te AGB.” 


Gen. xili. 


- e Tense cp. 
6. Todto 8€ Eheye i. 40. F 
Num. xi. 
at. Mk. 
vi. 37. 
8 ; A ee ae ‘id g 1 Sam. 
- A€yet GUT® ELS EK TWY xiv, 29. 


1 ayopacopey feebly authenticated ; ayopaowpery in SABDEFG, ete. 


2 SABL 33 omit avteyv. 


level of the Jordan and the lake, to the 
higher ground on the hill; kat éxet 
.. . avtov, ‘and there sat down with 
His disciples,’ having apparently left 
the crowd behind, for the sitting down 
with the disciples indicated that rest 
and peace were expected.—Ver. 4. But 
another crowd was to be accounted for, 
as ver. 4 intimates, qv 8€ éyyts... 
‘lovdaiwy, ‘now the Passover, the 
Jewish feast, was at hand’. [Grotius 
says: ‘‘ Hoc ideo interjicit, ut intelligatur 
tempus fuisse opportunum ad eliciendam 
multitudinem, et quo melius cohaereat 
quod de herba sequitur’, Godet’s 
account of the insertion of this clause, 
that it was meant to show that the near- 
ness of the Fassover suggested to Jesus 
the idea ‘‘ we will keep a Passover here,” 
is plainly out of the question. ]—émdpas 
ovv . . . Jesus therefore (or better, 
‘accordingly ’’; ovv connects what He 
saw with the foregoing statement).—Ver. 
5. ods bxdos Epxerar, not the same 
crowd as was mentioned in ver. 2, else 
the article would have been inserted, but 
a Passover caravan coming from some 
other direction, and probably guided to 
Jesus’ retirement by some of those who 
had followed in the first crowd. Seeing 
the crowd approaching, He initiates the 
idea of giving them a meal. The synoptic 
account is different.—déye. mpds tov 
Giturmov. Why to Philip? . The 
question was put to Philip not because 
he happened at the moment to be nearest 
to Jesus (Alford); nor, as Bengel 
suggests, because he had charge of the 
commissariat, ‘‘fortasse Philippus rem 
alimentariam curabat inter discipulos ” ; 
nor ‘‘because he knew the country 
best’; nor only, as Euthymius says, tva 
THY Grropiav dpohoyjoas, axpiBearepov 
kaTapady Tov peAAovtos yeveoBar 
Bavpartos Td peyeBos ; but Cyril is right 
who finds the explanation in the character 
of Philip and in the word tretpdfwv of 


ver. 6 [yupvalov eis miotiv Tov pabyrTnHv]. 
Philip was apparently a matter-of-fact 
person (xiv. 8), a quick reckoner and 
good man of business, and therefore 
pethaps more ready to rely on his own 
shrewd calculations than on unseen 
resources. This weakness Jesus gives 
him an opportunity of conquering, by 
putting the question wé0ev ayopaowpey 
aprovs; ‘‘Whence are we to buy 
bread ?”’ [lit. loaves]. mé8ev may either 
mean ‘‘from what village,” or ‘‘ from 
what pecuniary resources”. Cf. wd@ev 
yap €orat Biota ; Soph., Philoct., 1159. 
—Ver. 7. Philip swiftly calculating 
declares it impossible to provide bread 
for so vast a multitude, Avaxogiwv ... 
AaBy. ‘‘ Two hundred denarii worth ot 
loaves are not enough for them that each 
should receive a little.” ‘‘ Denarius ” 
means containing ten; and originally 
the denarius contained ten asses. The 
as was originally an ingot of copper, 
aes, weighing one lb.; but long before 
imperial times it had been reduced to 
one ounce, and the denarius was reckoned 
as equal to sixteen asses or four sesterces, 
and taking the Roman gold piece like 
our sovereign as the standard, the 
denarius was equivalent to about gid., 
which at that time was the ordinary 
wage of a working man; _ sufficient 
therefore to support a family for a day. 
If half was spent in food, then, reckoning 
the family at five persons, one denarius 
would feed ten persons, and 200 would 
provide a day’s rations for 2000; but as 
Philip’s calculation is on the basis not of 
food for a whole day, but only for one 
meagre meal, a short ration (Bpaxv tt), 
it is approximately accurate. There were 
between five and ten thousand mouths. 
See Expositor, Jan., 1890.—Ver. 8. With 
the same matter-of-factness as Philip 
els . . . Meérpov, ‘one of His disciples, 
Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter,” a 
description apparently inserted in forget 


748 KATA IOQANNHN VI. 
aie pabytav adtod, “AvSpéas 5 a8eXpds Lipwvos Mérpou, g. “"Eor 
2 Kings Bs Mi 
iv. 43. 1 “qatSdprov ev OSe, 5 Exer wévte Gprous KpiOivous Kat S00 didpra- 
Sam. xxi. 2 2 . ; = B 
7. Tob. AAAA TadTa Ti éotw els TooodTous;” 10. Elme 8€ 6 “Inoods, 
Vi. 2. a Pe 
i Tob. iit. “Moujoate todls avOpwmous ‘dvamecetv.” Av S€ xdptos odds év 
Judith MEA: : 1 3 ae) eae Pre 
xii. 15. TO TOmw. dvérecov! obv ot avdpes Tov dpiOpdv doel? tmevtakio- 
jy Mtixve36; +> = ‘ . » ©? i Nei ead , 
xxvi. 27. XAvot. TI. EAaBe S€ Tods Gptous 6 ‘Inaods, Kai ’ edxaptoTHoas 
Rom. xiv. a a © oy \8 “ Sah 
6, etc.  dtédwKe Tois pabytais, ot BE pabytai® toig dvakerpevors: Spoiws 


1 avereoay in all good MSS. 


2 woet in ATA Cyr.; ws in NBDL. 


$T.R. in NeD, but rors palyrats, or Se palyrar omitted in K*ABL 1, 33. The 
words apparently were added from the Synoptical Gospels. 


fulness that it has already been given, i. 
41, supplementing Philip’s judgment, cf. 
xii, 22, A€yet avr@, “says to Him”? [the 
dative still holds its place after Aéyer, and 
has not quite given way, as in modern 
Greek, to mpés with accusative, cf. 
ver. 5]. “Eott matSdpiov év abe. 
‘“ There is here one little boy.” [€v is re- 
jected by modern editors. May it not 
have been rejected because unnecessary ? 
At the same time it must be borne in mind 
that although in Mt. (viii. 19 and xxvi. 
6g) ets is used as an indefinite article— 
as in German, French, etc.—it is not so 
used in John. The Vulgate has “est 
puer unus hic’’. Meyer thinks it is 
inserted to bring out the meagreness of 
the resources, ‘‘ but one small boy ”.]— 
Ver. 9. 8 exer . oWdpra. The 
Synoptic account speaks of these pro- 
visions as already belonging to the 
disciples.—xpiOivous, the cheapest kind 
of bread; see Ezek. xiii. 19, and the 
extraordinary profusion of illustrations 
in Wetstein, among which occurs one 
from the Talmud: ‘“ Jochanan dixit, hor- 
deum factum est pulchrum. Dixerunt 
ei: muncia equis et asinis’’; and from 
Livy, ‘‘ Cohortibus, quae signa amiserant, 
hordeum dari jussit”’.—kat 8vo éWdpta, 
in Mt. xiv. 17, tx@vas, see also John xxi. 
10.—édptov is whatever is eaten with 
bread as seasoning or “kitchen,” hence, 
pre-eminently, fish. So Athenaeus, cited 
by Wetstein. In Numbers xi. 22 we 
have 7d 6ios tis Pakdoons.—adda 
TAUTG Ti éotiv els TODOVTOUS; exhibiting 
the helplessness of the disciples and in- 
adequacy of the means, as the background 
on which the greatness of the miracle 
may be seen.—Ver. 10. The moral 
ground for the miracle being thus pre- 
pared Jesus at once says, moijoate Tos 
av@pdtous avareceiv. [For the form of 
speech cf. Soph., Philoct., 925, «Ave 
pe... mwovet.}] This order was 


KC iar 


given for two reasons: (1) that there 
might be no unseemly crowding round 
Him and crushing out of the weaker; 
and (2) that they might understand they 
were to have a full meal, not a mere bite 
they could take in their hand in passing, 
Obedience to this request tested the faith 
of the crowd. They trusted Jesus.— 
Hv 8€ xdptos wohis ev TO Témy, “now 
there was much grass in the place,” con- 
trasting with the corn-lands and olive- 
yards of the opposite shore, where the 
large crowd could not easily have found 
a place to lie down. Mark rather brings 
out the contrast between the colours of 
the dresses and the green grass (vi. 39): 
éméragev avrois dvakAivat wavTas oup- 
réoie cupmdoia éml TO xAwPO YdpPTYH. 
Kal avémecav mpactal mpactat, like beds 
of flowers.—avéereoov [better avéweoav] 
ovv ot GvSpes . « . the men reclined, not 
counting women and children (xwpis 
yvuvark@v Kal watdiwv, Mt. xiv. 21), in 
number about five thousand ; the women, 
though not specified, would take their 
places with the men. Some of the chil- 
dren might steal up to Jesus to receive 
from His own hand.—Ver. 11. Facing 
the vast and hungry crowd Jesus took up 
and gave thanks for the slender provision, 
éhaBe 82 [better €AaBev otv] tots Gprous, 
the loaves already mentioned, kai evya- 
piotyoas [Phrynichus says evyapiotetv 
ovSels tav Soxipwv eiwev, GAA yapLv 
eiSévat; and Rutherford says Polybius 
is the first writer who uses the word in 
the sense of ‘‘ give thanks”’’]. Pagans, 
by libation, or by throwing a handful on 
the household altar, gave thanks before 
a meal; Jews pronounced a blessing, 
Gytacpdés or evAoyia. (Luke xxiv. 30, 
Mt. xiv. Ig, and especially 1 Tim. iv. 4. 
See also Grotius’ note on Mt. xxvi. 27.) 
Having given thanks Jesus SteSwke . . . 
Trois avaketpevots. The words added 
from the Synopt'sts give a iuller account 


9—17. 


EYATTEAION 


749 


kal ex tay dpapiwy Scov HOehov. 12. ds B¢ everAjoOqoav, Eyer 


Tots padyntais adrod, “ Zuvaydyete Ta wepiocedoavta “«Adoparta, k Ezek. xiii. 


iva py Te darddqtae.” 


13. Luvyyayov ovv, Kat éyéuicay SuSexa ! 2 Kingsiv. 


i a 42. 
Kopivous khacpdtwy éx Tov mévte dptwv Tov KpLOlvev, & ™ émrepia- m Tob. iv. 


geuoe tois BeBpwxdary. 


onpetov 6 “Inaois,! edeyov, "Ore obtds eotiy GANOGs 5 TpodyTns 6 
15. Ingots otv yvods ote 


> , > x , 2 
EpXOMEVvOS Eis TOV KdcpoV. 
* ‘ 

EpxecOar Kal °dprdfew adtov, iva 


° dvexepynoe Taw cis TO dpos altos pdvos. 


22. 


c 
14. ot otv GvOpwror iddvtes 3 emoince 


Nn i. 40, etc. 
= peAAouciy o Acts viii. 


39. 
Toujgwow attov Baowdéa, p Exod. ii. 
15. Hos. 

Mi t2: 
Mk. vi. 46. 


c 4 , A 
16. ‘Qs 8€ “dia eyévero, katéByoay ot pabyntal adtod emt Thy q Only in 


Gospp. in 


s > , > x ¢ aA om” ~ 
Gddacoay, 17: Kal euBdvres eis TO? wAoioy, Hpxovto wépay THS Oaddo- NT. 


ons eis Katrepvaoup. 


1 0 Invovs omitted in NBD. 


kal oxotia non eyeydver, kal odk ® eXnAuber 


Judith 
xiii. I. 


2 ro omitted in NBL 33. 


3 ovrw in modern editions as in BDL 33. 


of what actually happened. But curiosity 
as to the precise stage at which the 
multiplication occurred, or whether it 
could distinctly be seen, is not satisfied. 
They all received écov 7OeAov, not the 
Bpaxv te of Philip; and even this did 
not exhaust the supply; for (ver. 12) as 
Sé éverrAjoOyoav, when no one could eat 
any more, there were seen to be kAdopata 
Teptocevoayra, pieces broken off but not 
used. These Jesus directs the disciples 
to gather iva py te amodnrat, ‘that 
nothing be lost”. The Father’s bounty 
must not be wasted. Infinite resource 
does not justify waste. Euthymius 
ingeniously supposes the order to have 
been given tva py S6fy havtracia tis Td 
yevépevov; but of course those who had 
eaten already knew that the provision 
was substantial and real.—Ver. 13. 
Zuviyayov ovv . . . BeBpwxdowy, the 
superabundance, the broken pieces of 
the five loaves which were in excess of 
the requirements, & émwepiocevce, filled 
SwSexa Kodlvouvs, that is to say, far 
exceeded the original five loaves.— 
Kédivos [French, Coffin, petit panier 
d’osier; cf. our ‘coffin’? and ‘coffer ’’], 
a large wicker basket or hamper used in 
many countries by gardeners for carrying 
fruit, vegetables, manure, soil; and iden- 
tified with the Jew by Juvenal (iii. 14), 
“‘Judaeis quorum cophinus foenumque 
supellex’’. (See further Mayor’s note on 
the line, and Sat., vi. 541.) This gives 
colour to the idea that each of the 
apostles may have carried such a basket, 
which would account ior the twelve. 
But why they should have had the 


baskets with nothing to carry in them 
does not appear. 

Vv. 14-25. The immediate impression 
made by the miracle and the consequent 
movements of Fesus and the crowd.— 
Ver. 14. The conclusion drawn from 
the miracle by those who had witnessed 
it, was that this was “the beginning of 
that reign of earthly abundance, which 
the prophets were thought to have fore- 
told”. See Lightfoot, Hor. Heb., 552. 
This at once found expression in the 
words otrés oti ... Kéopov. ‘ This 
is indeed,” or “of a truth,” as if the 
subject had been previously debated by 
them, or as if some had told them He 
was “‘the prophet who should come into 
the world,” 6 épxdpevos, used of the 
Messiah by the Baptist (Matt. xi. 3) 
without further specification; but John 
adds his favourite expression eis tov 
kéopov. That the people meant the 
Messiah (cf. Deut. xviii. 14-19) is shown 
by the action they were prepared to take. 
—Ver. 15. For Jesus perceived that they 
were on the point of coming and carrying 
Him off to make Him king. apwafeuy, 
to snatch suddenly and forcibly (derived 
from the swoop of the falcon, the apy; 
hence, the Harpies). This scene throws 
light on the use of apmwafovew in Matt. 
xi. 12. Their purpose was to make Him 
king. Their own numbers and their 
knowledge of the general discontent 
would encourage them. But Jesus ave- 
xapyce tadwy els TO Bpos adros pdvos, 
“withdrew again (cf. ver. 3) to the 
mountain,” from which He may have 
come down some distance to meet the 


7§9° 


KATA IQANNHN 


vi 


mpds adtrods 6 "Ingots, 18. 7 Te Oddacca dvénou peyddou mvéovTos 


r Cp. Jon. i.* Sinyetpero. 


3 . , t a 4 > A ol 
s Mk. vi. 48. tpidKovta “Pewpodor tov Inootv tepitatodvTa 


Lk. viii. 


ag. Jas. Kal ‘éyyds tod mAolou ywdpevoy Kal ™ époByOyoar. 


iii. 4. 


19. “€ndaxdtes odv ws otadlous eikooinévte q 


“émt THs Gatdoons, 
20. 6 8e 


4 > a > > ‘ a > (rd 
t Mk. vi. 49. A€yet adtots, “Eyd eiues ph poPeiobe.” 21. “HOedov obv AaBeww 


0 bee ix. 8. 


Vith gen. adTOv Eis TO TAOLOY, Kal EUOEws Td Toioy eyéveto emi Tis ys Eis 


TER. toe» Oe 

18; cp. iv. )¥ UTNyor. 
w Lk. xxiv, 

37° 


pabytai adrod,” 


Stt wAotdpiov GAO ok Fy exet Ei pi) Ev éxetvo eis 6 


22. Ti émadptov & Sxdos 6 éotyKds Tépav THS Batdaons, ida } 


& évéBynoav ot 


c 


\@ > aA a a Aeaere 2 a 
Kat OT oU cuveroyAGe Tois pabyTals aitod 6 “Ingois 


1 «Sov read by T.Tr.W.H.R. as in ABL vet. Lat., etc. 


2 The clause exetvo . . 


crowd. Now He detached Himself even 
from His disciples. [py wapexwv pnde 
TovTots adoppyv, Origen.] The Syn- 
optic account is supplementary. The 
disciples remained behind with fragments 
of the crowd, but, when it became late, 
they went down to the sea, and having 
got on board a (not ‘“‘the’’) boat, they 
were coming across to Capernaum [Mark 
says Jesus told them to go to Bethsaida, 
but that is quite consistent, as they may 
have meant to land at the one place and 
walk to the other] on the other side, and 
it had already become dark, and Jesus 
had not, or ‘‘ not yet,’”’ come to them, and 
the sea was rising owing to a strong 
wind blowing.—Ver. 19. éAnAakdtes 
ovv as oTadlous elkooimévTe F TpLakovTa. 
The Vulgate renders ‘‘cum remigassent 
ergo,”’ and modern Greek éxwrnddtycay, 
rightly; see Aristoph., Frogs, 195; and 
other passages in Elsner. The stadium 
was about 194 (Rich gives 202) yards, 
so that nine rather than eight would go 
to a mile. The disciples had rowed 
about three miles. [The best discussion 
of the direction they were taking is in 
the Rob Roy on the F¥ordan, p. 374.] 
Gewpotot Tov “lncovv wepitatovvTa emt 
THs Saddoons ‘they see Jesus walking 
on the sea’’. It has been suggested that 
this may only mean that Jesus was walk- 
ing ‘‘by’”’ the sea, émt being used in this 
sense in xxi, 1. But that émt can mean 
‘‘on”’ the sea is of course not questioned 
(see Lucian’s Vera Historia, where this 
incident is burlesqued; also Job ix. 8, 
where, to signalise the power of God, 
He is spoken of as 6 weptmatav as én’ 
éSadous eri Gatdoons). Besides, why 
should the disciples have been afraid had 
they merely seen Jesus walking on the 
shere? They manifested their fear in 


. autov is deleted by modern editors with NcABL. 


some way, and He says to them, Eye 
eipt, Lam He, or It is I.—-Ver. 20. Hear- 
ing this, 7@edov ovv AaBetv adray eis TO 
adotov, by which Liicke, Holtzmann, 
Weiss, Thayer, and others suppose it is 
meant, that they merely wished to take 
Him into the boat, but did not actually do 
so. The imperfect tense favours this 
sense; and so do the expressions 70e\ov 
Tiagat avTdv, vii. 44; and 7BeAov avrov 
épwtdv, xvi. 19; whereas two of the 
passages cited against this meaning by 
Alford are in the aorist, a tense which 
denotes accomplished purpose. On the 
other hand, the imperfect may here be 
used to express a continuous state of 
feeling, and accordingly the A.V., follow- 
ing the Geneva Bible, against Wiclif and 
Tindale, rendered ‘‘they willingly re- 
ceived Him”. So Grotius ‘non quod 
non receperint, sed quod cupide ad- 
modum”’, So, too, Sanday: ‘‘ The stress 
is really on the willingness of the dis- 
ciples, ‘ Before they shrank back through 
fear, but now they were glad to receive 
Him’”. And this seems right. The 
R.V. has ‘‘ they were willing therefore to 
receive Him into the boat”. The kai 
with which the next clause is introduced 
is slightly against the supposition that 
Jesus was not actually taken into the 
boat (but see Weiss in loc.); and the 
Synoptic account represents Jesus as 
getting into the boat with Peter. The 
immediate arrival at the shore was evi- 
dently a surprise to those on board. 
Sanday thinks that the Apostle was so 
occupied with his devout conclusions that 
he did not notice the motion of the boat. 

Vv. 22, 23, and 24 form one 
sentence, in which John describes the 
observations made by the crowd the 
following morning and their consequent 


1&~-26, 


EYATTEAION 


oe 


eis TO TAOLdpLov, GANA pdvor of payTal adrod drAABov, 23. adda 
dé! HAGE wAord pia ek TiBepiddos eyybs Tod témou Grou Edayov Tov 


” > , ~ , g s » com a 
Giptov, euxapioTyoavtTos ToU Kupiou: 24. Ste ouy eidev 6 dxNos STL 


"Ingods odK * oti éxet ovde of pabyTai adtod, évéeByoay Kai adToi x1. 49, etc. 


~ aA > ~ 
eis Ta ota, Kal AABov eis Katrepvaodp, Lytotvtes tov ‘Ingodv. 


‘ ey 2 reek , a , = bry IG \ 
25. Kal eUpdytes atTov mépay TIS Badoons, elroy atta, “ “PaBBi, 


mote Ode Yyéyovas;” 26. "AmekpiOn 


avtots 6 ‘Incods Kal eimey, y Lk. x. 32. 


“Aunvy duyy Néeyw butv, *Lntetré pe, odx Ott etdeTe onpeta, GAN’ giv. 48. 


1 §e omitted in BL 33. 


action. The observations they made are 
described under i8ev, which never finds 
its verb, but is resumed in 6re owvv eidev 
of ver. 24; and their consequent action 
is described in the main verbs of the 
sentence évéBnoay (ver. 24) Kal 7AGov. 
With the unconscious but accurate ob- 
servation of a fishing population in such 
matters, the crowd had noticed that there 
was only one boat lying on the beach at 
that point, and further that the disciples 
had gone away in it and had not taken 
Jesus with them. But in the morning, 
having presumably passed the night in 
the open aiz, and having gathered at the 
lake-side below the scene of the miracle, 
they found that neither Jesus nor His 
disciples were there. Apparently they 
expected that the disciples would have 
returned for Jesus, and that they might 
find both Him and them on the shore. 
Disappointed in this expectation, and 
concluding that Jesus had returned by 
land as He had come, or had left in one 
of the Tiberias boats, they themselves 
entered the boats from Tiberias, which 
had been driven ashore by the gale of 
the previous night, and crossed to Caper- 
naum. ‘This account of the movements 
and motives of the crowd seems to give 
each expression its proper force. The 
fact parenthetically introduced, ver. 23, 
that boats from Tiberias had put in 
on the east shore, is an incidental con- 
firmation of the truth that a gale had 
been blowing the night before. What 
portion of the belated crowd went back 
to Capernaum in these Tiberias boats 
we do not know.—etpévtes aitov mépav 
THs Qakaoons, having found Him on the 
other side of the lake, that is, on the 
Capernaum side, elwov . .. yéyovas, 
‘they said to Him, Rabbi, when camest 
thou hither?” ‘‘ Quaestio de tempore 
includit quaestionem de modo” (Bengel). 
For this use of yéyovas cf. ver. 19; and 
Cebes, Tabula, pis tov tarpov yivdpevos, 


and Lucian, Asinus, émwet 82 rXyolov ris 
Tohews éyeydverpev (Kypke). They came 
seeking Him, but were surprised to find 
Him. To their question Jesus makes no 
direct reply. He does not tell them of 
His walking on the water. 

In vv. 26-65 we have the conversation 
arising out ofthe miracle. The first break 
in it is at ver. 41. From ver. 26-40 Fesus 
explains that He is the Bread of Life.— 
Ver. 26, “Apny...éxoptdo@yre. In this 
pursuing crowd Jesus sees no evidence of 
faith or spiritual hunger, but only of carnal- 
ity and misunderstanding. Ye follow me 
ovx Sti eidere onpeia, “not because you 
saw signs,” not because in the feeding 
of the 5000 and other miracles you saw 
the Kingdom of God and glimpses of a 
spiritual world, GAN’ Sti édbayere Ex THV 
aptwv Kal éxoptac@yte, but because you 
received a physical satisfaction. This 
gave the measure of their Messianic 
expectation. He was the true Messiah 
who could maintain them in life without 
toil. Sense clamours and spirit has no 
hunger.—xoprdfeww, from yédptos, means 
“to give fodder to animals,’ and was 
used of men only ‘‘as a depreciatory 
term’’. In later Greek it is used freely 
of satisfying men ; see Kennedy’s Sources 
of N.T. Greek, p. 80; Lightfoot on Phil. 


iv. 12,—Ver. 27. épydleoOe . . . tpiv 
8ace.. ‘ Work not for the meat which 
perisheth.” épyafopat means “I earn 


by working,” “I acquire,” see passages 
cited by Thayer in voc, The food which 
He had given them the evening before 
He called Bpéow droddupévny: they 
were already hungry again, and had 
toiled after Him for miles to get another 
meal. Rather must they seek tiv 
Bpacty aigvioy, the food which 
abides eis Cwyv aidviov, that is, which is 
not consumed in the eating but rather 
grows as it is enjoyed. Cf. iv. 14. This 
food 6 vids tod avOparov tpiv Sdce. 
He does not call Himself ‘‘ the Prophet,” 


7$2 KATA LQANNHN VI. 


aMt.v.6; Stu ebdyere dx tov dptwy Kat *éxoptdoOnrTe. 


xiv. 20. 


27. -epydleoe pi 


{as. ti 16. Thy Bpdow Thy daoddupéryny, GANA Thy Bpdow Thy pévoucaw els 


‘ Lwhy aidvov, fv 6 vids rod dvOparou Spiv Sdéce- tobToy yap 6 


2I. 
b2Jo.8 ‘ 
only; cp. TaThp *éoppdyicev 5 Oeds.” 28. Elrrov odv mpds adrov, “Tt 
Wetstein my ly a ? »” ioe Ro be , , 
on Mt. trovodpev,! tva “epyalwpeba ta epya tod Geo ; 29. ‘AmexpiOn 
xxv. 16, _ is % A ze 
ciii. 33. 6 "Ingods Kal elwev adrots, “Toitd éote TO Epyov Tod Ceol, ° iva 
Exod. A A , 
xxxvi, 39. MloTevonte eis Sv dwéoredev exeivos.” 30. Ettov ody atte, “Tt 
d Num. viii. a a ; 
mm ody Trotets od onpetoy, iva wpev Kal motedowney gor; Tl epydly ; 
e€ iv. 34; Xv. 


Ma Bure 31 Ob watépes Hpav Td ‘pdvva Epayov ev TH éphpw, Kabwds eore 


ton, M. 
and T., 
213. 


A A A “a 23 
yeypappevoy, *"Aptoy éx Tod odpavod edwKev adtois payev. 32. 


f Exod, xvi, Etrev odv adtots 5 “Ingots, “"Aphy dpiy Aéyw dpiv, OF Mwors 


15. Heb. 
ix, 4. 

g Ps. Ixxviii. 
24. 


Sé5wxev ® Spiv tov dprov ék Tod odpavod- adN’ 6 Tathp pou didwou 


| qrovwpev in all modern editions as in NABL. 
2 'T.Tr.W.H.R. read motevyte following NABL 1, 33. 


3 eSwxev in BDL; 58. in RAT. 


as they had called Him yesterday, 
because this would have excited false 
expectations; but in calling Himself the 
Son of Man He suggests His sympathy 
with all human wants and at the same 
time indicates to the initiated that He 
claims the Messiahship. The guarantee 
is given in the words tovrov yap... 
6 Oe6s, ‘‘ For Him hath the Father, God, 
sealed’. By giving the Son the miracle 
of the previous day and other signs to do, 
the Father has sealed or authenticated 
Him as the Giver of that which nourishes 
life everlasting. [For the idea, approved 
by Delitzsch, that the seal refers to the 
stamping of loaves with the name of the 
maker, see O. T. Student, Sept., 1883, 
and Expositor, 1885. Elsner with more 
reason cites passages showing that a 
person ordering a banquet gave his seal 
to the slave or steward commissioned to 
provide it: and thus that Christ here 
declares ‘‘se a Patre constitutum esse 
ad suppeditandum Ecclesiae salutarem 
cibum”. The various meanings of the 
word are given by Suicer.] Some at 
least of the crowd are impressed; and 
conscious that their toil was, as Jesus said, 
commonly misdirected, they ask Him 
(ver. 28) ti trovodpev [better, wordpev] 
tva épyalopecba Ta Epya tov Meov; that 
is, how can we so labour as to satisfy 
God? What precisely is it that God 
waits for us to do, and will be satisfied 
with our doing ? To which Jesus, always 
ready to meet the sincere inquirer, gives 
the explicit answer (ver. 29) tovTdé éott 


. . . éxetvos. If God has sent a messenger 
it is because there is need of such inter- 
position, and the first duty must be to 
listen believingly to this messenger. To 
this demand that they should accept 
Him as God’s ambassador they reply 
(ver. 30) tl otv oveis .. . ‘ Judaeis 
proprium erat signa quaerere,’”’ 1 Cor. i. 
22, Lampe. Grotius and Licke think 
this asking for a sign could not have 
proceeded from those who saw the 
miracle of the previous day. But Lampe 
rightly argues that they were the same 
people, and that they did not consider 
either the miracle of the previous day or 
the ordinary cures wrought by Jesus to 
be sufficient evidence of His present 
claim.—Ver. 31. This is proved by the 
suggestion added in ver. 31. ot watépes 
. . . dayetv; they demanded that He as 
Messiah should make good His claim by 
outdoing Moses. Schoettgen and Light- 
foot quote from Rabbinical literature a 
relevant and significant saying : ‘‘ Qualis 
fuit redemptor primus (Moses) talis erit 
redemptor ultimus (Messias). Redemptor 
prior descendere fecit pro iis Manna, sic 
et Redemptor posterior descendere faciet 
Manna, sicut scriptum est,’ Ps. Ixxiil, 
16. See other instructive passages in 
Lightfoot. According to this expecta- 
tion that the Messiah would feed His 
people supernaturally the crowd now 
insinuate that though Jesus had given 
them bread He had not fulfilled the ex- 
pectation and given them bread from 
heaven. (For the expression “ bread of 








27-37. 


piv tov dptov é« Tod odpavod Tév ” ddnOuvov. 
, “~ ~ 
*6 kataBatywy é« tod odpavod, Kai Lwhy Bd005 Tdi iii. 13. 
‘ 


Ocotu éoti 
4 2” 
KOOLLG. 
” ~ 2 
aptov TouTov. 


EYATTEAION 


153 


33- 9 yap dpros rod hi. 9, ete. 


s ~ 
34. Etrov odv mpds adtov, “ Kupre, mavrote 33s Helv TOV 
35- Ettre 8€ adtots 6 “Ingods, “Eyd eips 6 G.pTOS 


THS Lwis: 6 épydpevos mpds pe OF pH Tewdon: Kal 6 moTedwy eis 


ene od ph Supyaoy! wdrorte. 


pe, kal ov muotedeTe. 37. “wav 6 Bidwot por 6 warhp, mpds eye 


36. GAN’ eltrov Guty Ste kal Ewpdxare j iv. 14. 


 k ver. 39; 
xvii. 2, 


1 Supynoe in T.Tr.W.H.R. following RAB*D. 


heaven ”’ see Exod. xiv. 4 and Ps. Ixxviii. 
23, 24.) To this challenge to fulfl 
Messianic expectation by showing Him- 
self greater than Moses Jesus replies 
(ver. 32), ov Mwowjs . . . GAnOivdv. A 
double denial; not Moses, but ‘‘ my 
Father” s the giver, and although 
the manna was in a sense ‘“ bread 
from heaven” it was not ‘the true 
bread from heaven,” tov Gprov é« Tov 
ovpavov Tov GAnOivdv. This my Father 
is now giving to you; 6 yap Gptos ... TO 
koop@.—Ver. 33. Moses therefore could 
not give this bread, since it comes 
down out of heaven. It is characterised 
by two attributes: (1) it is 6 kavaBaivey 
€k TOV ovpavod, that which cometh down 
out of heaven—not, as Godet renders, 
“ He who cometh down from heaven”; 
at least the request of ver. 34 shows that 
those who heard the words did not take 
them in this sense; (2) the other charac- 
teristic of the bread of God is that it 
giveth life to the world; a fuller life- 
giving power than that of the manna is 
implied; and it is of universal application 
and not merely to their fathers. Hearing 
this description of ‘the bread of God” 
the crowd exclaim (ver. 34) Kupte, mdv- 
Tote S05 Hiv TOV GpTov TovTOY, precisely 
as the woman of Samaria had exclaimed 
Kupue 865 pot TovTo TO VSwp, when Jesus 
had disclosed to her the properties of the 
living water. And as in her case the 
direct request brought the conversation 
to a crisis, so here it elicits the central 
declaration of all His exposition of the 
bearing of the miracle: ’Eyo eipu 6 apros 
THs Cwns. [It is not impossible that 
some of them may have hada glimmering 
of what He meant and uttered their re- 
quest with some tincture of spiritual 
desire; for among the Rabbis there was 
a saying, ‘‘ In seculo venturo neque edunt 
neque bibunt, sed justi sedent cum coronis 
suis in capitibus et aluntur splendore 
majestatis divinae”.] ‘‘I am the bread 
of life,’ ‘“‘I am the living bread”’ (ver. 
51, in a somewhat diiferent sense), “I 


am the bread which came down from 
heaven” (ver. 41), or, ‘‘the true bread 
from heaven”—all these designations 
our Lord uses, and that the people may 
quite understand what is meant, He 
adds 6 épyépevos . .. wamwore. The 
repetition of the required action 6 épyé- 
peevos, and 6 mictevwy, and of the result 
ov pH Tetvdon, and ob py Sipyorn, is for 
clearness and emphasis, not for addition 
to the meaning. The “believing” ex- 
plains the ‘“‘coming”’ ; and the ‘‘ quench- 
ing of thirst’? more explicitly conveys 
the meaning of “never hungering,” that 
all innocent and righteous cravings and 
aspirations shall be gratified. The ‘‘com- 
ing’? was not that physical approach 
which they had adopted in pursuing Him 
to Capernaum, but such a coming as 
might equally well be called “ believing,” 
a spiritual approach, implying the con- 
viction that He was what He claimed to 
be, the medium through which God 
comes to man, and man to God.—Ver. 
36. But although God and this perfect 
satisfaction were brought so near them, 
they did not believe: aAX’ elrov . .. 


muorevere. Beza, Grotius, Bengel, 
Godet, Weiss, etc., understand that 
elmov refers to ver. 26. Euthymius, 


preferably, says elds rovTo py dyvar 
pev, py ypadyvar S€. Lampe gives the 
alternatives without determining. Un- 
doubtedly, although the reference may 
not be directly to ver. 26, the éwpdxare 
means seeing Jesus in the exercise of 
His Messianic functions, doing the works 
given Him by the Father to do. But 
seeing is not in this case believing. It 
was found very possible to be in His 
company and to eat the provision He 
miraculously provided, and yet disbelieve. 
If so, what could produce belief? Might 
not His entire manifestation fail to 
accomplish its purpose ?—Ver. 37. No; 
for wav 6 Si8wor... Ager. ‘¢ Everything 
which the Father gives’; the neuter is 
used as being more universal than the 
masculine and including everything 


45 


754 


KATA fOANNHN vi. 


Hgec- wal dv épxdpevoy mpds pe of ph exBddw ew: 38. Sn Kata- 


Liv. 34. 
OAkynpa rod wépavrds pe. 


BéByxa ex Tod odpavod, ‘ody iva word 1d OAnpa Td épdv, GAA Td 


39. Todto 8€ eom 1d O€A\ynpa Tod 


m Constr. éynpavtés pe matpds,! “tva wav & BéBwké por, ph dwoddow ef 


ver. 29, 


reff. adtou, AAAG dvactiow aitd ev "TH éoxdty Hepa. 40. Todto Sé* 
D VV. 40, 44, a a a 

54; vii. Cote TO O€Anpa Tod wéwavtds pe,® °tva mas 6 Bewpay Tdv uldv Kai 

37, etc. ’ > 2 ” . ae ‘ a Pe er ed tery ts 
pver. 29, TMoredwy eis adtov, Exn Cwhy aidvoy, kat dvactnow adtov eye ” TH 


goxdty *pépa.” 


1 watpos omitted in *ABCD, etc. 


41. “EydyyuLov ody of ‘loudator mepi adtod, ott 


? All authorities read yap. 


3 rov wep wavTos pe in AEGH ; tov watpos pov in NBCD. 


which the Father determines to save 
from the world’s wreck, viewed as a 
totality. Cf. ver. 39, dvacricw avré: 
and the collective neuter, as in Thucyd., 
iii. 16, TO émidv for tots émdvTas. 
Lampe thinks the neuter is used, “‘ quia 
hae personae spectantur ut reale pecu- 
lium, haereditas, merces, genus, semen, 
sacerdotium, sanctuarium Domini’’. 
What is meant by 8i8wor? It is an act 
on God's part prior to the ‘‘ coming” on 
man’s part; the coming is the result of 
the giving. Calvinistic interpreters have 
therefore identified the giving with elec- 
tion. ‘‘Donandi verbum perinde valet 
ac si dixisset Christus, quos elegit Pater, 
eos regenerat "—Calvin. ‘ Patrem dare 
filio est eligere’”—Melanchthon; and 
similarly Beza and Lampe. On the 
other hand, Reynolds represents a number 
of interpreters when he says, ‘It is the 
present activity of the Father’s grace that 
is meant, not a foregone conclusion”. 
This identifies the Father’s ‘ giving”’ 
with His “drawing,” ver. 44. It would 
rather seem to be that which determines 
the drawing, the assigning to Jesus of 
certain persons who shall form His king- 
dom. This perhaps involves election 
but is not identical with it. Cf. xvii. 6. 
Euthymius replies, from a Semi-Pelagian 
point of view, to the objections which 
arise from an Augustinian interpretation of 
the words. The purpose of the verse is to 
impart assurance that Christ’s work will 
not fail. Kal tov épydpevov. . . gE. 
Grotius thinks the ‘casting out” refers 
to the School of Christ; Licke thinks 
the kingdom is referred to. It is scarcely 
necessary to think of anything more than 
Christ’s presence or fellowship. This 
strong asseveration od py éxBadom, and 
concentrated Gospel which has brought 
hope to so many, is here grounded on 
the will of the Father.—Vv. 38, 39. Ort 
kataBeBnxa . . . népg. Everywhere 


Jesus forestalls the idea that He is speak- 
ing for Himself, and is uttering merely 
human judgments, or is in any way 
regulated in His action by what is 
arbitrary: it is the Supreme Will He 
represents. And this will requires Him 
to protect and provide for all that is 
committed to Him. tva way 6 S€8wxé 
pot, on this nominative absolute, see 
Licke or Raphel, who justify it by many 
instances. The positive and negative 
aspects of the Redeemer’s work, and the 
permanence of its results, are indicated. 
On avacryow .. . nuepa, Bengel says: 
“Hic finis est ultra quem periculum 
nullum,”’ and Calvin finely: ‘‘Sit ergo 
hoc animis nostris infixum porrectam 
esse nobis manum a Christo, ut nos min- 
ime in medio cursu deserat, sed quo ejus 
ductu freti secure ad diem ultimum oculos 
attollere audeamus”. It is a perfect and 
enduring salvation the Father has de- 
signed to give us in Christ.—Ver. 40. 
In ver. 40 Jesus describes the recipients 
of salvation from the human side, mwas 6 
Bewpav Tov vidv kal mortevwy eis aiTdv, 
the latter, ‘‘ believing,” being necessary, 
as already shown, to complete the former. 
The neuter wav necessarily gives place to 
the masculine. kal avactyow atrov eyo 
Tq eoxaty Hepa. This promise recurs 
like a refrain, vv. 39, 40, 44, 54; each 
time the éy# is expressed and emphatic, 
“TI, this same person who here stands 
before you, I and no other’. Christ 
gives His hearers the assurance that 
in this respect He is superior to Moses, 
that the life He gives is not confined 
to this present time. In itself it is a 
stupendous declaration. 

Vv. 41-51. In this paragraph we are 
first told how the Jews were staggered 
by our Lord’s affirming that He had 
come down from heaven; second, how 
Jesus explains that in order to under- 
stand and receive Him they must be 


ae ment 


—9 








38—45. 


EYATTEAION 


755 


aA a® ‘ 
elev, “"Eyd eips & dptos 6 KataBds éx Tov oupavod. 42. Kat 


Aeyor, “ Odx obtds ot “Ingods 6 vids ‘lwct>, oF Hpets otdapey | 


Tov Tatépa kal Thy pntépa; 
> a , 2 
otpavod KataBeByka. ; 


abtois, “Mi yoyyufere pet dAAHov. 


43. “Awexpt0n odv 6 “Ingods Kat etmev 


xii. 32; in 


A 9 A 
mas ouv Aéyet obTos, Ott éx Tod phys. 


sense, 
XViil. 10; 
a ¥X15165/25 
44. ovdels Buvatar EhOety Acts xvi. 


c ‘ > 19. 
mpés pe, cv pi) 6 mathp 6 wempas pe PEAKUoN adTov, Kat €y® n vv. 40, 44 


dvactiow abtov "tH éoxdty Hpépa. 


LY a a? A > c 
mpodrjtais, ‘Kal éoovtar mdvtes TSi5axtol Tob Oeod. Mas ovv o 


taught of God; and third, how He 
reiterates His claim to be the Bread of 
Life, adding now the explanation that it 
is His flesh which He will give for the 
life of the world.—Ver. 41. ’Eydyyvfov 
... ovpavod. ‘‘ The Jews,” not as we 
might expect, ‘‘ the Galileans,” probably 
because John identifies this unbelieving 
crowd with the characteristically un- 
believing Jews. éydyyvfov in Exod. 
xvi. 7-9, I Cor. x. 10, etc., has a note of 
malevoience, but in John vii. 32 no such 
note. ‘* Murmur” thus corresponds to 
it, as carrying both meanings. The 
ground of their murmuring was His 
asserting ’Eyo eipe... ovpavov. Cf. 
ver. 33, 6 kataBaivev, and ver. 38, kata- 
BéByxa. Liicke says: ‘‘ When John 
makes the descent from heaven the 
essential, inherent predicate of the bread, 
he uses the present: when the descent 
from heaven is regarded as a definite 
fact in the manifestation of Christ, the 
aorist”. They not merely could not 
understand how this could be true, but 
they considered that they had evidence 
to the contrary (ver. 42), kat €Xeyov, Ov 
... kataBéByxa; the emphatic tpets 
more clearly discloses their thought. 
We ourselves know where He comes 
from. The road from heaven, they 
argued, could not be through human 
birth. This was one of the real difficulties 
of the contemporaries of Jesus. The 
Messiah was to come ‘in the clouds,” 
suddenly to appear; but Jesus had 
quietly grown up among them. From 
this passage an argument against the 
miraculous birth of our Lord has been 
drawn. The murmurets represent the 
current belief that He had a father and 
mother, and in His reply Jesus does not 
repudiate His father. But He could 
not be expected to enter into explana- 
tions before a promiscuous crowd. As 
Euthymius says: He passes by His 
miraculous birth, ‘‘ lest in removing one 
stumbling block He interpose another”. 
To explain is hopeless.—Ver. 43. There- 
fore He merely says My yoyyvlete per’ 


‘\ 


; Vil. 


45. €ote yeypappeévoy év tots sees 


q 1 Cor. ii. 
13. 


GdAjAwv. That was not the way to light. 
Nor could He expect to convince all of 
them, for ovSels ... EAxioyn aidrtdy, 
“no one can come to me unless the 
Father who hath sent me draw him”, 
édxvew has the same latitude of mean- 
ing as ‘‘draw”’. It is used of towing a 
ship, dragging a cart, or pulling on a 
rope to set sails. But it is also used, 
xii. 32, of a gentle but powerful moral 
attraction; ‘I, if I be lifted up, EAkiow, 
will draw, etc.”. Here, however, it is an 
inward disposing of the soul to come to 
Christ, and is the equivalent of the 
Divine teaching of ver. 45. And what 
is affirmed is that without this action of 
God on the individual no one can come 
to Christ. In order to apprehend the 
significance of Christ and to give our- 
selves to Him we must be individually 
and inwardly aided by God. [Augustine 
says: ‘‘Si trahitur, ait aliquis, invitus 
venit. Siinvitus venit, non credit, si non 
credit, nec venit. Non enim ad Christum 
ambulando currimus, sed credendo, nec 
motu corporis, sed voluntate cordis 
accedimus. Noli te cogitare invitum 
trahi: trahitur animus et amore.’’ And 
Calvin says: ‘‘Quantum ad_ trahendi 
modum spectat, non est ille quidem 
violentus qui hominem cogat externo 
impulsu, sed tamen efficax est motus 
Spiritus Sancti, qui homines ex nolentibus 
et invitis reddit voluntarios ”. All that 
Calvin objects to is that men should be 
said ‘‘ proprio motu ”’ to yield themselves 
to the Divine drawing. Cf. a powerful 
passage from Luther’s De libero Arbitrio 
quoted in Lampe; or as Beza concisely 
puts it: ‘‘ Verum quidem est, neminem 
credere invitum, quum Fides sit assensus. 
Sed volumus quia datum est nobis ut 
velimus.”’]—Ver. 45. In confirmation 
of His assertion in ver. 44, Jesus, as 
is His wont, cites Scripture: éore 
yeypappevov év tots mpodyrats, that is, 
it is written in that part of Scripture 
known as “ the Prophets”. The passage 
cited is Is. liv. 13, where, in describing 
Messianic times, the prophet says, ‘‘ Thy 


756 


ri 18 


KATA TOANNHN 


Vi. 


dxovcas mapa Tob watpds Kal pabdy, Epxerar mods pe* 46. * odx 


avii.29 ix.dte Tov matépa tis édpaxev > et pi) “6 Gv mapa Tod Oeod, obtos 


on édpaxe Tov twatépa. 


t1Cor.x.5.€xet Lwhy aidveor. 


47- dphy dphy Adyw dpiv, 6 moredwy eis ene, 
48. éyd cipe 6 


dptos THs Lwis. 49. oF 


watépes Spav Epayov Td pdvva ev tH eEpypw, Kal daréBavoy- 


c »” 


u vv. 26, 51. 50. obTés éotw 


adtod pdyy Kal pi) drrobdvy. 


vviii.16,17. , 


6 dptos 5 éx Tod odjpavod KataPaivwr, iva tus “é€ 


51. eye eipt 6 dptos 6 Lav, 6 ék Toi 


Mt. x. 18, oUpavod KataBds- édv tis dyn ex TodTo Tod Aprou, Lyoetar! eis 


Acts iii. 
24. 


Tov aiava. “Kat 6 


dptos "Se dv éys Sow, h odpé pou éotiv, hy 


1 Here and in v. 58 {noe is read in SDL 33. 


children shall all be taught of God,” 
écoytat wavTes SiSaxrot tov Geod, and 
what this being taught of God means 
He more fully explains in the words as 
oty ... padeav, ‘every one who has 
heard from the Father and has learned 
comes to me’’. Both the hearing and 
the learning refer to an inward spiritual 
process. The outward teaching of Scrip- 
ture and of Christ Himself was enjoyed 
by all the people He was addressing ; 
but they did not come to Him. It is 
therefore an inward and individual illu- 
mination by the special operation of God 
that enables men to come to Christ. 
Whether these verses teach ‘irresistible 
grace’’ may be doubted. That they 
teach the doctrine which Augustine 
asserted against Pelagius, vis., that 
power to use grace must itself be 
given by God, is undeniable. That is 
affirmed in the statement that no one 
can come to Christ unless the Father 
draw him. But whether it is also true 
that every one whom God teaches 
comes is not here stated; the kal 
pa8ay introduces a doubtful element. 
[Wetstein quotes from Polybius Stadéper 
To palety Tov pdvov a&xotoat.]—Ver. 
46. Lest His hearers should suppose 
that in Messianic times direct know- 
ledge of God was to be communicated, 
He adds, ov» Stt Tov warépa Tis Espaxev, 
it is not by direct vision men are to learn 
of God. One alone has direct perception 
of the Father, 6 &v wapa tov Geo, He 
whose origin is Divine ; not 6 areotah- 
pévos mapa Ocov, a designation which 
belonged to all prophets, but He whose 
Being is directly derived from God. 
Similarly, in vii. 29, we find Jesus saying 
éy® of8a aitdv St. wap’ airod cipi Kat 
éxeivés pe awéorteidev, where the source 
of the mission and the source of the 
being are separately mentioned. To 


refer this exclusive vision of the Father 


to any earthly experience seems out of 
the question. No one who was not 
more than man could thus separate him- 
self from all men. See i. 18. Having 
thus explained that they could not believe 
in Him without having first been taught 
of God, He returns (ver. 47) to the affir- 
mation of ver. 40, apqv...{wiqs. Their 
unbelief does not alter the fact, nor 
weaken His assurance of the fact. This 
consciousness of Messiahship was so 
identified with His spiritual experience 
and existence that nothing could shake 
it. But now He adds a significant con- 
firmation of His claim.—Vv. 49, 50. ot 
martépes . . . pt Gro0dvy, “ Your fathers 
ate the manna in the desert and died: 
this is the bread which comes down out 
of heaven, that a man may eat of it and 
not die”. In other words: The manna 
which was given to your fathers to main- 
tain them in physical, earthly life, could 
not assert its power against death, and 
maintain them continually in life. Your 
fathers died physically. The bread which 
comes down from heaven does not give 
physical life; it is not sent for that 
purpose, but the life which it is given 
to maintain, it maintains in continuance 
and precludes death. Taken in connec- 
tion with the context, the words inter- 
pret themselves. Godet however says: 
“ Jesus, both here and elsewhere, certainly 
denies even physical death in the case of 
the believer. Cf. viii. 51. That which 
properly constitutes death, in what we 
call by this name, is the total cessation 
of moral and physical existence. Now 
this fact does not take place in the case 
of the believer at the moment when his 
friends see him die.” This seems to 
misrepresent the fact of death for the 
sake of misrepresenting the present pas- 
sage.—Ver. 51. In ver. 51 Jesus adds 
two fresh terms in explanation of the 
living bread, which, however, through 


46—54- 


ey Sdéow imep ris Too Kdopou Luis.” 
GAAHAous of ‘loudator A€yortes, “Mas Sdvatat obtos Hutv Sodvar tiv 


odpka aye ;” 


a > nw a A \ 
héeyw bpiv, dav ph pdynte Thy cdpxa tod viod tod dvOpwrou, Kal 
Tinte aUTOG Td aipa, oUK ExeTE Lwijy ev EauTots. 

‘ , LY , A a ” A 27 ‘ é A 
pou Thy cdpka, Kal mivwy pou TO- aipa, exer Cwiyy atwvioy, Kal éy@ 


EYATTEAION 


53- Etwev ody attois 6 “Ingods, “’Aphy dpi 


757 


1 £3. *Ev.dyovro obv % m4pds w apis in Ih, 
5 PeX p Xvii. 98, 
etc., em 
also used; 
commonly 
the simple 
dative. 
ae ’ x xiii. 18 
54. “0 Tpwyav sual 
xiv. 
only. 


1 Instead of yn oap§ pow. . . Lwns BCDL 33 read q cap§ pov eotiv vrep T. Tov 
ckoopov Lwns, adopted by W.H.R. Tisch. adopts the reading of §¥, vrep zy Tov 


koopov Lwns, 7 caps pov extiv. 
unbedingt und zu streichen”’. 


their want of apprehension, increased 
their difficulty. The first is éya eipe 
...- Cwhs. In giving this explanation 
He slightly alters the designation of 
Himself as the Bread: He now claims 
to be not ‘the bread of life,” but 6 apros 
6 fav, ‘the living bread”. Godet says: 
“The manna, as not itself living, could 
never impart life. But Jesus, because 
He Himself lives, can give life.” That 
is Correct, but is not the full meaning. 
6 fav contrasts the bread with the Bpaous 
GrokAvpévyn; and as “living water” is 
water running from a fountain in per- 
petual stream, and not a measured 
quantity in a tank, so “living bread” is 
‘bread which renews itself in proportion 
to all needs like the bread of the miracle. 
The second fresh intimation now made 
is 6 Gptos by €yo Séow H odps pov éotiv 
... This intimation is linked to the 
foregoing by a double conjunction cat o 
Gptos 8¢, ‘‘and besides” indicating, ac- 
cording to classical usage, a new aspect 
or expansion of what has been said. 
The new intimation is at first sight an 
apparent limitation: instead of “I am 
the bread,’? He now says ‘‘ My flesh is 
the bread’’. Accordingly some interpre- 
ters suppose that by ‘‘ flesh” the whole 
manifestation of Christ in human nature 
is meant. Cf. 6 Adyos adpt éveverto. 
Thus Westcott says: ‘The life of the 
world in the highest sense springs from 
the Incarnation and Resurrection of 
Christ. By His Incarnation and Resur- 
rection the ruin and death which sin 
brought in are overcome. The thought 
here is of support and growth, and not 
of Atonement.” To this there are two 
objections. (1) If oap§ is equivalent 
to the whole manifestation of Christ in 
the flesh, this is not a new statement, 
but a repetition of what has already 
been said. And (2) the 8é0 compels 
us to think of a giving yet iuture. 
Besides, the turn taken by the con- 


Weiss is too positive in saying, ‘‘ Die Worte sind 
T.R. gives the most intelligible sentence. 


versation, vv. 53-57, seems to point 
rather to the atoning sacrifice of Christ. 
[So Euthymius: thy oravpeow avtov 
Tpooypatve. Td dé, fv éyd Sdcw, Td 
Exova.ov éudatvet Tov ToLtovTov walous. 
So too Cyril: ’Awo8vijoxw, onoiv, vrep 
wavTwv, tva mavras [woronjow 8° 
éuavtTov, Kal av7ikutpov THs ardvTev 
Gapkos Thy env éwounodpny. Bengel 
says: ‘‘ Tota haec de carne et sanguine 
Jesu Christi oratio passionem spectat”’. 
Beza even finds in 8aow the sense 
‘‘offeram Patri in ara crucis’’.] The 
giving of His flesh, a still future giving 
which is spoken of as a definite act, is, 
then, most naturally referred to the 
death on the cross. This was to be 
tmép THs TOU Kéopov [wijs, “ for the sake 
of the life of the world”. taép when 
used in connection with sacrifice tends 
to glide into avrt; see the Alcestis of 
Eurip. passim and Lampe’s note on this 
verse. Here, however, the idea of sub- 
stitution is not present. It is only hinted 
that somehow the death of Christ is 
needed for the world’s life. This state- 
ment, however, only bewilders the 
crowd; and the next paragraph, vv. 
52-59, gives expression to and deals with 
this bewilderment.—Ver. 52. ’Enayovro 
. .. The further explanations sprang 
from a fresh question put not directly 
to Jesus, but to one or other of the 
crowd. They differed in their judgment 
of Him. Some impatiently denounced 
Him as insane: others suggesting that 
there was truth in His words. The 
discussion all tended to the question 
was Suvarat... dayeiv, He had only 
spoken of “giving” His flesh for the 
life of the world: but they not unreason- 
ably concluded that if so, it must be 
eaten. Their mistake lay in thinking of 
a_ physical eating.—Vv. 53, 54. elaev 
oiv .. . fpépa. Instead of explaining 
the mode Jesus merely reiterates the 
statement. The reason of this is that 


758 


KATA IQANNHN 


Vi. 


nv. 40, 44, dvaoTiow adtov ” TH éoxdty tpépa. 55. ) ydp odpt pou ddydds ! 


54; Vii. 
37, etc, 
y Dan. i. 10. 


dott * Bpdots, kal Td aipd pou aAnOGs eotr méars. 


56. 6 tpdywv 


2 Freq. in Lov Thy odpka, kal Tivwy pou Td atwa, *év enol péver, Kdyw ev atts. 


John. 


a Heb. iii, 57+ kaOds dméoreké pe “6 CGv wartip, kayo CO id tov tartépa: 


12 


tro. Rom. 
ix. 26. 


I a > 
Thess. i, Kal 6 Tpwywv pe, KaKElvos Choerar du’ ene. 
5 ék Tod odpavod KataBds- ob Kabds Epayov ot tatépes Spay TO 


58. obtds eat 6 diptos 


pdvva, Kal dméQavov: 6 tpwywv TodToy tov Gptov Lijcerat eis Tov 


biGenwxkii ys. % » 
ri. Deut, @L@va, 
i.t7. Jer. 
vi. 10. 


59 Taira elev €y cuvaywyy SiSdoxwv ev Katrepvaotp. 
60. Moddol odv dxotcartes éx TOY panto adrod elroy, “” EKAy- 


1 For adyOws in both occurrences aAdnOys is read in NeBC, 


their attention was thus more likely to 
be fixed on the necessity of using Him 
as the living bread. The difficulty of 
the statement disappears when it is 
perceived that the figure of speech is 
not to be found in the words “ flesh” 
and ‘‘ blood,” but in the words “ eating ” 
and “drinking”. The actual flesh and 
blood, the human life of Christ, was 
given for men; and men eat His flesh 
and drink His blood, when they use for 
their own advantage His sacrifice, when 
they assimilate to their own being all the 
virtue that was in Him, and that was 
manifested for their sakes. As Liicke 
points out, the oap§ kai ala form 
together one conception and are equiva- 
lent to the pe of ver. 57. If atpa stood 
alone it might refer especially to the 
death of Christ, but taken along with 
oapé it is more natural to refer the 
double expression to the whole mani- 
festation of Christ; and the “ eating 
and drinking” can only mean the com- 
plete acceptance of Him and union with 
Him as thus manifested. [tpdye, 
originally the munching of herbivorous 
animals, was latterly applied to ordinary 
human eating.]—Vv. 55, 56. ‘This is 
further shown in vv. 55,56. 1 yap oapé 
pou adnOas [better adnbys] éote Bpaors, 
“For my flesh is a genuine food and my 
blood is a genuine drink”; with an 
implied contrast to those things with 
which men ordinarily endeavour to 
Satisfy themselves. The satisfying, 
genuine character of Christ as the bread 
consists especially in this, that 6 tpayev 
... év énol péver Kayo év aito. He 
becomes as truly assimilated to the life 
of the individual as the nourishing 
elements in food enter into the substance 
of the body. The believer abides in 
Christ as finding his life in Him (Gal. ii. 
20); and Christ abides in the believer, 
continually imparting to him what con- 


stitutes spiritual life. For in Christ man 
reaches the source of all life in the 
Father (ver. 57), ka8as améorerhé pe 6 
{av warynp... 68 épé. The living 
Father has sent Christ forth as the 
bearer of life. He lives 81a tov warépa, 
not equivalent to 814 tod warpds, through 
or by means of the Father, but ‘‘ because 
of,”’ or ‘‘ by reason of the Father”. The 
Father is the cause of my life; I live 
because the Father lives. [Beza quotes 
from the Plutus of Aristoph., 470, the 
declaration of Penia that pévnv ’Ayabav 
anrdvtwv otoav alriav épe “Yuiv, du’ ene 
ve C@vtas tpas.] The Father is the 
absolute source of life; the Son is the 
bearer of that life to the world; cf. v. 
26, where the same dependence of the 
Son on the Father for life is expressed. 
The second member of.the comparison, 
introduced by «at (see Winer, p. 548; 
and the Nic. Ethics, passim), is not, as 
Chrys. and Euthymius suggest, kayo Ca, 
but kat 6 tpdyeov pe, KaKketvos CrceTaL 
{better joer) Sv éwe. (For the form of 
the sentence cf. x. 14.) Every one that 
eateth Christ will by that connection 
participate in the life of God.—Ver. 
58. ovréds éorw...aidva. These 
characteristics, now mentioned, identify 
this bread from heaven as something of 
a different and superior nature to the 
manna.—Ver. 59. With his usual exact 
specification of time and place John 
addstatta . . . €vKadapvaovp. Lampe 
says: ‘‘Colligi etiam inde potest, quod 
haec acciderint in Sabbato”; but the 
synagogue was available for teaching on 
other days, and it is not likely that ona 
Sabbath so many persons would have 
followed Him across the lake. 

Vv. 60-71. The crisis in Galilee.— 
Ver. 60. FloAAoloty . . . dxoverw; many 
of His disciples [7.c., of the larger and 
more loosely attached circle of His fol- 
lowers, as distinct trom the Twelve, ver. 





55-64. 


fe a 
pos éotiv obtos 6 Adyos* Tis BUvatat adTod dxovew ;” 
‘ > lo ~ ~ 
BE 6 ‘Ingods ev * EauTd, Sti yoyyULoucr mepi TodTou of pabyTal adtoo, 
etrev attois “Toito buds oxavdaniLe ; 


c col 
vidy tod dvOpdmou dvaBatvovta Sou Hv Td mpdtepov ; 


EYAITTEAION 


159 


61. * Eidas c xiii. i. 

Lk. xi. 17. 
Mk. v. 30. 
a Gen. xviii. 
62. édv odv Oewpire Tov 12. 


63. 1d 


Trend é€ot. TO Lwomorodv,  oaps odk ahehet odddv: Ta fypata 


& éy® hah@! Spiv, mvedpd éote kat Lwy éotw. 


ea a > U 2 
UP@Y TLVES OL OU TLOTEVOUCLY. 


, ks € x , ‘ , > , Sure 
TLVES ELOLY OL py THLOTEVOVTES, KGL TLS ECTLY 6 Tapadwowy QuTOV. 


1 XeXaAnKa in NBCD it. vulg., ete. 


67] having heard the foregoing utterances, 
said IxAnpds éotiv ovTOS 6 Adyos. ZKAy- 
pos is rather ‘‘hard to receive” than 
‘“‘hard to understand”. Abraham found 
the command to cast out Hagar o«Anpés, 
Gen. xxi. 11. Euripides opposes oxAnp’ 
470%, distasteful, uncompromising truths 
to pah@axa Wevdy, flattering falsehoods 
(Frag., 75, Wetstein). The Adyos re- 
ferred to was especially, ver. 58, otTos 
éotiv 6 Gptos 6 ék TOU ovpavod KataBds 
as is proved by vv. 61, 62. But this 
must be taken together with His state- 
ment in ver. 51, that He would give His 
flesh, and the development of this idea 
in WV. 53,54, Ths Suvaras avTov akovety ; 
‘‘who can listen to Him?”—Ver. 61. 
This apparently was said out of the 
hearing of Jesus, for ver. 61 says etda5 
S€ 0 “Incots év EavT@, “ Jesus knowing 
in Himself,” that is, perceiving that they 
were murmuring, He intuitively under- 
stood what it was they were stumbling 
at, and said totro tpas . . . mpdtepov; 
“Does this saying stumble you? If 
then ye see the Son of Man ascending 
where He was before 2 
we to supply? Either, Will you not be 
much more scandalised? Or, Will you 
not then be convinced? According to 
the former, the sense would be: If now 
you say, how can this Man give us His 
flesh to eat ? much more will you then 
say so when His flesh wholly disappears. 
But the second interpretation gives the 
better sense: You will find it easier to 
believe I came down from heaven, when 
you see me returning thither. Cf. iii, 
13; xiii. 3. You will then recognise also 
in what sense I said that you must eat 
my flesh. 16 mvetpa éort Td Lworrot0dv, 
% gaps ovx dpedei ovdev. It was there- 
fore the spirit animating the flesh in His 
giving of it which profited; not the ex- 
ternal sacrifice of His body, but the 
spirit which prompted it was efficacious, 
The acceptance of God’s judgment of 





What are. 


64. GAN elotv ef 


"Hider yap 7é& dpxis 6 “Inaods, dxvi.4only. 


am apxns 
freq. 


sin, the devotedness to man and perfect 
harmony with God, shown in the cross, 
is what brings life to the world; and it 
is this Spirit men are invited to partake 
of. It is therefore not a fleshly but a 
spiritual transaction of which I have been 
speaking to you. [Bengel excellently: 
‘““Non sola Deitas Christi, nec solus 
Spiritus sanctus significatur, sed universe 
Spiritus, cui contradistinguitur caro”’.] 
7a pypata ... éotiv, His entire dis- 
course at Capernaum, and whatever other 
sayings He had uttered, were spirit and 
life. It was through what He said that 
He made Himself known and offered 
Himself tothem. To those who believed 
His words, spirit and life came in their 
believing. By believing they were brought 
into contact with the life in Him.—Ver. 
64. But tives ov meorevovory, and there- 
fore do not receive the life. This Jesus 
said Se. yap . . . avrdv, for Jesus knew 
from the first who they were that believed 
not,and who it was whoshould betray Him. 
“Hoc ideo addidit Evangelista, ne quis 
putet temere judicasse Christum de suis 
auditoribus,” Calvin. Euthymius says 
it illustrates His forbearance. é§ apxjs, 
from the beginning of His connection 
with individuals. Weiss supposes it 
means from the beginning of their not 
believing. He gave utterance to this 
knowledge in ver. 26. He even knew 
who it was who should betray Him. 
This is said in anticipation of vv. 70, 71. 
This declaration raises the question, 
Why then did Jesus call Judas to the 
Apostolate? Holtzmann indeed sup- 
poses that this intimation is purely apolo- 
getic and intended to show that Jesus 
was not deceived in appointing Judas. It 
is unnecessary to increase the difficulty 
by supposing the é§ apyjjs to refer to the 
time previous to his call. Jesus saw in 
Judas qualities fitting him to be an 
Apostle; but seeing him among the 
others He recognised that he was an 


760 


KATA TOQANNHN 


VI. 


65. Kat Sheye, “Ata todro eipnxa spiv, Sr odSeis Suvarar eAferv 


+ , ‘ ‘ ° ‘ > A @> ~ » 
e Cp. ili. 27. mpds pre, €dv ph 7 Sedopevov att@ °ex Tod Tatpdés pou. 
ToUTou woAdol dmpAGov Tay pabyTav adtod * eis Ta ériow, Kal odxétt 


f xix. 12; 
viii. 31. 
Heb. x. 38. 

g xviii. 6; 
xx. I4. A 
Mk. xiii, K@t Spets OXere Srdyeu ;” 
16. Gen. ¢< 
xix. 17. 


pet adtod wepremdrour. 


Kupte, mpds tiva drehevodpeda ; 


66. ‘Ex 


« 


67. elmev obv 6 “Ingods Tots SWdexa, “ Mi 
68. "AmexpiOy odv adit Eipwy Mérpos, 


» byjpata Lwijs alwviou éxes* 


bh Acts v, 20. ‘ - 
69. kal huets TemotevKapev, kal eyvixapey Str od el 6 Xprotds 6 


ulds Tod G€00 Tod {Lavtos.” 


i xv. 16; 
xiii. 18. 


'o Xpiotos . . 


70. “Amexpi0y attots 6 ‘Ingois, 


“'OdxK dy buds tods BdSexa efeheEdpny, Kai €& bpdv els Sid Bods 


. fwwros only in inferior authorities; o aytos tov Seov (without 


+. Cwvtos) in NBC*DL. Cp. Mk. i. 24; Acts iii. 14. 


unfaithful man. To suppose that He 
called him in the clear knowledge that 
he would betray Him is to introduce an 
unintelligible or artificial element into 
the action of Christ. [Neither Calvin 
nor Beza makes any remark on the clause. 
Bruce, Training of the Twelve; and 
Reith, in loc., should be consulted.] 
Jesus already recognised in what manner 
His death would be compassed: by 
treachery. The fact stated in ver. 64, 
that some of His own disciples could yet 
not believe in Him, illustrates the truth 
of what He had said, ver. 44, that no one 
can come to Him except the Father draw 
him.—Ver. 65. He therefore points this 
out, 8a todto ... matpéds pov. All 
that brings men to Christ is the Father’s 
gift.—Ver. 66. é« rovrov, “on this”’; 
neither exclusively ‘from this time”’ 
éxtote (Euthymius), ‘‘ from this moment 
onwards” (Liicke), nor exclusively ‘‘ on 
this account,’’ but a combination of both. 
Cf. xix. 12. Here the time is in the 
foreground, as is shown by the ovx éru 
following. Lampe has: ‘Qui ab illo 
tempore Iesum deserebant, clare indica- 
bant, quod propter hunc sermonem istud 
fecerint”. moAAol dr7AOov cis TA dTrigw 
-.. Wepteratovv. Many of those who 
had up to this time been following Him 
and listening to His teaching, returned 
now to their former ways and no longer 
accompanied Jesus. [émtow Sé vder por, 
Kal Tov Tpdtepov Biov avTay, eis Ov TaALv 
iméotpepay, Euthymius.] ets Ta émriow 
occurs xvili. 6, xx. 14; also Mk. xiii. 16. 
ut the most instructive occurrence is 
in Ps. xliv. 18, ox awéory eis Ta OTrigw 
4 KapS(a jpav, where the literal sense 
passes into the spiritual meaning, 
apostasy, abandonment of God.—Ver. 
67. This giving up of their adherence 
to Christ was probably manifested in an 


‘ Jesus had been. 


immediate and physical withdrawal from 
His presence. For He turned to the 
Twelve with the words: ph Kal tpeis 
O@éX\eve Urayeww; ‘“Sciebat id non 
facturos,’’ Lampe, who adds six reasons 
for the question, of which the most im- 
portant are: ‘‘ut confessionem illam 
egregiam eliceret, qua se genuinos 
discipulos Jesu esse mox_ probaturi 
erant”?; and ‘ut edoceret, se nonnisi 
voluntarios discipulos quaerere’”’. Pro- 
bably also that they might be con- 
firmed in their faith by the expression 
of it, and that He might be gladdened. 
—Ver. 68. Simon Peter answered in 
name of all, Kupue... {avros. He 
gives a threefold reason why they re- 
mained faithful while others left. (1) 
mpos tiva amehevodpeda; “To whom 
shall we go away?” implying that 
they must attach themselves to some one 
as a teacher and mediator in divine 
things. They cannot imagine that any 
one should be to them what already 
(2) Especially are they 
bound to Him, because He has words of 
eternal life, pjpata CwAs alwviou Exes. 
They had experienced that His words 
were spirit and life, ver. 63. In them- 
selves a new life had been quickened by 
His words, a life they recognised as the 
true, highest, eternal life. To have re- 
ceived eternal life from Christ makes it 
impossible to abandon Him. (3) Kat qpets 
(ver. 69), ‘‘ we for our part,’’ whatever 
others think, wemurrevxapev Kai éyvo- 
kapey “have believed and know,” cf. 
1 John iv. 16, fjpets éyv@xapev cat 
memirtevKapev, which shows we cannot 
press the order [cf. Augustine’s “‘credimus 
ut intelligamus”] but must accept the 
double expression as a strong assevera- 
tion of conviction: we have believed 
and we know by experience travel... 





65—71. VII. 1—3. 


éotiv ;” 


jpeddev adtov mapadidvar, ets Gv ek Tay Bbexa. 


EYATTEAION 


761 


71. “Edeye S€ tov “lovSay Zipwvos loxapidtyy: obTos yap 


a xi. 54. 
Mk. xi. 27. 


VII. 1. KA Swepterdte: 6 “Ingots peta taita év TH Fadthata - bv. 16. 


od yap Oedev év TH “loudata mepimatety, Ste "ELjtouv adtov ot 15. Jer. 


2. "Hy de 


3. €ttrov obv mpds 


> A 5 A 
loudator droktetvat. 


* okqvoTnyta. 
BnOr évtedOev, kat Graye eis Thy 


6 Gytos TOU Ocod occursin Mk. i. 24, Lk. 
vi. 34; cf. Acts iii. 14, iv. 27, 30; Rev. 
iii. 7. The expression is not Johannine ; 
but the idea of the Messiah as conse- 
crated or set apart is found in x. 36, 6v0 


Natijp hytace. Peter’s confession here is 


equivalent to his confession at Caesarea 
ynoptic 


Philippi, recorded in the Synop 
capele Ver. 70. amekpiOn . . . EoTLV; 
this reply of Jesus to Peter’s warm- 


hearted confession at first sight seems 
chilling. Peter had Aetmcd for him- 
self and the rest a perfect loyalty ; but 


~this confidence of Peter’s carried in it_a_ 
danger, and must be abated. _ Also it 
was well that the conscience of Judas 


should be pricked. Therefore Jesus 
says: Even in this carefully selected 
circle of men, individually chosen by 
myself from the mass, there is not the 
perfect loyalty you boast.—é& tpav els 
SiaBodos éotiv. Even of you one is a 
devil. Liucke, referring to Esth, vii. 4 
and viii. 1, where Haman is called o 
SiaBodos, as being ‘‘the slanderer,” or 








much more call Judas ‘‘a devil”. Besides 


in the present connection ‘‘traitor”’ is 


quite as startling a word as ‘‘ devil ”’.— 
Ver. 71. Using the knowledge brought 
by subsequent events John explains that 
Judas was meant, édeye 8 TSv ’lovdav 
Lipwvos ‘loxaprdtyy [better loxapretov, 
which shows that the father of Judas was 
also known as Iscariot], é\eye with the 
accusative, meaning ‘‘ He spoke of,” is 
classical, and see Mk: xiv. 71. The 
word ‘‘ Iscariot” is generally supposed 


to be equivalent to nv WN, Ish 


Keriyoth, a man of Kerioth in the tribe 
of Judah (Josh. xv. 25). Cf. Ishtob, a 
man of Tob (Joseph., Ant., vii. 6, 1, 
quoted in Smith’s Dict.). 
_Judas now needs no added surname. 

CHAPTERS -X. 21. Fesus at the 
Feast of Tabernacles, and subsequently 
in Ferusalem. 

CuHapTeR VII. Aé the Feast.—Vv. 1- 
13. The circumstances of His visit to 

By 


> A c 
éyyis 7 
Ch rat c 
Q“uTOV OL 
> , 9 a < , 
loudatav, tva Kat ot pabyTat cou a1, 


The name 


Exod. ii. 

= < ei et - e XXxill. 21. 
€opti] TOv ‘loudatwy Hc Deut. xvi. 
a 16. Lev. 

GdeAdoi adtod, “Metd- xxiii. 34. 


1 Macc. x. 


Ferusalem.—Vv. 14-36. He teaches, and 
discussions regarding Him are evoked.— 
V. 37-end. His manifestation on the last 
day of the Feast, and the consequent action 
of the Sanhedrim.—Ver. 1. Having de- 
scribed the crisis in Galilee the evangelist 
proceeds to describe the various opinions 
and discussions held regarding Jesus in 
Jerusalem. See Sanday, p. 144. In 
chap. vi., a Passover was said to be at 
hand; but Jesus did not go to it, but con- 
tinued to go about teaching in Galilee, 
mepiteTare. 6 ‘Ingots peta Tatra év TH 
FadtAkaig. Although appropriate to a 
single school, wepurdreww denoted gener- 
ally the going about of a teacher with 
his disciples; hence, ‘to dispute,” or 
**to discourse’. ameplaaros in Aristoph., 
Frogs, 907 and 918, means ‘a philo- 
sophical discussion or argumentation”. 
John assigns a reason for Jesus remain- 
ing in Galilee; this, according to Holtz- 
mann and Weiss, proves that he con- 
sidered the Judaean ministry the rule, 
the Galilean the exception. But the 
assigning of a reason may be accounted 
for by the unlikelihood of Jesus remain- 
ing in Galilee after what was recorded 
in chap. vi. His reason for remaining in 
Galilee, even after His rejection there, 
was the active hostility of the Jews, 
é{ytovv avrov ot ’lovdator amoxretvat. 
See ver, 18. Things were not yet ripe 
for His exposing Himself to the hostility 
of the authorities.—Ver. 2. But occasion 
arose for His abandoning His purpose 
to remain in Galilee. qv 8@ .. . 


oxnvornyta. In Hebrew niapn am 


(Lev. xxiii. 34), the Feast of Succoth, or 
Booths, in Greek oxynvornyla, the fixing 
of tents; so called because in this Feast 
the Jews commemorated how their fathers 
had dwelt in tents, and been fed and 
cared for as if in a settled condition. It 
was one of the great Feasts, and as it 
fell in October and Jesus had not at- 
tended the previous Passover, it might 
seem desirable that He should go up to 
Jerusalem now.—Ver. 3. The desirable- 
ness of doing so is urged by His brothers. 
elroy . . . T@ KOGpw. The reason they 


762 


KATA TQANNHN 


VII. 


d Fut.indic. *fewphowor! tad Epya cou & moreis: 4. odSeis yap * év kpuTTo Te 


never in 
classics 


movet, Kal {nret altos 
after «wa; 


. ‘ r » 
freq, in N. davépwoor ceauTov TO Kdopw. 


ton, 199. €mioTevoy eis auTov. 
e Xviil. 20; 


év mappyoia elvas. 


el TadTa Trovets, 
5+ Od8€ ydp fot ddedpot adrod 


6. Aéyer obv adtots 6 “Incois, “>‘O Katpds 6 


~~ ™” ‘ ‘ 2 , , ‘ ie 
commonly €40s oUTw dpeotiv: 6 S€ Katpds 6 buerepos mavToTe eo ETOLLLOS. 


€v T@ K. 


fxi.54. Col. 7. Jo8 Suvarar 6 Kdopos picety Gnas: eve Se pice, Ste éy® paptup® 


il. 15. 


7 -~ a 
e Mk.iii.21. Tept aUTOU, STL Ta Epya atTod movnpd éoti. 


hii. 4; viii 
20. 


” > ‘ ‘ , 2 
els THY EopThy tavTHy °- 
ir Pet. i. 5 


‘@ < x Lee ety | ” ) , » 
j iii. 19; xv, OTL O KaLPOS O E4dg OUTTW ' TETArpwTaL. 


19. ; Sartre 
k Zech. xiv. €pewvev év TH FadtAaia. 
18. Ch. 
xii. 20. 

Mk. x. 32. 
1 Mk. i. 15. 


1 Pewpnoover in NoB*DL. 


eee ” 
eyw OUTTW 


8. Gets * dvdByre 
3 dvaBaivw eis Thy éopriy TavTyp, 


g. Tadta 8€ ela adtots, 


10. ‘Qs dé dvéByoav ot AdeApoi adtod, TéTE Kal adtds avéBn Eis 


? ravtny deleted in modern editions on authority of $caBDKL. 


$ ovx is read in &DKM vet. Lat. vulg. Memph. Arm. Tr. Ti. Meyer, Weiss ; ovtrw 
in BLT syr. Theb. Goth. vulg. codd. aliq. W.H. R.V. 


advanced was ‘that Thy disciples also 
may see Thy works which Thou doest”’. 
Kal of paSyrai gov seems to imply that 
since the Feeding of the Five Thousand 
in April, Jesus had been living in com- 
parative retirement, perhaps at Nazareth. 
At Jerusalem, all who were attached to 
Him would be found at the Feast; and 
the brothers recognise that He would 
then have an opportunity of putting His 
elaims to the proof. ‘‘No one,” they 
say, “‘who seeks public recognition con- 
fines his activities to a hidden and 
private corner.” év wappyoig, as in xi. 
54, means ‘‘openly” or ‘‘in public,” and 
is in direct contrast to évkpumt@. Hav- 
ing laid down the general law, they then 
apply it to Him, ‘‘if (or ‘since,’ not ex- 
pressing doubt) Thou doest these things, 
show Thyself to the world”. Licke, 
following Euthymius, thinks doubt is im- 
plied in «4; but this implies an ignorance 
on the part of the brothers which is in- 
conceivable.—Ver. 5. It is indeed added 
ovdé yap . . . avtdév, “ For not even did 
His brothers believe in Him”; but this 
does not mean that they did not believe 
He wrought miracles, but that they had 
not submitted to His claim to be Messiah. 
They required to see Him publicly ac- 
knowledged before they could believe. 
Therefore this clause is introduced to 
explain why they urged Him to go to 
Jerusalem.—Ver. 6. His answer was 
© KaLpos 0 én6s ovrw TapeoTiV . 

zrouos. The time for my manifestation 
to the authorities as Messiah is not yet 
come; but no time is inappropriate or 


unsafe for you to show yourselves.—Ver. 
7. The reason of the different procedure 
lies in the different relation to the world 
held by Jesus and His brothers. ov 
Svvarar .. . éotiv. There is no danger 
of your incurring the world’s hatred by 
anything you do or say; because your 
wishes and actions are in the world’s 
own spirit. But me the world hates, 
and I cannot at random or on every 
occasion utter to it my claims and pure 
pose, because the very utterance of these 
claims causes it to be conscious that its 
desires are earthly (see chap. vi. passim). 
This hatred of the world compelled Him 
to choose His time for manifesting Him- 
self—Ver. 8. tyeis ... wemArjpwtar 
‘Go ye up to the feast. I go not up yet 
to this Feast, for my time is not yet 
fulfilled.” His time for manifesting Him- 
self publicly was not yet come, and 
therefore He did not wish to go up to 
the feast with His brothers, who were 
eager for some public display. Had He 
gone in their company He would have 
been proclaimed, and would have ap- 
peared to be the nominee of His own 
family. It was impossible He should go 
on any such terms.—Ver. 9. He there- 
fore remained where He was.—Ver. to. 
‘Qs 8 avéBycav ... xpumTg. “But 
when His brothers had gone up, then He 
also went up to the Feast, not openly, 
but, as it were, in secret.’’ That is to 
say, He went up, but not at His brothers’ 
instigation, nor with the publicity they 
had recommended. [Of course if we 
read in ver. 8 €yw ovK avaBalvw a change 





4—16. 


Thy éopthy, ob davepds, GAN’ ds ev KpuTTTO. 


EYATTEAION 


793 


IX. Ot ovv loudator 


~ ~ A ~ =» 
eLntouv attov év tH éopTH, Kal ENeyov, “Mod éotiv éxeivos ; 


12. Kat ™yoyyuopos mots wept adtod fv év tots OxXots. 


ol pev m ix. 16. 


édeyor, “ “Ott dyabds got” GAAor SE Eheyov, “OU- GAAA TAava 


A » ”» 
Tov Ox)ov. 
Tov pdBov Tay “lovdaiwr. 


13. "Oddels pévtor mappyoia eAdder wept adTod, Sd n ix. 22. 
3 ig RRAcLS P 


14. "Hdy 8€ Tis éoptis °pecotons, dvéBy 6 “Inaois els TO Lepdy, o Exod. xii. 


Kat édLoacKe. 
p id Q 2pabicl 
ypdppata olde, pt) pepalykds ; 


kat elev, ““H epi) Si8ayxh obk eotw eu, GAAG TOO TeppavTds pe- 


of mind must be supposed, although not 
the ‘‘inconstantia”’ alleged by Porphyry.] 

Vv. 11-13. Disappointment at Fesus’ 
non-appearance.— Ver. 11. Ot ody 
*lovSaior . . . éxetvos; ‘the Jews,” 
possibly, as usual in John, the authorities 
(so Meyer, Weiss, etc.), and thus in 
contrast to the déxAou of ver. 12 ; but ver. 
15 rather indicates that the term is used 
more generally. They looked for Him, 
expecting that He would appear at least 
at this third feast. They asked rot éoriv 
éxetvos; which Luther, Meyer, etc., 
think contemptuous; but éxetvos cannot 
thus be pressed. Cf. 1 John passim.— 
Ver. 12. Among the masses (év Tots 
SxAots) there was yoyyvopos mods 
regarding Him; not ‘ murmuring,” as 
R.V., but rather ‘whispering,’ sup- 
pressed discussion in low tones, in 
corners, and among friends ; ‘ halblaute 
Mittheilung entgegengesetzter Ansich- 
ten”? (Holtzmann), “ viel im Volke tber 
ihn herumgeredet ” (Weizsacker). Speci- 
mens of this talk are given: ot pév.. . 
dxAov. ‘Some said, He is a good 
man,” a@ya9ds, pure in motive and seek- 
ing to do good. ‘‘ But others said, No: 
but He misleads the multitude” (Mt. 
xxvii. 63, Lk. xxiii. 5), that is, seeks 
to ingratiate Himself with the people 
to serve His own ends.—Ovdels ... 
‘lovdSaiwy. ‘*No one, however, talked 
openly about Him, for fear of the Jews.” 
Until the Jews, the authorities, gave 
their decision, neither party dared to 
utter its opinion openly. 

Vv. 14-36. The teaching of Fesus at 
the Feast of Tabernacles. [Spitta sup- 
poses that the original place of para- 
graph vv. 15-24 was at the end of chap. 
v.] So far as reported this teaching 
is found in three short statements: (1) 
in justification of His authority as a 
teacher ; (2) in assertion of His Divine 
origin ; and (3) of His approaching de- 
parture. This threefold teaching elicited 


15. Kal €OavpaLoy ot ‘loudator Aéyortes, “Nas obtos 


29 ; XXXiv. 
22. 
Dan. i. 4. 


16. "Amexpi0n adtois 6 “Inoods ” Is. xxix 


12. 2 Tim. 
iii. 15. 


expressions of opinion from three parties: 
(1) from ‘‘the Jews” (15-24) ; (2) from 
inhabitants of Jerusalem (25-31); (3) 
from the officers sent to apprehend Him 
(32-36).—Ver. 14. “H8n 8€ tHs éoptys 
pecovons. ‘ But when it was now mid- 
feast,” 7.e., the fourth day. peooty is 
commonly used in this sense: jpépa 
perovoa, midday; Oépos peoovy, mid- 
summer.—aveBy . . . ed(8acxKe. ‘ Jesus 
went up to the temple and taught’; see 
xviii. 20; He did not go to Jerusalem to 
seclude Himself and worship in private, 
nor did He go to proclaim Himself 
explicitly as Messiah. He went and 
taught. His teaching astonished the 
Jews, and they asked Nas otros ypap- 
para olde py pepalykas; It is not His 
wisdom that astonishes them, for even 
uneducated men are often wise; but 
His learning or knowledge. ypdppara 
(Acts xxvi. 24) “included the whole 
circle of rabbinical training, the sacred 
Scriptures, and the comments and tradi- 
tions which were afterwards elaborated 
into the Mishna and Gemara”’ (Plumptre, 
Christ and Christendom). But it cannot 
be supposed that Jesus made Himself 
acquainted with these comments. His 
skill in interpreting Scripture and His 
knowledge of it is what is referred to. 
What the scribes considered their pre- 
rogative, He, without their teaching, 
excelled them in.—Ver. 16. But though 
not received from them, it was a derived 
teaching. He is not self-taught. ‘H éuy 
didaxyn ... pe. The teaching which I 
give has not its source in my know- 
ledge but in Him that sent me. ‘ Der 
Autodidakt in Wahrheit ein Theodidakt 
ist,” Holtzmann. The truest self- 
renunciation is the highest claim. That 
this claim was true He proceeds to show 
(1) from the conviction of every one who 
desired to do God’s will, ver. 17; and 
(2) from His own character, ver. 18.— 
Ver. 17. éav tis... AoA. “If any 


764 KATA TOANNHN Vil. 
aMt.vil-ar. 17, édv mis O€AAn 7d 2OAAHpa adrod moretv, yroerar mepl THs 
ef le Sidaxqs, “worepov €x Tod Oeod eo, H eyo dw é€paurod Aaa. 


r Here only 
in N.T., 
freq. in 
Job. 


> ” 
OUK E€OTLY. 


ts SS S| pees. 
a Rom. ii. Opdv * wovet Tov voor ; 
14, ete, 


t viii. 48. 


, a“ > al » 
Tt pe Lytette GrroKTELvan ; 


18. 6 dd’ éautod hadav, Thy Sdgav Thy iBlav Lyret> 6 dé Lytav thy 
Sdgav rod wéuavtos adrdv, obtos GAnOYs eott, Kal ddikia év adr 
19. 0b Mworjs Sé5wxev! dpiv tov vdpov, kal oddels &f 


20. *’AmexpiOy 


‘ - ~ 
6 dxAog Kal ele, “Aatudviov Exets: Tis oe Lyret doKteivar;” 


21. AmrexpiOn 6 ‘Incods xal elwev adtois, ““Ev épyov émoinoa, kai 


1 eBaxev in BD; Sedwxev in SLT. 


man willeth to do His will, he shall 
know concerning the teaching, whether 
it is of God (or from God) or I speak 
from myself.” As Jesus everywhere 
asserts (v. 46, xviii. 37), he who thirsts 
for God will recognise Him as God’s 
messenger; he who hungers for righteous- 
ness is filled in Jesus; he who ts of the 
truth hears His voice. The teaching of 
Jesus is recognised as Divine by those 
whose purpose and desire it is to be in 
harmony with God.—Ver. 18. There 
are also two different kinds of teachers: 
the one aq’ éavrot Aaday, speaks his own 
mind, teaches his own ideas, does not 
represent God and reveal His mind; 
because he thy Sébav tHv tdlav Cnret, 
«seeks his own glory,” which of course 
cannot be reached by representing him- 
self to be merely the herald of another’s 
glory. The other style of teacher is 
described in the words 6 8€ {nrav . 
éotiv. Plainly He who seeks the glory 
of Him whose ambassador He is, has no 
interest in falsifying matters to advance 
His own interests. If His aim is to 
advance the glory of Him who has sent 
Him, He will truthfully deliver His 
message ; GOs éott, kal adixla . 
and injustice, dishonesty, is not in Him. 
The application of this general principle 
to Jesus was obvious.—Ver. Ig. ov 
Moojs ... aroxteivat. The connec- 
tion is not obvious, but seems to be 
this: You reject my teaching, but that 
is not surprising, for you reject Moses’ 
also (cf. v. 30, 45-47). ‘‘ Did not Moses 
give you the law?” or, ‘Hath not 
Moses given you the law?” [the point of 
interrogation should be after the first 
vopov; none after the second]. ‘“‘ Yet 
none of you keeps it. If you did you 
would not seek to kill me.’’ Was there 
mot a former revelation of God whic 

‘should have prevented you from thits 
violently rejecting my teaching ?—Ver. 
20. This, some of the crowd think 


Sabbath law. 


mere raving. He is a monomaniac 
labouring under a_ hallucination that 
people wish to kill Him.—Aa.pdviov 
... @mwoxreivat; This question, repudi- 
ating the idea that any one _ seéks 
to slay Him, needs no answer and 
gets none.—Ver. 21. Jesus prefers to 
expose the unjustifiable character of the 
hostility which pursued Him (ver. 16). 
Referring to the miracle wrought at 
Bethesda, and which gave occasion to 
this hostility, He says év épyov... 
oaBBdartw. One single work I did and ye 
all marvel [are horrified or scandalised]; 
for this same object, of imparting health, 


Sz _circumcision is per- 
formed, lest the law of Moses be broken, 
are ye angry at me for making a man 
every whit whole [or rather, for making 
an entire or whole man healthy] on the 
Sabbath day? The argument is obvious ; 
and its force is brought out by the anti- 
thetical form of the sentence: the év 
€pyov of the healing of the impotent man 
is contrasted with the continuous ordi- 
nance of circumcision, and so the aorist 
is used of the one, the perfect of the 
other. In ver. 23 wepttopyy AapBaver 
is contrasted with Sdov avOpwrov tyiq, 
the partial and symbolic with the complete 
and actual soundness. The argument is 
all the more telling because a ‘‘ vis medi- 
catrix,” as well as a ceremonial purity 
(but vide Meyer), was ascribed to circum- 
cision [“praeputium est vitium in cor- 
pore’’]. Wetstein quotes from a Rabbi 
a singularly analogous argument: “Si 
circumcisio, quae fit in uno membrorum 
248 hominis, pellit Sabbatum, quanto 
magis verum est, conservationem vitae 
Sabbatum pellere?” The parenthesis 
in ver. 22, ovx OTL... watépwy, is ap- 
parently thrown in for accuracy’s sake, 
lest some captious persons should divert 


17—27. 


mdvtes Saundfere. 


~ \ A 
Topi, obx STL ek TOD Mwoews Eotiv, GAN’ ék Tov Tatépwy: Kat év 


caBBdtw tepitéwvete dvOpwror. 


EYATTEAION 


765 


22. "81a Toto Mwors Sédwxev duty tiv tepi-u Lev. xii. 


3. Gen. 
XVii. 10. 


23. €l TeptToiyy AapBdver dvOpw- 


tos év aaBBdtw, iva pi uO 6 vépos Mwodéws, éemot ” xohate Sti v3 Mace. iii 
I 


ddov avOpwrov byt émoinoa ev caBBdtw ; 
Ov, GAAA Thy Bixatay Kkptow Kpivate.”! 25. “EXeyov obv tues 


24. “wh Kpivete kar w Deut. i. 
16, Zech 
Vii. 9. 


a ¢ a A ~ 
€k TOV ‘lepocohupitav, “OX obtéds éot dv LyTodow dmoKTeiva ; 


26. kai iSe mappyoia adel, Kal oldév atta héyouar. 
GyPds eyvwoav of Apxovtes, Str obTds Eat aAnVGS? 6 Xprotds ; 


x , ee 

[en TOTE x Gen. xvii. 
18. Jud. 
iii. 24. 


27. GAG TobTov oidapev wdbev eotiv: 6 SE Xpictds Stay Epxyrar, 


1 kpwere in BDL; kpivate $QXT. 


2 adnOws deleted by modern editors as in NBDKL. 


attention from the argument by objecting 
to the statement that Moses had “‘given” 
them circumcision. The reference of 81a 
rovTo in the same verse is obscure. Some 
editors join these words with Baupalere ; 
but although in Mk. vi. 6 81a follows 
Oavyalew, this construction does not 
occur in John. Besides, John frequently 
begins his sentences with 81a totro ; and 
if ver. 22 begins with Mwo7js, such a 
commencement is certainly abrupt. Re- 
taining 81a rovro as part of ver. 22, the 
words might be understood thus: ‘‘I have 
done one work and ye all marvel: there- 
fore (be it known unto you) Moses has 
given you,” etc., z.e., “I will remove 
your astonishment: you yourselves per- 
form circumcision,” etc. See Winer, 
p- 68. So Holtzmann, and Weizsacker, 
who renders: ‘‘Darum: Moses hat 
euch,” etc. This gives a good sense, 
but surely the ellipsis is too severe. 
Holtzmann’s reference to vi. 65 tells 
rather against it, for there etpynKa is 
added. May 8&4 totro not mean, ‘on 
this account,” z.e., for the same reason as 
I had in healing the impotent man, did 
Moses give youcircumcision? I did one 
work of healing and ye marvel. But 
with a similar object Moses gave you 
circumcision. This seems best to suit 
the words and the context. He adds to 
His argument the comprehensive advice 
of ver. 24. py Kplvere kat’ Oi... 
kpivate. ‘“‘ Judge not according to ap- 
pearance:” Kat’ iu, according to what 
presents itself to the eye; the Pharisaic 
vice. In appearance the healing of the 
impotent man was a breach of the 
Sabbath-law. Ne righteous judgment 
‘can be come to if appearances decide. 

Or kpiav xplvewv, cf. Plato Rep., 360 E ; 


and cf. otxtaw olketv, Badifew d8dv, 
Tweoelv Tropara, etc. 

Vv. 25-31. Opinion of inhabitants of 
SFerusalem regarding Fesus. Knowing 
the hostility of the authorities, they ex- 
press surprise that Jesus should be al- 
lowed to teach openly; and wonder 
whether the authorities themselves can 
have changed their opinion about Him. 
This they find it difficult to believe, 
because on the point of origin Jesus does 
not satisfy Messianic requirements. — 
Ver. 25. ~EAXeyov ovv, in consequence of 
the bold denunciation which they had 
heard from the lips of Jesus. tivés ek 
tav ‘leporodvpttayv [or ‘leporohvpertay, 
or ’lepooodvpetrav], distinct irom the 
dxAos of ver. 20, which was unaware of 
any intention to kill Him; but them- 
selves not so familiar as the Galileans 
with the appearance of Jesus, and there- 
fore they asked: Ovx otros . . . A€yovor. 
Or the words may only be a strong way 
of expressing their astonishment at the 
inactivity of the authorities. pymore 
GdnOas . . . 0 Xptaotds; ‘Can it be that 
the rulers indeed know that this man is 
the Christ?”’ But this idea, again, is at 
once dismissed, GAAG TotTov . . . éorty. 
“ Howbeit we know this man whence He 
is: but when the Christ comes, no one 
knows whence He is.” There was a 
general belief that the Christ would 
spring from David’s line and be born in 
Bethlehem ; see ver. 42. The words “no 
one knows whence He is” must refer to 
the belief encouraged by the Apocalyptic 
literature that He would appear suddenly 
“in the clouds” or “from the sun”. Cf. 
4 Ezra vii. 28, xili. 32, Apoc. Baruch 
xiii. 32; with Mr. Charles’ note; and 
other passages cited in Drummond's 


766 


yxiigg.  o08els yevohoner wd0ev eoriv.” 


Exod. 


KATA IQANNHN 


Vil. 


28. "Expater obv év 76 tep@ Siddok wv 


« A > 
xxii. 23. 6 ‘Inoods Kat héywr, “ Kape oidate, kal oidare wé0ev eipi> Kal * di 


zV. 19. 


aHeb.x.22.€nauTod odx éAnduda, GAN Eorw *GAyOivds 6 wéppas pe, bv Spets 


Rev. iii. 
14. 
b vi. 46, etc. as 
c Freq. in Pe Gméoreey. 
John;also ,_, 


. e 
Acts iii. 7;€™T€Badev €w adrov Thy xelpa, Ste 
Moddot Se ek Tod Sxdou emicteuoay eis attov, Kal Edeyor, 


xi. 4. 2 
Cor. xi.32. 3l. 


odk oldate* 29. ey B€ olda adtév, dt. > wap adTod eipt, KdKelvds 
30. “Efjtouv otv adrév *mdoar: Kai oddeis 


*odmw édnddOer 4 dpa adtod. 


dil 4: YUL "Or § Xpiotds Stay EXOy, pyre! whelova onpeta ToUTwr? romjoet 


20, etc, 
ef * > , 2 
eAttrac.cp.° @¥ OUTOS ETOLyCEY ; 
Zeph. iil. 
Il. 


f ver. 30. 


ol dpxtepeis Smypétas, tva *mdowow adtév. 


32. “Hkougav ot dapicator tod oxAou 


yoyy’forvtos epi adtod taita: kal daéotethav ot Papioaton Kal 


33: elev obv adtots 


g Is. liv.7. 6 "Inoods, “"Ert ® pixpdv xpdvov pel Spay e€ipt, kai bmdyw mpos Tov 


1un in NBDL, 


Messiah, 279 ff. Different sections of 
the community may have had different 
expectations. The surmises of the Jeru- 
salemites came to the ears of Jesus, and 
stirred Him to further and more emphatic 
statements, “Expatev otv év T@ ltepo. 
From the repetition of the words ‘‘in the 
Temple,” Westcott gathers that a break 
occurred between this scene and the last; 
but this idea seems to be precluded by 
the continuity of the conversation. Jesus 
takes up the words of the doubters, Kapeé 
oidate ... Some interpreters think 
there is a touch of irony in the first 
clauses; thus Weizsacker translates: 
“So? mich kennet ihr und wisset wo 
ich her bin? Und doch bin ich,” etc. 
Similarly Licke and Godet. But this 
is unnecessary. Jesus concedes their 
ability to identify Him as the carpenter 
of Nazareth. This knowledge they had ; 
but the knowledge which they had not 
was of far greater importance. To know 
my native place and to be able to recog- 
nise me as Jesus is not enough; for I am 
not come at my own prompting. To 
deduce from your knowledge of my 
origin that I am a _ self-constituted 
prophet and therefore not the Messiah, 
is to mistake; for I am not come of 
myself. To know me apart from Him 
that sent me is empty knowledge. He 
that sent me has a real existence, and 
is not a fancy of mine. “You indeed do 
mot know Him ; but I know Him because 
from Him I have my being and He has 
sent me. Weiss rightly observes that 
6tt (ver. 29) does not include Kaketvos 
pe améoretkev under its government. 
Jesus knew the Father because He was 
from Him; but His being sent was the 


2 rovrev omitted in BDL. 


result, not the cause, of His knowledge. 
These statements exasperated the Jews, 
(ver. 30) ’Ef{yjtrovw oty avtov macat, 
They sought to seize or apprehend Him. 
mudalw, Doric and Hellenistic for méLa, 
“IT press”; in later Greek ‘‘1 catch” 
(xxi. 3), ‘‘I arrest,” ver. 32, etc. But 
ovSels éréBadev “ no one laid hands [or, 
‘his hand,’ R.V.] upon Him, for His 
hour was not yet come’’; the immediate 
cause being that they were not all of one 
mind, and feared resistance on the part 
of some of the people.—Ver. 31. For, 
mohhot ... Here as usual alongside 
of the hostility evoked by the deeds and 
words of Jesus faith also was evoked; 
faith which suggested covertly that He 
might be the Messiah. 6 Xptorés Stav 
@\6y, ‘‘ When the Christ comes will He 
do more signs than this man has done?” 

Vv. 32-36. The Sanhedrim takes 
action regarding Fesus.—Ver. 32. 
“Hxovoav ...avtév. The Pharisees, 
perceiving that many of the people were 
coming under the influence of Jesus, 
determined to put a stop to His teach- 
ing, and persuaded the Sanhedrim [ot 
Gpxtepets Kal of Papicaior] to send 
officers to apprehend Him.—Ver. 33. 
elev ovv avtois [avrots omitted by 
modern editors] €rt pixpov ypovov .. . 
wépavrd we. Seeing the servants of 
the Sanhedrim [otv], Jesus said to the 
crowd: ‘ Yet a little while am I with 
you, and then I go to Him that sent 
me”, The ‘little while’’ is prompted 
by the actively hostile step taken by the 
Sanhedrim. The utterance was a word 
of warning. trdyw does not convey any 
sense of secrecy, as has been alleged. 
[It has been supposed that tov wépavTa 


28—37. 


EYATTEAION 


767 


wtéupartd pe. 34. "Lntyceré pe, kal odx edpycete- Kal Sirou eipt h Hos. v. 6. 


éy, Guets od Suvacbe édOetv.” 


35- Etmov odv ot “loudSator Tpos 


€autous, “Mod obtos péAer mopedeoQar, Str Hpeis obx cbprjcopev 


auto ; 
kat Sisdokeww tovs “EAAnvas ; 
ZyntnoeTé pe, Kal ovX ebpyoeTeE- 


3 


Suvacbe éedOer ; 
37. Ev 8€ rH eoxdry tpépa * 


> ~ A » , 
Ingots, kat éxpage héywr, 


pe is a Johannine addition; chiefly 
because of ver. 35. But this misunder- 
standing proves nothing; for the people 
never apprehended who was meant by 
“Him that sent Him’”’.]—Ver. 34. In 
ver. 34 He views with pity (cf. “O 
Jerusalem, Jerusalem,” etc.) their too 
late awakening to a sense of their need: 
Cyryjoeré pe Kal ovK evpyoere. “ The 
tragic history of the Jewish people since since 
their rejection of Jesus as Christ is con- 
densed into these words,” Reith. Cf. 
Lk. xvii. 22, “The days will come when 
ye shall desire to see one of the days of 
the Son of Man, and ye shall not see 
it”; also Lk. xix. 43, 44; and Is. lv. 6. 
€ikds yap moddots .. . Cyteiv adtov 
Bonfov Kai paddov akioKkopevwy ‘lepoco- 
Avpwv, Euthymius. Even though they 
may then know where He has gone, 
they cannot follow Him, éaov eipi éyo 
Upets ov Sivacbe édOetv, “ where I am” 
[not ety, “I will go ”, i.e., in the 
presence of Him that sent me, “ye 
_cannot,” as ye now are and by your own 
"strength, “come”. For the full mean- 
ing See chap. vill. 21-24.—Ver. 35. This 
was quite unintelligible to the Jews, 
elroy ovv . .. eAGetv. The only méan- 
ing they could put upon His words was 
that, finding no reception among the 
Jews of Judaea and Galilee, He intended 
to go to the Jews of the Dispersion and 
teach them and the Greeks among whom 
they lived. The 8:acmopa trav “EXAjvev 
does not mean, as Chrysostom and 
Euthymius suppose, the Gentiles 81a 7d 
SteomdpOat wavrayod, but the Jews dis- 
persed among the Gentiles, see Deut. 
XXVill..25, Jers XxxXiv. 17, 1 bet. 1. 1 Jas: 
1 (cf. Schiirer, Div. II., vol. ii., and 
Morrison, Fews under Roman Rule). 
But the following clause, cal 8.8dacke.v 
Tous “EAAnvas, indicates that they sup- 
posed He might teach the Greeks them- 
selves ; thus tgnorantly anticipating the 
course Christianity took; what seemed 
unlikely and impossible to them became 


‘Edy Tis 


py cis Thy ‘Stacmopdy tOv )EAAjvwv pédder TtopedecOar, POO 


36. tis eat ovtos 6 héyos oy ettre, Deut 
XXX1i. 26. 
kat, “Ozrou eipi éya, Gets od j xii. 20. Is 

ib a 12. 


TH peyadn THs Eoptis etotyKer 6 k xix. 31. 


Exod. xii. 
16. 


Supa, épxéoOw mpds pe kat 
actual.—tis éotiv otros 6 déyos... 
The saying has impressed itself on their 
memory, though they find it unin- 
telligible. How they could not go where 
He could, they could not fathom. Cf, 
Peter’s ‘“‘ Lord, why can I not follow 
Thee now?” and the whole conversa- 
tion, chap. xiii. 33-xiv. 6, ““No one 
comes to the Father but through me”. 

~ Vv. 37-44. $esus proclaims His ability 
to quench human thirst with living water, 
—Ver. 37. év 8¢ rH eoydry hppa . . . 
This exact specification of time is given 
that we may understand the significance 
of the words uttered by Jesus. _The 
Feast_of Tabernacles lasted for Seven 
days (Lev. xxiii. 34, Neh. viii. 18), and. 
on the eighth day was “an holy convo- 
cation,” on which the people celebrated 
their entrance into the holy land, aban- 
doning their booths, and returning to their 
ordinary dwellings. On each of the 
seven feast days water was drawn in a 
golden pitcher from the pool of Siloam, 
and carried in procession to the Temple, 
in commemoration of the water from the 
rock with which their fathers in the 
desert had been provided. On _ the 
eighth day, which commemorated their 
éntrance into “a Jand of springs of 
water,’ this ceremony was discontinued. 
But the deeper ‘spirits must have 
viewed with some misgiving all this 
ritual, feeling still in themselves a 
thirst which none of these symbolic 
forms quenched, and wondering when 
the vision of Ezekiel would be re- 
alised, and a river broad and deep 
would issue from the Lord’s house: 
Filled with these misgivings they sud- 
denly hear a voice, clear and assured, 
"Edy tis Supd, épxéobw mpds pe Kal 
mivérw: that is, whatever natural wants 
and innocent “cravings “and = spiritual 
aspirations men have, Christ undertakes 
to satisfy them every one. To this 
general invitation are added words so 
enigmatical that John finds it necessary 


768 


KATA TOANNHN 


VIL. 


muvérw* 38. 5 moter eis ene, Kabs elrev  ypaph, ToTapol 


lEzek.iii.3.'&k tijs xothiag adtod pevcouow datos Ladvtos.” 


Zech. xiv. 


2 see 
xviii. 4. 


39. Todto 8é 


3. Prov. ele mepl rod Mvedparos oF EnehNov apPBdvew ot moredovtes eis 


m xii, 16; adTév: oUmw yap Hy Mvedpa “Aytov,! Ste 6 “Inaods oddSémw ™ed0éd00n. 


xiii. 391; 
XVii. I. 


got &dnOGs & mpodytys.” 
Xpiotds.” “AdAor S€ EXeyor, 


n Ps. cxxxii. , rere x 
11. EpXeTat; 42. obxXl H ypady 


40. modKol odv €x Tod 6xou dkovcavtes Tov éyov,” EXeyor, “ Obtds 


41. “Adar Eeyov, “ Obrds éoti 6 
“Mi yap ék THs TaktAalas 6 Xprotds 
eiev, Ott “€x TOU arépparos Aafid, 


; oe kal dd BynO\ecu, THS Kons Strou Av AaBid, & Xpuotds Epyerac ; ” 


1 wrveupa aytov SeSopevov in B Syr. (Harcl.-Hier). 


amvevpia without addition in 


NSKTM Memph. Arm, Aeth. Cyr.-Alex. adopted by T.Tr.W.H. 


2 rwv Aoywy in all modern editions with BDL it. vulg. 


to explain their reference.—Ver. 38. 6 
mirtevwy . . . Cavros. [The nominative 
absolute is common.] No Scripture gives 
the words verbatim, Is. Ivili. 11 has: 
“The Lord shall satisfy thy soul in 
drought: and thou shalt be like a watered 
garden, and like a spring of water whose 
‘waters failnot’”’. Cf. John iv. 14. The 
words seem to intimate that the believer 
shall_ not only have his own thirst 
quenched, but shall be a source of new 
streams for the good of others (O. Holtz- 
mann). A remarkably analogous saying 
is quoted by Schoettgen from the Tal- 
mud: ‘Quando homo se convertit ad 
Dominum suum, tanquam fons aquis 
vivis impletur, et fluenta ejus egrediuntur 
ad omnis generis homines et ad omnes 
tribus’’. At the same time it is not easy 
to see the relevancy of the saying if this 
meaning be attached to it, and the saying 
of John iv. 14 is so similar that it seems 
preferable to understand it in the same 
sense, of the inseparableness and inward- 
ness of the living water. Those who 
advocate the other meaning can certainly 
find confirmation for their view in the 
explanation added by John.—Ver. 39. 
toute... ée0fde0n, for these words 
apparently refer to Pentecost, the initial 
outpouring of the Spirit, when it once 
for all became manifest that the Spirit’s 
presence did not turn men’s thoughts in 
upon themselves, and their own spiritual 
anxieties and prospects, but prompted 
them to communicate to all men the 
blessings they had received. From the 
little group in the upper room “rivers” 
did flow to all. But the appended clause, 
ovUTw yap qv Mvetpa “Aytoyv, is difficult. 
The best attested reading (see critical 
note) gives the meaning: ‘The Spirit 
was not yet, because Jesus was not yet 
[ovrw, not ovSerw| glorified”. e0fac0q 


with John signifies the entire process of 
glorification, beginning with and includ- 
ing His death (see chap. xii. 23, 32, 33); 
but especially indicating His recognition 
by the Father as exalted Messiah (see 
chap. xvii. I, 5, xiii. 31). _Until He 
thus became Lord the Spirit was not 
‘given. and the gift ofthe Spirit at Pente- 
cost was recognised as the grand proof 
and sign that He had reached the posi- 
tion of supremacy in the moral universe. 
(See especially Acts ii. 32, 33.) The 
Spirit could not be given before in His 
fulness, because until Christ no man 
could receive Him in His fulness. Christ 


was the lens in whom all the scattered 


tays were gathered. And it is always 
and only by accepting Christ as perfect 


“humanity, and by finding in Him our 


norm and ideal, that we receive the 
Spirit. It is by the work of the Spirit 
on the human nature of Christ that we 
are made aware of the fulness and beauty 
of that work. It is there we see what 
the Spirit of God can make of man, and 
apprehend His grace and power and 
intimate affinity to man.—Ver. 40. The 
immediate results of this declaration were 
twofold. In some faith was elicited: 
many of the crowd said: ‘‘ This is of a 
truth the prophet”’; others, going a step 
further, said: ‘‘ This is the Christ”. On 
the relation of “the prophet” to “the 
Christ,” see on i. 21.—Ver. 41. But 
others, either honestly perplexed, or 
hostile to Christ, and glad to find Scrip- 
ture on their side, objected, py yap é« 
THs TadtX\alas 6 Xptorés Epxetar; “ But 
does the Christ come out of Galilee?” 
[Hoogeveen explains the yap by resolving 
the sentence into a double statement: 
“ Others said this is not the Christ: for 
Christ will not come out of Galilee”. 
The yap assigns the reason for the denial 


— le ee 





38—49. 


43. Zxiopa obv ev 1G Sxhw eyevero Si. adrdy. 


EYATTEAION 


769 
44. Twés Sé€ 7Oedov 


n~ > mn a 
€€ attav Pridoat abtév, GAN’ obSels téréBadev ew adtdy Tas XELpas. p ver. 30. 


45- WAOov ovv ot bmypétar mpds Tos dpxLepets Kal Papicatous - 


‘ = > ~ > a t4 , > r2 , ee, 2» 
KQL €LTOY QUTOLS EKELVOL, Avatt ouK ynyoyete QUTOV ; 


q Gen. xxii. 
12. 


46. T XViil. 28. 
Jer.xlvi.7. 


"AtrexplOyaay ot Smyperar, “OdSéroTe obTws eAddycev avOpwros, 


@s otTos 6 dvOpwiros.” 


> , A an 
47. AmekptOnoav obv adtots ot apicator, 


A ~ , ~ , 
“Mh kat Gpers memAdvnOOe ; 48. py Tus EK TOV * dpydvTwy emloTeEUCEY s ver. 26; iii. 


eis adTov, H ek Tav Papicatwy ; 


already hinted in the aAdor 8é intro- 
ducing a contrary opinion to that already 
expressed.] They knew that Jesus was 
a Galilean, and this clashed with their 
idea that the Christ was to be born of 
the seed of David and in Bethlehem; an 
idea founded on Micah v. 2; Is, xi. 1; 
Jer. xxiii. 5. Bethlehem is here called 
the kopn Smov jv AaBid [or Aaveid, 
which gives the same pronunciation], 
because there David spent his youth; 
I Sam. xvi. I, 4, etc.—Vv. 43, 44. 
Xxlopa . . . xetpas. On this verse 
Calvin has the following pertinent re- 
mark: ‘‘quaecunque dissidia emergunt 
quum praedicatur Evangelium, eorum 
causa et semen prius in hominibus late- 
bant; sed tunc demum quasi ex somno 
expergefacti se movere incipiunt, qualiter 
vapores aliunde quam a sole procreantur, 
quamvis nonnisi exoriente sole emer- 
gant”. To this divided state of opinion 
He owed His immunity on this occasion. 

Vv. 45-52. Anger of the Sanhedrim 
on receiving the report of their officers.— 
Ver. 45. 7ABov otv . . . airdv. It now 
appears that the ov8els of the preceding 
clause applies even to the officers sent_by 
the Sanhedrim. They returned empty- 
handed mpds Tots apxtepets kal Papic- 
atous, that is, as the single article shows, 
to the Sanhedrim, or at any rate to these 
parties acting together and officially. 
What follows indicates rather that they 
were met as a court. They [é€ketvor 
regularly refers tothe more remote noun; 
but here, although in the order of the 
sentence the trypétat are more remote, 
they are nearer in the writer’s mind, 
and he uses éxetvor of the priests and 
Pharisees] at once demand the reason of 
the failure, Avati otx yydyere adrdv; 
“Why have ye not brought Him?’” 
Apparently they were sitting in expecta- 
tion of immediately questioning Him. 
—Ver. 46. The servants frankly reply: 
ovdémote .. . avOpwiros. The  testi- 
mony is notable, because the officers 
of a court are apt to be entirely 


49. Gd’ 6 GxXos obTos 6 ph 


I. 


mechanical and leave all responsibility 
for their actions with their superiors, 
Also it is remarkable that the same 
result should have found place with 
them all; for in view of the divided 
state of public feeling, probably five or 
six at least would be sent.—Ver. 47. 
But their apology only rouses the in- 
dignation of those who had sent them, 
p] Kat tpets memrdvnobe; _Are ye also, 
of whom better things might have 
been expected, deluded ?—py tis... 
Papicaiwv; What right have sub- 
ordinates to have a mind of their own? 
Wait till some of the constituted autho- 
rities or of the recognised leaders of 
religious opinion give you the cue. Here 
the secret of their hostility is out. Jesus 
appealed to the people and did not 
depend for recognition on the influential 
classes. Power was slipping through 
their_fingers.—aAN’ 0 OxAos.. . Eton. 
“But this mob [these masses] that knows 
not the law are cursed.”” This Pharisaic 
scorn of the mob [or ‘“‘am-haarets,”’ 
which is here represented by 6xAos] 
appears in Rabbinic literature. Dr. 
Taylor [Sayings of the Fewish Fathers, 
p- 44] quotes Hillel as saying: ‘‘ Nc 
boor is a sin-fearer; nor is the vulgar 
pious”’. To the Am-haarets are opposed 
the disciples of the learned in the law; 
and Schoettgen defines the Am-haarets 
as ‘‘omnes illi qui studio sacrarum 
literarum operam non dederunt”. The 
designation, therefore, 6 py ywoeoKkwv 
Tov vépov, was usual. That it was 
prompted here by the popular recogni- 
tion as Messiah of one who came out of 
Galilee, in apparent contradiction of the 
law and of the opinion of the Pharisees, 
is also probable. People so ignorant as 
thus to blunder émukatdparot eciot.— 
Ver. 50. To this strong expression one 
of their own number (and therefore to 
their great surprise), Nicodemus, the 
same person who had visited Jesus 
under cover of night, takes exception 
and makes a protest. [Tisch. deletes 


49 


KATA IQANNHN VII. 50—53. 


770 


ywoéoxwy Tov vopov, émkatdpatoi! eict.” 50. Adyet Nikddnpos 
mpds adtods, 6 éXOwy vuKtds? mpds adtédv, ets dy ef adtav, 51. “Mi 

tMt.xv.rr 6 vépos tay Kpiver ‘tov dvOpwiov, éav pr dxodon map’ adtod 
8 ‘ A“ , A 3 > , 4 t een) 

TpoTEpov,® Kal yv@ TL Tovet ; 52. Amexpi@yoav Kal elroy abté, 


u2Kingsx. ““M} kal od ék ths Fadtdalas et; 
23. 


m> , Nom oe 
€pedvngov Kal ide, STL mpo- 


ytns éx THs FadtXalas odk éynyeptar.”* 53. Kat® émopedOn 


e > a a < ~ 
€KQOTOS ELS TOY OLKOV QUTOU. 


‘ ewaparo. adopted by T.Tr.W.H.R. as in NB 1, 33, and as the word appears in 
the classics; but T.R. gives the word as used by the Sept. and in Gal. iii. 14. 


2 vuxros omitted by Tr.W.H.R.; W.H. read 0 eAOwv mpos avrov mpotepov; Tisch. 
omits the clause altogether ; MS. authority is divided. 


3 rpwrov in NBDKL rf, 33. 


4 eyerperar read by T.Tr.W.H.R. after QBDK it. vulg. Pesh. syr. Aegypt. Goth. 
Arm. Aeth, 


5 The closing words of the chapter, kat eropevOn exaoros ets Tov oLKOv avTov, 
belong to the next paragraph, which is rejected by recent editors, and ends with 
ver. 11 of chap. vill. at the words pete apaptave. The entire paragraph is 
awanting in NABCL {A and C are imperfect at this part, but a calculation of space 
required shows they cannot have contained the passage) ; about seventy cursives ; 
a, f, q, Theb. Goth., best Pesh. MSS., Memph., Arm.; Chrys., Cyr.-Alex. The 
paragraph is first found in Codex Bezae, after which it appears in several uncials 
and more than 300 cursives, in b*, c,e; Vulg., Syr.-Hier., Aeth., etc. The Greek 
commentators, Origen, Theodor. Mops., Chrysostom, Cyril, Theophylact, pass it by, 
and Euthymius, although he comments on it, expressly says that in accurate MSS. 
ym ovx evpntat my wBeAtotar. It rather interrupts the narrative at this point, and 
besides contains several words not elsewhere found in John: op@pov, o Aaos, ot 
ypappateis, avayaptytos. At the same time the incident may well be a genuine 
tradition, and, as Calvin says, “nihil apostolico spiritu indignum continet,” and 
therefore ‘‘non est cur eam in usum nostrum accommodare recusemus”. See 


further in Spitta, Zur Gesch, d. Urchristentums, i. 194; Conybeare’s article 


in Expositor, 5th series, il. 405. 


the clause 6 é\Oav vukrds mpds aitév, 
and no doubt it has quite the appearance 
ofa gloss. At the same time it is John’s 
manner thus to identify persons named. 
And at xix. 39 the similar clause is not 
deleted.] This was a bold step. For 
he must have known it was useless; and 
he might have persuaded himself to 
evade all risk by silence. His remon- 
strance is based on their implied claim 
to know the law: pyovépos . . . move; 
their own action is suspiciously like a 
violation of the law. ‘‘ Does our law 
pass judgment on the suspected person 
before it first hears him and knows what 
he is guilty of doing?” _For the law 
regarding trials see Deut. 1. 16 and 
Stapfer’s Palestine, p. 108, on the ad- 
ministration of justice. The construc- 
tion is simple; ‘the law’’ which the 
Sanhedrim administered is the nomina- 
tive throughout.—Ver. 52. This re- 
monstrance is exasperatingly true, and 
turns the bitterness of the Pharisaic 
party on Nicod mus, py kal... 


Cf Mkixiven7zo. 


éyjyeptar. ‘Art thou also, as well as 
Jesus, from Galilee, and thus dis- 
posed to befriend your countryman?” 
By this they betray 
that their own hostility was a merely 
personal matter, and not founded on 
careful examination. ‘‘ Search and see, 
because [or ‘that ’] out of Galilee there 
arises no prophet.” That is, as Westcott 
interprets, ‘‘ Galilee is not the true 
country of the prophets: we cannot look 
for Messiah to come from thence”’. 
They overlooked the circumstance that 
one or two exceptions to this rule ex- 
isted. 

CHAPTER VIII.—Ver. 1. wat érropevOn 
éxagtos . . . The position of these 
words almost necessitates the under- 
standing that the members of the San- 
hedrim are referred to. But in this case 
the contrast conveyed in the next clause, 
*Incous S€é erropevln, is pointless,—eis To 
Opos Tov éXatay, to the Mount of Olives. 
Cf. Mt. xxiv. 3, xxvi. 30; Mk. xiii. 3. 
Lodging probably in the house of 





a <-- 


VIII, 1—6. 


EYAITEAION 


771 


VIII. 1. *IHZOYE 8€ eropedOn eis “7d Spos Tay "EXatwy* 2. a Zech. xiv. 
> ALe 4 LY A ra ” 4: 
*SpOpou Se mdduv °mapeyéveto eis TO Lepdov, Kat mas 6 hads npyxeTo b Esther v. 


, 
mpos attév: Kal “xabioas édi3acKxev adtous. 


CQULLATELS KaL OL Paptoato. mpds 
yep p p 


e x , ‘ , 3% > , dé x, A 
KQTELANMMEVYY, KAL GTNOAYTES AuUTHV EV peow, 4. eyouoty QUTO, I. 


“ AdoKkahe, atty 
5. €v S€ TO vopw 
Aetobar *- 


CLs, \ o hy tal FY a 
GUTOV, LYa = =EXwWOL KATY YOpEeLv QuTou. 


N a , , 2» 
ov ouvv TL éyes; 


f Num. v. 13. 


1 katevAnmrat is read by W.H.R., karetAnpOy by early editors. 
both forms occur; see Kypke and Veitch. 


2 Gale in Tr.W.H.R. 


Lazarus, He returned to the city before 
dawn (ver. 2) 6p@pov 5é wad rapeyévero 
eis TO tepov. Plato, Protag., 310 A, 
reckons dp8pos a part of the night.—kat 
mas 0 Aads pxETO, z.c., those designated 
© dxAos in the preceding chapter.—xal 
xaQicoas, and He sat down and began to 
teach them. But this quiet and profit- 
able hour was broken in upon.—Ver. 3. 
Gyovor Sé of ypappatets . . . KaTetAnp- 
pevnv. The scribes and the Pharisees, 
who in the synoptics regularly appear as 
the enemies of Jesus, bring to Him a 
woman taken in adultery. In itself an 
unlawful thing to do, for they had a 
‘court in which the woman might have 
‘been tried. “Obviously it was to find 
‘occasion against Him that they brought 
her; see ver. 6. They knew He was 
prone to forgive sinners.—xat orjoaytes 
. . . TE A€yerss “ And having set her in 
the midst,’’ where she could be well seen 


by all; a needless and shameless pre- — 
they say to Him, Teach 


liminary, ‘“‘ they say im, Teacher,” 
appealing to Him with an appearance of 
deference, ‘‘ this woman here has been 
apprehended in adultery in the very 
act”, ém attodwpy is the better read- 
ing. Originally meaning ‘caught in 
the act of theft” (pdp), it came to mean 

enerally ‘‘ caught in the act,”’ red-hand. 
ar also as the instances cited by Kypke 
show, it frequently meant ‘‘on incon- 
‘trovertible evidence,” ““manifestly ”’. 
Thus in Xeén., Symp., iii. 13, éw’ aito- 
popw ciAnppar wAovot@Tatos dv, ] am 
evidently convicted of being the richest. 
See also Wetstein and Elsner.—Ver. 5. 
év 82 7G vop@ ... ArGoBoreioOar. In 
Lev. xx. 10 and Deut. xxii. 22 death is 
fixed as the penalty of adultery; but 
“stoning ” as the form of death is only 


Hh yur, KatedynOy | *emautoddpw porxevopern. 
Mwoiis tpiv éveteihato tds tovattas * \BoBo- 
6. Toito d€ Eheyov meipdLovtes 


g 1 Sam. xxx. 6. Deut. xxii. 24. 


“violated, Deut. xxii. 


” BY c ia 
3+ Gyoucr S€ ot xxiv. 1. 
> 5 5 js Acts v. 21. 
adtéy yuvatka é€v porxetac With cis 
in Mt. ii. 
Acts 
ix. 26 (?). 
Acts xiii. 
14; XV. 4; 
commonly 
™pos OF 
ert. 


Pa U9 Gon ae 


6 B€ “Ingods Kdtw kUpas, TO e Exod. xxii, 


Mei: 
h xvi. 12. 2 Jo. 12. 


In the classics 


specified when a betrothed virgin is 
23, 24. And the 
‘Rabbis held that where death simply 
was spoken of, strangling was meant 
[‘‘omnis mors dicta in Lege simpliciter 
non est nisi strangulatio”). It is sup- 
posed therefore that by ras tovavras 
the accusers refer to the special class to 
which this woman belonged. The words 
themselves do not suggest that; and 
it is better to suppose that these lawyers 
who had brought the woman understood 
“stoning” when ‘“death’’ without 
further specification was mentioned. 
See further in Lightfoot and Holtzmann. 
—ot ovtv ti héyets;  ‘‘ What then sayest 
Thou?” as if it were possible He might 
give a decision differing from that of the 
Taw.— Ver. 6. rovto 8... avtov. 
“And this they said tempting Him,” 
poping that His habitual pity would 
ead Him to exonerate the woman. [‘ Si 


supposed by Meyer is not to be thought 
of. See Holtzmann. Their plot was 
unsuccessful; Jesus as He sat (ver. 2), 
KaTw Kas . . . yay, “ bent down and 
began to write with His finger on the 
ground,” intimating that their question 
would not be answered; perhaps also 
some measure of that embarrassment on 
account of ‘* shame of the deed itself and 
the brazen hardness of the prosecutors ”’ 
which is overstated in Ecce Homo, p. 
104. The scraping or drawing figures 
on the ground with a stick or the finger 
has been in many countries a common 


772 


Saxtdho au sea eis THY yy 7. as S€é émépevov deat avrov, 
iLk. xiii; dvakdpas elie mpds adtods, ““O dvaydptytos Spav, ) mpa@ros Tov 


xxi. 28. 
Job x. 15. MBov éw atty Badérw.” 
j Deut. XVli. . 


k Wisd. xvii. aot = 
11, Rom. ۤpXovTo 
ii. 15. 
1 xvi. 8. 
m Mi.siv. ¢ A\n 
19. Cp. €oT@oa. 
Rev. iv. 8. 
9 > , , > 
wou”; odes ce KaTEKpLVeEY ; 
Eime S€ adti 6 Ingois, 
n , < , > 
ny. 14. pYKETL Gudptave. 


1 yuvac Tr.W.H 


expression of deliberate silence or em- 
barrassment. Smep ei@Vacr To Ades 
mrouetv ot By Bédovtes amoxpiveoOat mpos 
ToS épwir@vTas Gkatpa Kal davaéra, 
Euthymius.] Interesting passages are 
cited by Wetstein and ‘Kypke, in one 
of which Euripides is cited as saying: 
THY Tiwm}v Tots Todpois améKpioLy Elva. 
—Ver. 7. The scribes, however, did 
not accept the silence of Jesus as an 
answer, but ‘“‘ went on asking Him” 
For this use of émupévw with a participle 
cf. Acts xii. 16, éarépevev kpovev ; and see 
Buttmann’s N.T. Gram., 257,14. And 
at length Jesus lifting His head, 
straightening Himself, said to them: ‘O 
Gvapaptyntos ... Barerw, “let the 
faultless one among you first cast the 
stone at her”. dvapdptytos only here 


regu My lsat Sept. Deut. xxix. 19, tva py 
cvvarohéoy 6 GpaptwAds Tov ava- 
paptyntov. It can scarcely have been 


used on this occasion generally of all sin, 
but with reference to the sin regarding 
which there was present question ; or at 
Gny Tate to Sins oF the-same-kint-sns 
‘Of unchastity: They are summoned to 
judge themselves rather than the woman. 
—Ver. 8. Having shot this arrow Jesus 
again stooped and continued writing on 
the ground, intimating that so far as He 
was concerned the matter was closed. — 
Ver. g. ot 8€... éoydtov. “And 
they when they heard it went out one 
by one, beginning from the elders until 
the last.” [The words which truly 
describe the motive of this departure, kat 
iro THS Tvverdycews eheyxopevor, are 
deleted by Tr.W.H.R.] tpecButépov 
refers not to the elders by office but by 
age. They naturally took the lead, and 
the younger men deferentially allowed 
them to pass and then followed. Thus 


KATA IQANNHN 


“QUE éyS ce KaTaKpive - 


ee a 


VIII. i 


8. kat wadw Kdtw KUipas Eypadev ets TH 
fv. 9. ol S€, dxodoavtes, kal bwd Tis “ cuverdijcews | €Xeyxdpevor, 
eis xaQets, dptduevor awd TOv mpecBuTépwy ews THV 
éoxdtwv: Kal KateeipOy povos 6 “Incods, Kal 4 yuvh ev péow 
10. dvakuipas S€ 6 “Ingods, kal pndéva Oeacdpevos mAHy 


a * A A A 
THS yuvarkds, etmev adtH, ““H yuvh,! mod eiow éxeivor of Katiyopot 


TI. “H 8€ elmev, “ OdSels, Kipte.” 


Topevou Kat 


* EKELVOL OL KaTHYOpoL Gov Omitted by W.H.R. 


kateheipOy pdvos ... éota@ca. Jesus 
was left sitting and the woman standing 
before Him. But only those would retire 
who had been concerned in the accusation: 
the disciples and those who had pre- 
viously been listening to Him would 
remain.—Ver. 10. avaxvwas . . . Jesus, 
lifting His head and seeing that the 
woman was left alone, says to her: 
‘H syuvy .. . katékpivev; ‘* Woman,” 
nominative for vocative, as frequently, 
but see critical note, ‘‘ where are they? 
Did no man condemn thee?” That is, ) 
has no one shown himself ready to ; 


begin the stoning ?—Ver. 11. And she 
said: ‘*No one, Lord”.—Etwe... F 
apaptave. ‘ Neither-do I condemn i 





thee,” that is, do not adjudge thee to 
“stoning. — That He « e did ie h rt 


“was shown in His words pyxért apaprave. 
Therefore Augustine says: ‘Ergo et 
Rominus.damnavit, sed peccatum, non 
hominem ” 

Vv. 12-20. Fesus proclaims Himself 
the Light of the World.—Ver. 12. Nadw 
ovv. ‘Again therefore Jesus spake to 
them”; ‘‘ again” refers us back to vii. 
37. Liicke and others suppose that the 
conversation now reported took place on 
some day after the feast: but there is no 
reason why it should not have been on 
the same day as that recorded in chap. 
Vil) uhe places, ‘as, we read sinuiver 
20, was év T@ yalodvAakiw, “in the 
Treasury,” which probably was identical 
with the colonnade round the “ Court of 
the Women,” or yvvatkwvis, ‘in which 
the receptacles for charitable contribu- 
tions, the so-called Shopharoth or 
‘trumpets,’ were placed” (Edersheim, 
Life of Christ, ii. 165). Edersheim sup- 
poses that here the Pharisees would 
alone venture to speak. This seems 


Sin 








7—16. 


EYATTEAION 


773 


12. Mdduy ody & "Inaods adtois eXddynoe Aéywy, “Eye eipi 1d dds 
aw , a ~ 
TOU Kdopous 6 dkoouBdy Epol, od pi wepimatyoer! év TH oKoTia, 


GAN efer Td ds THs Lwfjs.” 


i) Lo A a 
13. Etroy obv a’t@ ot Sapicator, 


“30 mepi ceautod paptupets* H paptupia cou odKk eat &AnOrjs.” 
14. “AmexptOn “Ingois kai elmev adtois, “Kay éya paptup® mept 
€pautod, &knOys éotw H paptupia pou- Sti oida md0ev FAMov, Kat 


Tou Umdyw- pets S€ odK oldate md0_Ev Epxopar, Kat mod imdyw- 


15. Smets “Kata Thy odpKa Kpivete: 


éyo ob Kpivw obSdva. 16. 02Cor. xi 


kai édv kpivw Sé eyo, 4 Kplots 4 én adn Os” eo: Gru pdvos obK 


1 repitarnon in NBFGKL; T.R. in DEHM. 


2 adnOevy in BDL 33; adnéys in N. 


scarcely consistent with the narrative. 
The announcement made by Jesus was, 
’Eyo cit TO bas TOU Kdopov. Notwith- 
standing Meyer and Holtzmann it seems 
not unlikely that this utterance was 
prompted by the symbolism of the feast. 
According to the Talmud, on every night 
of the feast the Court of the Women was 
brilliantly illuminated, and the night, 
‘according to Wetstein and others, was 
Spent in dancing and festivity. This 
brilliant lighting was perhaps a memorial 


of the Pillar of Fire which led the 
Tsraelites while dwelling in tents. This 
idea is favoured by the words which 
follow and which describe how the in- 
dividual is to enjoy the light inherent in 
Jesus: 6 pe ere Gpot, “he that 
follows.me”. Like the basket of fire 
“hung from a’pole at the tent of the 


chief, the pillar of fire marked the camp- 


ing ground and every movement of the 
host. , And those who believe in Christ 


fave not a chart but a puice 2 not a map 


“in which they can pick out their own 
route, but a light going on before, which 
they must implicitly follow. Thus od 
py Tepimatyoe ev tH oKoTig, ‘shall 
not walk in the dark”; cf. Mt. iv. 16. 
The Messiah was expected to scatter 
the darkness of the Gentiles, ‘‘ Lux est 
nomen Messiae”’ (Lightfoot), @AN’ efer 
To as THs Cw%s, but shall have light 


sufficient for the highest form of life. 
The analogous 6 aptos THs fwijs, 7d 
tSwp +. €. show that the light of life 
means the light which is needful to 
maintain spiritual life.—Ver. 13. To this 
the Pharisees, seeing only self-assertion, 
reply: Eb... G&AnOrs. A formal objec- 
tion; cf. v. 31. But the attempt to 
apply it here only shows how far the 
Pharisees were from even conceiving the 
conditions of a true revelation They 


were still in the region of pedantic rules 
and external tests.—Ver. 14. Jesus 
replies: Kav... tmdyw, ‘‘even if I 
witness of Myself, My witness is true”. 
The difference between kat ei and ei kat 
is clearly stated by Hermann on Viger, 
822; Klotz on Devarius, 519; and is for 
the most part observed in N.T. On the 
law regulating testimony, which was 
meant merely for courts of law, see ver. 
31. The expressed éyd indicates that 
He is an exception to the rule; the 
reason being because He knows whence 
He comes and whither He goes, ott ot8o 
.. . vmayw. He knows His origin and 
His destiny. He knows Himself, and 
therefore the rule mentioned has no 
application to Him.—ad@ev 4AGov cannot 
of course be restricted to His earthly 
origin. He knows He is from God, so 
tmayw refers to His goi God. Cf. 
xiii. 3. Moreover, He is compelled to 
witness to Himself, because tpetis ovx 
oigate .. . vrayw. Healoneknew the 
nature of His mission, yet it behoves to 
be known by all men ; therefore He must 
declare Himself They would no doubt 
have replied, as formerly, vii. 27, Mk. 
vi. 3, that they did know whence He 
was. Therefore He reminds them that 


they judge by appearances only: tpeis 
KaTa THV GOapka KPLVETE. They had con- 
“stituted themselves His judges, and they 
decided against Him, because ‘‘ accord- 
ing to the flesh”” He was born in Galilee, 
vil. 52.“ For my part,” He says, <1 
judge (condemn) no one”’; éy@ ov kpive 
ovseva. As if He said, “I confine 
myself (ver. 16) to witnessing, and do 
not sit in judgment,” cf. iii. 17. ‘(But 
even if I do judge (as my very appear- 
“ance-among you results in judgment, iii, 
18-19, v. 22), my judgment is true; there 


is no fear of ‘its being merely superticial 


774 


eipl, AAN’ eyo Kal 6 mwépas pe marrp. 


KATA TQANNHN 


VIII. 


17. Kat év TH vopw S€ TO 


ipetépw yéypamrat, ott 800 avOpdrwv iH paptupia adynOys eo. — 


18. éyd eipe 6 paptupGv wept epautod, Kai paptupet mepl enod 6 


mépipas pe Tatyp.” 


p vii. 28. ou ; 3, 


pou’ 


ei €ue qderte, Kal Tov TaTépa pou WoetTe ay.” 


c 


” = ey “ iia ae c ’ 

19. “EXeyov ov att, “Mod éorw 6 wathp 
> lol 

*AtrexpiOn 6 ‘Ingots, “POdre ene olSare, ote Tov maTépa 


20. Tavta Ta 


‘gMk.xii.41. pypata EXdAqoev 6 “Ingods év TH YyaLopudakiw, Siddcoxnwv ev To 


Neh. xiii, |. 
5. LEP * 

f Vii. 30. 

8 ii. 4; vii. 6, 
oO. 

t xiii. 33. 

uiv.29. ov Sivacbe edOety.” 


€autov, dt. héyer, ““Orou eyo bmdyw, spets of SUvacbe eXOciv ;” 


or prejudiced, because I am not alone, 
but I am inseparably united to the 
Father who sent me.” Cf. v. 30, ‘as I 
hear I judge”. In Pivge Aboth, iv. 12, 
“RrTshmael is cited: ‘‘ He used to say, 
judge not alone, for none may judge alone 
save One”.—Ver. 17. kai év T@ vénw 
. watyp. He returns from “ judging” 

to “witnessing,” and He maintains that 
His witness (ver. 18) satisfies the Mosaic 
law (Deut. xvii. 6, xix. 15) because what 
He witnesses of Himself is confirmed by 
the Father that sent Him. The nature 
of this witness was given fully at v. 37- 
47-—éyo eipt 6 paptupov.. . Field 
maintains the A.V. “I am one that 
beareth witness,’ against the R.V. ‘I 
am He that beareth witness”; éy® eipte 
being equivalent to ‘“‘ There is I’’ or ‘ It 
is I”. Misled perhaps by the Lord’s 
use of av@pamwyv (ver. 17), the Pharisees 
ask (ver. 19): Mov éortiv 6 matyp cov; 
‘*Patrem Christi carnaliter acceperunt ” 
(Augustine), therefore they ask where He 
is that they may ascertain what He has 
to say regarding Jesus; as if they said: 
“Tt is all very well alleging that you 
have a second witness in your Father ; 
but where is He?” The idea of Cyril 
that it was a coarse allusion to His birth 
is out of the question, and Cyril himself 
does not press it. Jesus replies: Owvre 
. . Werte av [or Gv 7Serre]. They 
ought to have known who He meant by 
His Father and where He was; and 
their hopeless ignorance Jesus can only 
deplore. They professed to know Jesus, 
but had they known Him they would 
necessarily have known the Father in 
whom He lived and whom He repre- 
sented. Their ignorance of the Father 
proves their ignorance of Jesus.—Tatra 
» +» tepp. On yalod., see ver. 12. Euthy- 
mius, as usual, hits the nail on the head: 


, lol 

kat ovdeis "érlagey adtév, Stu *oUmw EAnuber 4 dpa adrod. 
21. Elwev otv maddy adtots 6 “Inoods, “Eye bmdyw, kat Lytycerté 

x , A a A 

pe, kal €v TH Gpaptia Suadv drobavetobe - ‘Sou éyw imdyw, Sets 
22. “ENeyov ody ot “loudator, “" Myatt &rroxtevet 


“Tatta” Ta wappnoiactikd. éemeon- 
PiyvaTo yap Tov ToTov, Sekviwv tiv 
mappyotay Tov Sidackddov. ‘ But noone 
apprehended Him, because not yet was 
His hour come.”” His immunity was all 
the more remarkable on account of the 
proximity to the chamber where the 
Sanhedrim held its sittings, in the south- 
east corner of the Court of the Priests, 
See Edersheim’s Life of Christ, ii. 165, 
note. 

Vv. 21-30. Further conversation with 
the Fews, in which Fesus warns them 
that He will not be long with them, 
and that unless they believe they will die 
in theiy sins. They will know that His 
witness is true after they have crucified 
Him.—Ver. 21. Etwev-otv wadw. On 
another occasion, but whether the same 
day (Origen) or not we do not know, 
although, as Licke points out, the 
avtots favours Origen’s view, Jesus said: 
°"Eyoa wtrdyo . @dOciv. This re- 
peats vii. 34, with the addition ‘“‘ and ye 
shall die in your sin’’; i.¢., undelivered 
by the Messiah, in the bondage of sin 
and reaping its fruit. He adds the 
reason why they should not find Him 
(cf. vii. 34): Swov .. . éXOeiv. He goes 
to His Father and thither they cannot 
come, if they do not believe in Him.— 
Ver. 22. As before, so now, the Jews 
fail to understand Him, and ask: Myre 

. EMOetvs “Will He kill Himself, 
etc.?” They gathered from the trdyo 
that the departure He spoke of was His 
own action, and thought that perhaps 
He meant to put Himself by death 
beyond their reach. Many interpreters, 
even Westcott and Holtzmann, suppose 
that the hell of suicides is meant by the 
place where they could not come. This 
is refuted by Edersheim (ii. 170, note); 
and, besides, the meaning obviously is, 





17—26. 


EYATTEAION 


PTS 


23. Kal elev atrois, ““Ypets éx tay kdtw éoté, eyo ex Tay avw 


> , 
el fl , 
rouTou. 
34 A ‘ , iJ > , > 

€dv yap pi) TuoTevonte OTL eyw eipt, 


a) 
URWV. 


"Inoods, “* Thy dpxhy 6 te? kal AaAS Spiv. 
ipav hadeiv Kai Kpivery: GAN 6 mépas pe adyOys éotr, 


fo , 2» 
25. "EXeyov obv alta, “0 Tis et; 


c uN > ~ 4 , > \ Sek > ee ee} a , 
Spets €x Too Kdopou ToUToU éoTe, eyd ovdk Eipl ex TOO Kdcpou 
A lal A“ , A 
24. elroy obv Spiv Ott dmoPavetobe ev Tats Guaptiats Guay - 
dmobavetabe év Tats Guaptiats 


A ~ 
Kat etmev avtots 6 
v Gen. xliii. 
zo. Dan. 


a Vili. 1. 
kayo O w xvi, 12. 


26. 


“roa EXxw aTepl 


1 W.H. read ors as one word and place point of interrogation at the end of the 


clause. 


that as they had no intention of dying, 
His supposed death would put Him 
beyond their reach.—Ver. 23. But dis- 
regarding the interruption, and wishing 
more clearly to show why they could 
not follow Him, and what constituted 
the real separation in destiny between 
Him and them, He eee "Ypets ... 
tovtTov, ‘You belong the things 
_ below, I to the thin ings Se you are of 
“this world, I am not of this world”. 
The two clauses balance and interpret 
one another: ‘things below” being 
equivalent to ‘‘this world”. It was 
because this gulf naturally sepstatet 
them from Him and His ee ae 
wo er. 
24. €lmov ovv... wav. Therefore 
said 7 unto you, ye shall die in your 
sins.’ The emphatic word is now 
amo8aveiobe (cf. ver. 12); the destruc- 
tion is itself put in the foreground 
(Meyer, Holtzmann). ‘For unless ye 
believe that I am He, ye shall, etc.” 
What they were required to believe is not 
explicitly stated (see their question, ver. 
15), it is Oru yo etpe “ that I am,” which 
Westcott supposes has the pregnant 
meaning ‘‘that I am, that in me is the 
spring of life and light and strength ” ; 
but this scarcely suits the context. Meyer 
supposes that He means “ that I am the 
Messiah”, But surely it must refer 
directly to what He has just declared 
Himself to be, ‘I am not of this world 
but of the things above ” [‘‘namlich der 
avw0ev Stammende ; die allentscheidende 
Personlichkeit,’ Holtzmann]. This 
belief was necessary because only by 
attaching themselves to His teaching 
and person could they be delivered from 
their identification with this world.— 
Ver. 25. This only adds bewilderment 
to their mind, and they, not ‘‘ pertly and 
contemptuously ” (Meyer, Weiss, Hoitz- 
mann), but with some shade of im- 
patience, ask: Zb tig et; ‘Who art 


Thou?” To this Jesus replies: tiv 

qv S te Kat AadG ipiv. These 
SOx te rendered in A.V. “Even the 
same that I said unto you from the 
beginning’’; and in R.V. “Even that 
which I have also spoken unto you from 
the beginning”’. The Greek Fathers 
understood tHv apx7v as equivalent to 
ddws, a meaning it frequently bears ; and 
they interpret the clause as an exclama- 
tion, “‘ That I should even speak to you 
at all!” ([6Aws, OTe kat Aaha tpiv, 
TepLTTov éoruv. dvdéiou Yap éore TavrTas 
Adyov, @s Wetpagrat, Euthymius.] With 
this Field compares Achilles Tatius, vi. 
20, ovK ayamds StL gor Kat Aah@; Art 
thou not content that I even condescend 
to speak to thee? In support of this 
rendering Holtzmann quotes from Clem., 
Hom. vi. 11, et py mwapakodovbets ots 
Aéyw, Ti kal THY apxty Siardyopar; He 
even supposes that this is an echo of 
John, so that we have here an indication 
of the earliest interpretation of the words. 
This meaning does no violence to the 
words, but it is slightly at discord with 
the spirit of the next clause and of Jesus 
generally (although cf. Mk. ix. 109). 
Another rendering, advocated at great 
length by Raphel (Annot., i. 637), puts 
a comma after thy apyyy and another 
after tpty, and connects tTHy apxqy 
with moka €xw; ‘‘omnino, quia et 
loquor vobis, multa habeo de vobis 


loqui”. Raphel’s note is chiefly valu- 
able for the collection of instances 
of the use of tyv apyyv. A third 


interpretation is that suggested by the 
A.V., and which finds a remarkable 
analogue i in Plautus, Captivi, III. iv. 91, 
“Quis igitur ille est ? Quem dudum 
dixi a principio tibi”’ (Elsner). But this 
would require A€yw, not Aad. There 
remains a fourth possible interpretation, 
that of Melanchthon, who renders 
“plane illud ipsum verbum sum quod 
loquor vobiscum ”’ So Luther (see 
Meyer); and Winer translates ‘‘ (I am) 


776 


~ ”~ > 
jkouca tap aitod, Taita Aéyw ets Tov xdopov.” 


Ste Tov TaTépa adTois €heyev. 


x fil. 14. 


KATA JQOANNHN 


VII. 


27. OK Eyvwoar 
28. Etwev ody adtois 6 ‘“Ingois, 


““Orav *bydonte Tov uidv tod avOpdmou, téte yvdoeobe St eyd 


eit Kal dm épautod mod ob8ev, GANA Kabds edi8agé pe 6 TaThp 


pou, Tata AahG. 29. Kat 6 


mépas pe, pet eno eotiv: obK AbyKe 


y Exod. xv. pe dvoy 6 Tathp, Ste éyw Ta 7 dpeota aitG mod wdytoTe.” 30. 


26. Gen. 
xvi. 6. 
Acts vi. 2. 
£ U1; 77. 
a XV. 9, 10. 
b 2 Mac. i. 
27. Rom. 
vi. 18. 


altogether that which in my words I 
represent myself as being”. To this 
Meyer and Moulton (see his note on 
Winer) object that thy apxqv only 
means “omnino” “ prorsus”” when the 
sentence is negative. Elsner, however, 
admitting that the use is rare, gives 
several examples where it is used ‘‘ sine 
addita negativa”. The words, then, 
may be taken as meaning “I am nothing 
else than what I am saying to you: I 
am a Voice; my Person is my teach- 
ing ”.—Ver. 26. woAAaéyw . . . “many 
things have I to speak and to judge 
about you,” some of which are uttered 
in the latter part of this chapter.—é@AN’ 
6 wépwas .. . But—however hard for 
you to receive—these things are what 
are given me to say by Him that sent 
me, and therefore I must speak them; 
and not to you only but to the world eis 
Tov kéopov.—Ver. 27. His hearers did 
not identify ‘‘ Him that sent me” with 
“the Father”: Oitx €éyvocav... 
éXeyev.—Ver. 28. Therefore (ov) Jesus 
said to them,”Orav . . . eipt, ““ when ye 
have lifted up the Son of Man, then shall 
ye know thatlam He”. wsdonte has 
the double reference of elevation on the 
cross and elevation to the Messianic 
throne, cf. iii. 14. The people were 
thus to elevate Him and then they would 
recognise Him, Acts ii. 37, etc. —6tt éyo 
eipe “that I am He,” i.e., ‘the Son of 
Man”. What follows is not dependent 
on 6tt (against Meyer, Holtzmann, 
Westcott); the nat am’ éuautod begins 
a new statement, as the present, roto, 
shows. The sequence of thought is: ye 
shall know that I am Messiah: and 
indeed I now act as such, for of myself I 
do nothing, but as my Father has taught 
me, so I speak. This is the present 
proof that He was Messiah.—Ver. 29. 
Kal 6mépas .. . wdvrote. Hi ity 
to the purpose of the Father that sent 
Him secured His perpetual presence 


Taira aitod AadovvTos todXot * éicteucay eis abtév. 
>» > «°?> ol ‘ A , ee , 
aie Eheye ouv 0 IngoUs Tpos TOUS TeTLOTEUKOTAS auT® louSaious, 
, n~ lal ~~ ~ 
‘Edy dpets “pelynte ev TO Adyw TO End, AXnOs pabytat ou éoTé « 
32. Kal yreceaQe Thy ddyPerav, kal 7 adyPera ” Zhevdepdoer Spas.” 


with Him, 


By His entire self-abnega- 
tion and freedom from self-wili He gave 


room to the Spirit of the Father. Or, as 
_Westcott™ SER E sy ‘the or clause may 
give the evidence or sign of the pre- 
ceding rather than its cause; and the 
meaning may be that the result of the 
Father’s presence is seen in the perfect 
correspondence of the conduct of the Son 
with the will of the Father.—Ver. 30. 
Tatita ... avtév. ‘As He _ spake 
these things many believed on Him,” 
not only believed what He said, but 
accepted Him as the Messenger of God. 
The statement closes one paragraph and 
prepares for the next, in which it is 
shown what this faith amounted to 
(Holtzmann). PRT 

Vv. 31-59. Discussion batween Fesus 
and the Fews regarding their paternity. 
—Ver. 31. To those wha have just been 
described as believing on Him Jesus 
went on to say, "Eav tpeis . .. tpas. 
“If you ”—tpets emphasised in distinc- 
tion from those who had not believed— 
‘abide in my word ’’—not content with 





making this first step towards faith and ~ 


obedience—‘“ then ’”’—but_ not till then— 


“are ye really my disciples.” —Ver. 32. 
Kal yvooerbe . . . was. By abiding in 


knowledge of the truth which only ex- 


erimental 


and to God would turn all service and 
“all Tifé into liberty. Freedom, a con- 
dition of absolute liberty from all out- 
ward constraint, is only attained when 
‘man attains fellowship with God i 
_absolutely free) in the truth: when that 

rompts man to action which pr 

od. [Cf. the striking parallel in 
Fpictetus, iv. 7. ets épe od8ets eEovelav 
éxer* HAevOépwpar tro Tod cot, EyvwKa 
avTov Tas évToAds, ovKéTe OvSels SovAa- 


ental testing of it can bring; and — 
the truth regarding their relation to.Him _ 


ea I = ‘a 


>... 





27—39- 


EYAITEAION 


TE 


33. ‘AmexpiOnoay aitd, “°Xméoppa "ABpadp eopev, Kal odSevi *Se-c wv. 37, 30. 


Gal. iii. 16. 


SoutevKapev wéroTe* THs ol eyes, “OTe eevbepar yevnoeobe ;” d Gen. xv. 
> , a“ > n A a 14. 
34. AtrexpiOy abtois 6 “Inaods, “’Apiy dptvy Aéyw Syiv, Sti ° was e 2 Pet. ii, 


c La} , ~ 

6 Tol@y Thy duaptiav, SodAds eott THS Gpaptias. 
ts € Ey a Sy, 2 BN IA 
ob péver év TH oikia Eis Tov aidva: 


36. édv obv 6 vids Spas eNevVepdon, Svtws edevPepor Eceobe. iv. 22. 


37. 08a St. omeppa “ABpadp éote- 
ow c , <3 ‘ > a. < = 
Ott 6 Adyos 6 ends od Xwpet ev Spiv. 
tatpi pou,! hah@: Kal bpuets obv & 


ic eAL Ss a 22 > , 
bpGy,* qmoette. 39. ‘AmexpiOnoav 


1 nov omitted in BCL. 


EwpaKare 


& 19. Jas. 
35. 6 Sé Sodhos ee 

c ea 4 > a 3A . 
6 ulds péver eis Tov aidva. f Gen. xxi. 
to. Gal. 


GAAG ® Lytetté pe AtroKTetvar, g v. 44. 


huss.) ee: x a Sees 
38. “éy® 6 Edpaka Tapa Th v. 19; xii 


2 Tapa TO matpl® 


‘ J CY “ce ‘ 
Kal elroy auT@, “ O mTaTnp 


2a nxovoate with NcBCKL 1, 33. 


8 rov watpos Without vpey in T.Tr.W.H.R. 


yoyjoat pe Svvatar.J—Ver. 33. But 
this announcement, instead of seeming 
to the Jews the culmination of all bliss, 
provokes even in the memiorevkdtes 
(ver. 31) a blind, carping criticism: 
Zaréppa ... yevyoecbe; we are the 
seed of Abraham,.called by God to rule 


with them,” Westcott. 
‘All Israel are the children of kings’ 
were current among the people. How 
then could emancipation be spoken of as 

_to be given them ?—Ver. 34. The 
answer is: Gpyv ... apaptias [ris 
Guaptias is bracketed by W.H.]. The 
liberty meant is inward, radical, and 
individual. “Every one who lives a 
life of sin is\a slave.” Cf. Rom. vi. 
“16, 20; 2 Pet. ii. 19; Xen., Mem., 
iv. 5, 3; Philo’s tract ‘‘Quod omnis 
probus sit liber,’”’ and the Stoic say- 
ing “solus sapiens est liber”. The 
relations subsisting év Tq oixiqg in the 
house of God, the Theocracy to which 
they boasted to belong, must be deter- 
mined by what is spiritual, by likeness to. 
the Head of the house; “ this servitude 
would lead to national rejection,” Eders- 
heim. It behoves them therefore to 
remember this result of the generally 


Son who abides for ever, Cf. Heb. iii. 


a 


6. The slave has no permanent footing 
in_the house; he may be dismissed or 
sold. The transition which Paul himself 
had made from the servile to the filial 
position coloured his view of the Gospel, 
Gal. iv. 1-7 ; but here it is not the servile 
attitude towards God but slavery to sin 
that is in view. [rom this slavery only 
the Son emancipates, éav otv... 
éreoQe. This implies that they were all 
born slaves and needed emancipation, 
and that only One, Himself the Son, 
could give them true liberty.—dvtws 


“ehedOepor in contrast to the liberty they 


boasted of in ver. 33. How the Son 
emancipates is shown in Gal. iv. 1-7. The 
superficial character of the liberty they 
enjoyed by their birth as Jews is further 
emphasised in ver. 37. Ver. 37. ol8a . >. 
tpiv. ‘IT know that you are Abraham’s 
seed; it is your moral descent which is _ 
in question, and your conduct shows 
that my word, which gives true liberty 
(vv. 31, 32), does not find place in you.” 
—od xopei év iptv. The Greek Fathers 
all understand these words in the sense 
of A.V., “hath no place in you”. Cyril 
has 8a thy évouxjoacav év itpiv 
Gpaptiav Sn\adq, kal té7rov Gomep ovK 
é@oay, etc. So Euthymius and Theo- 
phylact. Beza renders “non _ habet 
locum,” citing a passage from Aristotle, 
which Meyer disallows, because in it the 
verb is used impersonally. But Field 
has found another instance in Alciphron, 
Epist., ili. 7, in which ywpetv is used in 
the sense of ‘locum habere” (Otium 
Norvic., p. 67). The common meaning 
of xwpetv, ‘to advance,” is also quite 
relevant and indeed not materially 
different. It is frequently used for 
prosperous, successful progress. See 
Aristoph., Pax, 694, and other passages 


778 


Hpav "ABpadp éott.” 


KATA TOANNHN 


VIL. 


A€yet atrots & “Ingots, “Ei téxva Tob 
"ABpadu ire! Ta Epya tod “ABpadp émoveite av. 


40. vov Se 


{ntetré pe droKtetvat, avOpwrov ds tiv adyberav Spiv AehddAyka, 


i 4. 40. Hv jxouca ‘mapa Tod Oeod 


* todTo “ABpadp odk émotnoer. 
Spets movette TA Epya TOU tatpds Spar.” 


We 
Etrov ody alta, ‘“Hpets 


ék mopveias od yeyevyypeba®- eva marépa exouev, Tov Oedv.” 
42. Elirey odv adtots 6 “Inaods, “Ei 6 Geds wathp Suav jy, Hyamate 
j Num. xvi dv éué- éyd yap ek Tod Oeod eéAAOov Kal ew: ovde yap Jaw 


kiv. 42. Mt. €pautod €Anduba, GAN’ exeivds pre darécrethe. 


XXVI1. . 
oe Thy epi ob yuwoxerte ; 


1 Instead of nre . 


in WBDL; emote without av in Q*BDEFG, with av in ScCKL. 


. . erovecre av W.H. read eore . 


43. Stati thy *Aadvdy 


Sti od SivacGe dkovew Tov Aéyov Tov eudv. 


. woverte. eore is found 


Certainly 


the intrinsically probable reading is that of T.R., especially when the vuy Se of ver. 


40 is considered. 


2 T.R. in CA, but ove eyevynOnpev in BD, adopted by Tr.W.H.R. 


in Kypke; and cf. 2 Thess. iii. 1, tva 6 I heard from God, It is murder based 


Adyos tpéxy. ‘My word meets with 
obstacles and is not allowed its full 
influence in you.’’—Ver. 38. ‘And yet 
the word of Christ justly claimed accept- 
ance, for it was derived from immediate 
knowledge of God,” Westcott.—éya 6 
[or &@ éya, as recent editors read]... 
qmovette. ‘‘ What I have seen with my 
Father I speak ; and-what-ye-have-seen 
With your father ye do.” “He makes 
the statement almost as if it were a 
“Wecessary principle that sons should 
adopt their fathers’ thoughts. The ovv 
aac be rendered ‘‘and so”; it was 
because Jesus uttered what He had 
learned by direct intercourse with His 
Father that the Jews sought to slay 
Him. See vv. 16-19. The édpaxa (cp. 
iii. 31, 32) might seem to indicate the 
knowledge He had in His pre-existent 
state, but the next clause forbids this.— 
movette, if it is to balance Aaka, must be 
indicative.—Ver. 39. To this ambiguous 
but ominous utterance the Jews reply: 
‘O wa7Tnp jpav “ABpadp éort, thereby 
meaning to clear themselves of the 
suspicion of having learned anything 
evil from their father. To which Jesus 
retorts: Ei téxkva . . . éqrovetre Gv. “If 
ye were Abraham’s children ye would do 
the works of Abraham’”’; according to 
the law of ver. 38. If their origin could 
be wholly traced to Abraham, then thetr 
conduct would resemble his.—vuv 8é 
» -. €motngev. ‘But now—as the fact 
really is—you seek to kill me; and this 
has not only the guilt of an ordinary 
murder, but your hostility isroused against 
me because I have spoken to you the truth 


_upon_ hostility to God. This is very 
different from tHe conduct of Abraham 
—av8pwirov seems to be used simply as 
we might use ‘‘ person ”—a person who: 
certainly, as Lampe says, it is used “ sine 
praejudicio deitatis”. Bengel thinks it 
anticipates av@pwrdéktovos in ver. 44, 
and Westcott says it ‘‘ stands in contrast 
with of God . . . and at the same time 
suggests the idea of human sympathy, 
which He might claim from them (a 
man), as opposed to the murderous spirit 
of the power of evil”.—Ver. 41. vpets 
. .. Upav. You do not the works of 
Abraham: you do the works of your 
father. And yet (ver. 37) He had 
acknowledged them to be the children of 
Abraham. The only possible conclusion 
was that besides Abraham some other 
father had been concerned in producing 
them. This idea they repudiate with 
indignation: ‘Hpets... Oedv. ‘“* We 
were not born of fornication: we have 
one father, God”; not ‘“‘ Abraham,”’ as 
might have been expected, but ‘‘ God” : 
i.e., they claim to be the children of the 
promise, within the Theocracy, children 
of God’s house (ver. 35).—Ver. 42. But 
this claim Jesus explodes by the same 
argumert: Et 6 @eds .. . dméorethe. 
Were God your Father you _ would love 
me, for I am from God.—e&AqA@ov ex Tov 


ee 


God, and which took place through the 
incarnation,’ Meyer. The meaning of 
the expression is fixed by that with which 
it is contrasted in xiii. 3, xvi. 28. kw is 








© Dy 


GO—45. 


EYATTEAION 


igi) 


44. ipets 'éx ™matpds Tod SiaBddou éoré, kal Tas emBuplas Tod Lili. 5, 6, 3r. 


Tatpos tpav OéXeTe srovety. 
‘ > ~ , > a a 
Kat €v TH GAnOeia obX EoTHKEv’ OTL 


Stav haf Td Peddos, ex Tav iSiwy Aahet~ Sti °WedaTys éoTl Kal Oo 
45. éym Sé St Thy GAyPerav Adyw, ob moTeveTE por. 


TaThp avTou. 


added, as éAxjAv@a eis Tov Kéopov in xvi. 
28, almost in the sense in which it is 
used in the Dramatists, announcing the 
arrival of one of the ‘‘ personae ” on the 
stage, “I am come from such and 
such a place and here I am”. The 
coming itself was the result of God’s 
action rather than of His own: ove 
es ms 


argument, that as He came forth from 
God and was sent by Him, they must 
have welcomed Him had they been 
God’s children. Their—misunderstand- 
inggnad a moral root.—Srart .. . éudv. 
They did not recognise His speech as 
Divine, because they were unable to 
receive the message He brought. ‘In 
Aaheitv (= loqui) the fact of uttering 
human language is the prominent notion; 
in Aéyetv (= dicere) it is the words uttered, 
and that these are correlative to reason- 
able thoughts within the breast of the 
utterer ’’ (Trench, Synonyms, 271). All 
His individual expressions and the very 
language He used were misunderstood, 
because there was in them a moral in- 
capacity to receive the truth He delivered. 
—Ver. 44. This was the result and evidence 
of their paternity: Jpeis . . . [Tov matpds 
is read by all recent editors]. ‘‘ Ye are of 
the father who is the devil.” The trans- 
lation, ‘‘ of the father of the devil,”’ z.¢., 
the (Gnostic) God of the Jews, is, as 
Meyer says, thoroughly un-Johannine. 
Perhaps a slight pause before the cul- 
minating words tod SaBdd\ov would 
emphasise them and show that this had 
been in His mind throughout the con- 


versation. Being of this parentage they 
deliberately purpose [@éAete] and not 


“merely unintentionally are betrayed into 
“the fulfilment of his desires. Their 
origin is determined by the fact that 
“from the first the devil was a _man- 
“slayer”. To what does am’ apyjs refer ? 
Since the beginning of the human race, 
or since men first were killed ; not since 


Abel, that is in view (cf. 1 John ili. 15), 
but far more probably it is the introduc- 
tion of death through the first sin (Wisd. 
ji. 23, 24). So almost all recent com- 
mentators. Some think both references 


é€Kkewvos ™ 


y : ele eka el Gena. 
avOpwroKtovos Hv am apyys» 20. 
n i Jo. iil. 
15. Gen. 
lil. 3. 
Prov. xix. 
22. 1Jo. 
i. 10, etc. 
Gen. iii. 5. 


ouK cot dAyfea ev abTo. 


are admissible (see Licke).—xat év Tq 
adnbetg. ovy Eorykev, “and stands not in 
the truth”. R.V. has ‘‘and stood not’’; 
so the Vulgate ‘‘et in veritate non 
stetit”. W.H. adopt the same transla- 
tion, reading odx éoryxev, the imperfect 
of orykw, I stand; but good reasons 
against this ogee given by Thayer 
S.V. eoTynkev is the usual perfect of 
fornpt with the sense of a present. The 
reference therefore is not to the fall of 
the angels, but to the constant attitude 
of the devil; ov« éppéver, Euthymius. 
“ The truth is not the domain in which 
he has his footing.” Meyer, Weiss. He 
does not adhere to the truth and live in it. 
~The reason being, étt... avta, “ because 
truth is not in him”. There is not in 
him_any craving for the truth. He is 
not true to what he knows. His nature 
is so false that d6tav Aadq TO Weddos 
2« TOY tdtwv Aadet, ‘ whenever he speaks 
what _is false, he speaks of his own”. 
“ But the article may mean ‘the lie that 
is natural to him,’ ‘ As lie’ ” (Plummer).— 
éx tOv idiwv means that he speaks out 
of that which is characteristically and 
peculiarly his (cf. Mt. xii. 34); ‘‘ because 
he is ”»—this is his character and descrip- 
tion—“‘ a liar and his father,” 7.e., he is 
himself a liar and the father of all liars. 
This is added to reflect light on the 
first statement of this verse. So 
Holtzmann and most recent inter- 
preters. But Weiss rightly defends the 
reference of avrod to wWetSos as in 
A.V. Westcott proposes to translate: 
‘‘ Whenever a man speaketh a lie, hé 
speaketh of his own, for his father also 
is a liar”. Paley renders: ‘‘ When (one) 
utters . . . he is speaking from his own, 
because he is a liar, and (so is) his 
father”. Westcott’s translation makes 
excellent sense and suits the context and 
gives a good meaning to the t8lwv, but, 
as he himself owns, the omission of the 
subject (6rav Aadq) is certainly harsh; 
it may be said, impossible.—Ver. 45. 
“But I”—in contrast to the 


because it is your nature to live in what 
_is false (cf. Euthymius).—Ver. 46. ls 


780 


KATA JQANNHN 


VIII. 


pxviSir. 46. rls é Spay ? &déyxer pe wept dpaprias; ef S€ ddyPeray heya, 


Stari Spets ob moreveTé por ; 


47. 6 dv éx Tod Oeod TA AHpata Tod 


Gcod dxover* Sia TodTo bpets odx dkovere, Ott ek TOD Oeod ovdK 


éoré.” 


q Vii. 20. 
r Deut. 


48. ’ArexplOncav ody ot “lovdaic. Kat elroy ait, “Ob 
kadds héyouev Hpets, Ste Lapapettys ef od, kal *Saipdveov Exets 5” 


xxvii. 16. 49. “AmrekplOn “Inoods, “Eya Sarpdvioy obk exw, GANA TLpa Tov 


Prov. 


xxviii. 7, TaTépa pou, kat Spets Tdatuypdleré pe. 


etc. Rom 


ii, 23. Lk. Séfav pous éotw 6 LyTdv Kal Kpiver. 


XX. II. ¥ 


50. éya Sé€ od Lyte Tip 
51. dphy dwt Aéyo bptv, 


s Here only; édy TLg Tov Adyor Tav épdv THPHOD, BdvaTov ob ph *Oewpyoy els Tov 


cp. ver. 52 

and Ps. 

Ixxxix. 48. i 
t 1 Sam. xv, DQLLOvLOV EXELS. 


A > Lal A 
aidva.” 52. Etrov ody adt@ ot ‘loudaior, “Nov éyvdxapey OTe 


"ABpadp dréBave kal of mpopijtat, kal od Aéyers, 


u Heb. ii. 9. Edy Tus Tov Aéyov pou *tTHpyoH, of pa) ° yedoetor? Bavdrou eis Tov 


1 yevonrat in RACDL. 


... Gpaptias; Alford, who represents 
a number of interpreters, says: ‘“ The 
question is an appeal to His sinlessness 
of life, as evident to them all, as a 
pledge for His truthfulness of word”’. 
Calvin is better: ‘‘Haec defensio ad 
circumstantiam loci restringi debet, ac 
si quicquam sibi posse obiici negaret, 
quominus fidus esset Dei minister”. 
Similarly Bengel.—ei 88... por; “If 
I speak truth, why do you not believe 
me?” It follows from their inability to 
convict Him of sin, that He speaks what 
is true: if so, why do they not believe 
Him ?—Ver. 47. Heis believed by those 
who have another moral parentage, 6 dv 
... éoré, ‘He that is of God listens 
to the words of God,” implying that the 
words He spoké were God’s words. 
Their not listening proved that they 
were not of God. At this point the Jews 
break in: OU... yes; ‘‘Say we not 
well that Thou art a Samaritan and hast 
ademon?” ‘In the language in which 
they spoke, what is rendered into Greek 
by ‘Samaritan’ would have been either 
Cuthi, which, while literally meaning 
a Samaritan, is almost as often used in 
the sense of ‘ heretic,’ or else Shomroni. 
The latter word deserves special atten- 
tion. Literally, it also means ‘ Samar- 
itan’; but the name Shomron is also 
sometimes used as the equivalent of 
Ashmedai, the prince of the demons. 
According to the Kabbalists, Shomron 
was the father of Ashmedai, and hence 
the same as Sammael or Satan. That 
this was a widespread Jewish belief 
appears from the circumstance that in 
the Koran Israel is said to have been 
seduced into idolatry by Shomron, while 


in Jewish tradition this is attributed to 
Sammael. If therefore the term applied 
by the Jews to Jesus was Shomroni— 
and not Cuthi, ‘ heretic’—it would 
literally mean ‘ Child Deyil,’ ” 
Edersheim. The ordinary interpretation 
of ‘‘ Samaritan ”’ yields, however, quite a 
relevant meaning. To His refusal to 
own their true Abrahamic ancestry 
they retort that He is no pure Jew, a 
Samaritan.—Ver. 49. Satpdveov gets, 
possessed, or crazed. Cf. x. 20. To 
this Jesus replies: "Eya... aiova. 
The éy® is emphatic in contrast to the 
expressed tpets of the last clause; “I 
am not out of my mind, but all I do and 
say springs from my desire to honour 
my Father, while you for your part and 
on this very account dishonour me”’. 
This dishonour does not stir His resent- 
ment, because (ver. 50) éy®.. . pov, 
“TI am not seeking my own glory”. Cf. 
v.41. Nevertheless His glory is not to 
be carelessly slighted and turned into 
reproach (Ps, iv. 2) for éorw 6 Cytav 
Kai kpivev, “there is who seeketh it and 
judgeth ” (vv. 22, 23).—Ver. 51. There- 
fore the emphasis in the next verse, 
precisely as in ver. 24 of chap. v., is on 
“my word”.—édv tis .. . aidva, “ if 
any one keeps my word, he shall never 
see death”. For typetv see xiv. 15-23, 
xv. 10-20, xvii. 6, 1 John and Rev. 
passim; it is exactly equivalent to 
“keep”. Q@ewpetv Odvarov occurs only 
here. It is probably stronger than the 
commoner iSeiv @avarov (Lk. ii. 26, Heb. 
xi. 5), “expressing fixed contemplation 
and full acquaintance” (Plummer); 
although in John this fuller meaning is 
sometimes not apparent.—Ver, 52. This 


Poche ieameit 


ee ee 


nL vel NEO Pe 


eee ee ee ee ee 





45—57. 


aiava. 


> / 
amébave ; 


EYATTEAION 


aA , 
kal of mpodita dmdQavov> tlva ceauTov od Trotets ; 


781 


53: "ph od pethav ef tod watpos Hudv “ABpadp, doris viv. 12. 


»? w Eccles.iii. 
Ig. 1 Cor. 


54. “Amexpi0n “Inoods, “Edy eyo Sofdfw! ewaurdv, 4 B00 prou _ vii. 19. 


“ oddév €otw: eotw 6 mwaTip pou 6 SofdLwy pe, * dv pets héyeTe, 
Sti Oeds Sudv? éotr, 55. Kai ovK éyvwKate adTov, éyw Sé otda attdv - 


4 ~ 
kat édv® elm Ott ovK olda adTdv, Evopwar ” Spotos Sudv, pedorns ° z 


GAN oda aitév kal tov Aéyov abtoé 


bwav nyadd\tdcato *iva ton *Thy Huepay Thy eunv: KaL Etde KaL 
7 


éxdpn.” 
1 Sofacw in N*cbBC*D. 


confirms the Jews in their opinion that 
He is not in His right mind, Ntv éyva- 
kapevy .. . they seem to have now got 
proof of what they had _ suspected ; 
“antea cum dubitatione aliqua locuti 
erant,” Bengel. Their proof is that 
whereas Jesus says that those who keep 
His word shall never die, Abraham died 
and the prophets; therefore Jesus would 
seem to be making Himself greater than 
those most highly revered personages.— 
Ver. 53. What did He expect them to 
take Him for ?—tiva ceavtov ov Trotets ; 
For the ph ot petLov cf. iv. 12.—Ver. 
54. To their question Jesus, as usual, 
gives no categorical answer, but replies 
first by repelling the insinuation con- 
tained in their question and then by 
showing that He was greater than 
Abraham (see Plummer).—’Eav éyo 
Sofalw. “If shall have glorified myself, 
my glory is nothing; my Father is He 
who glorifieth me.” He cannot get 
them to understand that it is not self- 
assertion on His part which prompts 
His claims, but fulfilment of His Father’s 
commission. This “Father” of whom 
He speaks and who thus glorifies Him is 
the same ov tpets A€yere StL... “Sof 
whom you say that He is your God”. 
His witness therefore you ought to 
receive; and the reason why you do not 
is this, ovK €yv@KaTE avTOV, Eya Se oloa 
avtov, “you have not learned to know 
Him, but I know Him”. The former 
verb denotes knowledge acquired, by 
teaching or by observation ; in contrast 
to the latter, which denotes direct and 
essential knowledge.—xat éav eitrw . . 

typo. So far from the affirmations of 
Jesus regarding His connection with the 
Father being false, He would be false, a 
liar and like them, were He to deny that 
He enjoyed direct knowledge of God. 
** But, on the contrary, I know Him and 
all I do, even that which offends you, is the 


57- Ettrov ov ot “loudator mpds attov,  MevthKovta Eryn 


2T.R. in NBD, npev in ACL. 


X ix. 19. 

y With gen. 
here only; 
cp.Herod 
ili. 37. 
Burton, 
217. 

Ps. xxxiv 
1z. Lam. 
ii. 16. 
Gen. xxii. 
18. 


Tp®. 56. “ABpadp 6 warhp a 


8 kav Tr.Ti.W.H. 


fulfilment of His commission, the keeping 
“of His word.”—Ver. 56. And as regards 
the connection they claim with Abraham, 
this reflects discredit on their present 
attitude towards Jesus; for "ABpaap 6 
maTnp wvpav, “Abraham in whose 
parentage you glory,” jyahA.doato iva 
18n THY pEepav THY éuyy, ‘rejoiced to 
see my day’. The day of Christ is 
the time of His earthly manifestation; 
THS ETLOnplas AVTOU TIS PETA TapKds, 
Cyril. See Lk. xvii. 22-26; where the 
plural expresses the same as the singular 
here. ‘“‘To see” the dayis “to be 
PLeESentww att. LONeXpPerlence maitemofs 
Eurip., Hecuba, 56, SovAcvov Apap etdes, 
and the Homeric véotipov Hap idéobar. 
tva t8y cannot here have its usual 
Johannine force and be epexegetical 
(Burton, Moods, etc.), nor as Holtzmann 
says = Sti Ooiro, because in this case 
the eiSe kal éxdpy would be tautological. 
Euthymius gives the right interpretation: 
HYGAA., Tyovv, emreOipyoev (similarly 
Theophylact), and the meaning is 
‘Abraham exulted in the prospect of 
seeing,” or ‘‘ that he should see”. This. 
he was able to do by means of the 
“promises given to him.—xal etée, “ and 
he saw it,” not merely while he was on 
earth (although this seems to have been 
the idea the Jews took up from the words, 
see ver. 57); for this kind of anticipa- 
tion Jesus uses different language, Mt. 
xiii. 17, and at the utmost the O.T. 
saints could be described as wéppwOev 
iddvres, Heb. xi. 13; but he has seen it 
in its actuality. This involves that 
Abraham has not died so as to be un- 
“Conscious, ver. 52, and cf. Mk. xii. 26.— 
~Ver--57. This, however, the Jews com- 
pletely misunderstand. They think that 
by asserting that Abraham saw His day, 
Jesus means to say that His day and the 
life of Abraham on earth were contem- 
poraneous.—levrjkovra . . . édpaxas ; 


782 


bv. 5 


KATA IQANNHN 


oUmw » éxes, kat "ABpadp éwpakas ;” 


VIII. 58-59. IX. 


58. Elev adrots 6 “Inoods, 


‘Aunty duty Aéyw Sptv, mply “ABpadp yevéoOar, éyd ecips.” 59. 
cv.9. Rev.°"Hpav odv iBous tva Bddwow ém adrdév: “Incods 8é * éxpdBn, 


XViii. 21. 
d xii. 36. 
. 4 l 
a Mk. i. 16; OUTWS. 
ii. 14. Mt. 
ix. 9. 
b Lev. xxv. 
47. 


kal €&j\Oev ek Tod tepot, SehOdv Sid péoou attav: Kal wapiyev 


IX. 1. Kai “*wapdywv etSev avOpwrov tupddv ek yeveris. 2. 
kal jpadtncay aitév ot pabytat adrod éyovtes, ““PaBBi, tis 


1Omit SteAOwv . . . ovrw as in NBD vet. Lat. vulg. T.R. is found in ScACL. 


“Fifty years’ may be used as a round 
number, sufficiently exact for their pur- 
pose and with no intention to determine 
the age of Jesus. But Lightfoot (Hor. 
Heb., 1046) thinks the saying is ruled by 
the age when Levites retired, see Num. 
iv. 3, 39: “Tu non adhuc pervenisti ad 
vulgarem annum superannuationis, et 
tune vidisti Abrahamum?” Irenaeus 
(ii. 22, 5) records that the Gospel (pre- 
sumably this passage) and the Presbyters 
of Asia Minor who had known John, 
testified that Jesus taught till He was 
forty or fifty. This idea is upheld by 
E. v. Bunsen (Hidden Wisdom of Christ), 
and even Keim is of opinion that Jesus 
may have lived to His fortieth year.— 
Ver. 58. The misunderstanding of His 
words elicits from Jesus the statement: 
apiv ABpaap yevéo Gat, yo ei. ‘ Before 
Abraham was born lam.” ‘‘ Antequam 
Abraham fieret, Ego sum,” Vulgate. 
Plummer aptly compares Ps. xc. 2, po 
Tov opyn yevnOjvar... ov et. Before 
Abraham came into existence I am, 
“eternally existent. No stronger affirma- 
“tion of pre-existence occurs, and 
Beyschlag’s subtle attempt to evade 
“the meaning is unsuccessful.—Ver. 59. 
What the Jews thought of the asser- 
tion appeared in their action: 7jpav... 
aitéy. Believing that He was speaking 
sheer blasphemy and claiming equality 
with the great ‘““I Am,” they sought to 
stone Him. For this purpose there was 
material ready to hand even in the 
Temple court, for, as Lightfoot reminds 
us, the building was still going on. “A 
stoning in the temple is mentioned by 
Josephus, Ant., xvii. 9, 3,’ Meyer.— 
"Ingots S€ éxpvBn Kal e&7AOev. “* But 
Jesus went out unperceived”’; on this 
usage vide Winer, and cf. Thayer. Why 
it should be supposed that there is any- 
thing miraculous or doketic in this 
(Holtzmann and others) does not appear. 
Many in the crowd would favour the 
escape of Jesus. The remaining words of 
the chapter are omitted by recent editors 


CHAPTER IX. 1—X, 22. The healing 
of a man born blind and the discussions 
arising out of this miracle. 

Vv. 1-7. The cure narvated.—Ver. 
1. Kalaapdywv. ‘And as He passed 
by,” possibly, as Meyer and Holtz- 
mann suppose, on the occasion just 
mentioned (viii. 59), and as He passed 
the gate of the Temple where beggars 
congregated; but the definite mention 
that it was a Sabbath (ver. 14) rather 
indicates that it was not the same 
day. See on x. 22.—ciSev .. . yeverijs. 
‘““He saw a man blind from birth,” an 
aggravation which plays a prominent 
part in what follows. And first of all it 
so impresses the disciples that they ask 
wis... yevvn0q; Their question im- 
plies a belief, repudiated by Jesus here 
and in Lk. xiii. 1-5, that each particuJar 
sickness or sorrow was traceable to 
some particular sin; see Job passim and 
“Weber’s Lehren d. Talmud, p. 235. 
Theiz question seems also to imply that 
they supposed even a natal defect might 
be the punishment of the individual’s 
own sin. This has received five different 
explanations: (1) that the pre-existence 
of souls had been deduced from Wisd. 
vili. 20, “‘ being good, I came into a body 
undefiled”; (2) that metempsychosis 
was held by some Jews (so Calvin, Beza, 
and see Lightfoot, p. 1048); or (3) that 
the unborn babe might sin, see Gen. 
xxv. 26, Lk. i. 41-44; or (4) that the 
punishment was anticipatory of the sin; 
or (5) that the question was one of sheer 
bewilderment, putting all conceivable 
possibilities, but without attaching any 
very definite meaning to the one branch 
of the alternative. A combination of the 
two last seems to fit the mental attitude 
of the disciples. The alternative that 
the man suffered for his parents’ sin was 
an idea which would naturally suggest 
itself. See Exod. xx. 5, etc.—tva tuddds 
yevvn6q ; tva expresses result, not pur- 
pose; and the form of expression is “‘ the 
product of false analogy, arising from 


; 





I—,. 


EYATTEAION 


783 


HPaptey, obtos H ot yovets adtod, iva tuddds yevvn 0 3" 3. Am-c Burton, 
explOn 6 "Inooids, “Oudre obtos Hpaptey ote of yovets adtod: add 
iva * bavepw0f ta Epya tod Ocod 4 ey aut. 4. ene! Set épydLeobard 1 Jo. iv. 


s. xlvi 8. 


Ta Epya tod méupartds pe *€ws tpépa eoriv: epxerar vig, Sree Burton, 

obdels SUvaTtar epydlecOa. 5. *drav év TO Kdopw @, dds Eipe TOO f Lk. xi 34. 
kécpou.” 6, Taira eimay, émtuce * xapal, Kat émoinge whddov ék € xviii. 6. 

Tob mTUopatos, Kai éméxpice? Tov myddv emi Tos dOadpods Tod 

Tuphod, 7. kai eimev adtO, ““Yraye vipat cis thy KohupByOpay Tod 


Ewa,” 8 Epunveverat, dmeotahpuévos. 


kal RAGE Bérwr. 


aanOev odv Kal éviparo, 


1 mpas in NBD, adopted by recent editors. 


7 emeOqxev in BC. W.H.R. add avrov with ABL and delete tov rudov, which 
may have been introduced to make the sense clearer. 


imitation of a construction which really 
expresses purpose ”’ (Burton, Moods, 218, 
219).—Ver. 3. Both alternatives are 
rejected by Jesus, OUre . . . attod. And 
another solution is suggested, tva .. . 
“auto. Evil furthers the work of God in 
the world. It is in conquering and 
abolishing evil He is manifested. The 
"question for us is not where suffering has 
“come from, but what we are to do with it. 


‘Ver. 4. The law which is binding on all_ 


_men Jesus enounces.—épe Set épyaleoOar 
. . . Work, active measures to remove 
suffering, are more incumbent on men 
than resentful speculation as to the 
‘source of Suffering; AS t6 *s~con- 
nection with evil, the practical man 
need only concern himself with this, 
‘that God seeks to abolish it. The time 
for doing so_is limited, it is gos jyépa 
éortiv, “so long as it is day,” that is, as 
‘the next clause shows, so long as life 
‘lasts. [On asin N.T. see Burton, 
‘Moods, 321-330.]—€pxerat vvé, suggested 
by the threats (vii. 59, etc.) and by the 
presence of the blind man.—vVer. 5. 
étav ...«docpov. We should have 
expected €ws and not Srav, and the 
Vulgate renders ‘‘quamdiu”. But the 
“when” seems to be used to suggest a 
time when _He should not be in the 
world: ‘“‘when I am in the world, I am 


the Light of the World,” as He immedi-_ 


_ately illustrated by the cure of the blind 
man.—Ver. 6. Tavta eimay, 7.¢., “in 
this connection,” é€mwrvoe yapat... 
“He spat on the ground and made clay 
of the spittle,” ‘‘quia aqua ad manum 
non erat,” says Grotius; but that spittle 
was considered efficacious Lightfoot 
proves by an amusing anecdote and 


Wetstein by several citations. Tacitus 
(Hist., iv. 81) relates that the blind man 
who sought a cure from Vespasian begged 
“ut . . . oculorum orbes dignaretur 
respergere oris excremento’’. Probably 
the idea was that the saliva was of the 
very substance of the person. Tylor 
(Prim. Culture, ii. 400) is of opinion the 
Roman Catholic priest’s touching with 
his spittle the ears and nostrils of the 
infant at baptism is a survival of the 
custom in Pagan Rome in accordance 
with which the nurse touched with spittle 
the lips and forehead of the week-old 
child. Virtue was also attributed to 
clay in diseases of the eye. A physician 
of the time of Caracalla prescribes 
“‘turgentes oculos vili circumline coeno”’. 
That Jesus supposed some virtue lay in 
the application of the clay is contradicted 
by the fact that in other cases of blind- 
ness He did not use it. See Mk. x. 46. 
But if He applied the clay to encourage 
the man to believe, as is the likely solu- 
tion, the question of accommodation 
arises (see Liicke). The whole process 
of which the man was the subject was 
apparently intended to deepen his faith. 
—Ver. 7. The application of the clay was 
not enough. Jesus further said: °Yraye 
... Gmweorahpévos. Elsner shows that 
“wash into,” vipat eis, is not an un- 
common construction. But ver. 11, 
which gives the same command in a 
different .form, shows that the man 
understood that eis followed tmaye and 
not vipat, The pool of Siloam, supplied 
from the Virgin’s fountain (Is. viii. 6), 
lay at the south-east corner of Jerusalem 
in the Kidron Valley. On the opposite 
side of the valley lies a village Silwan 


784 


KATA TQANNHN 


IX. 


8. Oi ody yetroves Kai of Oewpodvres adtov 1 mpdrepov Ste TUphds 


Hv, EAeyov, “Odx obtds ot 6 Kabypevos Kal mpocatay;” 9g. 
“Adhor Eeyor, "Ort obtés éotw+” GAdor 84, “OTL! Sporos adto 


> » 
€oTly. 


b Mt.ix.30. “Mas * dvedyOnodv? cou ot 


"Eketvos Eeyev, “"Ore eyd cipu.” 


” = nm 
10. EXeyov obv atte, 


bpOapol;” 1. "AmexpiOn éxetvos 


kai elev, ““AvOpwiros eydpevos “Ingots mov émolnoe, Kal éreé- 


Xpto€ pou Tods dPbadpods, Kal eli or, “Yaraye eis Thy KohUpLByOpav 


Tod Twdp, Kal vipa. 


an ~ > 
12. Etwoy ov atta, “Mod éotw éexetvos ;” 


GrrehOdy Sé Kat vupdpevos, dvéBdepa.” 


Adyet, “‘ Odx ofda.” 
Y 


13. “Ayovow attév mpds Tos Paptcatous, tov mote Tudddv. 


14. Hv de odBBatov, Ste Tov 
aitod tods dpOadpous. 
Papicator, was dveBdeper. 


mAdv érolngev 6 “Inaods, Kat avéwgev 


15. wodw odv Apdtwy adtovy Kal ot 


6 8€ etmev attois, “Mnyddy érebyKer 


1 Considerable variety of reading occurs in this clause; W.H.R. adopt ado 


eXeyov Ovxt, adda opotos avTw eoriv. 


2 nvewxO8noav read by Tr.Ti.W.H.R. with NBCDEF. 


representing the old name. The name 
is here interpreted as meaning “Sent ”’ 
[mdw, missus ; not miny, missio 

Be = : 
sc. aquarum, Meyer]. The word 
ameota\pevos is so frequently used by 
Jesus of Himself that, notwithstanding 
what Meyer says, we naturally apply it 
here also to Himself, as if the noiseless 
Stream which their fathers had despised 
(Is. vii. 6) and which they could trace to 
its source, was a fit type of Him whom 
the Jews rejected because they knew 
His origin and because he had no ex- 
ternal force. His influence consisted_in 
this, that He was ameoradpevyos. The 

“blind man obeyed and received his sight. 
Cf. Elisha” and Naaman. From the 
succeeding yeitoves several interpreters 
conclude that 7A8e means “came” 
home. Needlessly. 

Vv. 8-12. The people discuss the man’s 
identity.—Ver. 8. Oi ovv yettoves... 
mpocattav; ‘The neighbours, then,” 
who might or might not be at that time 
near the man’s home, “and those who 
formerly used to see him, that he was 
blind ” [but wpocairns is read instead of 
tudhos by recent editors], ‘‘ said, Is not 
this he that sits and begs? ”—Ver. g. 
“Others” but evidently of the same 
description ‘‘said, This is he”. Besides 
those who were doubtful and those who 
were certain of his identity there was a 
third opinion uttered: ‘‘ He is like him”. 
Naturally the opened eyes would alter 
his appearance. The doubts as ta his 


identity were scattered by the man’s 
decisive éy@ eipt.—Ver. 10. This being 
ascertained the next question was, Nas 
avedxOnodv gov ot dpGahpoi; In reply 
the cured man relates his experience. 
He had ascertained Jesus’ name from 
some bystander; and it is noticeable 
that he speaks of Him as one not widely 
known: Gv@pwros Aeydpevos “Incods. 
avéBrewa, “I recovered sight 0 The 
man, who now saw for the first time, 
“uses the ordinary language of men, 
though in strictness it was not applicable 
to his own case,’ Watkins. 

Vv. 13-34. The man is examined by 
the Pharisees, who eventually excom- 
municate him.—Ver. 13. “Ayovow... 
tudddv. ‘ They,” some of the neigh- 
bours and others already mentioned, 
“bring him who had formerly been blind 
to the Pharisees,”’ not to the Sanhedrim, 
but to an informal but apparently 
authoritative (ver. 34) group of Pharisees, 
who were members of the court.—Ver. 
14. The reason of this action was that 
the cure had been wrought on a Sabbath. 
[‘‘ Prohibitum erat sputum oculo illinere 
Sabbato, sub notione aliqua medicinali,”’ 
Lightfoot.]—Ver. 15. amdAw... davé- 
BreWev. madi looks back to the same 
question put by the people, ver. 10; the 
kat serving the same purpose. Their 
first question admits the man’s original 


blindness. The man’s reply is simple 
and straightforward.—Ver. 16. And 
then the Pharisees introduce their 


charge and its implication, Otros... 





—— 
+ eee Ed 


Se ee 





SE Sea 






— 
_ 


Ste ee 





8—23. 


éni tods dpOadpods pov, Kal évipdpny, cal Bdérw.” 


EYATTEAION 


785 


16. *ENeyov 


ody éx Tav dapicatwy tives, “'Odtos 6 avOpwiros obk ott Tapa iv. 16. 


ToU Geov, Str TO oGdBBatov od /typet.” 
Suvatar GvOpwros Gpaptwds ToLaita onpeta mover ;”’ 
17. Aéyouot TO tuphG wad, “Xd Ti héyers wept 


GS 3 > is) 
Nv €v auTots. 


adtov, St. vous gou Tods dPOahpods ; 


Tpopytys éotiv.” 


“Ado EXeyov, ‘Masi Cp. Lev. 
XXVI1. 2. 


Kai oxiopa 


” 


c 
O 8€ elev, ““Ore 


, A“ A 
18. Odx éwioteucay obv ot “loudaior rept adtod, 


Ott Tuphds Fy Kal dvéBdewev, Ews Grou epwvnoay Tovs yoveis adtod 


tod dvaBhepartos, 19. Kal HpwTHGav adTos A€éyortes, “ Odrds eat 


6 vids Spay, * ov Gpets Néyete Ste tupdds eyevvyOn ; Was oby Gptek viii. 54. 


Brewer ; ” 


20. “AmexpiOnoay adtots ot yovets adTod Kat etroy, 


“Oldapev Sti obtds eoT 6 vids Hudv, Kal StL TUdAds éyevyn On - 
21. was S€ viv Brewer, odk oldapev- H Tis Avorgev adTod Tods 


SPOarpods, pets ovK oldapev: adtds 'HAtkiay ™éyer> adtdov1Eph.iv. 13. 


A ? a om 
€pwtygate, adtos wept abtod Aahyoe.” 22. Taira eliov ot yovets 


m viii. 57; 
cp. Job 
Xxix. 18. 


adtod, ott époBodvto tods “louSatous- Sn yap “ouvereVewrTo ot n Dan. iio. 


‘loudator, va édv tis attov dpohoynon Xprotiv, dtroguvaywyos 
A ~ ~ qq 5} 
23. Sed todTo of yovets adtod etmov, “Ort HAtkiay exer, 


yevntac. 


tnpet. The miracle is not denied, rather 
affirmed, but it cannot be a work of God, 
_for_it has been done on Sabbath. Cf. 
ili, 2 and v. 16. Some of their party, 
however, inclined to a different conclu- 
sion, Flas ... wovetv; Howcan such 


His opening your eyes?” The question 
is not one of fact, but of inference from 
the fact; the Grt means ‘in that,” 
“inasmuch as,” and the Vulgate simply 
renders “Tu quid dicis de illo, qui 
aperuit oculos tuos?” Promptly the 
man replies, mpodytys éorty.—Ver. 18. 
It now appears that their previous ad- 
mission of the fact of the miracle was 
disingenuous and that they suspected 
fraudulent collusion between Jesus and 
the man; Ov« émiotevoav, “they did 
not believe” his account (ver. 19), éws 
Srov.. . Brewer; “until they sum- 
moned his parents”.—Ver. 20. To 
them they put virtually three questions: 


Lk. xxii. 
5. Acts 
XXxiii. 20, 
XXiv. g. 


Is this your son? Was he born blind ? 
(for though you say this of him, vpeis 
emphatic, we do not believe it). How 
does he now see? The first two questions 
they unhesitatingly answer: This is our 
son who was born blind. This answer 
explodes the idea of collusion.—Ver. 21. 
The third question they have not the 
means of answering, or as ver. 22 in- 
dicates, they shammed ignorance to save 
themselves ; and refer the examiners to 
the man _himself.—auktav” €xe, his 
parents are no longer responsible for 
him, Examples of the Greek phrase are 
given by Kypke and Wetstein from 
Plato, Aristophanes, and Demosthenes. 
avrTés wept avtov [better éaurod] 
Aadyjoer.— Ver. 22. Tatra... épwrr- 
oate. The reluctance of the parents to 
answer brings out the circumstance that 
already the members of the Sanhedrim 
had come to an understanding with one 
another that any one who acknowledged 
Jesus as the Messiah should be excom- 
municated, amoouvvaywyos yévnrar. Of 
excommunication there were three 
degrees: the first lasted for thirty days; 
then followed “a setond admonition,’ 
and ifimpenitent the culprit was punished 
for thirty days more; and if still im- 


‘penitent he was Taid under the Cherem 


or ban, which was of indefinite duration, 
and which entirely cut him off from 


intercourse with others. He was treated 


50 


ia 
786 KATA ITQANNHN t/&.) 


over. 18. abdrdv épwrjcate.” 24. “Eddvycay odv © éx Seurépou trav dvOpwirov 
Zech. iv. 2 by = 

Bras aie jv Tupdds, Kal elroy adta, “ Ads Sdfav TH OcG- pets oldapey 
timesin , ‘ite H ij 
N.T.. Ste 6 &vOpwrrog odtos dpaptwds éotiv.” 25. "Amexpidn ody éxetvos 


a 
kal etrrev, “Ei dpaptwhds éotiv, ok olda+ ev oda, Sti Tuphds Gr, 
26. Etwovy 8€ adt@ wadw, “Ti éwoincé cor; mwas 
27. “AtexpiOy adrots, ‘ Ettrov bpiv 


Gptt Bdérw.” 

’ 
Hrorké cou Tods dpOarpods ; ” 
HSy, Kal odk HKovcate* Ti wadw Oédere Gxovew; pi) Kat Spets 


‘ 
> 28. "ENorSdpyoay obv adtov, Kat 


OdXete adtod pabytat yereoOar ; ’ 
elroy, ‘Xd et pabytijs éxeivou~ iets 5 TOG Muodws eopev pabytat. 
29. Hpets otSapev StL Mwof AeAcAnkev 6 Oeds- TodTov S€ ovK 
oldaper 1d0ev éoriv.”” 30. “AmekpiOyn 6 advOpwros Kal elev adtois, 

“Ey yap touTw Saupactéy éotu, St duets odK oidare mé0Ev €or, 
q Jas. iv.3; Kat dvéwgé pou Tods dPOadpods. 31. Toidapev S€ StL Gpaprwrav 
¥-76- 8 @eds odK akover: GAN edv Tg BeooeBiys 4, Kal TO O€Anpa adTod 


~ , , b dee] lol da > > , (7) o »” , 
r Here only; Tot, TOUTOU GkKoUvEL. 32. "EK TOU al@vos ouK HKoUGH, OTL jvougé 


cp. Lk. 1. 
70, etc. 


as if he were a leper. This, to persons 
so poor as the parents of this beggar, 
would mean ruin and death (see Eders- 
“heim, Life of Christ, ii- 183-4).—Ver. 
24. Baffled by the parents the Pharisees 
turn again, é« Sevrépov, a second time to 
the man and say: Ads 8é6fav7@ Oc@ . . . 
éotiv. They no longer deny the miracle, 
but bid the man ascribe the glory of it to 
the right quarter ; to God: not to Jesus, 
because they can assure him on know- 
ledge of their own, jpets otdapev, that 
He is a sinner.—Ver. 25. But they find in 
the man a kind of independence and ob- 
stinacy they arenot used to, Et dpaptwAds 
. . . BAéwo. He does not question their 
knowledge, and he draws no express 
inferences from what has happened, but 
of one thing he is sure, that he was blind 
and that now he sees.—Ver. 26. Thwarted 
by the man’s boldness and perceiving that 
it was hopeless to deny the fact, they re- 
turn to the question of the means used. 
Tl érrotnoég cot; At this the man loses 
patience. Their crafty and silly attempt 
to lead him into some inconsistent state- 
ment seems to him despicable, and he 
breaks out (ver. 27): Ettrov . . . yevéo@at. 
No more galling gibe could have been 
hurled at them than this man’s ‘“ Are 
you also wishing to become His 
disciples ?’’—Ver. 28. It serves its 
purpose of exasperating them and bring- 
ing them to the direct expression of 
their feelings. *EXo.8d . - tory. 
“ They reviled him.”” On éxetvov Bengel 
has: ‘‘Hoc vocabulo removent Jesum 
a sese’’.—Ver. 29. We know that 


tis dpGadpods tupdod yeyervnpevou. 









33. €l ph qv obtos mapa 


Moses was a prophet, commissioned by 
God to speak for Him (for AeAdAnKev see 
Heb. i. 1); and if this man is commis- 
sioned He must show proof of His being 
sent from God, and not leave us in 
ignorance of His origin.—Ver. 30. This, 
in_the face of the miracle, seems to the 
‘man_a surprising statement: "Ev yap 
rovTw, “why, herein is that which is 
marvellous”. 716 @avpacrdy is the true 
reading. For the use of ydp in rejoinders 
see Winer, p. 559, and Klotz, p. 242. It 
seems to imply an entire repudiation of 
what has just been said: ‘‘ You utter an 
absurdity, for...’ The marvel was 
that ars should hesitate about the 


ver, 31: otdapev... axover. They 
themselves had owned it a work of God, 
ver. 24; but God is not persuaded or 
induced to give such power to sinners, 
but only to those who do His will. This 
man therefore, were He a sinner, would 
have been unable to do anything, not to 
speak of such a work as has never before 

Watkins expresses it as a 
(1) God heareth not sinners 
but only those who worship Him and do 
His will; (2) That God heareth this man 
is certain, for such a miracle could be 
performed only by divine power; (3) 
This man, therefore, is not a sinner but is 
rom God.—Ver. 32. x Tov alavos, rather 
“from of old” than ‘since the world 
began”. Cf. Lk. i. 70, T@v am’ aidvos 
mwooontey, and Acts, iii. 21, xv. 18. To 











24—41. 


Qed, odk HSUvato movety obdédv.” 


att@, "Ev duaprtiats ob éyevvyOns ‘dos, kal od Si8deKets Hpas ; 7° 


Kai ” 


autéov é&w- Kal 


efeBadov aitov ew. 
~ ~ ” 
vidv Tod Oeod? 
. 2? 
kupte, va muotevow eis alTév;” 37. 
édpakas avToy, Kal 


egy, “ Muoredw, kupie:” 


EYATTEAION 


> A 
35. Hxoucev & “Inagods St e&éBadov 
Yebpwv attév, elev aitd, “XO moredets eis Tov 
36. *AmekpiOn éxetvos kai eime, “Tis oti, y 


6 hah@y peta god, éxetvds éotiy.” 
A , Sie ay 
39- Kal mpovekdvncey adTa. 


787 


34. “AmwexpiOnoav nal elaov 


8 Ps. li. 5. 

t vii. 23. 

u 2 Chron, 
xxix. 16. 
Wekexxeuras 
Ch. vi. 37. 
i. 42, 44. 


Eiwe S€ adt@ 6 ‘“Ingods, “ Kai 
38. “O Be w iv. 26. 
Kal elev 6 


‘Ingods, “Eis kpipa éyd eis Tov Kédopov Todtovy FNOov, iva ot ph 


Bhérovtes BAEwor, kal oi BXérovtes Tupdol yévwvTar.”” 


40. Kat 


lal a ” > A . 
nkougay ék Tay dapicaiwy Tata of Gvres peT adTod, Kal elroy 


fol \ ~ ” 
att@, “Mi kal iets Tupdoi eoper ; 


“Ei tupdol fre, obk av 
, ¢ > c , < ~ , 
Bhéromev: 4 obv Gpaptia bpav péver. 


41. Ettrev abtots 6 “Inoois, 


*elxere Gpaptiav: viv Sé Adyere, “Ori x xv. 22, 24. 


! Oeov in ALXTA Lat. (vet. vulg.) Syrr. (Pesh. Harcl. Hier.) Memph. Goth. Arm. 
Aeth., but av@pwarov in SAB Theb., adanted by Ti.W.H. 


this there is no reply but abuse and dis- 
missal.—Ver. 34. "Ev Gpaptiau.. . 
é£m. ‘In sins thou wast whoily born, 
and dost thou teach us?” ‘They refer 
his blindness to sin, and reproach hin ‘him 
“with his calamity, — “Sin, they say, was 
branded_on the whole man; he was 
Mmanifestly a. Efener bares Yet we, the 
pure and godly, are to be tau ght by 
‘such a man! rE Badov af airov ea, aiken 
cast him out,” not merely from the 
chamber, but fem communion. _This is 
implied both in ver. 35 and al: that 
Jesus says of the shepherds in the follow- 
“ing paragraph. 

Ver. 35-X. 21. The good and the 
hireling shepherds.—Ver. 35. ~Hxovoev 
... The action of the Pharisees threw 
the man on the compassion of Jesus: 
“‘ He heard that they had cast him out,” 
and He knew the reason; therefore, 
evpov avtov, “when He found him,” as 
He wished and sought to do, His first 
question was: 2b... Geot; Perhapsa 
slight emphasis lies in the Xd. ‘ Dost 
thou believe in the Messiah ?’’—Ver. 
36. The man’s answer shows that he 
was willing to believe in the Messiah if 
he could identify Him; and having 
already declared Jesus to be a prophet, 
he believed that He could tell him who 
the Messiah was. It may be taken for 
granted that although he had not seen 
Jesus since recovering his sight, he ~w 
knew somehow that he was speaking to 
the person who had healed him; and 
was perhaps almost prepared for the™ 
great announcement (ver. 37): Kat édpa- 


kas avrov, ‘ Thou hast both seen Him,” 
no doubt with a reference to the blessing 
of restored eyesight; Kat... éottyv. 
This direct revelaticn, similar to that 
given to the Samaritan woman (iv. 26), 
was eiicited by the pitiable condition of 
the man _as an outcast from the Jewish 
community, and by the perception that 
the man was ripe for faith.— Ver. 38. ‘O 
“Re... avt@. He promptly uttered his 
belief and ‘ worshipped ” Jesus. In this 
Gospel mpookuvety is used of the worship 
of God: the word is, however, susceptible 
of a somewhat lower degree of adoration 
(Mt. xviti. 26); but it includes the ac- 
knowledgment of supremacy and a com- 
plete submission.—Ver. 39. Summing 
up the spiritual | significance of the miracle 
Jesus said: Eis Kpipa .. . yévwvrat. 
“ For judgment, "for bringing to li nt 
and exhibiting in its consequences t 
actual inward state of men; 3. ‘that shiase 
who see not may $ see,” that is, that those 
who are conscious of their blindness and 
grieved on account of it may be relieved; 
while those who are content with the 
light they have lose even that. Witha 
‘kind of sad humour He points'out how 
easily felt blindness is removed, but how 
obstinately blind is presumed knowledge. ee 
The blind man now saw, because he 
“knew he was blind and used the means 
_Jesus told him to use: the Phariseés 
were stone-blind to the world Jesus 
opened to them, because they thought 
that already they knew much more than 
He did.—Ver. 40. Some of the Pharisees 
“overheard His words, and unconsciously 


788 


KATA I 


ANNHN xm 


piv, 6 ph eloepydpevos Sd Tis Bupas 


c Gen. iv. eis Thy addy Tav mpoBdtwr, BAKA dvaBaivwy * dd\Kaydbev, Exetvos 
1 Pet. ii. 


asMaciz, X. 1. “"AMHN dphy A€yw 

b Obad. 5. 

13 *«démtms €otl Kal AnorTHs: 
xviii. 16, @ 


17. Toumy éot. Tay mpoBaTwy. 


f Ezek. xx 
6: Ch 
meets Svona, kat *éfdyer atrd. 4. 
16. = 
g Mk. i. 12, €pmpoo8ev abtav mopeverat - 
h Job xix 


13:1 ol8acr Thy wry adtod. 5. 
Kings viii. 
41, etc. 


2. 6 8é cicepyouevos Sd THs Spas, 
3. ToUTw 6 *Oupwpds dvoiyer, kal Ta 


. mpdBata THs pwvas adtod dkover, kal Ta (81a mpoBata Kadet ° Kat’ 


kal Stray Ta t81a mpdBara} * éxBadn, 
kai Ta wpdBata atte dKxodoubel, Ste 
*addotpiw S€ oF ph akodouPjoworr, 


GANG hedEorvtat dw adTod+ Ste obk oidaci Tay dANOTPlwy Thy daryy.” 


1T.R. in AVA, but wavra in caBDLX 1, 33. 


proved their truth by saying with in- 
dignant contempt: pH Kal nets tuddol 
éopev; To which Jesus, taking them on 
their own ground, replies: Et ruddAot 
Fre, ovx Gy eixere Gpapriav. If ye were 
ignorant, as this blind man _ was, aware 
~of your darkness and anxious to be rid 
of it, your ignorance would excuse you: 
but now by all your words and actions” 
you proclaim that you are satisfied with 
the light you have, therefore you cannot 
receive that fuller light which I bring 
and in which is deliverance from sin, and 
“must therefore remain under its bondage. 
Cf. viii. 21. zp 
CHAPTER X.—Vv. 1-21. The Good 
Shepherd and the hirelings. ‘This para- 
graph is a continuation of the conversa- 
tion which arose out of the healing of_ 
the blind man. Instead of being intro- 
duced by any fresh note of time, it is 
ushered in by apqv auqyv, which is never 
found in this Gospel at the commence- 
ment of a discourse. The subject also 
is directly connected with the miracle 
and its consequences. Jesus explains 
to the excommunicated_man_who it is 
that_has power to give entrance to the 
true fold or to exclude from it. As 
usual, the terms and tenor of the teach- 
ing are interpreted by the incident which 
gave rise to it.—Ver. 1. “Apyv... 
AqoTys. 


from some other direction: &AAaxdOev, 
which is used in later Greek for the 
Attic GAAoBev) is KAewrys Kal Agoris, a 
“thief” who uses fraud and a “robber ” 
who is prepared to use violence. That 
is to say, his method of entrance, being 
illegitimate, declares that he has no right 
to the sheep.—Ver. 2. On the other 


“hand, 6 8& eloepydpevos . . . mpoBdtwv, 


“but he that entereth by the door is 
shepherd of the sheep ”. The shepherd is 
known by his using the legitimate mode of 
entrance. What that is, He does not 
here explicitly state. The shepherd is 
further recognised by his treatment of 
the sheep, Ta té:a mpoBata xakel [better 
dwvei] Kat’ dvona, “his own sheep he 
calls by name’’. ‘8a perhaps as dis- 
tinguished from others in the same fold ; 
perhaps merely a strong possessive. As 
we have names for horses,’ dogs, cows, 
so the Eastern shepherds for their sheep. 
{Many of the sheep have particular 
names,’”’ Van Lennep, Bible Lands, i. 
189. It was also a Greek custom to 
name sheep, and Wetstein quotes from 
Longus, 6 8¢ Adgvis éxadeoe Tivas avTav 
évonacrt.|—Stav . . . avtov. When he 
has put all his own out of the fold, they 
follow him, because they know his voice: 
the shepherd walking in front as is still 
the custom in the East. This method can- 


The avAy, or sheepfold, into not be adopted by strangers ‘“‘ because the 


which the sheep were gathered for safety sheep know not the voice_o: strangers ”’. 
every night, is described as being very ‘‘ There is a story of a Scotch traveller 
similar to folds in some parts of our own who changed clothes with a Jerusalem 
country ; a walled, unroofed enclosure. shepherd and tried to lead the sheep; 
The 6vpa, however, is not as with us a_ but the sheep followed the shepherd’s 
hurdle or gate, but a solid door heavily ‘voice and not his clothes.” Plummer. 
barred and capable of resisting attack. So that the shepherd’s claim is justified 
This door is watched by a Ovpwpds not only by his method o1 entrance but 
[door-guard, for root “or” vide Spratt’s by his Terowietee of the names of the_ 
Thucyd., iii. p. 132], who in the morning _ individual sheep and by their knowledge 
opened to the shepherd. He who does of him and confidence in him. The 
‘not appeal to the @vpwpds but climbs up different methods are illustrated in 
over the wall by some other way (lit. Andrewes and Laud, the former saying‘ 











I—Io, 


EYATTEAION 


789 


6. Tattny thy Swapoiniay etme adtois 6 “Incots: exetvos Sé odmixvi.25. 2 


eyvwoay tiva qv & éhdder adtots. 


Pet. 1i. 22 


7. Etwev ody wédw abtots 6 “Inaods, “’Aphy duty Néyw duiv, on 


€yé eipt 7 Opa tv mpoBarwr. 


8. mdvtes Soo. pd e405 7Oov, 


, A 
kNéemtat eiot Kat AnoTai- GAN ovK AKoucay adtOv ta mpdBata. j Num. 


Q. ey® eipe  Odpa- 8 enod édv tig eicAOy, cwOHoetar, ) Kaix 
> , Wit) , \ x cf? 
eigehedoeTat Kat efehevceTar, Kal voy edpyoer. 


ovK epxerar et ph iva Kdey Kai *Oion Kal dmoddon> éya Aor 


latter, of whom it was said that_he 
“would never convince an opponent_if 
he could suppress_him”. See Ottley’s 
Andrewes, 159.—Ver.6. The application 
of the parable was sufficiently obvious ; 
but tatrnv .. . avtois. 
[wapd, olpos, out of the way or wayside] 
seems more properly to denote 
proverb”’; and the Book of Proverbs 
is named in the Sept. at wapowptar or 
mapointat Lahkwpovros; and Aristotle, 
Rhetor., 3, 11, defines mwapousfar as 
petadopat am’ etdous en’ elSos. But 
wapoi.ia and tapaBoAy came to be 
convertible terms, both meaning a longer 
or shorter utterance whose meaning did 
. not lie on the surface or proverbial 
sayings: the former term is never found 
in the Synoptic Gospels, the latter never 
found in John. {Further see Hatch, 
Essays in Bibl. Greek, p. 64; and 
Abbot’s Essays, p. 82.] This parable 
the Pharisees did not understand. They 
might have understood it, for the terms 
used were familiar O.T. terms ; see Ezek. 
xxxiv., Ps. Ixxx. But as it had been 
spoken for their instruction as well as 
for the encouragement of the man whom 
they had cast out of the fold, (ver. 7) 
elrey ovv maAuv, Jesus therefore began 
afresh and explained it to them.—éyo 
cipt 7) OUpa trav mpdBarwv. I, and no 
a r, am Tae Aone the sheep, [Cf. 
the Persian reformer who proclaimed 
himself the ‘‘ Bab,” the gate of life.] 
Through me alone can the sheep find 


—Ver. 8. 


, .. Agortat, ‘all who came before 


Tapoinia 


6a 


XXVii. 17. 

Acts x. 1); 
i 7a leh 

Io. 6 Kdéwms xv. 


19. 


trasting the ‘‘door” rather than the 
Shepherd with the ‘thieves and robbers ” 
who came before Jesus, only emphasises 
the fact that the reality was more pro- 
minent than the figure in the mind of 
the speaker.] Those, however, who had 
tried to assume the functions of the 
Shepherd had failed; because ov« 


Hjkoveay avtay ta apdBarta, the people 


of God had not listened to them, They 
no doubt assumed authority over the 
people of God and compelled obedience, 
but the true children of God did not 
find in their voice that which attracted 
and led them to pasture. — Ver. 9. 
éy® ... evpyoe.. With emphasis He 
reiterates: ‘‘I am the door: through 
me, and none else, if a _man_ enter he 
_shall be saved, and shall go in and out 
and find pasture”. Mever and others 
supply “‘any shepherd” as the nomina- 
tive to eiogAOy, which may agree better 
with the form of the parabolic saying, 
but not so well with the substance. 
Jesus is the Door of the sheep, not of 
the shepherd; and the blessings pro- 
mised, ow9ycetat, x. T. A., are proper 
to the sheep. These blessings are three: 
deliverance from peril, liberty, and 
sustenance. For the~ phraseology see 
‘the remarkable passage Num. xxvii. 15- 
21, which Holtzmann misapplies, neglect- 
ing the twenty-first verse. go out 
and in’’ is the common O.T. expression 
‘to denote the free activity of daily life,” 
Jér. xxxvii. 4, Ps. cxxi. 8, Deut. xxviii. 
6.—Ver. 10. The tenth verse intro- 
duces a new contrast, between the good 


79° 


’ ‘ 4 ” 
lvv. 15,17, Tva Lwhy Exwor, Kal weproody Exwour. 


18; xiii. 
37; xv.13.kahds* 6 Trousjy 6 Kadds 
m Gen. 
xlix,. 27. 
Ecclus. 
xiii. 17. 
p jer. x. 21. 


mpoBdtwv. 12. 6 prodwrds 


KATA IQANNHN x. 


II. "Ey eipi & monty 6 
Thy ‘Wuxhy abrod tidnow bmwep tov 
Se, Kat odk Gy mrousiy, ob obk elot Ta 


mpdéBata (dia, Gewpet Tov AdKov épxdpevov, Kai ddinor Ta mpdBata, 


t Mac. vi, Kal hedyer> Kal 6™ddKos dpmdLer ada, kat ™ oxopTifer Ta mpdBara. 


54-_Jer. 
Xxiii. 1. 
Mt. xii.30; 
and see Thayer. 


13. 6 Bé ° prcOwrds pedyer,} 


o Exod. xii. 45. Lev. xxii. 10, etc. 


Ste picOwrds éoti, Kai ob Ppéher ato 


Mk. i. 20. p Wisd. xii. 13. Tob. x. 5. 


1 The verse closes at oxopmifer, the following six words being deleted in QBDL 
I, 33, but the clause must at any rate be mentally supplied. 


shepherd and the thieves and hirelings. 
—é wrdérrns . . . Gtrohéog. The thief 
has but one reason for his coming to 
“the fold: he comes to steal and kill and 


destroy; to aggrandise himself at the 


expense of the sheep. @vop has pro- 
bably the simple meaning of “kill,” as 
in VAC) x. 13) Mt. xxl 4: cj, Deut. 
xxii. r. With quite other intent has 
Christ come: éy® fA@ov .. . Exworv, 
that instead of being killed and perish- 
ing the sheep “may have life and may 
have abundance’, This may mean 
abundance of life, but more probably 
abundance of all that sustains life. 
mwepitrov exeww in Xen., Anab., vii. 6, 31, 
means ‘“‘to have a surplus’. ‘“ The 
repetition of €xwoww gives the second 
point a more independent position than 
it would have had if xat alone had 
been used. Cf. ver. 18; Xen., Anab., i. 
10, 3, Kal TavTnv Eowoav Kal GAAa.. . 
trwoav,” Meyer. Cf. Ps. xxiii, 1.— 
Vv. 11-18. In these verses Jesus desig- 
nates Himself **the Good Shepherd” 
and emphasises two features by which a 
good shepherd can be known: (z)_his 
giving his life for the sheep, and (2) the 
reciprocal knowledge of the sheep and 


the shepherd. These two features are 


both introduced by the statement (ver. 
II) éyo eipt 6 wousqy 6 Kadds, “the 
good shepherd”; ‘ good” probably in 
the sense in which we speak of a 
“so00d’’ painter or a “‘good”’ architect ; 
one who excels at his business. The 
definite article claims this as a descrip- 
tion applicable to Himself alone. Cf. 
Bs. xxiit., Is. xt. 11, ‘Ezek. .xxxiv., etc. 
For other descriptions of the ideal 
shepherd, see Plato’s Repub., p. 345, 
and the remarkable passage in the 
Politicus, 271-275, and Columella {in 
Wetstein), “Magister autem _pecoris 
acer, durus, strenuus, laboris patientissi- 
mus, alacer atque audax esse debet; et 
qui per rupes, per solitudines atque 
vepres facile vadat ’’.—4é troupqy 6 kaos, 


the good shepherd, whoever he is, thy 
wuxny . . . wpoBdtey, “lays down his 
life for the sheep”. riOévar THY Wuxyv 
is not a classical phrase, but in Hip- 
pocrates occurs a similar expression, 
Maxdov yé ro. Wuxiv KaréleTo év TH 
TpwdSt, Kypke. Ponere spiritum occurs 
in Latin. Of the meaning there is no 
doubt. Cf. xiii. 37.—twép rav wpoBartov, 
“for the good of the sheep,” that is, 
when the welfare of the sheep demands 
the sacrifice of life, that is freely made. 
_Here it is evident Jesus describes “ the 
good shepherd ”’ as revealed in Himself. 
—Ver. 12. 6 pioOwros Se [dé is omitted 
by recent editors]... mpdéBara. In 
contrast to the good shepherd stands 
now not the robber but a man in some 
respects better, a hireling or hired hand 
(Mark i. 20), not a shepherd whose 
instincts would prompt him to defend 
the sheep, and not the owner to whom 
the sheep belong. So long as there is 
no danger he does his duty by the sheep 


for the sake of his wages, but when he_ 


sees the wolf coming he abandons the 
sheep and flees. ‘The wolf” includes 
_all that threatens the sheep. In Xen., 
Mem., ii. 7, 14, the dog says to the sheep: 
éy® yap eipt 6 Kal ipas airas colar, 
“Gore pire tm’ avOparwv Kdérrec Oar, 
pyte two AvKwv apralecOar.—Kal 6 
AvKos .. . okopmifer, “‘and the wolf 
carries them off and scatters them”; 
cf. Mt. ix. 36; a general description care- 
less of detail. Bengel says “‘lacerat quas 
potest, ceteras dispergit ”.—Ver. 13. oe 
picOwrds devyer, not, as in ver. 12, 6 
pio. S€é, “ because the antithesis of the 
hireling was there first brought forward 
and greater emphasis was secured by that 
position’. Meyer. Klotz, p. 378, says 
that 8¢ is placed after more words than 
one ‘‘ubi quae praeposita particulae 
verba sunt aut aptius inter se conjuncta 
sunt aut ita comparata, ut summum 
pondus in ea sententia obtineant”. He 
flees StL picBwrds éort, his nature ig 


GP t Loe ——— ee Ee dn ge ag a 





‘ 

a 

I 
i 

f 








11I—17. 


Tept Tay mpoBdTwv. 


EYATTEAION 


791 


14. €yo eipe 6 trout 6 Kadds: Kal ywookw 


Ta ed, Kai ywwoKonar brd Tov éndy,! 15. KaOds yiwooKer pe 6 


“ She) s \ , ‘ A , , e A 
TaTHp, KAYO ywWoKwW TOV TaTepa* Kal THY PuxHY pou TLOnuLr Omep 


Tov tpoBdTwy. 


16. nai GAAa mpdBara exw, & odk Eotiw ex Tis 


avAjs taUTns: KéKelwd pe Set Tdyayetv, Kal Tis pwvas pou dxovo-q Is. Ix. 9, 


ougt* Kal yevyceTat pia Toipyn, 


1 T.R. is authenticated by AXTA 33, syr., etc. 
is the reading of $@BL, it. vulg. “cognoscunt | me meae’’, 


“eis Trout. 
TaTHp pe Gyawd, OTe éyw TiOnpe Thy Wuxyy pou, twa mddwy AdBw 


17. Sta todto 6r Ezek. 
XXXVii. 24, 


; the active ywwwokovow pe ta ena 
This gives a better 


balanced sentence, though the sense is the same. 


“took the position of, aire of the 
sheep for his own sake, not for theirs; 
and the presence of the wolf brings out out 
‘that it is himself, not the sheep, he cares 
~for.— Ver. 14. ‘The second mark of the 
“good shepherd is introduced by a repeti- 
tion of the announcement: éyo... 
kaddés. And this second mark is not 
stated in general terms applicable to all 
good shepherds, but directly of Him- 
self: éy® cipt . . . kat ywwdokw To éwa, 
kal yivdoKopar t7d Tav énav. There 
is a mutually reciprocal knowledge 
between Jesus and His sheep. And the 
existence of this knowledge is the proof 
that Heisthe Shepherd. The shepherd’ s 
claim is authenticated by his knowled; 
“of the marks and ways of the sheep, oa 
_by its knowledge | aORnaE as shown in its 
“coming to his voice and submission to 
his hand. Augustine says: “ They some- 
‘times do not know themselves, but the 
“shepherd knows them ”.—Ver. 15. This 
reciprocal knowledge is so sure and pro- 
found that it can only be compared to 
the mutual knowledge of the Father and 
the Son: xa$as ... warépa. He then 
applies to Himself what had been stated 
in general of all good shepherds in ver. 
Ir; and ver. 16 might suitably have 
begun with the words ‘And my life I 
_lay down for the sheep”. This state- 
ment is, however, prompted by His 
reference to_.His._knowledge of the 
Father. He knows it is the Father’s 
will that He should lay down His life. 
See vv. 17 and 18.—Ver. 16. But the 
mention of His death suggests to Him 
the wide extent of its consequences. 
a\Aa mpdBata exw, “other sheep I 
have”; not that they are already 
believers in_Him, but ‘ His” by a 
Father’s design _and_gift. Cf. xvil. 
and Acts xviii. Io. They are only 
negatively described ; & ovx €ottv éx THs 


that which contained the Jews who 
‘already had _ received Him as their 
Shepherd; and the other sheep which 
are not “of” (éx, as frequently in John, 
“belonging to’; not as Meyer renders) 
this fold are the Gentiles.—Kxakeiva .. . 
motnnv ‘those also I must bring and 
they shall listen to my voice, and they 


_shall_ so amalgamate with the Jewish 


disciples that there shall be one flock, 


“one shepherd”, The listening to Christ’s 


voice brings the sheep to Him, and this 


being what constitutes the flock, the 


flock must_be one as He is one. But 
nothing is said of unity of organisation. 
There may be various folds, though one 
flock.—pia aotuvn, els mowmryy, the 
alliteration cannot be quite reproduced 
in English. For the emphasis gained by 
omitting Kat cf. Eurip., Orestes, 1244, 
Tptowots piAots yap els ayov, Sin pta. 
The A.V. wrongly translated ‘one fold,” 
following the Vulgate, which renders 
both avAy and woipvy by “ovile” [qua 
voce non grex ipse sed ovium stabulum 
declaratur ; quod unum vix unquam fuit, 
et non modo falso, sed etiam stulte im- 
pudenter Romae collocatur’”. Beza)]. 
This is corrected in R.V. The old Latin 
versions had ‘‘unus grex”’ ; see Words- 
worth’s and White’s Vulg.—Ver. 17. At 
this point the exposition of the functions 
of the good shepherd terminates ; but as 
a note or appendix Jesus adds 81a rotro, 
‘“‘on this account,” 7.e., because I lay 
down my life for the sheep (ver. 15 and 
following clause) does my Father love 
me. The expressed éy serves to bring 
out the spontaneity of the surrender, 
“And this free sacrifice or death is justified ~ 
by the object, tva wadktv AdBo avriv. He 
“dies, not to remain in death and so leave 
the sheep defenceless, but to live again, 
to resume life in ‘pursuance of the object 
jor which He had given it. The freedom 
of the sacrifice is proved by His taking 


KATA I 


sv. 19g. ab’ Vv. 
Num. xvi. bl i 
29. éuauTou. 

ti. 12, : sf ate A 4 
Wisd.xvi. KaBety adtyy. Tadtny Ti 
13. 

uix.16. IQ. "“Xxtopa odv mad éyé 

V Vil. 20; : - R 
viii. 48. ToUTous. 20. €Xeyow S¢ tro 
Wisd.v.4. , A Pa a ; iH 

w Mk. iii. “patverars tl auTod dKovete ; 
21. Acts 
XXVi. 24, 

Wisd. 
xiv. 28, SpOadpods dvotye ;”” 

x Mt. iv. 24 

y Acts iii. 

II; Vv. 12. 

zLk xxi. 4¥* 23. Kal wepreTrdrer 6 “In 
20. Acts ,~ 
xiv. 20. /@VvTOS. 

a Mt. xvii. cca? eb er ‘ 
17. Rev. Eas mote Thy puxiy tay © aipes ; 
vi. Io, i 
only in N.T. b Ezek. xxiv. 25. 


QANNHN x 


18. odSels atper adriy dm’ euod, GAN’ eyd TiOnpe adthy * da’ 


*éfouciay exw Oeivar adrhy, Kat éfougiay exw mddw 


évtod}y EXaBov mapa Tod twatpds pou.” 
veto év Tots “loudaiots Sia Tods Adyous 
Adot €& adray, “* Aatpdviov exer Kal 
21. “AdAot EXeyov, “ Taita Ta 


pypara ok Eat *SaiporLopévous ph Satpdviov Sdvarar tupddv 


22. ETENETO 8! 7a éyxaina év tots ‘leporohtpots, Kat yeupow 


gots év TH tep@ év TH ¥ oT0G TOU Lodo- 


24. "éxukhwoay obv adtév ot ‘loudator, Kat €deyov atta, 


ei od ef & Xprotis, eine 


1 rore is read instead of 8 by W.H. on the authority of BL 33 and some versions. 
This reading would connect this paragraph with the foregoing, and the interval of 


two months between the Feast of Tab 
between chs. viii. and ix. It has been s 


the Dedication of Solomon’s Temple, whic 
This is not likely. The reading of T.R. 


NAD and most other uncials, vulg. goth 


His life again. He was not compelled 
to die.—Ver. 18. ovSeis ... épavrod. 
He did not succumb to the machinations 
of His foes. To the last He was free to 
‘choose another exit from life; Mt. xxvi. 
53- He gave His life freely, perceiving 
that this was the Father’s will: éEovciav 
... pov. Others have only power to 
choose the time or method of their death, 
and not always that: Jesus had power 
absolutely to lay down His life or to 
retain it. Others have no power at all 
to resume their life after théy had laid 
it down. He has. This freedom, as 
Weiss remarks, does not clash with the 
instrumentality of the Jews in taking 
His life, nor with the power of God in 
raising Him again.—ravrtny thy évroAjy. 
““This commandment ”’ thus to dispose 
of His life and to resume it He has 
received from the Father. In this as in 
all else He is fulfilling the will and _pur- 
pose of God. 

Vv. 19-21. The result of this discourse 
briefly described.—Ver. 19. As usual, 
diverse judgments were elicited, and 
once more a division of opinion appeared, 
Zxtopa otv waht éyévero... Many 
thought Him possessed and mad, as in 
Mk. ili. 21; cf. od patvopar of Paul, 
Acts xxvi. 24. Others took the more 
sensible view. These words they had 
heard were not the wild exclamations 
and ravings they usually heard from 


ernacles and Dedication would be placed 
uggested that ta eyxatvia may here mean 
h coincided with the Feast of Tabernacles. 
is strongly authenticated, being found in 
. SyT., etc. 


demoniacs; and His acts, such as open- 
ing the blind man’s eyes, were not 
within the compass of a demon. 

Vv. 22-39. Sayings of Fesus at the 
Feast of Dedication.—Ver. 22. ‘Eyévero 
Se 7a éyxaivia. The éyxatvea (Ezra vi. 
16) was the annual celebration of the re- 
consecration of the Temple by Judas 
Maccabaeus after its defilement_by 
Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Mace. i. 20-60, 
iv. 36-57).—é€v ‘lepoowAvpots. The feast 
might be celebrated elsewhere, and the 
place may be specified because Jesus 
had been absent from Jerusalem and 
now returned.—yetpov qv, not “it was 
stormy weather” (Plummer) but ‘it 
was winter’’; inserted for the sake of 
Gentile readers and to explain why 
Jesus was teaching under cover. The 
feast was held in December, the 25th, 
Chisleu. See Edersheim, Life of ¥esus, ii. 
226.—kKat ‘weptemater . . . Lodopavros 
[better ZoAopa@vos].—Ver. 23. For the 
sake of shelter Jesus was walking with 
His disciples [weprewaret] in Solomon’s 
Porch, a cloister on the east side of 
the Temple area (Joseph., Antiq., xx. 
9, 7) apparently reared on some remain- 
ing portions of Solomon’s building.— 
Ver. 24. Here the Jews ékvx\woav 
avtov, “ringed Him round,” preventing 
His escape and with hostile purpose ; 
cf. Plutarch’s Them., xii. 3. Their atti- 
tude corresponded to the peremptory 











18—30, 
CUAL \@ o_99 
Helv °mappyota. 
Kat ov mLoTEUVETE. 


Hou, TaUTG paptupel TeEpl Eu00 - 


, > > ~ , ~ > ~ 4 - c on 
yap éote €k tay mpoBdtwv tav épav, Kabas etrov Spiv. 
, Cet ay a A > , 2 Aa , > 9 
tmpdBata Ta ena THS PwvAS pou drove, Kayo yidoKw aitd- 
GkohouBoGci por, 28. Kayo Lwiy aidvioy Si8wpe adtois- 


> , > A IA \ > 
amdhwvtat €is Tov al@va, Kal ovx 
pou. 


obdels Suvarar dpmdfew ek Tis XElpds TOU Tatpds pou. 


EYATTEAION 


29. 6 matip pou ds Se8wxd por, petlwy! mdvtwy éoti- 


793 


25. “AmexpiOn adtots & “Inaois, “ Etmov spi, c xi. 34: 
xvi. 
Ta Faye a éya TOL év TO dvépatt TOU TaTpos 


26. GAN’ Spets oF motedete: ob 
27. 70 
Kat 


‘ > AY 
Kat OU LT 


* pidge Tis aUTa ex THS KELPOS d Ps. vii. 2, 


\ 2 Sam. 
KQU xxiii. 21. 
O. Vi. 15. 
30. eyo q 2 


1 Instead of os and petLwv of T.R. o and perfow are read by Tr.Ti.W.H. follow- 
ing [for o] SQBL and [for peLov] AB and versions. This reading seems exegetically 


impossible. See Weiss. 


It gives a sense irrelevant to the passage. 
my Father has given me is greater than all.” 


“That which 
Very possibly pevLov was originally 


read, cp. Mt. xii. 6, and og may have been changed into o through a misunderstand- 


ing of peloy. 


character of their demand: “Ews mére 
THY WuxnVv jpGv atpers; Beza renders 
aipets by “suspendis, i.e., anxiam et 
suspensam tenes?’’ For which Elsner 
blames him and prefers “why do you _ 
kill us with delay?”? But atpw occurs 
not infrequently in the sense of “ dis- 
turb”. Soph., Oed. Tyr., 914, atper 
Supoy Olsixaue, Oedipus excites his soul; 
_Eurip., Hecuba, 69, tt mor’ atpopar 
évvuxos ovTw Seipace ; cf. Virgil, Aenezd, 
iv. g, ‘‘quae me suspensam insomnia 
terrent?’? “Why do you keep us_in 
_ suspense?” is a legitimate translation. 
“Tf Thou art the Christ _ tell us plainly.” 
—tTappyoig, in so many words, devoid 
of all ambiguity; cf. xvi. 29. This 
request has a show of reasonableness 
and honesty, as if they only needed to 
hear from Himself that He was the 
Christ. But it is never honest to ask 


for further explanation after enough has 
unwillingness to believe. Besides, there 
was always the difficulty that, ‘if He 
categorically said He was the Christ, 
they would understand Him to méan 
~ the Christ of their expectation.—Ver. 25. — 
Therefore He replies: 
ye believe not. The works which I do 
in my_ Father’ s name, these witness con- 
cerning me.” These works tell you what 
“Iam. They are works done in my 
Father’s name, that is; wholly as His ~ 
‘Tepresentative. ‘These ‘show what kind 
of Christ He sends you and that I am 
“‘He.—Ver. 26. “But you on your part 
do not believe ’’ —the reason being 
that you are not of the number oi my 
sheep. Had you been oi my sheep you 
must have believed; because my sheep 


“T told you and 


have these two characteristics, (ver. 27) 
_they hear my voice and they follow me: 
“(ver. 28) and these characteristics meet 
a twofold response in me, “ I know them a 
_and “TI give them life eternal”. Kayo 
in each case emphatically exhibits the 
response of Christ to believers. They 
acknowiedge Him-by-hearing-His-veice ; 
He acknowledges them, ‘‘ knows them”. 
Cf. ver. 14. _They follow Him, and He 
leads them into life eternal.. “‘ Sequela 
et vita arcte connectuntur,’’ Bengel. 
This mention of the gift of life leads 
Him to enlarge on its perpetuity and its 
security. —ov py ardhovTa eis Tov 
ai@va, ‘they shall never perish ” (¢f. 
ver. 10), but shall enjoy the abundant 
life I am come to bestow.—kKat ovx 
apmage. Tis a’Ta éx THS yxELpds pov, 
“and no one shall carry them off (ver. 
12) out of my hand” or keeping. 
Throughout He uses the phraseology 
of the ‘Shepherd’ parable.—Ver. 2g. 
These strong assertions He bases, as 
always, on the” Father’s will and power. 
6 watyp pov... éopev. “ My Father 
who has given me thesesheep is gréatér 
than all: and therefore no one can snatch 


“them out of my Father’s hand. “But 


this is equivalent to my saying no one 
can snatch them out of my hand, for I 
and the Father are one.”—éyo Kat 6 
Narhp év éopev. of. KVMs) 2a aes. 
iva wavres €v Got. Bengel says: 
‘“ Unum, non solum voluntatis consensu, 
sed unitate potentiae, adeoque naturae. 
Nam omnipotentia est attributum 
naturale ; et sermo est de _ unitate 
Patris et Filii. In his verbis Jesu plus 
viderunt caeci Judaei, quam hodie vident 
Antitrinitarii.”” But Calvin is right when 


794 
exviiar Kat 6 wathp °év éopev.” 
f viii. 59; 3 
xi. 8 *louSator, tva ALOdowow addy. 
g Mt. v. 16. 
h vide a ? - < 
_ Thayer. adt@v épyov AOdLeré pe ; 
i viii. 53; V- 
Id. 
j Ps. Ixxxii. 
6. 
k vi. 25. a a 
Jonahi.r. Atrexpt0n adtots 6 “Inoois, 
MG ero. re aa ws Hn 5 
m Wisd. Opa@v, ‘"Ey® elma, Beot éorte ; 
xlix. 7. 
Ch. xvii. 
. Mk. < , 
ae: 36. dv 6 TaThp ™ Hylace kal 


he denies that the words carry this 
sense: ‘‘ Abusi sunt hoc loco veteres ut 
probarent Christum esse Patri époovctov. 
Neque enim Christus de unitate sub- 
stantiae disputat, sed de consensu quem 
cum Patre habet: quicquid  scilicet 
geritur a Christo Patris virtute confirma- 
tum iri.” An ambassador whose demands 
were contested might quite naturally say : 
“‘Tand my sovereign are one”’; not mean- 
ing thereby to claim royal dignity, but 
only to assert that what he did his 
sovereign did, that his signature carried 
his sovereign’s guarantee, and that his 
pledges would be fulfilled by all the 
resources of his sovereign. So here, as 
God’s representative, Jesus introduces 
the Father’s power as the final guarantee, 
and claims that in this respect He and 
the Father are one. Whether this does 
not involve metaphysical unity is another 
question. Cf. Tertullian, adv. Praxeam, 
22; Hippolytus, c. Noetum, 7, 8vo 
mpdcwra edertev, Sivapiv Sé piav.—Ver. 
31. "EBdotacav otv...aivrév. In 
chap. vill. 59, jpav AtBovs, so now once 
more, waAwyv, they lifted stones to stone 
Him.—Ver. 32. Jesus anticipating them 
says: MoAAa . .. pe; “ Many excellent 
works [‘ praeclara opera,’ Meyer] have I 
shown you from my Father; for what 
work among these do ye stone me?” 
Which of them deserves stoning ? (Holtz- 
mann). As it could only be a work 
differing in character from the xada 
épya which deserved stoning, qotov is 
used, although in later Greek its dis- 
tinctive meaning was vanishing. Wet- 
stein quotes from Dionys. Halicar., viii. 
29, an apposite passage in which Corio- 
lanus says: ot pe awtl modddy Kal 
Kah@v Epywv, é’ ots TinaGobat mpoo7jKev 
». . aioxpas éfyjAacay éx THS TaTpisos. 
—Ver. 33. The irony is as much in the 
situation as in the words. The answer 
is honest enough, blind as it is: Mept 
».« Ocdv. ‘For a praiseworthy work 


KATA IQANNHN 


tas, Kal Ste od GvOpwiros Sv ‘oveis ceautov Cedv.” 
npias, p 


x. 


31. t’EBdotacay obv médw Aibous ot 
32. dmexpiOn adtois & “Inoois, 


“Moda Kaha Epya ESerga Spiv éx Tod marpds pou- Sd motor 


33- ‘AtrexpiOnoav ait@ ot “loudator 


Aéyovtes, “> Mepi xadod Epyou od AOdLopev oe, GAA * aepi BAac- 


34- 
“Otx gor yeypappevoy év TO vonw 
G5: VEt €xeivous etme Beods, mpos 


os 6 Adyos Tod Ocod * éyéveto, Kai ob Sivarar 'AuOHvaL H ypady - 


dméotechey eis Tov Kdopov, wets AdyerTe, 


we do not stone Thee, but for blasphemy, 
and because Thou being a man makest 
Thyself God.” For wept in this sense 
cf. Acts xxvi. 7. The wat Ste does not 
introduce a second charge, but more 
specifically defines the blasphemy. On 
the question whether it was blasphemy 
to claim to be the Christ see Deut. xviii. 
20, Lev. xxiv. 10-17, and Treffry’s 
Eternal Sonship. It was blasphemy for 
a man to claim to be God. And it is 
noteworthy that Jesus never manifests 
indignation when charged with making 
Himself God; yet were He a mere man 
no one could view this sin with stronger 
abhorrence.—Ver. 34. On this occasion 


He merely shows that even _a man could 
without blasphemy call himself “ Son of 
God”’; because their_own judges had 
been called ‘‘ gods ”.—Ovx gor yeypap- 
pévov ev TO vow tpov, “Is it not 
written in your law, I said ‘ye are 
Gods’?”” In Ps. Ixxxii. the judges of 
Israel are rebuked for abusing their 
office; and God is represented as say- 
ing: “I said, Ye are gods, and all of 
you are children of the Most High ™ 
“The law” is here used of the whole 
O.T. as in xii. 34, xv. 25, Rom. iii, ro, 
1 Cor. xiv. 21.—EU éxeivous . . . “If 
it [that 6 vén0s is the nominative to 
ele is proved by the two following 
clauses, although at first sight it might 
be more natural to suppose the nearer 
and more emphatic éy# supplied the 
nominative] called them gods, to whom 
the word of God came,” that is, who 
were thus addressed by God at their 
consecration to their office and by this 
word lifted up to a new dignity—* and 
that they were so called is certain 
because Scripture cannot be denied or 
put aside—then do you, shutting your 
eyes to your own Scriptures, declare 
Him whom the Father consecrated and 
sent into the world to be a blasphemer 
because He said, I am God’s Son?” 








31—42. 


“Ort Bracdypets, Ste elmov, Yids Tod Ocod cipn ; 


EYATTEAION 


795 


37. el ob Toe Td. 


Epya Tod watpds pou, ph moreveTe por: 38. ef Se mod, Kav epot 


‘ a ~ 
Pi] TuoTeUNnTE, TOis Epyos MioTevoaTe’ iva yvOTe Kal moTevonTe,! 


a s a 
OTL Ev €pol 6 TaThp, Kayw év adTo. 


"mudoars Kal °egaOev ex THs XELpds adTav. 
40. KAI darqdOe mdédw mépay tod “lopddvou, eis tov Témov Srrou 


Pav ‘ladvyns 275 mpatov BarriLwr - 


Toddot HAGov mpds adrov, Kal ENeyov, “OT. “lwdvvns pev onpetoy q 


eroincey otSév- mavta S€ Goa ettev 
=> 9? 
Hy. 


39. Efnqtoury odv madw adtoy 


D Vii. 30. 

o “escaped” 
vide 
Thayer, 
223. 

P ili. 23. 

xii. 16; 

XIX. 39. 


kal éuewev éxet. 41. Kal 


‘lwdvyns Tept tovTou, &dnOA 


42. Kal émioteucay toAdXot éxet €is adtov. 


1 For muotevonte BLX, cursives and versions read ywwonnte, “that ye may 


attain to knowledge and permanently know”. 


The a fortiori element in the argument 
lies in this, that the judges were made 
“gods” by the coming to them of God’s 
commission, which found them engaged 
otherwise and itself raised them to their 
new rank, whereas Jesus was set apart 
by the Father and sent into the world 
for the sole object of representing the 
Father. If the former might be legiti- 
mately called ‘‘ gods,” the latter may 
‘well claim to be God’s Son. The idea 
of the purpose for which Christ was 
sent into the world is indicated in the 
emphatic use of 6 watyp; and this is 
still further accentuated in ver. 37.—Vv. 
37,38. eLov woe .. . motevoate. “If 
I do not the works of my Father, do 
not believe me: but if I do them, even 
though you do not believe me, believe 
the works.’”’ That is, if you do not 
credit my statements, accept the testi- 
mony ofthe deedsI do. And this, not to 
give me the glory but “that ye may know 
_and believe [cf. vi. 69] that the Father 


Is in me, and I in the Father” [for.ait@. Lk. xvi. 20), “‘of Bethany”. 


read r@ warpt}.—Ver. 39. “Elyjrouy . 

avtey. His words so far convinced them 
that they dropped the stones, but they 
sought to arrest Him. The wadvwy refers 
to vii. 30, 44. But He escaped out of 
their hand, and departed again beyond 
Jordan to the place where John at first 
was baptising, i.e., Bethany. Cf. i. 28, 
also iv. 1. Holtzmann considers that 
the mp@rov is intended to differentiate 
the earlier from the later ministry of the 
Baptist. It might rather seem to point 
to the beginning of the ministry of 
Jesus, especially as following méAuw.— 
kal éyewev éxet, “and He remained 
there” until xi. 7, that is, for a little 
more than three months.—Ver. 41. 
There He was still busy; for moAAot 


The T.R. is read in SA. 


HAGov mpos avtév, ‘many came to Him 
and said,” that is, giving this as their 
reason for coming, that ‘‘although John 
himself had done no miracle, all he had 
said of Jesus was found to be true”, 
The reference to John is_ evidently 
suggested by the locality, and probably 
means that the ‘“‘many’”’ alluded to as 
coming to Jesus belonged to the district 
and had been impressed by John. The 
correspondence between what they had 
heard from the Baptist and what they 
“saw in Jesus, as_well_as_the_ intrinsic 
evidence of the works He did, engendered 
belief in Him (ver. 42) Kat émiotevoav 


“arodAol éxet els avTév. 


CHAPTER XI.—Vv. 1-16. Lazarus’ 
death recalls Fesus to F¥udaea.—Ver. i. 
"Hy 8€ tis Godevav. ‘ Now a certain 
man was ill;’’ 8€ connects this narrative 
with the preceding, and introduces the 
cause of our Lord’s leaving His retire- 
ment in Peraea. ‘‘ Lazarus,” the Greek 
form of Eleazar = God is my Help (cf. 
avo 1S 
commonly used to designate residence 
or birthplace, see i. 45, Heb. xiii. 24, 
etc.; éx is used similarly, see Acts xxiii. 
34. Bethany lay on the south-east slope 
of Olivet, nearly two miles from Jeru- 
salem, ver. 18; it is now named EIl- 
*Aziriyeh, after Lazarus; ‘‘ from the 
village of Mary and Martha her sister,” 
a description of Bethany added not so 
much to distinguish it from the Bethany 
of i. 28 (cf. x. 40) as to connect it with 
persons already named in the evangelic 
tradition, Lk. x. 38.—Ver. 2. In order 
further to identify Lazarus it is added: 
‘* Now it was (that) Mary who anointed 
the Lord with ointment and wiped His 
feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus 
was ill”, This act of Mary’s has not yet 


796 


a Lk. x. 38. 
b xii. 3. 


KATA ITQANNHN 


XI, 


XI. 1. "Hy 8€ Tis doOevav *AdLapos amd ByPavias, ex THs Kays 
Mapias kal MdpOas tis ddehdijs adrijs. 


2. iv Sé Mapia! ° 4 ddet- 


c Lk. vii. 38. aoa tov Kdptoy pupw, Kal °éxpudgaca rods médas adtod tats Opiéiv 


Ch, xiii. 


5. Wisd.adtis, As 6 ddedpds AdLapos Hobever. 


xii. II. 


dde\dal mpds adrdv Adyouca, “Kupre, We Sv gpideis doGevel.’ 


3. dwéoterhay obv al 


div.35. Cp. 4. "Akodoas S€ 6 "Inoods elrev, “AdTH 4 doOdvera odx gore * pds 


2 Kings 4 ts is 
xx.t.  @dvatov, GAN’ bmép THs Bd6éns Tod Ccod, 
© 1X, 5: a“ > | eae pee) 
cod & adris. 
f i. 40. “ ‘ a 
gver.15. GdeAphy adtis kat tov AdLapor. 
Mk. i 


+ 39. Vea > 
Mt. xxvi. TOTE prev Ewervev ev 


46. ; . “ 
b With im-Aéyet Tots pabytats, “*”Aywpev eis thy “loudaiay mddw.” 


perf. here 
only. 


@ jv Témw Sto hpépas. 


*iva Sogac0A 6 vids Tod 


5. “Hydra 8€ & “Inoods thy MdpOav kat rv 


6. ds obv HKougev Ste * doBevel, 
7. “Ewetta peta TodTo 


8. 


A€youow ait ot padntal, “‘PaBBt, "viv eLytouy ce AiWdoa ot 


1 Recent editors read Maptap instead of Mapta, but, as Meyer remarks, the 
genitive presupposes the form Mapa, and while in some versions Maptap is well 
supported, in others it is poorly authenticated. Generally T.R. is supported by 


NAD, Maptap by BC. 


been narrated by John (see xii. 3), but it 
was this which distinguished her at the 
time John was writing; cf. Mt. xxvi. 13.— 
Ver.3. The sisters were so intimate with 
Jesus that they naturally turn to Him in 
their anxiety, and send Him a notice of 
the illness, which is only a slightly veiled 
request that He would come to their 
relief: ‘* Lord, behold, he whom Thou 
lovest is ill”. ‘‘ Sufficit ut noveris. Non 
enim amas et deseris.” Augustine.—Ver. 
4. ‘Axovoas 8 6 ‘Ingots elev. “And 
Jesus when He heard said,” z.¢., to His 
disciples. It was not the reply sent to 
the sisters. ‘‘This illness is not to 
death,” mwpos @dvaroy, death is not the 
end towards which it is making. But 
that Jesus knew that death had already 
taken place (ver. 6 and ver. 17) or was 
imminent is evident from the following 
clause, but He knew what He would do 
(vi. 6) and that death was not to be the 
final result of this illness. The illness 
and death were imép tis 86Ens Tod Geod, 
for the sake of glorifying God (cf. ix. 3), 
“‘sloriae divinae illustrandae causa,” 
Winer, p. 479. This is further explained 
in the clause “ that the Son of God may 
be glorified by means of it,” i¢., by 
means of this illness; cf. xiii. 31. ‘In 
two ways ; because the miracle (1) would 
lead many to believe that He was the 
Messiah; (2) would bring about His 
death. AofdfecOa: is a frequent expres- 
sion of this Gospel for Christ’s death re- 
garded as the mode of His return to glory 
(vii. 39, xil. 16, xiii. 31), and this glorifica- 
tion of the Son involves the glory of the 


Father (v. 23, x. 30-38).’’ Plummer, 
Bengel.—Ver. 5. “Hydama 8 6 ’Incots 
. . . It is quite true that tAetv denotes 
the more passionate love, and ayamay 
the more reasoning; but it is doubtful 
whether this distinction is observed in 
this Gospel. Passages proving the dis- 
tinction are given by Wetstein.—Ver. 6. 
Jesus loved the family, as otv qKovoev 
- +. TOTE pev Epewwev. We expect 
another consequence: “Jesus loved 
them, therefore He immediately went 
to Bethany”. But the consequence in- 
dicated in otv is found in Aéyeu, ver. 7, 
and the whole sentence should read: 
‘‘ When, therefore, He had heard that 
he was ill, for the present indeed [réte 
ev = tum quidem], He remained for 
two days where He was; then after this 
He says to His disciples, Let us go into 
Judaea again”. The pév after tote sug- 
gests a 8€ after éweita and unites the 
two clauses. For the dropping of 8€ 
after €wetra or its absorption see Winer, 
720; and for the pleonastic éwetra pera 
tovtTo and for Gywpev in the sense “ let 
us go”’ see Kypke, who gives instances 
of both from post-Macedonian authors. 
Jesus remained two days inactive, not to 
test the faith of the sisters, which Holtz- 
mann justly characterises as ** grausam ”’ ; 
but, as Godet, Holtzmann, and Weiss 
agree, because He awaited the prompt- 
ing of the Father, cf. ii. 4, vii. I-10.— 
Ver. 8. The announcement of His in- 
tention is received with astonishment : 
“PaBBL .. . exet. ‘‘ Rabbi, the men of 
Judaea were but now seeking to stone 








I—16. 


a a 99 
"louSaior, Kat mdadw bmdyers exet ; 


EYATTEAION 


797 


9g. “AmexplOn 6 Inoods, “ Odxt 


Sddexd ciow Spar tis jpepas; ‘édy tis wepumary év TH ipépa, od i Burton, 


Tpookorter, Ste Td Has To Kécpou ToUTou Bhémer: 10. edv Sé Tis 
Tepitaty €v TH vuKTi, mpookémret, STL TO Hos ovK EoTW ev adTa. 


240, 260. 


ma? 


II. Tadta etme, xal peta Tobto Aéyer adtots, “AdLapos 6 didos 


pov? kexoipntar: GANG wopevopat iva éfutvicw aitoy.”’ 


oby ot pabntat adtod, “Kupre, ei Kexoipntat, owljcetat.” 


12. Etzroyj 1 Kings 
xv. 8. 


13. 


I 
Thess, iv 


Etpyjket S€ 6 “Incods mepi tod Qavdrou adtod: éxeivor Sé eSofay Ste 


Tept THs *kouprocews Tod Umvou héyer. 


14. TOTE OUy Eltrev adToLS 6 k Wisd. 
Xvii. 14. 


‘Inaous 'mappyota, “Adlapos améBave- 15. Kai xaipw Sv buds, tval xvi. 29. 


, @ > »” > Lal > 
MTLusTEvoHTE, OTL OUK APHY eket- GAA 
Eitrey otv Qwpds, ™6 eydpevos ™Aldupos, Tots cuppabntats, 17 
“"Ayapev Kal tuets, va dmoldvepey pet adtou.’ 


Thee, and goest Thou thither again?”’ 
“They think of the danger to Him, 
and are not without thought of the 
danger to themselves (ver. 16).”” Watkins. 
The viv shows that they had not been 
long in Peraea. To this remonstrance 
Jesus replies, as in ix. 4, that while His 
day, appointed to Him by the Father, con- 
~tinued, He must work, and nothing could 
“hinder Him.—Ver. 9. Ovyi.. . qpépas, 
i.é., each man’s day, or term of work, 
is a defined quantity. [ra SumSexa pépea 
TAS Hpépys wapa BaBvdrwviwy epalov 
“EdAnves, Herod., ii. 109; and see Raw- 
Jinson’s Appendix to his Translation.]— 
éav tis... BAéwer. So long as this 
day lasts, a man may go confidently 
forward to the duties that call him; ow 
mpookémre: “he does not stumble,” he 
can walk erect and straight on amid 
dangers, cf. Mt. iv. 6, ‘‘ because he sees 
the light of the world”; as the sun 
makes all causes of stumbling manifest 
and saves the walker from them, so the 
knowledge of God’s will, which is man’s 
moral light, guides him; and to follow 
it is his only safety.—Ver. 10. On the 
other hand, éav 8€ tis . . . €v ada, if a 
man prolongs his day beyond God’s 
appointment, he stumbles about in dark- 
ness, having lost his sole guide, the will 
of God. His prolonged life is no longer 
a day but mere night.—Ver. 11. Taira 
elwe .. . atrév. ‘These things spake 
He, and after this,” how long after we do 
not know; but ver. 15, ‘‘let us go to 
him,” indicates that the two days here 
intervened, There is, however, difficulty 
introduced by this supposition. He now 
makes the definite announcement : ** Our 
friend Lazarus is fallen asleep, but I go 
to awake him”’.—kekoipyrar cf. Mt. ix. 


m iv. 25; 
xix. 13. 
Mt. xxvii 


16. 


+ bY > ” 
Gywev Weds avtdv. 


, Nn XX. 24; 
Xxi. 2. 


24, XXVil. 52, Acts. vil. 60, 1 Thess. iv. 
13, 1 Cor. xv. 6. ‘*Mortuos dormientes 
appellat Scripturae veracissima_ con- 
suetudo, ut cum dormientes audimus, 
evigilaturos minime desperemus.” Augus- 
tine. The heathen idea of the sleep of 
death is very different, cf. Catullus, 
“Nox est perpetua una dormienda”. 
éEurviow is later Greek: ééuarvicO7jvat 
ov xpy Acyetv, GAN adumvicbArat, 
Phrynichus (Rutherford, p. 305). The 
disciples misunderstood Him, and said: 
Kupte . . . owOycerar. ‘Lord, if he 
sleep, he will recover,” implying that in 
this case they need not take the dangerous 
step of returning to Judaea [cf. Achilles 
Tatius, iv., Uarvos yap TavTwv vooyLatiov 
ddppaxov]. How He knows that Lazarus 
sleeps they do not inquire, accustomed 
as they are to His exercise of gifts they 
do not understand. ocw@yjcerat, cf. Mk. 
v. 28, 34, vi. 56, etc. Their misunder- 
standing was favoured by His having 
said (ver. 4) that the illness was “ not to 
death”; naturally when Jesus spoke of 
Lazarus sleeping they understood Him 
to speak (ver: 13) wepl THs Koipjoews 
Tov Umvov, “ot the koipyats of sleep”. 
—Ver. 14. tote ovy. ‘At this point, 
accordingly, Jesus told them plainly,” 
TwTappyoig “without figure or ambiguity,” 
“expressly in so many words,” cf. x. 24, 
removing all possibility of misunder- 
standing, ‘‘ Lazarus is dead,” but instead 
of grieving (ver. 15) kat xalpw 8.’ tpas, 
“T am glad for your sakes,” although 
grudging the pain to Lazarus and his 
sisters, Ott ovK HpyY éxei, “that I was 
not there,” implying that had He been 
there Lazarus would not have died. 
This gives us a glimpse into the habitual 
and absolute confidence of Jesus in the 


KATA TQANNHN XI. 


798 


ov.s; vill, 17. "EXOdv odv 6 “Incoids ebpev adtdvy técoapas ipdpas Sy 
pills; ¥i.° Exovta év 7 pyypetw. 18. Hv S€ 4 ByOavia ” éyyds tOv ‘lepooodd- 
q xxi. B pov, Os “dard oradiwy Sexawévte* 19. kal toddol ek Tar “loudalwr 

€\ndUberoay mpds Tas wept MapBav Kal Mapiav,! iva wapapu0jowvTar 


Rey, xiv. 
20. 
20. H} obv MdpOa ws jKoucey ote 6 


ri 40. 

s Gen. 
XXXViii. 
11. 2Sam. 
Vii. 1. 


adtas mept tod ddeApod adtav. 
"Inaois * Epxetat, Smyytygev abTG+ Mapia S€ év TH oikw * exaleLero, 
21. elev odv 4 Mdp0a mpds Tov “Incodv, “Kupte, et Ts ade, 6 


1 T.R. is supported by AC*TA; but NBC*LX 33, it. vulg., read mpos thy Mapday 
x. tT A. Tisch. retains T.R. W.H.R. adopt the other and better authenticated 
reading, although it is the easier, while the T.R. might naturally present difficulty. 
Wetstein’s examples show that tas aept x. t. A. would in classical Greek mean 
“Martha and Mary and those with them”; in later Greek it might mean “ Martha 


and Mary”. 
to point to the later usage. 


presence with Him of an almighty power, 
tva wiorevonte ‘‘that ye may believe,” 
go on to firmer faith. ‘‘ Faith can neither 
be stationary nor complete. ‘He who zs 
a Christian is no Christian,” Luther,” 
—Westcott.—Ver. 16. Etwev otv Owpas 6 
Aeydpevos Aidupos Owpas is the trans- 
literation and Al8upos the translation of 


DNS, a twin. He is the pessimist 


among the disciples, and now takes the 
gloomy, and, as it proved, the correct 
view of the result of this return to Judaea, 
but his affectionate loyalty forbids the 
thought of their allowing Jesus to go 
alone. ‘To his mind there is nothing 
left for Jesus but to die. But now comes 
the remarkable thing. He is willing to 
take Jesus at the lowest, uncrowned, un- 
seated, disrobed, he loves Him still.” 
Matheson. If Thomas is stiff and 
obstinate in his incredulity, he is also 
stiff and obstinate in his affection and 
allegiance. ‘In him the twins, unbelief 
and faith, were contending with one 
another for mastery, as Esau and 
Jacob in Rebecca’s womb.” Trench. 
ouppabytats occurs only here.—tva 
aroldvapev pet’ avo, t.c., with Jesus. 
The expression is well illustrated by 
Wetstein. 

Vv. 17-44. The raising of Lazarus. 
—Ver. 17. “Ed@av otv o 'Incodts etpeyv. 
“When, then, Jesus came, He found,” 
implying that He did not know before, 
but learned from some in Bethany, 
avTov tTéccapas Hepas Ady ExovTa ev 
7T® pvnpetw “ that he had been four days 
already in the tomb”. Raphel and 
Wetstein give instances of this construc- 
tion, and see v.5. According to Jewish 
custom burial took place on the day of 
death, so that, allowing somewhat more 


In Acts xiii. 13 the older usage obtains: here adeAdov avtTwy seems 


than one day for the journey from the one 
Bethany to the other, it seems probable 
that Lazarus died about the time the 
messenger reached Jesus. At ver. 39 
the time which had elapsed since death 
is mentioned for a different reason. Here 
it seems to be introduced to account for 
ver. 19; as also is the statement fv 8é 
Bnfavia [4 deleted by Tisch. and W.H.] 
éyyvs Tav ‘lepocohvpoy, Os ard oTadiov 
Sexamrévre, within easy walking distance 
of Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs off. 
The form is a Latinism, used in later 
Greek instead of as oradious Sexamévre 
amd tov ‘lepocohvpwv ; cf. xii. 1, xxi. 8, 
Rev. xiv. 20. The nearness of Bethany 
accounts for the fact that wodAot... 
avrav, ‘many of the Jews had come out 
to Martha and Mary”. Of visits of con- 
dolence we have a specimen in Job. 
“Deep mourning was to last for seven 
days, of which the first three were those 
of ‘weeping’. During these seven days 
it was, among other things, forbidden to 
wash, to anoint oneself, to put on shoes, 
to study, or to engage in any business. 
After that followed a lighter mourning of 
thirty days.” Edersheim, ¥ewish Social 
Life, an interesting chapter on In Death 
and after Death. Cf. Gen. 1.3; Num. 
xx. 29; I Sam. xxvili. 13. Specimens of 
the manifestations of grief in various 
heathen countries and of the things said 
trd tOv Twapapvlounévwy are given by 
Lucian in his tract Concerning Grief.— 
Ver. 20. % ovv MdpOa.. . éxaféLero. 
Martha as the elder sister and mistress of 
the house (Lk. x. 38-40) goes out to meet 
Jesus, while Mary remained seated in the 
house. ‘‘ After the body is carried out of 
the house all chairs and couches are re- 
versed, and the mourners sit on the ground 
on a lowstool.” Edersheim, Joc. cit, On 


? 











17—28, 


AdeApSs rou odK Ay érebyyjKer.! 
aitjon Tov Ocdv, Sdce gor & Oeds.” 
“"'Avactycetar 6 adeApds cou.” 
bu , ~ , 

oT dvaoThgeTar, év TH dvactdce év 


Ls t eye <« 3 A 
Ettev auty o Ingots, 


muotevwy eis ene, Kav droldvyn, Lyoetat- 
Ul > > A > A > , > A 3A 
TioTevwv Eis Ene, OU pt) ATOOdvy Eis TOV aidva. 


4 er “cc ‘ , x 
27. Aeyer aut@, “Nat, kupte 
a en A A c > Q , 
© ulos TOU OEoU, O Eig TOY KOoPOV 


EYATTEAION 


“"Eyd eipe  dvdotacts Kat % Cwy. 


199 


22. G@AAG Kal voy otda STi Soa ay 


23. Aé€yer aity 6 ‘Ingois, 


24. A€yer att@ MdpOa, ‘ Oidat Is. xxvi. 


Ig. 2 

3 25- Mac. vai. 
- 9; 14. 

0 u vi. 39 reff. 


TH eoxdty jpepa.”’ 


26. Kal mas 6 Lav rai 
qTioTevels ToUTO;” 


+ eS S , a A @oe Ly 

Ey® TWEMWLTTEUKG, OTL GU EL O XpioTos, 

y> , ” 
EpXOMEvos. 


28. Kat taita*v Mt. xi. 3 


eimodca dwihGe, cal épadvnce Mapiay thy ddeApiyy atts AdOpa, 


1 ov« av ameBavev o adcddos pov is the reading of RBCDKL 33. 


3 Instead of ravra S8BCL read tovto. 


sitting as an attitude of grief see Doughty, 
Analecta Sacra, on Ezek. viii. 14.—Ver. 
21. Martha’s first words to Jesus, Kupue 
». . €reOvyker, “ hadst Thou been here 
my brother had not died,’”’ are “not a 
reproach but a lament,” Meyer. Mary 
uses the same words (ver. 32), suggesting 
that this had been the burden of their 
talk with one another; and even, as 
Bengel says, before the death “‘ utinam 
adesset Dominus Jesus’’.—Ver. 22. But 
Martha not only believed that Jesus 
could have prevented her brother’s death 
but also that even now He could recall 
him from the grave: kal viv ota . 
“Even now I know that what thing 
soever you ask of God, God will give 
you.” Cf. ix. 31. Jesus referred all 
His works to the Father, and spoke as if 
only faith were required for the working 
of the greatest miracles. See Mt. xiv. 
31, xvii. 20. On the use of airetvy and 
épwrav see Ezra Abbot’s Critical Essays, 
in which Trench’s misleading account of 
their difference is exposed.—Ver. 23. 
heyer... gov. “Thy brother shall 
rise again.” ‘ The whole history of the 
raising of Lazarus is a parable of life 
_through death. . . . Here, then, at the 
beginning the key-note is struck.” West- 
cott. Whether the words were meant 
or not to convey only the general truth 
of resurrection, and that death is not the 
final state, Martha did not find in them 
“any assurance of the speedy restoration 
of Lazarus.—Ver. 24. ‘‘I know,” she 
‘says, ‘“‘that he will rise again, in the 
resurrection at the last day.” On the 
terms used see v. 28, vi. 39, 40, 54. 
Belief in the resurrection had been pro- 
moted through Dan. xii. 2, and, as 
Holtzmann remarks, Martha must have 
heard more than enough about it during 


Therefore 6 


the last four days, and fears perhaps 
that even Jesus is offering the merely 
conventional consolation. To one who 
yearns for immediate re-union the “ last 
day” seems invisible. It was small con- 
solation for Martha to know that her 
brother would lie for ages in the tomb, 
no more to exchange one word or look 
till the last day.—Ver. 25. Nor does 
this faith satisfy Jesus, who at once re- 
places it by another in the words, "Eye 
eipe 7 avaoracis Kat 7 Cwy. Resurrec- 
tion and life are not futuré only, but 


‘present_ in His _person; she is to trust 


not in a vague remote event but in His 


living person whom she knew, loved, 


and trusted. Apart from Him there was 
neither resurrection nor life. He carried 
with Him and possessed there and then 
as He spoke with her all the force that 
went to produce life and resurrection, 
Tistevwy eis eye . 
aigva (ver. 26), ‘‘ He that believeth on 
me, even though he die, shall live ; and 
every one who liveth and believeth on 
me shall never die”. Belief in Him or 
acceptance of Him as the source of true 
spiritual life, brings the man into vital 
union with Him, so that he lives with 
the life of Christ and” possesses a tife 


“over which death~has no power.—Ver. 


27. Martha believed this, as implicitly 
included in her belief in Jesus as the 
Messiah, Nat, Kupre ... épxdpevos. 
Resurrection and life were both Messianic 
gifts, but it is doubtful whether Martha 
fully understood what our Lord had 
said. Rather she falls back on what she 
did understand and believe. She will 
not claim to believe more than she is 
sure of; but if His statement is only an 
elaboration of His Messianic functfen, 
then she can truly say: Nal, Kuvpre.— 


800 


KATA IQANNHN- 


xi, 


wi.49; i elwodoa, “*O SiSdoxados mdpeote kal *wvel ce.” 29. "Exeivn ds 
10. 


HjKoucev, éyeiperar taxd Kal épxerar! mpds adrdy. 


zor it. 


* SijvTyncev abtd f MdpOa. 


y ver. 20. 


30. oUmw dé 


€ynrdbear & “Ingots eis Thy *kdpny, GAN’ Fv ev 1G Témw Srrou 
31. ot odv “louSator ot dytes pet’ adris 


zMk.xii.34.év TH oikia Kal mapapulodpevor adriv, iSdvtes Thy Maptay * Ste 


taxéws dvéotn nal effOer, HKokod@noay aitH, Aéyortes,? ““Ore 


imdéyer eig TS pvqpetov, twa KAadon éxet.” 
aHereonly. WAQev Saou Fy 6 “Ingots, iSobca adtév, emeev 


Gen. mpos 
or eri. 

b ver. 38. a 
Mk. i. 43. © 
Lam. ii. 6. 


aSedbds.”” 33. “Inaoids 


rods cuvehOdvtras adty “lovdaious KAaiovtas 


32. ‘H ody Mapia ds 


eis® tods mdédas 


adtod, Néyousa att&, “Kupie, ei is Ode, odk Gy dréBavé pou 


na , 
ouv @S eldev adthy xAalougay, Kal 


b2 , rn 
éveBpipyjoato 76 


1NBCLX 33 read nyepOy Tax Kat npxero, “rose quickly and went,” aorist and 


imperfect. 


2 For Aeyovres W.H. read Sofavres, ‘having supposed,” with SBC*DL 1, 33. 


8 arpos is read in NBCDLX. 


éya wemlorevxa, I have come to believe, 
I have reached the belief.—Ver. 28. kat 
Tavita eimotoa amnAdbe, “and when she 
had said this,’? and when some further 
conversation had taken place (cf. dwvet 
ae), ‘she went and called Mary her 
sister, secretly saying to her: The 
Teacher is here and asks for you”’. 
The secrecy was due not so much to 
the presence of Jesus’ enemies as to 
Martha’s desire that Mary should meet 
Jesus alone, unaccompanied even by 
friends. For the same purpose Jesus 
remained in the place where He had 
met Martha.—Ver. 29. On the delivery 
of His message Mary springs up from 
her attitude of broken-hearted grief and 
comes to meet Him.—Ver. 31. But she 
was not allowed to go alone: ot ov... 
éxet. The Jews who were with her in 
the house comforting her interpreted her 
sudden movement as one of those urgent 
demands of grief which already, no 
doubt, they had seen her yield to, and in 
sincere sympathy (ver. 33) followed her. 
—Ver. 32. Consequently when she 
reaches Jesus she has only time to fall 
at His feet and exclaim, in Martha’s 
words, Kupte . . . a8eApds. The sight 
of Jesus, i800ca atrév, produced a more 
vehement demonstration of grief than 
in Martha. Cf. Cicero, in Verrem, v. 
39- ‘*‘ Mihi obviam venit et . .. mihi 
ad pedes misera jacuit, quasi ego excitare 
filium ejus ab inferis possem.’’ Wetstein. 
—Ver. 33. ‘Incots ov... avrdyv. 
** Jesus, then, when He saw her weeping 
[xAaiew is stronger than Saxpvew and 
might be rendered ‘wailing’. It is 


joined with dAadafLewv, Mk. v. 38; 
ddodvfew, Jas. v. 1; OopuBetv, Mk. v. 
39; wevOetv, Mk. xvi. 10. Cf. Webster’s 
Synonyms] and the Jews who accom- 
panied her wailing,” éveBpipyoato Tq 
mvevpatt, ‘was indignant in spirit’. 
The word épBpipac@at occurs again in 
ver. 38 and in three other passages of the 
N.T., Mt. ix. 30, Mk. i. 43, and xiv. 5. 
In those passages it is used in its original 
sense of the expression of feeling, and 
might be rendered ‘‘ sternly charged’’; 
and it is in each case followed by an 
object in the dative. In Mt. ix. 30 Jesus 
sternly charged or with strong feeling 
charged the healed blind man not to 
make Him known. In Mk. i. 43 the 
leper is similarly charged. In Mk. xiv. 
5 the bystanders express strong feeling 
[of indignation, ayavaxrotyres} against 
Mary for her apparent extravagance. In 
all three passages it is used of the ex- 
pression of strong feeling; but no in- 
dignation enters into its meaning in the 
former two passages. Here in John it 
is not feeling expressed, but T@ mvevpatt, 
inwardly felt; and with only such ex- 
pression as betrayed to observers that He 
was moved (cf. Mk. viii. 12, avaorevatas 
7T@ mvedparti), for TO mvedpart cannot 
be the object, for this does not give a 
good sense and it is contradicted by 
wadiv éuBpip. év éavto of ver. 38. It 
would seem, then, to mean “strongly 
moved in spirit”. This meaning quite 
agrees with the accompanying clause, 

‘ "rapasev tautov, “ nd disturbed 
Himself”; precisely as we speax 4 
man “ distressing himself,” ar ‘ troubling 








29—39. 


TrveUpatt, Kal °étdpagey EauTov, 34. 
> bz) , 
autév ; 

Cyl) A 
6 Ingous. 


37- Tweés B€ €& adtay etqov, “OdK HSUvato 
SPOahpods tod tupdod, morjoat Fiva kal obtos ph amobdvy ; 
38. “Ingots ody *mddw epBpimdpevos év Eautd, Epxetar eis Td 
jv Sé omndatov, Kai ios 


p.v1) [LE LOV. 


héyet 6 “Inoods, “"Apate Tov AiPov.” 
TeOynkdtos? MdpQa, “Kipre, 75 


1 e8uyaro in BCDK. 


himself,” or ‘‘ making himself anxious”. 
To say that the active with the reflexive 
pronoun indicates that this was a volun- 
tary act on Christ’s part is to introduce a 
jarring note of Doketism. His sympathy 
_ with the weeping sister and the wailing 

crowd caused this deep emotion. To 
refer His strong feeling to His indigna- 
tion at the “‘ hypocritical’’ lamentations 
of the crowd is a groundless and unjust 
fancy contradicted by His own “ weep- 
ing” (ver. 34) and by the remark of the 
Jews (ver. 35).—Ver. 34. His intense 
feeling prompts Him to end the scene, 
and He asks, Mod teOeixatre attév; He 
asks because He did not know. They 
reply, but probably with no expectation 
of what was to happen, épxov kal ie. 
As He went éSdxpveey, ‘ He shed tears”’. 
To assert that such tears could only be 
theatrical because He knew that shortly 
Lazarus would live, is to show profound 
ignorance of human nature. And it also 
shows ignorance of the true sympathy 
requisite for miracle. ‘It is not witha 
heart of stone that the déad are raised.” 
—Ver. 36. These tears evoked a very 
natural exclamation, “ISe mas édider 
avrov, ‘see how He loved him”’.— Ver. 
37. But this again suggested to the more 
thoughtful and wary the question, Ov« 
. . . awo0avy; The tears of Jesus, which 
manifest His love for Lazarus, puzzle 
them. For if He opened the eyes of a 
blind man, He was able to prevent the 
death of His friend. The question with 
ovK expects an affirmative answer. 
Euthymius and the Greek interpreters 
in general think the question was ironical 
and scoffing. Thus Cyril, Mov 4 ioxvs 
gov © Gavpatoupyé; But there is nothing 
in the words to justify this.—Ver. 38. 
"Ingots ovv mad euBpipwpevos. “ Jesus, 
then, being again deeply moved.” ‘‘Quia 
non accedit Christus ad sepulcrum 
tanquam otiosus spectator, sed athleta 


EYATTEATON 


35+ A€youow atta, ‘‘ Kupte, ° 
36. EXeyov ouv ot ‘loudaia, ““ISe mas epider adtév. 


OLer* teTaptatos ydp éon.” °° 


51 


f01 


\ 2 a se 
kat etme, “Mou “refetkate c xii. 27. 
d xx. 15. 
” A ” 

Epxou kal ie."’ ESdxpucey ei. 40. 


” 


1 oSros 46 Avolfas Tods fix. 10. 


», & Not uh 
simply; 
see Bur- 

+ ton, 206, 
ver. 33. 

39: i xxi. 9. 

5 See ewe ts mj Exod: 

A€yer abt@ H adeAp} Tod” viii. 14. 

Ps.xxxviii. 


is , r patty Lin 
€TEKELTO ETT QUT. 


2 reteMcuTHKOTOS in NABC*DKLNl 33. 


qui se ad certamen instruit, non mirum est 
si iterum fremat.” Calvin. To refer the 
renewed emotion to the sayings of the 
Jews just reported is to take for granted 
that Jesus heard them, which is most 
unlikely. The tomb qv omnjAaov... 
auto, “was a cave,” either natural, as 
that which Abraham bought, Gen. xxiii. 
Q, or artificial, hewn out of the rock, as 
our Lord’s, Mt. xxvii. 60.—X ios éaéxetto 
ém’ atte, ‘a stone lay upon it,” i.e., on 
its mouth to prevent wild animals from 
entering. The supposed tomb of Lazarus 
is still shown and is described by several 
travellers.—Ver. 39. The detail, that 
Jesus said, “Apate +év Ai€ov, is mentioned 
because it was an unexpected step and 
quickened inquiry as to what was toa 
follow, but also because it gave rise to 
practical Martha’s quick objection, 78y 
ofe.. [‘‘He employed natural means to 
remove natural obstructions, that His 
Divine power might come face to face 
with the supernatural élement. He puts 
forth supernatural power to do just that 


“which no less power could accomplish, 


but all the rest He bids “men do in the 
ordinary way.” Laidlaw, Miracles, p. 
360.]—75y Ofer shows that Lazarus had 
not been embalmed or even wrapped in 
spiced grave-clothes; which, some sup- 
pose, sheds light on xii. 3. The fact is 
mentioned, however, to show how little 
Martha expected what Jesus was going 
to do: evidently she supposed He wished 
to take a last look at His friend, and she 
[4 a8eApy Tov TeTeAevTHKSTOS] the sister 
of the deceased, and therefore jealous of 
any exposure, interposes, knowing what 
He would see.—rtetaptaios yap éortt, 
“for he is four days [dead]”. Herodotus, 
ii. 8g, tells us that the wives of men of 
rank were not at death given to the 
embalmers at once, aAN’ étreav Tpitatar 
i TeTaptaiar yevwvtar, Lightfoot quotes 
a remarkable tradition of Ben Kaphra: 


KATA IQANNHN 


XI. 


40. Aver abri 6 "Inoois, “Odx elmdév cor, Sri dav moredons, Sipe 


Thy Sdgav tod Ocod ;” 


A. 35- Ps. keiwevos.! 
XX. 1. 


“Tdrep, edxaptoTd cor Ste yKoucds rou. 


41. "Hpav obv tov Aioy, of Fy 6 Tebynkds 
°O 8 “Inoods “ipe Tods db0apods avw, Kat elie, 


42. eye 8€ Wdew dre 


mdvroré jou dxovers* GANG 81d Tov 6xAov Tov TEpteoToTa elroy, tva 


motedcwow Str od pe dméorethas.” 
Dan. xii, preyddy éxpadyage, “ Adfape, 'Sepo efw.” 


g. Acts 


» Jer. iii. 3. 
Song ii. 
14. 
i,t 


” 
avtTov, kal adete Omdyev. 
Rey. 
6. 


> , o.73 a Ley > ey 4 
Beacduevor & Eroinoey 6 ‘Inoots, EwloTeugay cis auTOV. 


'® Sus adtod goudapiw mepredédero. 


43. Kal tadta cindy, pwr 


44. Kal é&Oev 6 


. TEN KwS, BeSenévos Tods moSas Kal Tas yxeELlpas ™ keiplats, Kal 4 


éyer adtots 6 Ingods, “ Adoare 
vi uy] 


45. Moot odv ék Tar "loudatwy of EXOdvTes mpds Thy Maptay, Kai 


46. Tues 


Sé 2 adtav drAdOov mpds Tods Papicaious, Kat elwovy adtois & 


«Theclauseew... 


“Grief reaches its height on the third 
day. For three days the spirit hovers 
about the tomb, if perchance it may 
return to the body. But when it sees 
the fashion of the countenance changed, 
it retires and abandons the body.”—Ver. 
40. But Martha’s incredulity is mildly 
rebuked, Oi eladév cot. . . Oeod; ‘ Did 
I not say to you, that if you believed, 
you would see the glory of God?” re- 
calling rather what He had said (ver. 4) 
to the disciples than what He had said 
to Martha (vv. 23-26) ; but the conversa- 
tion is, as already noted, abridged.—Ver. 
41. Accordingly, notwithstanding her 
remonstrance, and because it was now 
perceived that Jesus had some end in 
view that was hidden from them, they 
lifted the stone, 7jpav ov tov AtBov.—O 
Se "Ingots .. . améoretdas. “ But Jesus 
lifted His eyes upwards and said, Father, 
I thank Thee that Thou hast heard me.” 
No pomp of incantation, no wrestling in 
prayer even; but simple words of thanks- 
giving, as if already Lazarus was restored. 
{Origen thinks that the spirit of Lazarus 
had already returned. ’Avti evy7s 
nvxaplotnge, Katavoncas tHv Aaldapov 
wWouxnyv eioeMotoav els TO copa.) The 
prayer which He thanks the Father for 
hearing had been offered during the two 
days in Peraea. And the thanksgiving 
was more likely to impress the crowd 
now than in the excitement following 
the resurrection of Lazarus. Therefore 
He thanks the Father because it was 
essential that the miracle should be 
referred to its real source, and that all 
should recognise that it was the Father 
whe had sent this power among men.— 


xeipevog is obviously a gloss and is not found in BC*DL 33. 


Ver. 43. Having thus turned the faith 
of the bystanders to the Father, devq 
peyahy éxpavyace, “He cried with a 
great voice,” ‘that all might hear its 
authoritativeness ’’ (Euthymius). ‘ Talis 
vox opposita est omni magico murmuri, 
quale incantatores in suis praestigiis 
adhibere solent.” Lampe. More pro- 
bably, as Lampe also suggests, it was 
the natural utterance of His confidence, 
and of the authority He felt. kxpavydlw 
is an old word, see Plato, Rep., 607 B, 
but is principally used in late Greek 
(Rutherford’s New Phryn., 425).— 
Adlape Setpo ew. ‘Lazarus, come 
forth,’ or as Weiss renders, “hier 
heraus,” ‘‘huc foras,” ‘‘hither, out’; 
but on the whole the E.V. is best. Some- 
times an imperative is added to Sedpo, as 
xopet ot Setpo (Paley’s Com. Frag., p. 
16).—Ver. 44. Kat é&qAOev 6 TebvqKas, 
‘« And out came the dead man,” SedSepnévos 

. qepiededeTo, ‘‘ bound feet and hands 
with grave-bands,” Ketplats, apparently 
the linen bandages with which the corpse 
was swathed. Opinions are fully given 
in Lampe. ‘And his face was bound 
about with a napkin.” Cf. xx. 7. ‘ The 
trait marks an eye-witness,’’ Westcott. 
—héye. ... trdyew. “Jesus says to 
them, ‘Loose him and let him go away’.” 
He did not require support, and he could 
not relish the gaze of the throng in his 
present condition. 

Vv. 45-54. The consequences of the 
miracle.—Ver. 45. loAAot ow... 
avrov. ‘‘Many therefore of the Jews, 
viz., those who had come to Mary and 
seen what Jesus did, believed on Him.” 
That is to say, all the Jews who thue 








4o—50. 


> , «? a 
éToinoev 6 Iycous. 


°cuvédpiov, kal éNeyov, “ Th rorodper ; 


onpEta Trovet. 


EYATTEAION 


48. éav Pdddvey adtov obtw, mdytes motedcouow 


803 


, > eis A As e€ al 
47+ TUYNYAYOV OUV OL GpXLEPELS KaL OL Papioacor 


tt oUTOS 6 GvOpwrros TONG ues XV. 17 
eee 
Thayer. 

p Mt. xv. 14, 


: i ‘A P z 
eis adtév: Kat éXevcovTat ot “Pwator Kal dpodow Auav Kal Tov xxvii. 49. 


TOTTOV Kal TO CAYos.” 


@v Tod éviauTod éketvou, etmev autots, ‘“Yuets ovK otdaTe ovdév- 
50. ob8€ SiadoyiLecGe,! Sr. cuppéper Hytv,? *iva ets dvOpwiros 


1 NoyilLeoGe in NABDL 1, 22. 
2 upwin BDLM. ype in AEGHM. 


wame and saw believed.—Ver. 46. But 
of this number [it may be “‘ of the Jews” 
generally, and not of those who had been 
at Bethany] some went away to the 
* Pharisees and told them, His recognised 
enemies, whatHe had done._.Whether 
“they did this in-good faith or not does nat 
appear.—Ver. 47. The Pharisees at once 
acted on the information, ovvyyayov... 


ovvédpiov. The chief priests, who were 
Sadducees, and the Pharisees, their 


Natural foes, but who together composed 
“the supreme authority, “called together 
‘a meeting of the Sanhedrim”. The key- 
note of the meeting was struck in the 
words tt morotpey; ‘‘ What are we 
doing?” i.e., why are we doing nothing? 
The indicative, not the deliberative sub- 
junctive. The reason for shaking off 
this inertia is Gt. . . . wovet. The mir- 
acles are not denied, but their probable 
consequence is indicated.—Ver. 48. éav 
adapev ... vos. “If we let Him 
thus alone,” 7.e., if we do no more to put 
an end to His miracles than we are 
doing, “all will believe on Him; and 
the Romans will come and take away 
both our place and our nation”. pov 
emphatic. The raising of Lazarus and 
the consequent accession of adherents to 
Jesus made it probable that the people 
as a whole would attach themselves to 
Him as Messiah; and the consequence 
of the Jews choosing a king of their own 
would certainly be that the Romans 
would come and exterminate them.— 
ov tomov One would naturally render 
“our land”’ as co-ordinate with 76 €8vos 
{‘*‘ Land und Leute,” Luther], and pro- 
bably this is the meaning; although in 
2 Macc. v. Ig in a very similar connection 
6 rémos means the Temple: ov 81a Tov 
aémov To €Ovos, adda 81a TO eBvos Tov 
rémov 6 Kuptos égeAefato. Others, with 
less warrant, think the holy city is meant. 
—Ver.49. Elis 5¢ tis €& attav Kaiddas. 
‘But a certain one of them, Caiaphas.” 


49. Els 5¢ tis e& attav Kaiddas, dpxrepeds gq xvi. 7. 


Mt. v. 29. 
Lk. xvii. 

2. 1 Cor. 
iv. 3. 


T.R. poorly authenticated, 


Winer (p. 146) says that ris does not 
destroy the arithmetical force of eis. 
This may be so: but the use of efs in 
similar forms is a peculiarity of later 
Greek. Caiaphas (Mt. xxvi. 3) is a sur- 
name = Kephas, added to the original 
name of this High Priest, Joseph. He 
held office from a.D. 18 to 36, when he 
was deposed by Vitellius.—apytepeds dv 
TOU eviavTov exetvov, ‘ being High Priest 
that year,” not as if the writer supposed 
the high priesthood was an office held 
for a year only, but desiring to emphasise 
that during that marked and fatal year 
of our Lord’s crucifixion Caiaphas held 
the position of highest authority: as if 
he said ‘during the year of which we 
speak Caiaphas was High Priest’’. 
“‘ Non vocat anni illius pontificem, quod 
annuum duntaxat esset munus, sed quum 
venale esset transferretur ad varios 
homines fraeter Legis praescriptum.”’ 
Calvin. And Josephus (Ant., xx. 10) re- 
minds us that there were twenty-eight 
high priests in 107 years.—Ypets ov« 
oldate ovdev. ‘ Ye [contemptuous] know 
nothing at all,”’ ov8é AoytLeoBe, ‘‘ nor do 
ye take account that it is expedient for 
you that one man die for the people, and 
the whole nation perish not”. ‘The tva 
clause is the subject of the sentence, 
‘““that one man die for the people is 
expedient”; as frequently, cf. Mt. x. 25, 
xviii. 6, John xvi. 7, 1 Cor. iv. 3. On 
the use of iva in this Gospel see Burton’s 
Moods and Tenses, 211-219. Caiaphas 
enounced an unquestionably sound 
principle (see Wetstein’s examples) ; but 
nothing could surpass the cold-blooded 
craft of his application of it. He saw that 
an opportunity was given them of at 
once getting rid of an awkward factor in 
their community, a person dangerous to 
their influence, and of currying favour 
with Rome, by putting to death one who 
was claiming to be king of the Jews. 
“Why!” he says, ‘‘do you not see that 


804 KATA LQANNHN XI. 

dwoldvy Srép tod Aaod, Kat ph Sdov 7d EOvos AwdAyrar.” ST. 

Todro S€ dd’ Eautod odk elev, GAA dpyxrepeds Sv Tod eviauTod 

sites éxelvou, mpoedprjteucev? Ste Epedev? 6 "Inoods dro8vyoKew imrép 

Kove Tod €Bvous, 52. Kat ovx Sep tod EOvous pdvov, GAN’ iva Kai Ta 
ec cts 


xxi.13. 2TéKVa TOO Ocod TA "Steckopmopeva *ouvaydyn “eis ev. 


Cor. viii. 


53. aw 


ro. Bur- €xeiyns obv Tis hpépas cuveBouhedcavto® iva daoKtelvwow adtdv. 


ton, 481. 
s Mt. xxvi. 


Lol a“ , 
54. “Ingots ‘odv otk ett wappyola ‘weprerdre: év Tots ‘loudatois, 


tis. Ivi.8 GANA GrHOev exeiOer eis Thy xdpay * éyyds Tis epypou, eis Eppatp 


U XVvii. 23. 
¥ Vii. I. 
w ver. 18. 
x Acts xxi. 
; Xxiv. a 
i adhupa é€x THs xW@pas mpd 


l erpodytevoev in KRBDLX 33. 
3 npeAXev in ABDL 1, 33. 
3 eBovAevoavro in NBD 13, 69. 


this man with His eclat and popular 
following, instead of endangering us and 
bringing suspicion on our loyalty, is 
exactly the person we may use to exhibit 
our fidelity to the empire? Sacrifice 
Jesus, and you will not only rid your- 
selves of a troublesome person, but will 
show a watchful zeal for the supremacy 
of Rome, which will ingratiate you with 
the imperial authorities.”.—Ver. 51. 
Totro S€ ad’ éavtTov ovK eitrev . 
mpoeprtevoev. ad’ éavTod, ‘at his own 
instigation,’ is contrasted with ‘at the 
instigation of God” implied in é1po- 
gytevoey [Kypke gives interesting 
examples of the use of ad’ éavtov in 
classical writers]. ‘‘None but a Jew 
would be likely to know of the old Jewish 
belief that the high priest by means of 
the Urim and Thummim was the mouth- 
piece of the Divine oracle.’”’ Plummer. 
Calvin calls him “ bilingual,” and com- 
pares his unconscious service to that of 
Balaam. John sees that this unscrupulous 
diplomatist, who supposed that he was 
moving Jesus and the council and the 
Romans as so many pieces in his own 
game, was himself used as God’s mouth- 
_ piece to predict the event which brought 
to a close his own and all other priest- 
hood. “In the irony of events he uncon- 
sciously used his high-priestly office to 
Yead- forward that one sacrifice which 
was for ever tO take away sin and so 
make all further priestly office super- 
fluous. He prophesied “ that Jesus was 
to die for the nation, and not for the 
nation-only, but that also the children of, 
God who were scattered in various places 
should be gathered into one”. 67 is 


Aeyouevny wéduv, KaKet SrétprBe * pera TOv pabyTav adrod. 


55-4 


S€ éyybs Td doxa Tav “loudalwy: Kal dvéByoav wodXoi eis ‘lepo- 


an ° x 2 , c , 
TOU TaoXO, wa AYVLOWOW €QauTouUsS. 


The usage is given in Winer, p. 84. 
See Winer, p. 82. 


* epewev in NBL; cp. iii. 92. 


rendered ‘‘because” by Weiss and 
others. Jesus was to die tmép 1d €Ovos_ 
although not in Caiaphas’ sense; and 
His death had the wider object of bring- 
ing into one whole, of truer solidarity 
than the nation, all God’s children wher- 
ever at present scattéred. Cf. x. 16, Eph. 
ii. 14. The expression ta téxva Tod Ocod 
is used proleptically of the Gentiles who 
were destined to become God’s children, 
So Euthymius. For the phrase ovvdyeww 
els €v Meyer refers to Plato, Phileb., 378, 
C, and Eurip., Orestes, 1640.—Ver. 53. 
This utterance of Caiaphas brought 
sudden light to the members of the 
Sanhedrim, and so influenced their per- 
plexed mind that adm’ éxetvyns tpepas 
ouveBovletcavto tva daroKtetveot 
avtov. This was the crisis: what 
hitherto they had desired (v. 16, 18, vii. 
32, x. 39) they now determined in council. 
Ver. 54. Jesus accordingly, "Incots 
ovv, not to precipitate matters, od« grt 
-..avtov, “no longer went about 
openly among the Jews, but departed 
thence (i.e., from Bethany or Jerusalem 
and its neighbourhood) to the country 
near the desert (xapav in Contrast to the 
city; the particular part being the 
wilderness Of Bethaven, a few miles 
‘north-east of Jerusalem) to a city called 
Ephraim (now Et-Taiyibeh, anciently 
Ophrah, see Smith’s Hist. Geog., 256, 
352; ‘perched on a _ conspicuous 
eminence and with an extensive view, 
thirteen miles north of Jerusalem,’ 
Henderson’s Palestine, p. 161), and there 
He spent some time with His disciples”. 

Vv. 55-57- Approach of the Passover. 
—Ver. 55. fv de éautovs. ‘ Now 





51—57. XII. 1-3. 


56. elnrouv ovv 
éotynkotes, “Ti 
57- Acduxecay 


EYATTEAION 


805 


a > A ws > a a ¢ ~ 
Tov “Inootv, kal Eheyov pet GAAHAWY ev TH Lepa 
Soxet dpiv, Gtr ob ph ENOH Els Thy EoptHy;” 
S€ Kal ol Gpxtepets Kal ot Papicator évtodny,! 


~~ A , iu 
va éav Ts yv@ mod €oTt, pyvuon, OWS TLATwWOLY aUTOY. 


XII. 1. ‘O OYN *Inaois *mpd €§ pepav tod mdcya AOev eis a Amosi. x. 


ByPaviay, Smou Hv AdLapos 6 TeOvnKWs,? dv Hyerpey ex veKpar. 


pane 


Adlapos eis qv Tay ouvavakerpevan § abTo. 


2 Mac. xv. 
36. 


émoinaav otv adT@ Setmvov éxel, Kat % MdpOa Sinxdver: 6 S€b Dan. v. x. 


z ; Mk. vi.2t. 
3. ‘H ovv Mapia 


haBodoa *Aitpay pupou vdpSou mortiKAS TohuTipou, 4 rere TOUS c xix. 39. 
2. 


Todas TOU Incod, kal * éfépage tats Opisiv adtis Tovs médas auto; - 


* evroAny in ADL, it. vulg., etc. ; evrodas in QB 1. 


29 reOvykws omitted by Ti.W.H.R. with RBLX. T.R.in ADIFA. The words 
have some appearance of.a gloss for greater perspicuity, 


3 avaxetpevwv ovv in SRABDILN. 


the Passover of the Jews was at hand, 
and many went up to Jerusalem out of 
the country before the Passover to purify 
themselves.” Cf. xviii. 28, Num. ix. 10, 
2 Chron. xxx. 17. Some puritications 
required a week, others consisted only 
of shaving the head and washing the 
clothes. See Lightfoot 7x loc.—Ver. 56. 
e{yrouv .. . €optyiv; Jesus was one 
main topic of conversation among those 
who stood about in groups in the Temple 
when their purifications had been got 
through; and the chief point discussed 
was whether He would appear at this 
feast. Cf. vii. 10-13.—Ver. 57. There 
was room for difference of opinion, for 
AcSéxeroav . . . avtéy, ‘the Sanhedrim 
had issued instructions that if any knew 
where He was he should intimate this, 
that they might arrest Him”. 

CHAPTER XII.—Vv. 1-11. Fesus em- 
balmed in the love of His intimates.— 
Ver. 1. ‘O ovv ’Iqgots .. . Bydaviay, 
ovy takes us back to xi. 55; the Passover 
being at hand, Jesus therefore came to 
Bethany.—mpo @¢ fjpepav tov macya, 
not, as Vulgate, ‘* ante sex dies Paschae,”’ 
but with Beza ‘‘sex ante Pascha diebus”’. 
So Amos i. 1, mpd duo érav TOV Getcpod. 
Josephus, Antig., xv. 14, ™pd pias 
TyEpas THS €optys. Other examples in 
Kypke ; cf. x. 18, xxi. 8, and see Viereck’s 
Sermo Graecus, p. 81. Six days before 
the Passover probably means the Sabbath 
before His death. According to John 
Jesus died on Friday, and six days before 
that would be a Sabbath. But it is 
difficult to ascertain with exactness what 
day is intended. . Bethany is now de- 
scribed as the place mov fv Adlapos 6 


TeBvyKws. This description is given to 
explain what follows.—Ver. 2. éwotyoav 
. +. @avT@. émoinoay is the indefinite 
plural: ‘‘they made Him” a supper ; 
Setrvoy, originally any meal, came to be 
used invariably of the evening meal.— 
Kat 7 Mdp0a 8iynxdver, ‘and Martha 
waited at table,’ which was - her 
peculiar province (Lk. x. 40).—o 8¢é 
Adfapos ... ait@. This is mentioned, 
not to show that Lazarus was still alive 
and well, but because the feast was not 
in his house but in that of Simon the 
leper (Mk. xiv. 3, Mt. xxvi. 6). That 
this was the same feast as that mentioned 
by the Synoptists is apparent; the only 
discrepancy ofany consequence being that 
the Synoptists seem to place the feast only 
two days before the Passover. But they 
introduce the feast parenthetically to 
present the immediate motive of Judas’ 
action, and accordingly disregard strict 
chronology.—Ver. 3. ‘H otv Mapia... 
The third member of the Bethany family 
appears also in character, AaBovoa Aitpav 
pUpov vdpdSov moriKyHs tToduTipov. 
Aitpa (Lat. libra), the unit of weight 
in the Roman empire, slightly over 
eleven ounces avoirdupois. pvpov (from 
p-vpw, to trickle, or from puppa, myrrh, 
the juice of the Arabian myrtle) is any 
unguent, more costly and luxurious than 
the ordinary €Aavov. Cf. Lk. vii. 46, 
and Trench, Synonyms. vapSos, ‘the 
head or spike of a fragrant East Indian 
plant belonging to the genus Valeriana, 
which yields a juice of delicious odour 
which the ancients used in the preparation 
of a most precious ointment”. Thayer. 
TioTikysS iS sometimes derived from 


806 


e With ex a S€ oixia *ewAnpwOy ex THs dopAs TOO pupou. 


here only. 


f Mk. xiv. 5. TapadiSdvat, 5. 
g X. 13. 
h xiii. 29. 
2 Chron. 
xxxiv 10. 


awiorts, and rendered “ genuine,” yvyotos, 
Séxipos. Thus Euthymius, akparov cat 
KaTatemloTeupevns els Kkalapdryra, un- 
adulterated and guaranteed pure. But 
miotés is the common form; cf. 
Onpixdéous TLOTOV TEKVOV, Theopomp. 
in Com. Frag. Some suppose it in- 
dicates the name of the place where the 
nard was obtained. Thus Augustine: 
“Quod ait ‘pistici,’ locum aliquem 
credere debemus, unde hoc erat un- 
guentum pretiosum”’. Similarly some 
modern scholars derive it from Opis (sc. 
Opistike), a Babylonian town. In the 
Classical Review (July, 1890) Mr. Bennett 
suggests that it should be written 
motakys, and that it refers to the 
Pistacia Terebinthus, which grows in 
Cyprus, Chios, and Palestine, and yields 
a turpentine in such inconsiderable 
quantities as to be very costly. The 
word is most fully discussed by Fritzsche 
on Mk. xiv. 3, who argues at great length 
and with much learning for the meaning 
“drinkable”. He quotes Athenaeus in 
proof that some ointments were drunk, 
mixed with wine. amotés is the word 
commonly used for “potable,” as in 
Aesch., Prom. Vinct., 480, where 
Prometheus says man had no defence 
against disease ovte Bpdotpov, ov 

xptorov, ovTe motéy. And Fritzsche 
holds that while muertos means “ qui 
bibi potest,” amoruds means “ qui 
facile bibi potest”. The weight and 
nature of the ointment are specified to 
give force to the added rrodvtipov; see 
ver. 5.—7Aewpe tots mddas Tov "Inco, 
Mt. and Mk. say “ the head,” which was 
the more natural but less significant, and 
in the circumstances less convenient, 
mode of disposing of ‘the ointment.— 
xa éf€pate... avtot, ‘and wiped 
Hi: feet with her hair”. Holtzmann 
thinks this an infelicitous combination 
of Mk. xiv. 3 and Lk. vii. 38; infelicitous 
b cause the anointing of the feet which 
was apprcpriate in the humbled penitent 
was not so in Mary’s case; and the dry- 
ig with her hair which was suitable 
where tears had fallen was unsuitable 
where anointing had taken place, for 
the unguent should have been allowed 
toremain. This, however, is infelicitous 


KATA IQANNHN 


cc , A 4 ’ > > , 
Avatt rodto Té pupoy odK émpdaby 


Syvapiwy, kat €360n mrwxois ;”” 


XII, 


4. héyer obv els ex 


Tav pabytav adtod, “lovSas Elpwvos “loxapidtys, 6 pew adrov 


‘ tprakooiwry 
6. Ele 8€ todto, obx Ste * wepi 


Tav Wrwxay © Epeev ata, GAN Ste KA€wTHs Hy, Kal Td” yRwoodKopov 


criticism. In Aristoph., Wasps, 607, the 

daughter anoints her father’s feet: 4 
Ovyarnp ... Tw wd8’ arelhy; and if, 
as Fritzsche supposes, the ointment was 
liquid, there is nothing inappropriate but 
the reverse in the wiping with the hair. 
— Se oixla érdnpwdn ex Tis dopjs Tod 
upov, at once attracting attention and 
betraying the costliness of the offering. 
—Ver. + Hence the ovv in ver. 4, 
héyer otv els . . . wrwxots; “one” of 
His disciples. Matthew (xxvi. 8) leaves 
all the disciples under the reproach, 
which John transfers to Judas alone. On 
the designation of Judas see vi. 71. 
Westcott, however, with a harmonising 
_tendency, says ‘ Ju ; hat 
others felt”. But this is contradicted 
by the ern which John ascribes to 
Judas, ver. 6.—Atart . Snvapiov. 
Three hundred denarii would equal a 
day labourer’s wage for one year.—Ver. 
6. Elae 5€ rovto . . . €Baoralev. “‘ This 
he said, not because he cared for the 
poor, but because he was a thief.” 
_Before John could make this accusation, 
“he must have kad proof; how or when 
_we do not know. But the next clauses, 
“being in the imperfect, imply that his 
pilfering was habitual.—76 yAwood«opov, 
‘the bag,’’ better ‘“‘ the purse,”’ or ‘‘ box,” 
“loculos habens,”’ Vulgate. In the form 
yAwoookounetov (which Phrynichus de- 
clares to be the proper form, see Ruther- 
ford, p. 181) the word occurs in the 
Bacchae of Lysippus to denote a case for 
holding the tongue pieces of musical 
instruments (yA@ooa, Kxopéw). Hence 
it came to be used of any box, chest, or 
coffer. In Sept. it occurs in 2 Sam. vi. 
11 (Codd. A, 247, and Aquila) of the Ark 
of the Lord; in 2 Chron. xxiv. 8 of the 
chest for collections i in the Temple. This 
chest had a hole in the lid, and the people 
cast in (évéBadov, cf. Ta Badddpeva here) 
their contributions. (Further see Hatch, 
Essays in Biblical Greek, p. 42, and 
Field’s Otium Norvic., 68.)—ra Badd6- 
peva éBdorafev. The R.V. renders 
“took al what was put therein”, 
Certainl t “ 
mope =) a carried 


therein is flat and tautological. And 5 a 


éBaorafley can bear the sense of “ take 











4—-I1. 


eixe, kat! to Badddpeva 'éBdoraler. 


coj™ 
> , 
aQuTo. 


, ” ” 
TWAVTOTE €XETE. 


EYATTEAION 


3O7 


7. elev ovv & "Inaois, i xx. 15. 


Ades adtyy: eis thy tpépay tod évradiacpod pou TeTypyKer *j x. 48. Mt 
8. tols mTrwxods yap mdvrote exeTe pel” * cautadr, 


XXVii. 49. 

éwe 8€ od k See Sim- 
cox,Grain. 
p. 63. 


Q- "Eyvw ov dxdos*® aodds ek Tav “loudaiwy Ste éxet ori: Kaili. 40. 
HAOov ™ od Sia Tov “Ingody pdvov, GAN’ iva Kai Tov AdLapov iSwouy, dv m xi. 52. 


Eyeipev €k vexpav. 


10 éPoudevcavro 8€ of dpxepets, “iva Kal Tov n Burton, 


AdLapov daroxteivwou : 11. Ste Tool Bt adtov dwiyov Tdy ‘loudaiwy, 


As, , > A 2? A 
KGL ETLOTEUOY Els TOY Inoouy. 


1 For erye, kat SBD 33 read exov. 


27T.R. in AIPA; wa (inserted after autny) . . . ThpyoyH in KBDKL 33, it. vulg. 
Aegypt. Arm. Goth. So Ti.W H.R. T.R. gives the better meaning ; the difficulty 


invited alteration, 


5 NB*L insert @; adopted by Ti.W.H.R. 


away ” or ‘‘ make away with ”’ is beyond 
dispute. The passages cited by Kypke 
and Field (Soph., Philoct., 1105 ; 
Josephus, Antiq., ix. 2; Diog., Laert., 
iv. 59) prove that it was used of ‘“ taking 
away by stealth” or “ purloining”’; and 
Serarherase ob adpewiain Bur, Hee 702. 
Liddell and Scott aptly compare the 
Scots use of ‘‘lift” in ‘ cattle-lifting ”’ 
and so forth. Mary found a prompt 
champion in Jesus: “Ades atryy, “let 
her alone”. R.V. renders: ‘ Suffer 
her to keep it against the day of my 
burying”; and in margin: ‘Let her 
alone: it was that she might keep it”’. 
This Westcott understands as meaning 
‘«suffer her to keep it—this was her pur- 
pose, and let it not be disturbed—for 
my preparation for burial”. But, how- 
ever we understand it, there is a palpable 
absurdity in our Lord’s requesting that 
which had already been poured out to be 
kept for His burial. On the other hand, 
if the reading of A adopted in T.R. 
TetTnpnkev was the original reading, it 
might naturally be altered owing to the 
scribe’s inability to perceive how this 
day of anointing could be called the 
day of His évtadiacpds, and how the 
ointment could be said to have been kept 
till that day (cf. Field, Otium Norvic., p. 
69). Tetipykev is opposed to éapaéy 
(ver. 5); she had not sold, but kept it; 
and she kept it, perhaps unconsciously, 
against the day of His entombment or 
preparation for burial. évtagiacpds is 
rather the preparation for burial than the 
actual interment. Vide especially Kypke 
on Mk. xiv. 8. This anointing was His 
true embalming. Mary’s love was re- 
presentative of the love of His intimate 


friends in whose loyal affection He was 
embalmed so that His memory could 
never die. The significance of the in- 
cident lies precisely in this, that Mary’s 
action is the evidence that Jesus may 
now die, having already found an en- 
during place for Himself in the regard of 
His friends. It is possible that Mary 
herself, enlightened by her love, had a 
presentiment that this was the last tribute 
she could ever pay her Lord.—Ver. 8. 
As for Judas’ suggestion, He disposes of 
it, TOUS mrwyous ... Exete. “ For the 
poor ye have always with you,” and 
every day, therefore, have opportunities 
of considering and relieving them, “‘ but 
me ye have not always,” and therefore 
this apparent extravagance, being occa- 
sional only, finds justification. Occasional 
lavish expenditure on friends is justified 
by continuous expenditure on the real 
necessities of the poor.—Ver. 9. “Eyvw 
ovv GxAos mods ek TaY “lovdaiwy. “A 
great crowd of the Jews”; 6 xAos is 
generally used by John in contrast to 
the Jewish authorities, and R.V. renders 
“the common people”. When they 
knew that Jesus was in Bethany they 
went out from Jerusalem to see Him and 
Lazarus: an easily accessible and un- 
doubted sensation. The result was 
that many of the Jews, on identifying 
Lazarus, believed on Jesus. Accordingly 
éBovretcavto . . . Groxtel(vwow. The 
high priests, being Sadducees, could not 
bear to have in their neighbourhood a 
living witness to the possibility of living 
through death, and a powerful testimony 
to the power of Jesus. And so, to prevent 


_the people believing on Jesus, they made 


the monstrous proposal to put Lazarus, 


808 KATA IQANNHN XI. 

12. Ty €wavpiov dxdos wodds 6 eAOdv eis Thy EopThy, dxov- 

gavtes Ste Epyxetar 6 “Inoods eis ‘lepooddupa, 13. €AaBov Ta 

Bata tay powixwr, Kal e&qOov eis bmdvrnow adTd, Kal Expafor,! 

o Ps. cxviii. *° ‘Qoavvd+ edNoynpevos 6 épxdspevos ev dvépate Kupiou, 6 Baotheds 
25, 26. 


Tod ‘lopani.”” 


14. Edpby 8€ 6 “Ingots dvdprov, exdbioev em adtd, 


p Zech. ix. KaQus €ott ® yeypappevov, 15. ‘Mi hoBod, Oiyarep uv idod, 6 


9- 


q Xx. 40. 
r vii. 39 reff. , 


, » ’ PEN a ” ? 
Bacthe’s cou Epxetat, Kabijpevos emt m@ov Gvou. 


16. Tatra Se 


obk éyvwoay ot padyntat adtod 47d mpdrov- GAN’ Ste * eSofdoOn 
Ingots, téTe éuvicOnoay Ste tadta qv em alT@ veypappeva, Kal 


A > , 2 A > , sz cm [ey > 3 na « 
Taita éroincay avTO. 17. €papTuper ouv 6 OxXos 6 Gy peT adTOD, OTE 


a ver. I. 
1 expavyaloy in NBFDL, 


an entirely innocent person, to death. 
In Mary John has shown faith and 
devotion at their ripest: in this devilish 
proposal the obduracy of unbelief is 
exhibited in its_extreme form. 

Vy. 12-19. The triumphal entry into 
Ferusalem,—Ver. 12. Ty émavpwoy, 7.¢., 
probably on Sunday, called Palm 
Sunday in the Church year [kuptaxy 
tov Batwy, dominica palmarum, or, in 
ramis palmarum]. Four days before 
the Passover the Jews were required to 
select a lamb for the feast.—6yxAos rrodts 
& éhOav eis THY EopTHy, and therefore not 
Jerusalemites, dxovoavtes . . . €AaBov 
7a Bata Tov dotvikwy “ took the fronds 
of the palms,” the palms which every 
one knew as growing on the road from 
Jerusalem to Bethany. The Bata (from 
Coptic Bat) were recognised as symbols of 
victory or rejoicing. Cf. 1 Macc. xiii. 51, 
peta aivérews kai Batwy. So Pausanias 
(viii. 48), és 8 rhnv Sektdv éore Kai 
TavTAaXov TO vikavTe éoTOepevos horvié. 
Cf. Hor., Odes, I. i. 5, ‘‘ palma nobilis ”’. 
This demonstration was evidently the 
result of recent events, especially, as 
stated in ver. 18, of the raising of 
Lazarus.—Ver. 13. eis trdvtrnow atte. 
‘« Substantives derived from verbs which 
govern a dative are sometimes followed 
by this case, instead of the ordinary 
genitive.” Winer, 264. They left no 
doubt as t6 the meaning of the demon- 
stration, €kpaloy ‘Qoavva .. . ’lopani. 
These words are taken from Ps. cxviii. 
25, 26; written as the Dedication Psalm 
of the second Temple. ‘Qeavva is the 


Hebrew &3 TT WIN, “save now”. 


The words were originally addressed to 
approaching worshippers; here they 
designate the Messiah; but that no 


‘ , > , > A , \e> Femi > ~ 
TOV Adfapov epwvycev €K TOU LLVT)ELOU, KaL NYYELPEV GUTOV EK VEKPWY * 


mistake might be possible as to the 
present reference, the people add, 6 
Baotheds tod “lopark.—Ver. 14. Jesus 
being thus hailed as king by the people, 
etpoav dvdpiov . . . bvov, ic., He 
accepted the homage and declared Him- 
self king by adopting the prediction ot 
Zech, ix. g (ver. 15), ‘‘ Rejoice greatly, 
O daughter of Zion (xatpe opd5pa instead 
of py oPot), proclaim it aloud, O 
daughter of Jerusalem; behold the king 
is coming to thee, just and saving, He is 
meek and riding on a beast of burden 
and a young foal”. The significance of 
the “ass” is shown in what follows: 
‘‘He shall destroy the chariots out of 
Ephraim and the horse out of Jerusalem, 
and the war-bow shall be utterly de- 
stroyed: and there shall be abundance 
and peace”’. By riding into Jerusalem 
as king but on an ass, not on a war horse, 
He continued to claim to be Messiah 
but ruling by spiritual force for spiritual 
ends.—Ver- 16. The significance of 
‘His action was not at that time per- 
ceived by the disciples: tatra... 
mp@tov, but when Jesus had been 
glorified, then they remembered that 
this had been written concerning Him 
and that the people had made this 
demonstration in His favour, cat ratra 
éroingay avtT@.—Ver. 17. In verses 17 
and 18 this demonstration is carefully 
traced to the raising of Lazarus: ‘‘ the 
crowd which was with Him when He 
summoned Lazarus from the tomb, and 
raised him from the dead, testified [that 
He had done so], and on this account 
the crowd went out to meet Him, because 
they had heard this testimony”. The 
demonstration is thus rendered intel- 
ligible. In the Synoptists it is not 
accounted for. He is represented as 








12—25. 


EYATTEAION 


80g 


4 ~ ” a 
18. 81a TodTo kai baynvTnGEv aT 6 OxNos, Ste HKouTE TOUTO aiTov Te- 


~ L ~ 
ToLnkevar TO onLELov. 19. ot oUv Papicator Eltrov pds EauToUs, “*Gew- t iv 19. 


peite Stu dk adhedette oddev; ide 6 Kdcpos " dticw adtod dwyhOev.” u Mk. i. 20 


20. "Hoa 8€ tives “EAAnves Ek TOV " dvaBawdvtwr, iva mpookuVy- v Zech. xiv. 


Oddopev tov “Inoodv idetv.’’ 


a a a Alais 6. 
cwow ev TH éopry: 21. odtor obv mpooqdOov dilmmw TO ard * 
BynScaida tis TadtNatas, Kat jpitwy adtov Aéyovtes, “ Kupte, 
» ‘ , lol 
22. “Epxetar Pidummos Kat eye TO 
"Avdpéa* Kal mdéAuw *Avdpéas Kal idummos Aéyoust TO “Inaod. 
23. 5 8€ “Ingods dmexptvato! adtois Aéywv, “"EAndubeyv | dpa 
ee me Ben weiti27saiis 
24. apy apt héyw bpiv, 25, etc. 


"iva *Sogac0q 6 ulds Tod avOpdrou. 


See Bur- 


2a NGe Ny, / “A , % > x aA > 04 OEM / 
eav p7) 0 KOKKOS TOU GLTOU TEDWY ELS THY yr aro v1> QUTOS }40VOS ton, 216. 


> ‘ , x aq , 
péver- edv S€ dwo8dvy, wohdv kapwov depet. 
S > a 2 dé 74 a Pree te 1 c a ‘ AY > n 3? 
puxhy abtod dmohécer® adtyy: Kal 6 picay Thy Ppuxny aiTod ev 


1 aqoxptverat in RBLX 33. 


entering the city with the pilgrims, and 
no reason is assigned for the sudden 
outburst of feeling. See Mk. xi. 1, etc. 
—Ver.19. The effect on the Pharisees 
is, as usual, recorded by John; they said 
one to another, Oewpetre . . . day)Oev. 
“Do you see how helpless you are? 
The world is gone after Him.” For 6 
kéapos see 4 Macc. xvii. 14 and French 
“tout le monde”. For émicw avtov see 
2-Sam. XV.) 03; 

Vv. 20-36. The Greeks inquire for 
Fesus.—Ver. 20. "Hoav 8€ tives “EAAn- 
ves €k TOv aGvaBaLvévTwy . Among 
the crowds who came up to worship in 
the feast were some Greeks; not Hellen- 
ists, but men of pure Greek extraction ; 
proselytes belonging to Decapolis, Gali- 
lee, or Some country more remote.—Ver. 
21. ovTot ovv mpoondOov idle, 
“these came therefore to Philip,’ pro- 
bably because they had learned that he 
knew their language; or, as indicated in 
the addition, 7@ . . . FadtAaias, because 
they had seen him in Galilee. Their re- 
quest to Philip was, Kupte . . . iSetv. 
‘“« Sir, we would see Jesus’’; not merely 
to see Him, for this they could have 
managed without the aid of a disciple, 
but to interview the person regarding 
whom they found all Jerusalem ringing. 
Philip does not take the sole responsi- 
bility of this introduction on himself, 
because, since they, as Apostles, had been 
forbidden to go to the Gentiles, Philip 
might suppose that Jesus would decline 
to see these Greeks. He therefore tells 
Andrew (cf. i. 44; vi. 7, 8), his fellow- 
townsman, and together they venture to 
make known to Jesus the request.—Ver. 


= fe XeVers 10; 
25. 6 pidav thy y Mt. xiii. 
31. 1 Cor. 


27T.R. in ADX, it. vulg. ; awodAver in SQBL 33. 


23. 6 8é ’Inoots amexpivaro airois, 
“Jesus answers them,”’ z.e., the two 
disciples, but probably the Greeks had 
come with them and heard the words: 
"EdrjAvdev 7 Spa tva Sofacby o vids Tod 
avOpemov. epxetar Spa is followed by 
OTe in iv. 21, v. 25, and by & 7 in v. 28. 
Burton calls it ‘the complementary” use 
of tva. ‘‘ The hour iscome that the Son of 
Man should be glorified.” Directly the 
glorification of the Son of Man or Messiah 
consisted in His being acknowledged by 
men; and this earnest inquiry of the 
Greeks was the evidence that His claims 
were being considered beyond the circle 
of the Jewish people.—Ver. 24. But second 
to the thought of His enthronement as 
Messiah comes the thought of the way 
toit: apyy .. . éper, ‘except the grain 
of wheat fall into the ground and die, 
it abides itself alone; but if it die, it bears 
much fruit”. The seed réaches its full 
and proper development by being sown 
in the ground and dying. It is this pro- 
cess, apparently destructive, and which 
calls for faith in the sower, which disen- 
gages the forces of the seed and allows 
it to multiply itself. To preserve the 
seed from this burial in the ground is te 
prevent it from attaining its best develop 
ment and use. The law of the seed is 
the law of human life.—Ver. 25. 6 
kav . . . avryv, he that so prizes his’ 
life [htAowvyetv is used in the classics of 
excessive love of life. See Kypke] that 
he cannot let it out of his own hand or 
give it up to good ends checks its growth 
and it withers and dies: whereas he whc 
treats his life as if he hated it, giving i 
up freely to the needs of other men, shal 


810 


a > ‘ 77 , 
TO Kédopw ToUTw, cis Lwhy atwyrov gurdger adtnyy. 


KATA ITQANNHN 


XII. 


26. édv epol 


a , A 
zMt xxv. "Siaxovg tis, €pmot dkoouGeirw: Kal Srrou eipt eyd, eet Kal 6 


th 


TaTyp- 
a Gen. xli. 8. 


b Heb. v. 7. pe > ék THs Gpas tauvTys. 
Jas. v. 20. 


heAdAnKev.” 


keep it to life eternal. gvAdge, ‘“ shall 
guard,” suggested by the apparent lack 
of guarding and preserving in the pug@yv. 
He has not guarded it from the claims 
made upon it in this world, but thus has 
guarded it to life eternal. Ver. 26. This 
law is applicable not to Jesus only, but 
toall: éav wot... axodovGeitw. The 
badge of His servants is that they adopt 
His method and aim and truly follow 
Him. The result of following necessarily 
is that Sov... €orat, ‘“where I am, 
as my eternal state, there shall also my 
servant be’. S8tdkovos is especially a 
servant in attendance, at table or else- 
where; a SodAos may serve at a distance: 
hence the appropriateness of 8éKovos 
in this verse. The office of Sidkovos 
may seem a humble and painful one, but 
édv tis [omit kat] . . . mazvyp, to be 
valued or honoured by the Father crowns 
life—Ver. 27. The distinct and near 
prospect of the cross as the path to 
glory which these Greeks called up in 
His thoughts prompts Him to exclaim: 
Niv % Wux7y pov terdpaxrat, ‘ Now is 
my soul troubled”. wvyq is, as Weiss 
remarks, synonymous with mvevpa, see 
xiii. 21. A conflict of emotions disturbs 
His serenity. ‘ Concurrebat horror mor- 
tis et ardor obedientiae.” Bengel. at 
vi elw; “And what shallI say?” This 
clause certainly suggests that the next 
should also be interrogative, ‘‘ Shall I 
say, Father, save me from this hour? 
But for this cause (or, with this object) 
eame I to this hour.” That is, if He 
should now pray to be delivered from 
death this would be to stultify all He had 
up to this time been doing; for without 
His death His life would be fruitless. 
He would still be a seed preserved and 
not sown.—Ver.28. Therefore He prays: 
Natep Sdfacdv cov Td Gvopa. ‘‘ Father, 
glorify Thy name.’ Complete that 


27. “Nov 4} Wuxy pou “Terdpaxrar* Kal ri ettrw ; 


Sidkovos 6 pds Eorar’ Kal €dvy Tis enol Sraxovf, truyjoer adtov 6 


mdtep, oor 


&AAG. Bra TodTo HOov eis Thy dpav ravTyy. 
28. wdtep, Sdgacdv cou 7d Svopa.’” "HNOev odv pwr x Tod odpavod, 
“Kal éSdfaoa, kat wddu dofdcw.”” 


dxovcas €heye Bpovriy yeyovevar. 


29. ‘O odv dxhos 6 éotds Kal 
Gddor Edeyov, “"Ayyehos adta 


30. “AmexpiOn 6 “Ingods Kat eimev, “Od Bu ee atry 
H pwr yéyovev, GANA Be Spas. 


31. vov Kplois éoti tod Kécpou 


manifestation of Thy holiness and love 
which through me Thou art making; 
complete it even at the cost of my 
agony.—H\@ev otv dovn .. . Sofdow. 
“There came, therefore, a voice out of 
heaven: I have both glorified it and will 
again glorify it.” However Jesus might 
seem in the coming days to be tossed on 
the sea of human passions, the Father 
was steadily guiding all to the highest 
end. The assurance that His death 
would glorify God was, of course, that 
which nerved Jesus for its endurance. 
He was not throwing His life away.— 
Ver. 29. ‘O odv dydos . . . AcAGANKeEv. 
The mass of the people which was stand- 
ing by and heard the voice did not 
recognise it as a voice, but said it 
thundered. Others caught, if not the 
words, yet enough to perceive it was 
articulate speech, and said that an angel 
had spoken to Him.—Ver. 30. ’Amexpi6y 
& ’lycots. Jesus, hearing these con- 
jectures, explained to them that not on 
His account but on theirs this voice had 
been uttered. It was of immense im- 
portance that the disciples, and the 
people generally, should understand that 
the sudden transition from the throne 
offered by the triumphal acclamation of 
the previous day to the cross, was not a 
defeat but a fulfilment of the Divine 
purpose. The voice furnished them 
against the coming trial.—Ver. 31. It 
was a trial not so much of Him as of 
the world: viv xplows éotl tov Kéopou 
tovtov. In the events of the next few 
days the world was to be judged by its 
treatment of Jesus. Cf. ili. 18, v. 27. 
Calvin, adopting the fuller meaning given 
to the Hebrew word ‘ judge,” thinks 
that the restoration of the world to its 
legitimate rule and order is signified. 
A fuller explanation follows in the 
clauses, viv 6 Gpxwv... dpavrdr. 





26—36. 


EYATTEAION 


Sit 


routTou: viv °6 dpxwv Tod Kdopou todTou éxBAnOyceTar Efw~ 32. c xiv. 30; 


Kayo €dv 1G pwOd &x THs Yas, Wavtas “éEAkUow Wpos epauror. 


xvi. II. 
d ili. 14; vill. 
28 


” 


33. Todto dé Edeye, *onpatvwy toiw Oavdtw ijpedhev arobvyoKer. e vi. 4 


34. drrexp(0n adT@ 6 dxos, ““Hyeic iroduapwe' ck TOO vopou, OTL 6 


« f xviil. 32; 
XXxi. 19. 


Xptotos * pever eis Tov ai@va* Kal WHs od éyers, “OTe Sei SpwOjvar g vill 35. 
8. x. 16. 


téy uldov Tod avOpatrou ; 
c 


35. Etwev odv adtois 6 
Ge 
jpav} éore. 


ye 2 ast 
TLS E€OTLY OUTOS O 


ec e) 


ulds rod dvOpwrou ; 


*Incods, “"Ere puxpdov xpdvoy Td pGs peO 


TEpLTATELTE éws? Td G5 EXeTE, (va ph oKoTia bpas 


=. ‘ ~ ~ A 
"katahdBy: Kal 6 tepimatay év TH ckoTia obK olde mod Smdyer. hi Thess. 
‘ t 


z vs pi Vv. 4. 
36. Ews Td as ExeTE, TioTEUeETE Eis TO Has, iva ‘viol buts yévnode.”” ir Thess. 


Taira edddynoev 6 “Ingods, kai dwehOdv / expuBy am adtav. 


1 ev up in RBDKL, 


2 For ews ABDKLTMi 33 read aos, translating ‘‘ walk as ye have the light ”’. 


in ver. 36. 


Two rulers are represented here as con- 
tending for supremacy, the ruler who is 
spoken of as in possession and Jesus. 
The ruler in possession, Satan, shall be 
ejected from his dominion by the cross, 
but Jesus by the cross shall acquire an 
irresistibly attractive power. ‘Si quis 
roget, quomodo dejectus in morte Christi 
fuerit Satan, qui assidue bellare non 
desinit, respondeo ejectionem hanc non 
restringi ad exiguum aliquod tempus, 
sed describi insignem illum mortis 
Christi effectum qui quotidie apparet.” 
Calvin. The wavras is a general ex- 
pression looking to the ultimate issue of 
the contention between the rival rulers. 
€\xvow Hellenistic for Attic €\fw.—Ver. 
32. tw0S &k THS ys is explained as 
indicating or hinting, onpatvev, ‘ by 
what death He was to die,” z.¢., that He 
was to be raised on the cross. Cf. iii. 
14. It was the cross which was to 
become His throne and by which He was 
to draw men to Him as His subjects. In 
iww0o therefore, although the direct re- 
ference is to His elevation on the cross, 
there is a sub-suggestion of being elevated 
to a throne. ‘“‘onpatvery notat aliquid 
futurum vaticinando cum ambiguitate 
quadam atque obscuritate innuere.” 
Kypke. So Plutarch says of the Oracle, 
ove Aéyet ovTE KpUTTEeL GANG onpatver. 
—Ver. 34. The crowd apparently un- 
derstood the allusion to His death, for 
they objected: “Hpets xovoapev... 
avIpamov ; ‘we have heard out of the 
law,” 4.e:, out of Scripture’ (cf) x. 
34, xv. 25, and Schechter, Studies in 
Fudaism, p. 15: ‘under the word Torah 
were comprised not only the Law, but 


j viii. ‘59. 


So 


€ws is supported by §¥ and several versions, and gives the better sense. 


also the contributions of later times 
expressing either the thoughts or the 
emotions of holy and sincere men’”’), 
“that the Christ abides for ever” ; this 
impression was derived from Ps. cx. 4, 
Is. ix. 7, Ezek. xxxvil. 25, Dan. vii. 14. 
A different belief was also current. Their 
belief regarding the Messiah seemed so 
to contradict His allusion to death that 
it occurred to them that after all ‘the 
Son of Man” might not be identical 
with ‘‘the Messiah” as they had been 
supposing. So they ask, tls éoriv ottos 
& vids TOU avOpwrov; This among other 
passages shows that the “‘Son of Man” 
was a title suggestive of Messiahship, 
but not quite definite in its meaning and 
not quite identical with ‘‘ Messiah ”,— 
Ver. 35. Etawev ovv 0 'Inocts. In re- 
plying Jesus vouchsafes no direct solu- 
tion of their difficulty. It is as if He 
said: Do not entangle yourselves in 
sophistries. Do not seek such logical 
proofs of Messiahship. Allow the light 
of truth and righteousness to enter your 
conscience and your life. ‘ Yet a little 
while is the light with you.’ ‘“ Walk 
while ye have the light, lest darkness 
overtake you’’ (cf. 1 Thess. v. 4), that 
is, lest Jesus, the light of the world, 
be withdrawn.—xal 6 wepimatav... 
umaye, cf. xi. to.—Ver. 36. In ver. 36 
it becomes evident that under 76 das 
He refers to Himself. He urges them 
to yield to that light in Him which 
penetrates the conscience. Thus they 
will become viol gwrds, see 1 Thess. v. 
5, ‘children of light,” not ‘of the 
Light’. The expression is the ordinary 
form used hy the Hebrews to indicate 


812 


k Cp. xx. 30. 
Mt. v. 16. 


mAnpwhh, dv ele, ‘ 


Bpaxiwy Kuplou tive drexahiOy ;’ 


KATA IQANNHN 


37. Tocaira S€ aitod onpeia PEBOIREETHD 
lls. lili, 1. odx émlotevoy eig adtév* 38. tva & Aéyos 
Kupte, tis émioteuce TH ako Hpov; 


XI 


*éumpoodey abtav, 
'Hoatou trod mpopytou 
kal 6 


39- Ata TodtTo otk HoUvavTO 


muotevew, Str maduw elev “Hoatas, 40. ‘Tetupdwxey atta Tods 


dpBadpods, kat TreTradpwkey 4 


adtav Thy xapdiavy, iva pi (Swor Tots 


dP0ahpots, Kal vonowor TH Kapdia Kal emotpaddar, Kal idowpar 


adtous. 41. Tadta elev ‘Hoatas, Ste? eide thy Sdgav adtod, Kat 
m Here A a 
only. eddhynge tept altod: 42. “Ouws ™pévror Kal ex Tov " dpxdvTwr 
N iii. 1; Vii. 
43. moNAot éwicteucay eis adtév*: GANG 81a Tods Hapicatous obx wpohd- 


1 For wemwpwxev recent editors read erwpwoev with ABKL 33; orpadwotv with 
NBD* 33, although emotpadwor is well supported ; and tagopar with RABDN. 


Zo7mt in NABL 33. 
“ because he saw the glory”, 


close connection; see Mt. viii. 12, ix, 
¥5, Mk. ai.) 17, Lk. ixvi.i8;,ete: Tobe 
viol dwtds is to be such as find their 
truest life in the truth, recognising and 
delighting in all that Christ reveals. 
‘© These words Jesus spoke and departed 
and was hidden from them.” His warn- 
ing that the Light would not always be 
available for them was at once followed 
by its removal. Where He was hidden 
is not said. 

Vv. 37-43. In the verses which follow, 
37-43, Fohn accounts for the unbelief of 
the Jews. This fact that the very people 
who had been appointed to accept the 
Messiah had rejected Jesus needed ex- 
planation. This explanation is suitably 
given at the close of that part of the 
Gospel which has described His mani- 
festation.—Ver. 37. Tooatta. . . avrév. 
The difficulty to be solved is first stated. 
‘Although He had done so many signs 
before them, yet they did not believe on 
Him.” A larger number of miracles is 
implied than is narrated, vii. 31, xi. 47, 
xxi. 25. The quality of the miracles is 
also alluded to once and again, iii. 2, ix. 32. 
They had not been done “in a corner,” 
but €umpocBev avtav, cf. évamov xx. 30. 
Yet belief had not resulted. The cause 
of this unbelief was that the prediction 
of Is. liii. 1 had to be fulfilled. Certainly 
this mode of statement conveys the im- 
pression that it was not the future event 
which caused the prediction but the pre- 
diction which caused the event. The 
form of expression might in some cases 
be retained although the natural order 
was perceived. The purpose of God 
was always in the foreground of the 
Jewish mind. The prophecy of Isaiah 


The words of Isaiah were uttered not only ‘“ when,” but 


was relevant; the “arm of the Lord”’ 
signifying the power manifested in the 
miracles, and tq d«oq referring to the 
teaching of Jesus. In the time of Jesus 
as in that of Isaiah the significance of 
Divine teaching and Divine action was 
hidden from the multitude.—Ver. 39. 
Ava rovro seems to have a double 
reference, first to what precedes, second 
to the Sr. following, cf. viii. 47.—ovK 
qduvavro, ‘they were not able,” irre- 
spective of will; their inability arose 
from the fulfilment in them of Isaiah’s 
words, vi. 10 (ver. 40), Tetuddwxev 
. . avtovs. TeTUpdwkey refers to the 
blinding of the organ for perceiving 
spiritual truth, érdpwoev (from wapos, a 
callus) to the hardening of the sensibility 
to religious and moral impressions. This 
process prevented them from seeing the 
significance of the miracles and under- 
standing with the heart the teaching of 
Jesus. By abuse of light, nature pro- 
duces callousness ; and what nature does 
God does.—Ver. 41. John’s view of 
prophecy is given in the words Tatra 
. avtov. ‘ The Targum renders the 
original words of Isaiah ‘I saw the 
Lord’ by ‘I saw the Lord’s glory’. 
St. John states the truth to which this 
expression points, and identifies the 
Divine Person seen by Isaiah with 
Christ.”’ Westcott. This involves that the 
Theophanies of the O.T. were mediated 
by the pre-existent Logos.—Ver. 42. 
Although unbelief was so commonly the 
result of Christ’s manifestation, Spws 
pévto., cf. Herodot., i. 189, ‘‘ neverthe- 
less, however, even of the rulers many 
believed on Him, but on account of the 
Pharisees they did not confess Him 











Via 


your, va pi) *darovuvdywyo. yévwvTat. 
ddfav Tdv dvOpdrav paddov Pymep Thy Sofav Tod Geos. 


A > A > ’ 
44. “Ingots Sé Expage kal ettrev, ““O mortedwy eis ene, oF motever 


EYATTEAION 


813 


43- jydancov yap Thy ix. 22. 


p2 Mac. xiv. 
42. 


eis ue, GAN’ eis Tov TepWayTd pe 45. Kal 76 Oewpady ene, Oewper a xiv. 


TOV TEN avTa je. 


A , , 
MTiotevwy eis ene, ev TH OKOTiG pt) pelyy. 


46. ey pds eis Tov Kdcpov EAyAuOa, iva mas 6 


47. Kat édy Tes pou 


. Gkovon Tay pypdtav Kat pi motedon,) eyo ob Kpivw adtdv: * od riii. ry. 


yap 7AGov iva Kpivw tov Kdopov, GAN’ iva cdow Tov Kécpov. 


48. 6 


"G0etGy gue Kal AapBdvevy ta Pryuatd pou, Exe TOV KpivovTa sr Thess. 
pe kal pi Aap arn 


aitév: 6 Adyos bv eXddynoa, exetvos KpivEet adTov *év TH *éoxdry 


iv. 8. Is, 
1.23 XX1. 


Hpepa. 49. Gtr éyw e& euautod od éeAddnoa- GAN’ 6 TéepWas Whe't vi, 59 tele 


, ‘ , . 
TaTHp, adTSs por evToAny Edwke, TL EtTw KaL TL AaAjow: 50. Kal 


oda ott Hh EvToA attod Lwi aidvids éotew. 


ecipnké pot 6 maTyp, olTw haha.” 


1 dvAaén in NABDKLN1 33 and most versions. 


(@podédyour, imperfect, their fear to con- 
fess Him was continued) lest they should 
be put out of the synagogue’’. The 
inherent truth of the teaching of Jesus 
compelled response even in those least 
likely to be influenced. Westcott says: 
“This complete intellectual faith (so to 
speak) is really the climax of unbelief. 
The conviction found no expression in 
life.” This is true of the bulk of those 
referred to (see ver. 43), but cannot 
apply to all (see vii. 50, xix. 38, 39). For 
Groovvaywyo. see ix, 22, xvi. 2.— 
jyawyoavy ... Oeov. As in v. 44 an 
excessive craving for the glory which 
men can bestow is noted as the cause of 
unbelief. 

Vv. 44-50. A summary of the teaching 
of Fesus regarding the nature and con- 
sequences of faith and unbelief.—Ver. 44. 
’"Incots 8€ expage, “but Jesus cried 
aloud”. 8 suggests that this summary 
is intended to reflect light on the un- 
belief and the imperfect faith which 
have just been mentioned. ékpate would 
of itself lead us to suppose that Jesus 
made the following statement at some 
particular time, but as ver. 36 has in- 
formed us, He had already withdrawn 
from public teaching. It is therefore 
natural to suppose that we have here 
the evangelist’s reminiscences of what 
Jesus had publicly uttered at a previous 
time.—‘O muorevwy .. . pe. This sums 
up the constant teaching of Jesus that 
He appeared solely as the ambassador 
of the Father (see v. 23, 30, 43, vii. 16, 
viii, 42) ; and that therefore to believe on 


& ody Aah@ éyd, Kalas 


See Mt. xix. 20, Lk. xi. 28. 


Him was to believe on the Father.— 
Ver. 45. Here He adds nat 6 Oewpav 
ene Oewpet Tov wéepavTd pe: ‘he who 
beholds me, beholds Him that sent me’’; 
so xiv. 9; cf. vi. 40. Jesus was the 
perfect transparency through whom the 
Father was seen: the image in whom 
all the Father was represented.—Ver. 
46. éy® Os... pelvp. “I am come 
into the world as light,” and in the con- 
nection, especially as light upon God 
and His relation to men. The purpose 
of His coming was to deliver men from 
their native darkness: tva... év Tq 
oKotia pn petvy, “should not abide in 
the darkness”’; cf. i. g, viii. 123 ili. 18, 
Ig, ix. 41; also 1 John ii. 9, 11.—Ver. 
47- But “if any one should hear my 
words and not keep them I do not judge 
him, for I came not to judge,” etc. See 
iii. 17.—Ver. 48. Not on that account, 
however, is the unbeliever scatheless: 
6 aberGv . . . Hpépa, ‘“ he that rejecteth 
me”; a@eretvy here only in John but 
used in a similar connection and in the 
same sense in Lk. x. 16; ef. 1 Thess. 
iva6.0) Hor, the Sense; (cf. i) Xt aie 
rejecter of Christ ‘‘has one to judge 
him; the word which I spake, it will 
judge him in the last day”. Nothing per- 
sonal enters into the judgment: the man 
will be judged by what he has heard, by 
his opportunities and light.—Ver. 49 
This word will judge him, ‘ because” 
though spoken here on earth it is divine 
““T have not spoken at my own instance 
nor out of my own resources’; é& 
épavTov, not as in v. 30, vii. 16-18, aw’ 


814. 
a ii, 13, 23; 
Wi, 4350, 2 tg 
55: édj udev! adrod + dpa, ° 
b xii. 23. . ‘ > a 
¢ vii. 3. Tov watépa, dyamyjaas Tos 


ai. rr. hts meh 

e Mt. x. 22. 1yamnoev auTous. 

f Job i. 6. 
Zech. iii. 
1. Mt. iv. 
1. g Philo, de Abrahamo, p. 377. 


1 mAOev in NABKLM. 


KATA IQANNHN 


XIII 


XIII. 1. MPO 8é tis éoprijs tod *mdoya, eidds 8 “Intoiis ST 
iva °petaBy éx Tod Kécpou TouTou mpds 


wa ~ > 
idious Tods ev TO Kdopw, “ets TéoOS 


2. Kal Seimvou yevouévou,” tod ‘SiaBddou 75q 
* BeBAnkdtos eis Thy Kapdiav “lovda Lipwvos “loxapidtou, iva abtov 


2 yevonevov in NCADN, vet. Lat. vulg. (coena facta) Pesh. ; ywwopevov in BLX, 


four times in Origen. 
Tr.Ti.W.H., but the reasons assigned 
T.R. gives the better sense. 


éxavrov, but indicating somewhat more 
strictly the origin of the utterances. He 
did not create His teaching, aA’ 6 
meuas ... Aadryjow, “but the Father 
who sent me Himself gave me command- 
ment what I should say and what I 
should speak”. The former designates 
the doctrine according to its contents, 
the latter the varying manner of its 
delivery. Meyer and Westcott.—Ver. 50. 
Kalotia ... éoriv. ‘ And I know that 
His commandment is life eternal,’’ that 
is, the commandment which Jesus had 
received (ver. 49) was to proclaim life 
eternal. This was His commission ; 
this was what He was to speak. He 
was to announce to men that the Father 
offered through Him life eternal. ‘‘ There- 
fore whatever I speak, as the Father hath 
said to me, so I speak.”’ 

CHAPTER XIII. Here commences the 
slosing part of the gospel. It exhibits 
the manifestation of Christ’s glory in 
suffering and death. The first division 
tmbraces xiii.-xvii., in which the faith of 
the believing is confirmed and unbelief 
[Judas] cast out. 

Vv. 1-20. Fesus washes the disciples’ 
feet and explains His action.—Ver. t. 
Mpo 8 rhs Eoptas Tov mwacyxa, “before 
the feast of the Passover,” and therefore 
it was not the Paschal supper which is 
now described. According to John, 
though not in agreement with the Syn- 
optists, Jesus suffered as the Paschal 
Lamb on the day of the Passover, which 
in all Jewish households was terminated 
by the Paschal supper. How long before 
the Feast the supper here mentioned oc- 
curred is not explicitly stated, but the 
narrative shows it was the eve of the 
Passover. The note of time has an 
ethical rather than an historical intention. 
It is meant to mark that this was the 
last night of Jesus’ life. Therefore it is 
followed up by a full description of the 


§\* has Ld 
y 


The present participle is adopted by 
Holtzmann and Weiss are insufficient. 


entire situation and motives. ~The main 
action is expressed in éyefperat of the 
fourth verse; but to set his reader in the 
tight point of view for perceiving the 
significance of this action the Evangelist 
points out three particulars regarding 
the mind and feeling of Jesus, and two 
external circumstances. (1) el8as .. . 
avtous, ‘Jesus, knowing that the hour 
had come that He should pass [for the 
construction @pa tva see xii. 23; peraBy 
emphasises the change in condition im- 
plied] out of this world to the Father, 
having loved His own who were in the 
world [rots iSious, a more restricted and 
more sympathetic class than the of i8:oe 
of i. rr. His especial and peculiar 
friends. The designation trots év T@ 
xéop@ is added in contrast to é« Tov 
kéopov which described His future con- 
dition, and it suggests the difficulties they 
are left to cope with and the duties they 
must do. They are to represent Him in 
the world: and this appeals to Him], He 
loved them” eis téAos, which is trans- 
lated ‘‘in the highest degree”’ by Chrys., 
Euthymius [opd8pa], Cyr.-Alex. [reAero- 
TatTnv ayaryow), Godet, Weiss; but 
Godet is wrong in saying that eis téos 
never means ‘unto the end,’ see Mt. x. 
22. Melanchthon renders “ perduravit 
donec pateretur’”. He loved them 
through all the sufferings and to all the 
issues to which His love brought Him. 
The statement is the suitable introduc- 
tion to all that now looms in view. His 
love remained steadfast, and was now the 
ruling motive. The statement is further 
illustrated by the disappointing state of 
the disciples. [Wetstein quotes from 
Eurip., Troad., 1051, ovdels épaorys bo- 
Tis ovK Gel didet; and from the Anthol., 
Toutous é apx7s pexpt TéAovs ayaa, 
and cf. Shakespeare’s Sonnets, cxvi., 
‘Love . . . bears it out even to the edge 
of doom”.] (2) kak Selarvoy yevopevov, 





1—6. 


EYATTEAION 


S15 


Tapadsg, 3. eidds 6 Inaods, Sr. wdvta S5wxey adtd & warhp eis Tas 


XEtpas, Kai Ste dd Geos efAOe Kai mpds Tov Ocdy Srdyer, 4. " éyel-h xi. ag. 


petar éx Tod Seimvou, Kal ridyo. Ta ipdtia, Kal AaPoy évtioy 


*Si€Lwoev éautév: 5. etra Bade JSwp cis Tov ViTTHPA, Kal HpsaTo i Cp. xxi. 7 


, A A ~ ~ 
‘vinrew tods mé8as Tay padntdr, Kal “expdooew TS devtld J Hv j Gen. xiliii, 


, x 24. 
Srelwopévos. 6. Epxerar odv mpds Lipwva Mérpov: Kat héyer abTO k xii. 3. 


““supper having arrived,” ‘‘ supper having 
been served,” cf. yevouévov caBBarou, 
the Sabbath having come, mpwtas yevo- 
péevns, Mt. xxvii. 1, morning havin 
dawned. In x. 22 the phrase éyévero ra 
éyxaivia means ‘‘the Dedication had 
arrived’’. So here the meaning is ‘‘ sup- 
per having come,” and not “ supper being 
ended,” or ‘‘ while supper was proceed- 
ing’’. If we read y.vopévov the meaning 
is substantially the same, ‘‘ supper arriv- 
ing,” ‘“‘at supper time”. This also is 
essential to the understanding of the in- 
cident. Feet-washing, pleasant and cus- 
tomary before a meal, would have been 
disagreeable and out of place in the 
course of it. [The custom is abundantly 
illustrated by Wetstein, Doughty and 
others. See especially Becker’s Chari- 
cles.) The feet, either bare, or sandalled, 
or with shoes, were liable to be heated by 
the fine dust of the roads, and it was 
expected that the host would furnish 
means of washing them, see Lk. vii. 44. 
. When our Lord and His disciples supped 
together, chis office would be discharged 
by the youngest, or by the disciples in 
turn; but this evening the disciples had 
been disputing which of them was the 
greatest, Lk. xxii. 24, and consequently 
no one could stoop to do this menial 
office for the rest. (3) Tov SiaBdAov... 
mwapado [or mapadot], ‘the devil having 
now put into the heart,” etc. For the 
expression BeBAnkdtos eis THY Kapdiav 
see especially Pindar, Olymp., xiii. 16, 
moA\a 8 év kapSiats avdpav €Badov Npar 
x.t.A. Similar expressions are frequent 
in Homer. It is perhaps rather stronger 
than “‘suggest,” ‘‘the devil having al- 
ready put in the heart”; the idea had 
been entertained, if we cannot say that 
the purpose was already formed, His 
presence was another disturbing element 
in the feast. But had Jesus unmasked 
him before such fiery spirits as John and 
Peter, judas would never have left that 
room alive. Peter’s sword would have 
made surer work than with Malchus. 
Judas therefore is included in the feet- 
washing. ‘‘ Jesus at the feet of the traitor, 
what a picture, what lessons for us ”’ (As- 
tié).—Ver. 3. (4) ei8as . . . xetpas, this 


consciousness on the part of Jesus is men- 
tioned to bring out the condescension of 
the action to berelated. (5) So too is the 
accompanying consciousness, étt ard 
©cod .. . trdye. It was not in for- 
getfulness of His true dignity but because 
conscious that He was supreme and 
God’s ambassador that He did what He 
did. [‘‘ All things,” says Melanchthon, 
‘‘condere testamentum promissum in 
Scripturis ’’ ; ‘* omnia, adeoque peccaturm 
et mortem ”.J]—Ver. 4. This person, and 
in this mood and in these circumstances, 
on the brink of His own passion, is free 
to attend to the wants of unworthy men, 
and éyeiperar .. . SteLwopévos. ‘He 
rises,’’ having reclined at the table in 
expectation that one or other of the 
disciples would do the feet-washing.— 
kat Ti@not Ta twatia, “and lays aside 
His garments,” z.e., His Tallith, appear- 
ing in His xtrev, similar to our ‘‘ in His 
shirt sleeves’’, i@npu is similarly used 
in riOnpe THY Wuxyy, x. II, etc. [See 
also Kypke on Lk. xix. 21.]—Kat AaBov 
héevriov SidLwoev éaurdv, “and having 
taken a linteum,” a towel or long linen 
cloth, ‘‘He girt Himself,’ tying the 
towel round Him. Cf. éyxopBdcacde, 
1 Pet. v. 5. The middle 8reLicaro is 
used in xxi. 7; the expression here more 
emphatically indicates that He was the 
sole Agent. The condescension is under- 
stood in the light of what Suetonius tells 
of Caligula (Cal. 26), that he was fond of 
making some of the senators wait at his 
table ‘ succinctos linteo,”’ that is, in the 
guise of waiters.—Ver. 5. elra.. 

virtTypa. Each step in the whole 
astounding scene is imprinted on the 
mind of John. ‘‘ Next He pours water 
into the basin,” the basin which the 
landlord had furnished as part of the 
necessary arrangements. [virTypa is 
only found here; but moSavurryp is not 
so rare; see Plut., Phocton, 20, where 
modovimrTnpes filled with wine were pro- 
vided for the guests.J—kai tptarto 
virtewy ... ‘“‘nihil ministerii omittit ” 
(Grotius). [Plutarch says of Favonius 
that he did for Pompey boa Seordrtas 
SovAot pexpt visews modev.] He‘ began” 
to wash the feet of the disciples; ‘‘ begat,” 


816 


— , 
exeivos, “ Kupte, ov pou vitrrers TOUS Oda ;” 


(ver. 19. 
~ ”” 

TauTa. 
. aA ” 

Tov a.twra. 


m Deut. xiv. ™ Execs ™ pépos pet” éno0.”” 
27. Rev. 


KATA IQANNHN 


XIIl. 


7. AmexpiOn "Inaois 


kal elmev add, “"O eyo mod, od odk olSasg dpri, yvidon Sé 'perd 
8. Adyer ait Mértpos, “Od ph viys Tods 1édas pou Els 
*AmexpiOn adt@ 6 “Incods, “Edy ph vipw oe, od 
9. Adyet adt@ Xipwv Mérpos, “ Kupre, 
ph Tods WéSas pou pdvovy, GANA Kal Tas yxEtpas Kal Thy KEhadyy.” 


n Lev. xvi. TO. A€yet adt@ 6 “Ingots, ““O ™ehoupevos od xpetay Exer °H Tous 


4. Acts 
ix. 37. 
o Cp. Winer 


“638. GAN odxt adres.” 
Pp Bs. li. 7. 


médas ! vipacOat, GAN’ Eott ?Kabapds Sdos- Kal pets Kabapoi eorte, 
II. "Hider yap tov mapadiSdvta adtéy: Sia 
TooTo elmev, “Oxi mdvres KaBapoi ore.” 


‘ $$ omits y Tovs wodas, but these words are found in ABCEGKL. 


perhaps because, as Meyer suggests, the 
washing was interrupted, but this is not 
certain.—Ver. 6. épxerat otv, apparently 
in the order in which they happened to 
be sitting, and having first washed some 
of the other disciples, He comes to Simon 
Peter, who draws up his feet out of reach 
and exclaims, Kupte, ov pov vimrets Tots 
mwodas ; The ov pov are brought together 
for the sake of the contrast.—Ver. 7. 
This was a right impulse and honourable 
to Peter ; and therefore Jesus treats it 
tenderly. 6éyo wo. . . pera Taira, 
“what I am doing thou dost not at 
present comprehend, but thou shalt 
learn as soon as I am finished”. The 
pronouns are emphatic, that Peter may 
understand that Jesus may have much to 
do which the disciple cannot compre- 
hend. The first requisite in a disciple or 
follower is absolute trust in the wisdom 
of his Master. pera tatra refers to the 
immediate future; see ver. 12, where 
the explanation of the action is given. 
[ov« eis pakpayv épet, Euthymius.]—Ver. 
8. Peter, however, cannot accept the 
disciple’s attitude, but persists, OU py 
vilys pov Tots mddas els Tov aiava, 
‘never shalt Thou wash my feet”. The 
eis Tov aid@va was prompted by the 
pera tavta. No future explanation can 
make this possible. Peter’s humility is 
true enough to allow him to see the 
incongruity of Jesus washing his feet: 
not deep enough to make him conscious 
of the incongruity of his thus opposing 
and dictating to his Master. To this 
characteristic utterance Jesus, waiting 
with the basin, replies, éav py vipw oe 
. €4ov. Superficially these words 
might mean that unless Peter allowed 
Jesus to wash him, he could not sit at 
table with Him. But evidently Peter 
found in them a deeper significance, and 


understood them as meaning: Unless I 
wash you, you are outcast from my 
fellowship and cease to share in my 
kingdom and destiny. Here the symbolic 
significance of the eating together and 
of the washing begins dimly to appear. 
That Peter saw that this deeper mean- 
ing was intended appears from the eager- 
ness of his answer.—Ver. g. Kupre... 
kedadyy. A moment ago he told his 
Master He was doing too much: now 
he tells Him He is doing too little. Self- 
will gives place slowly. Yet this was the 
unmistakable expression of devotion. If 
washing is any requirement for fellow- 
ship with Thee, wash me wholly. [‘‘ Non 
pedes solum, quos soli ministri vident ; 
sed manus et caput, quod convivae 
adspiciunt.” Wetstein.] He is still in 
error.—Ver. 10. ‘O dedoupévos... 
Sdos. ‘He that has been in the bath 
has no need to wash save his feet, but is 
all clean.” His feet may be soiled by 
walking from the public bath to the 
supper chamber, and it is enough that 
they be washed. ‘“ Ad convivium vocati 
solebant prius in balneo lavari; in domo 
vero convivatoris nonnisi pedes, quibus 
in via pulvis aut sordes adhaeserant, a 
servis abluebantur, ne lecti, super quibus 
accumbebant, macularentur.” Wetstein. 
He supports the statement by many 
references. The added clause discloses 
that a spiritual sense underlies the 
symbol: tpeis xa8apol éate, add’ ovxt 
mwavtes, ‘ye areclean, but notall”, All 
had been washed: the feet of Judas were 
as clean as those of Peter. But Judas 
was not clean.—Ver. 11. That Judas 
was meant is at once said in ver. Il. 
“Hider . . . €ote. Jesus thus shows that 
He distinguishes between the offence of 
the rest and the sin of Judas. All that 
they required was to have the soil of 








7--18. 


EYATTEAION 


817 


a ~ a 
12. Ore ovy Evupe tols wddas adray, Kal * €haPe Ta tpdtia adtod, q x. 17, 18. 


ie) ‘ 1 aN aN > oy (77 , , , en F 
avatregwy  waAuv, ettey auTois, “TiwwoKkete TL TeTolnKa UpLLV 5 r Lk. xi. 37. 


13. Gpeis pwvetté pe, “O Si8dcKados, kal 6 KUpios: Kal 


héyere, eiut ydp. 


2 ot 
14. €i ov eyo evipa Sudv Tods mé8as, 6 KUptos 


es Tob. ii. 1. 
KQNQS s iv. 17; viii. 
48. 


Kat 6 Si8doKxaos, kal Gpets deihete GAAHAwY vise Tods Wdédas° 


15. ‘bwdderypa yap eSwxa byiv, iva Kkalws ey “emoinoa ipiv, Kal t Jas. v. 10. 


Spets trove. 


2 Pet. ii. 6. 


16. dpi dpivy Aéyw Sptv, odk Eotr Bodog ” peiLwy u Exod. xiv. 


Il, 


~ , > ~ 294 erg 4 a , ey! 
ToU Kuptou adTod, obS€ dimdcTohos pethwy tod meupavtos adTdv. v xv. 20. 


A , A 
17. €i TAOTA oldaTE, aKdpLol éoTe Edy ToLATe adTd. 


mdvtwy Syav héyw: eyo ota ots? ™ éfehefduny: *adN tva H ypadi, 


Mt. x. 24. 
Lk. vi. 40. 
W Vi. 70. 
x Constr. i. 


18. ob epi 


mhypwOq, “O ’tpdywv pet eyod® tov dptov, émfpev ew ewe Thy Ps, xii. 9. 


lat avevecev in $\Q*BC*. 


7 Better revas with NBCL 33. 


3 per’ epov in NAD vet. Lat. vulg. ; pow in BCL, adopted by W.H. The clause 


is thus closer to the Hebrew. 


their present evil temper and jealousy 
removed: they were true in heart, they 
had been in the bath and had only con- 
tracted a slight stain. But Judas had 
not been in the bath: he had no genuine 
and habitual loyalty to Christ.—Ver. 
12, “Ore ... tpiv: “when, then, He 
had washed their feet and taken His 
garments [cf. TiOnot Ta iparra of ver. 4] 
and reclined again He said to them: 
Know ye what I have done to you?” 
Do you perceive the meaning of this 
action? By washing their feet He had 
washed their heart. By stooping to this 
menial service He had made them all 
ashamed of declining it. By this simple 
action He had turned a company of 
wrangling, angry, jealous men into a 
company of humbled and _ united 
disciples.—Ver. 13. itpetis wveiré pe, 
‘ye call me,” in addressing me (gwvetv, 
not Kkadetv), 6 duddo0Kados kal 6 Kuptos, 
“ Teacher’ and ‘“‘ Lord”; the nomina- 
tivus tituli, see Winer, 226, Perhaps 
“ Rabbi’ would convey better the respect 
involved in 8i8acKxados. «al Kadds 
héyere, cipt yap. Jesus, humble and 
selfsuppressing as He was, clearly 
recognised His own dignity and on 
occasion asserted it. Here the point of 
the lesson lay in His consciousness of 
being their Lord.—Ver. 14. Hence the 
a fortiori argument: et odv éyo evipa 
... wddas, ‘if I then, Lord and Teacher, 
washed your feet, ye also ought (ddeiAevre 
denoting moral obligation) to wash one 
another’s feet”. ‘‘ It is not the act itself, 
but its moral essence, which after His 
example He enjoins upon them to 
exercise.” Meyer. This has sometimes 


been considered a command enjoining 
the literal washing of the feet of poor 
saints: and was practised in England 
until 1731 by the Lord High Almoner, 
and is still practised by the Pope on 
Maundy Thursday (Dies Mandati), the 
day before Good Friday. See also 
Church’s Anselm, p. 49. The ancient 
practice is discussed in Augustine’s 
Letters, 55, to Januarius, c. 33. It at once 
took its place as symbolic of all kindly 
care of fellow-Christians, see 1 Tim. v. 
10.—Ver. 15. twdéSerypa . . . Tmounre. 
tmdderypa is condemned by Phrynichus, 
who recommends the Attic wapdSerypa. 
See Rutherford’s interesting note, New 
Phryn., p. 62. The purpose, tva, of His 
action was that they might act in the 
same humble, loving spirit, in all their 
conduct to one another.— Ver. 16. And 
as confirmatory of this example and in 
rebuke of their pride, He adds: ov« éore 
Sothos ... attév. In Mt. x. 24 a 
similar saying occurs; cf. also Lk. vi. 
40, and Lk. xxii. 27. The slave whose 
function it is to serve is not ‘‘ greater,” 
petCwv, than his lord, who may expect to 
receive service, and therefore the slave 
may well stoop to the offices which the 
lord himself discharges and count on no 
exemptions the lord does not claim.— 
Ver. 17. These are obvious first principles 
in Christian discipleship, but the mere 
knowledge of them is not enough: et 
TavTa oldaTe, pakdptol éore édv rovijTe 
avrTd. tara refers to what Jesus had 
just declared to be the significance of 
His action. et otdarte, ‘if ye know,” as 
you do know; éay rouyrte, a supposition. 
“The knowing is objectively granted, 


52 


mrépvay abtod.’ 


KATA IQANNHN 


XII. 


19. "dw dpte héyw Spiv mpd rod yevéoOar, iva 
. Stav yévntat, morevonte Ste * eye eit. 


20. dpi dphy Aéyw dpiv, 


64 0 *hapBdvev édv twa ménpo, ene AapBdvers 6 Sé €ue AapPdvew, 


aiv.26: viii. 

24; xviii, NapBdver Tov wéppavTd pre.” 
8. 7 i 
bi're. 21. Tadra elm 6 "Inaois ° 

c Xil. 27. 
d Acts i. 17. 


erapdxOn TS mrvevpati, Kal euapTupnoe 


kal elev, “Apt dphy héyw bptv, ote “els ef SpOv wapaddce pe.” 


22. "EBXerrov ovy eis &AAHAOUS Of pabyTal, dmopotpevor Tept Tivos 


e Lk. xvi.22. Kéyet. 


the doing subjectively conditioned.” 
Meyer. On the double protasis see 
Burton, 268. paxdptot is usually trans- 
lated ‘‘blessed,’”’ Mt. v. 3, John xx. 29, 
and should be so here.—Ver. 18. This 
blessedness, He knew, could not attach 
to all of them: ob wept mavrwv tpov 
Aéyw, “I speak not of you all,” I do not 
expect all of you to fulfil the condition 
of blessedness, éy@ ot8a ots efedctapny, 
“I for my part (in contrast to the 
disciples who were in ignorance) know 
the men whom I have chosen as 
Apostles,’ and am therefore not taken 
by surprise by the treachery cf si of 
them. For the choice of Judas see vi. 
70, where the same word éfedeEapny is 
used. add’ tva . .. The simplest con- 
struction is: ‘‘ but I chose Judas in order 
that,’ etc. This may not, however, in- 
volve that Jesus consciously chose Judas 
for this purpose. That is not said, and 
can scarcely be conceived. The Scripture 
which waited for fulfilment is Ps. xl. 9, 
6 écBiwy Gprovs pou éweydduvev én’ ene 
mTepviopov. Eating bread together is 
in all countries a sign, and in some a 
covenant or pledge of friendship. Cf. 
Kypke on épotpameflos and Trumbull’s 
Blood Covenant, p. 313, and Oriental 
Life, p. 361. Here the fact of Judas’ 
. eating bread with Jesus is introduced as 
aggravating his crime. ‘To lift the 
heel” is to kick, whether originally used 
of a horse or not ; and expresses violence 
and contempt.—Ver. 19. This grave 
announcement was made at this point 
and not previously, am’ apt, “from 
henceforth” (as if the knowledge result- 
ing from the announcement rather than 
the announcement itself were dictating 
the expression) “I tell you before it 
happens, that when it has happened you 
may know that I am He,” 2.¢., the 
Messiah in whom these predictions were 
destined to be fulfilled.—Ver. 20. But 
lest this announcement should weaken 
their confidence in one another and in 
their own call to the Apostolate (‘‘ pro- 
babile est voluisse Christum offendiculo 


23. hv S€ dvaxelpevos els Td pabyTav abtod év TH * KdAm@ 


mederi’’. Calvin) He hastens to add: 
Gphvy. .. wépwpavTa pe [av tiva better 
than éav twa]. He gives the assurance 
that those whom He sends as His 
apostles will be identified with Himself 
and with God. 

Vv. 21-30. $udas is eliminated from 
the company.—Ver. 21. Tattacirov... 
mwapadmoe. pe. Two elements in the 
company had prevented Jesus from freely 
uttering His last counsels to the Twelve. 
(1) They had manifested dissension which 
would prevent them from acting together 
when He was gone, and a temper which 
would prevent them from receiving His 
words. ,And (2) there was among them 
a,traitor. The first element of discord 
had been removed by the feet-washing. 
He now proceeds to eliminate the second. 
‘But to have at once named the traitor 
would have been fatal. Peter and the 





_rest would have taken steps to defeat, if 
_not to put an end to Judas. 


Therefore 
He merely says, els é& dpav mapaddéce 
pe. This it was which troubled His 
spirit, that one of the Twelve whom He 
had so cherished should turn traitor, 
using the familiarity and knowledge of 
intimacy to betray Him.—Ver. 22. The 
disciples had no idea who was meant. 
“EBhetrov .. . Aéyet, Judas could scarcely 
be ‘“‘at a loss to know of whom He 
spoke ’’.—Ver. 23. qv... ‘Ilnoots, the 
disciple whom Jesus loved lay next Him, 
év 7@ KéAm@. Two arrangements of 
guests at a table were in vogue. They 
either lay at right angles to the table 
and parallel to one another, each resting 
on his left elbow and having his right 
hand free (see Rich’s Dict., s. v. Tri- 
clinium, Lectus, Accubo); or they lay 
obliquely, the second reaching with his 
head to “the sinus of the girdle («é7ros)” 
of the first, and with the feet of the first 
at his back; while the third occupied the 
same posture relatively to the second (see 
the engraving in Becker’s Charicles, 327, 
and Lightfoot, p. 1095, who says that 
this second arrangement prevailed in 
Palestine in the time of Christ). John 


r 








19—30 EYATTEAION 81 9 


Tod “Inaod, *dv Hydwa 6 "Ingots: 24. *veder ov ToUTW Tipwwy Mérpos f xix. 26; xx. 
s Sy ahi: 
muléoPat Tis &v etn wept oF dyer. 25. emimerwy! Sé exetvos emi TO gActs xxiv 
-aTi8os Tod "Incod, héyer abt, “Kupte, Tis éottv;” 26. "Atroxpi- 
vetat 6 Inaous, “Eketvos got o eyo " Baas To Popov émBddow.” 2h Ruthii.r4 
Kat " éuBdpas 75 Wopiov, Si8wow “lodda Lipwvos “loxapiity. 27. 
‘ A A , re > nrAD > > ~ < Lal = 
Kal peTa TO Wwmtov, TOTE ELonAOeEv Els exetvov 6 Zatavas. éyer ovv 
adt@ 6 Ingods, “°O morets, Toinoov tdxLov. 28. TodTo dé oddels 
éyvw Tov dvaxeysevwv mpds Ti elev adtd. 29. TIwWés ydp éddKouy, 
éret Td 'yhwoodkopov etxev 6 “lovdas, Str Adyer adTo 6 “Inoois, i xi.6 
73 "A , 2 , ” > a é AD 99 a Ag 
yopagov Gv xpetay Exopev eis Thy EopTHy Tots TTwXOIS iva 
TL 3G. 30. AaBay obvy Td Wopiov exeivos, edPews CEjNOev®- Fy SE 
voé,* Ste ody cénOe. 


l avamreowv in $cBC*KL. ovtws added after exetvos in BCEF 33, ‘as he was”’. 


2 T.R. in SAD, it. vulg. ; Bae cat Sow avtw in BCL copt. arm. aeth. adopted 
by Tr.Ti.W.H.R. 


3 cEnhGev evOus in RBCD. 


*S9BCD 1, 33, it. vulg. place full stop after vv§, and commence next paragraph 
with ote ovv e&mAOev Aeyet. So Tisch. and W.H. 


was lying, then, next to Jesus, his posi- are rather entitled to see in the act the 
tion being inside that of Jesus. To him last appeal to Judas’ better feeling. The 
Peter veveu, ‘‘ beckons” (cf. ve¥ow pev ror very mark Jesus chooses to single him 
éy® Kxehadq, Od., xvi. 283), taking the out is one which on ordinary occasions 
initiative as usual, but not himselfasking, was a mark of distinctive favour. At 
perhaps because he had made so many any rate he is thus all the more effectually 
mistakes that evening already, perhaps screened from the others.—Ver. 27. But 
because a private matter might better be instead of moving Judas to compunction 
transacted in a whisper from John.—Ver. peta 7d Wwpiov, tote ciondOev cis éxeivov 
25. That disciple, éxetvos, when thus 6 Zatavas. peta “after,” not “with,” 
appealed to, avareoav éxito oT7905 ToD ~‘‘non cum offula,”’ Bengel and Cyril, 
"Inco, ‘‘having leant back towards the who also says, ov yap ért ovpBovdov exer 
breast of Jesus” so as to speak more di- tév oatavayv, add’ dAns 75y THs Kapdias 
rectlyto Himandto beheardonlyby Him. Seomdérnv. On éxetvov Bengel also has: 
On the difference between avaxetwevos ‘Jam remote notat Judam”. Morally 
and ayvameowy see Origen in Evang. F¥o., he is already far removed from that com- 
ii. 191, Brooke.—Ver. 26. But even in pany.__But what was it that thus finall 

answer to John’s question, tls éoriv; determined Judas? Perhaps the very 


_Jesus does not name Judas, but merely revulsion of feeling caused by taking the 
gives a sign by which John may recog- sop from Jesus: perhaps the accompany- 


nise the traitor: ’Exetvos . . . émi8eow, ing words, “O qoveis, molnoov taxtov, 
“he it is for whom I shall dip the sop ‘‘ what thou doest, do quickly”. tay.ov: 
and give ithim”. Some argue from the ‘to Attic writers @doqwv (@dtTwv) was 
insertion of the article +6 owptov that the only comparative, and tax.iotos the 
this was the sop made up of a morsel of only superlative’. Rutherford, New 


lamb, a small piece of unleavened bread, Phryn., p. 150. The idea in the com- 
and dipped in the bitter sauce, which was _ parative is “‘ with augmented speed,” see 
given by the head of the house to each Donaldson’s Greek Gram., p. 390.—Ver. 
guest as a regular part of the Passover; 28. Totto ... avrg. All heard the 
and that therefore John as well as the command given to Judas, but none of 
Synoptists considered this to be the Pas- them knew its object, not even John; 
chal Supper. But not only is the article for although he was now aware that 
doubtful, see W.H., but it is an ordinary Judas was the traitor he did not connect 
Oriental custom for the host to offersuch the command ‘ Do it quickly’’ with the 
a tid-bit to any favoured guest; and we actual work of betrayal.—Ver. 29. tives 


820 


j vii. 39; xii. 
16 


KATA IQANNHN 


XIII. 


31. Aéyer 5 "Inaods, “Nov? Bofdobn § vids tod dvOpurrou, Kal d 


Gcds ! eokdcbn ev abrG. 32. Ei 6 Geds CdofdoOy ev adtG, Kal 6 
k Freq. in: O€ds Sofdoer adtov ev éauTd, Kai eUOds Soédoe adtdév. 33. * Texvia, 
onn; 


h ~ > 
alsoin €Tt puxpov ped Spov ete. 
Gal.iv.1 

1 vii. 345 
Vill, 21, 
m XV, 12. 1 \éyw apt. 


Jo. ii. 7 


Kaas eltrov Tots 


{nthceré pe, Kat 


 VouBalots, “Ore Sou imdyw ey, Spets od Sdvacbe edOeiv, kal piv 
34. ™évrodty Kawhy Sido dpiv, va dyamate addy- 


Mt. v. . hous: Kabds jydrnoa Spas, iva Kal dpets dyaware dddjous. 
nt joiii.ro, 35+ "@v ToUTw yvdcovtat mdvtes Ste poi padnrat éote, édy dydany 


1 This clause omitted in \*BC*DL (and by W.H.R.); found in XcACT and 


many versions. 


yap éSéxovv. Some supposed that Judas 
being treasurer of the company had been 
sent to buy what they needed for the 
feast, or to give something to the poor. 
That it was possible at so late an hour 
to make purchases appears from Mt. xxv. 
g-11 (Holtzmann).—Ver. 30. Judas on 
his part, having accepted the sop, é&q\@ev 
ev0us, the evOvs answering to Taxuvoy, ver. 
27; he went out immediately, taking the 
purse with him no doubt. jv 8é vue, 
‘and it was night”. The sudden dark- 
ness succeeding sunset in the East sud- 
denly fell on the room, impressing John’s 
sensitive spirit and adding to the per- 
turbation of the company. The note of 
time may however only result from John’s 
desire to keep his narrative exact. 

Ver. 31—XIV. 31 comprise one con- 
tinuous conversation, introduced by 
Jesus’ announcement (vv. 31-35) of His 
speedy departure.—Ver. 31. “Ore otv 
eéjdOev. As soon as Judas had gone 
out, the spirit of Jesus rose, and with a 
note of triumph He explains the situa- 
tion to the disciples. Two points He 
emphasises: His work is done, and He 
must leave them. The former He 
announces in the words Ntv éofdo6y 
... av7g@. “This ‘now’ with which 
the Lord turns to the faithful eleven, 
expresses at once the feeling of deliver- 
ance from the traitor’s presence and His 
free acceptance of the issues of the 
traitor’s work.” Westcott. éS0fdac6y the 
aorist is used because the traitor is con- 
sidered to have “ as it were already com- 
pleted his deed’’. Winer, p. 346. The 
Son of Man is “glorified”? by accom- 
plishing the work of His life by being 
accepted as the manifestation of God, 
and by being acknowledged by the 
Father as having revealed Him; see 
XVil. I, 4, 5, Xli. 23, xi. 4. Cf. Milligan’s 
Ascension of our Lord, p. 79.—Ver. 32. 
Necessarily therefore when He is glorified 


6 Ocds ofdobn év atta. Kal 6 Oeds 
Sofdoe: avrov év éavtg@. God is more de- 
finitely named as the source of the glori- 
fication of the Son of Man; and as God 
was glorified ‘“‘in’’ Jesus, so shall Jesus 
be glorified “in”? God. It is not only rapa 
geavT@, as in xvii., 5, but év éavtTo, 
which does not merely mean that He 
will be taken up into the eternal blessed- 
ness of God, but that His glory will be 
the Divine glory itself.—Ver. 33. This 
result was to be forthwith achieved: 
ev0ds Soface. avtév, which at once is 
interpreted to the discipies in the explicit 
statement Texvia, ért pixpov ped” tpav 
elt. Texvia is frequent in r John; 
here only in the Gospel. Lightfoot (p. 
1098) says: ‘‘ Discipulus cujusvis vocatur 
ejus filius ’; but here there is a tender- 
ness in the expression not-so accounted 
for. @ri pixpdv, “ yet a little,” i.2., it is 
only for a little longer; cf. vii. 33. This 
announcement, formerly made to the 
Jews (vii. 33, viii. 21, 24), He now, a@prt, 
makes to the disciples; arousing their 
attention to what follows, as His last in- 
junctions. In view of the temper they 
had that evening displayed and the 
necessity for united action and unani- 
mous testimony He first lays upon them 
the commandment to love one another. 
—Ver. 34. évroAny Kathy Sidwpe tpiv, 
tva Gyamare GAAjAovs: “ one another,” 
not ‘tall men,’’ which is a different 
commandment. So, rightly, Grotius: 
“Novum autem dicit quia non agit de 
dilectione communi omnium . . . sed de 
speciali Christianorum inter se qua tales 
sunt,” and Holtzmann: “Es ist die 
gidadeAdia im Unterschied von der 
allgemeinen a@yamrn”. The necessity of 
love among those who were to carry on 
Christ’s work had that night become 
apparent. It was “new,” because the 
love of Christ’s friends for Christ’s sake 
was a new thing in the world. There- 





31—38. XIV. 1—2a. 


exnte ° ev &AAHAots.” 
imdyers ;” 


por viv dKxodouSAcar: Uotepov 8€ dKohouPjcets por.” 
att@ 6 Métpos, “Kupie, Scart od Sdvayat gor dkodoubijcat apt ; 


Thy uxyy pou bwép cod  Oncw.” 
“Tv uxny cou bmép énod Oyces ; 


ahextop *dwvjcer! ws ob drapyyoy pe Tpis. 
XIV. 1. “Mi “tapaccécOw Sudv f Kapdia- morevete eis Tov 


A 
Ocdv, kal eis Ewe TioTeveTe. 


EYATTEAION 


/ > nw o 
darexptOy ait@ 6 ‘Ingots, ““Omou tndyw, ob Bivacai 


2. év TH Poikia Tod watpds pou povai 


821 


36. A€yer adt@ Zipwy Métpos, “ Kupte, rod o Rom. i. 12 


, and xv. 5. 


37- Aéye 


p xX. Il, 19. 


38. “AmexpiOn adt@ 6 ‘Inaous, 4 Mk. xiv. 


30. Zeph. 
li. 14. 

a xi. 33. Ps. 
lv. 4. 

b Cp. ii. 16; 
2Cor.v.1. 

. ¢Cp.1 Mac, 
vii. 38. 

d Gen. xxx. 


Guay dphy Néyw cor, ob pH 


mohNat elow: “et S€ wh, etwov dy Gyiv- wopedopar? éroindoa +. 


1 dwvyjoy in NABG. 


fore the kind rather than the degree of 
love is indicated in the clause xa@as 
Hyarnoa tas «. 7. A.—Ver. 35. And 
this Christian love is to be the sole 
sufficing evidence of the individual’s 
Christianity: évy tovrm (emphatic) 
yvdoovrat ... GdAndos. Cf. Acts iv. 
32, I John iii. 10; also Tertull., Afol., 
39, ‘vide, inquiunt, ut invicem se 
diligant’’; Clem. Alex., Strom., ii. 9; 
Min. Felix, Octavius, 9.—Ver. 36. On 
this announcement of Jesus that He 
was shortly to leave them follow four 
characteristic utterances of the disciples. 
First as usual, A€yer adt@ Lipwv Nétpos, 
Kupie wot tarayers; ‘Lord, where are 
you going?” referring to ver. 33. The 
Vulgate renders ‘‘ Domine, quo vadis?”’ 
the words which the legend ascribes to 
Peter when withdrawing from persecu- 
tion in Rome he met Jesus entering the 
city. Jesus does not needlessly excite 
them by plainly telling them of His 
death, for He has much to say to them 
which He wishes them to listen to un- 
disturbed. He assures Peter that though 
he cannot now accompany his Master, 
he will afterwards follow, and so rejoin 
Him; cf. xxi. 19.—Ver. 37. This does 
not satisfy Peter. He sees it is some 
dangerous enterprise Jesus is undertak- 
ing, and he feels his courage discredited 
by the refusal to be allowed to accom- 
pany Him. Kvpte Stati. . . Oyow. 
‘“Putasne ulla itineris molestia me 
terreri?’’ Grotius. ‘In the zeal of love 
he mistakes the measure of his moral 
strength.” Meyer. Mt. and Mk. repre- 
sent all the disciples as making the same 
declaration (Mt. xxvi. 35, Mk. xiv. 31); 
which made it all the more necessary to 
expose its unconscious hollowness, pain- 
ful as it must have been to Jesus to do 
so. THv wWuyyv gov... tpls. ‘ Wilt 


2 ors is inserted before wopevopat in RABC*DKL. 


thou lay down... ? So far from that, 
you will deny me thrice before the morn- 
ing.” ov pn adéxtwp dwvycer. *‘ Cock- 
crow ’’ was used among the Jews as a 
designation of time (Lightfoot on Mt. 
xxvi. 34); ¢f. Mk. xiii. 35, where the 
night is divided into dé, perovintiov, 
adextopodwvia, mpwt. At the equinox 
cock-crow would be between 2 and 4 
A.M. See Greswell’s Dissert., iii. 216. 
This was incomprehensible; how the 
night could bring circumstances so 
appalling as to tempt any of them, and 
compel the hardiest to deny Jesus, they 
could not conceive.—CHAPTER XIV. 
Ver. 1. But as they sat astounded and 
perplexed, He continues, Mj tapagoéc Ow 
tpov 7 Kapdia. Let not your heart be 
tossed and agitated like water driven by 
winds; cf. Liddell and S. and Thayer. 
He not only commands them to dismiss 
their agitation, but gives them reason: 
muorevere . . . Wiotevete. ‘‘ Trust God, 
yea, trust me.’”’ Trust Him who over- 
tules all events, He will bring you 
through this crisis for which you feel 
yourselves incompetent; or if in your 
present circumstances that faith is too 
difficult, trust me whom you see and 
know and whose word you cannot doubt. 
It is legitimate to construe the first 
mioreveTe aS an indicative, and the 
second as imperative: but this gives 
scarcely so appropriate a sense.—Ver. 2. 
As an encouragement to this trust, He 
adds, év tH otkia ... tpiv. Heis going 
home to His Father’s house, but had 
there been room in it only for Himself 
He would necessarily have told them 
that this was the case, because the very 
reason of His going was to prepare a 
place for them. 8tt assigns the reason 
for the necessity of explanation: the 
reason being that His purpose or plan 


822 


‘ > 


témov Opty. 


e Mt. xvii. 
11. Acts Pr ei 
iri KGL UMELS 7TE. 

{ Song viii. 

Mt,  ovdare.” } 


xvii I. 


KATA IQANNHN 


XIV, 


3. kai €dv ropev0G Kal érousdow Spiv téov, dh 
*Epxopat kat ‘mapa yopar dpas mpds epautdv: iva Grou eipi eyw, 
4. kal Grou éyo dmdyw olSare, kal Thy dddv 
5. Adyet att@ Owpas, “Kupte, odk oldaper mod brdyers - 
Kal ms Suvdpeba”® Thy Sddv cidevar;” 


6. Aéyet adt@ 6 “Ingods, 


‘Eye eipt i] 685 Kat H GAnOera Kal y Lun: oddeis Epxerar mpds 


1 Omit cat before and otSare after rny oSov with NBLX. The words occur in AD, 


probably inserted for clearness. 


2 Instead of SvvapeOa eSevar Tr. Ti.W.H.R. read oSapev with BC*D. 


for His future would require to be 
entirely altered had there been no room 
for them in His Father’s house. ‘‘ My 
Father’s house” is used in ii. 16 of the 
Temple: here of the immediate presence 
of the Father and of that condition in 
which His love and protection are un- 
interruptedly and directly experienced. 
This is most naturally thought of as a 
place, but with the corrective that ‘it is 
not in heaven one finds God, but in God 
one finds heaven”. Cf. Godet. In this 
house, as in a great palace, cf. Iliad, vi. 
242, poval moddat elowv. povy (wéver), 
only here and in ver. 23, means a place to 
abide in, and was used of a station ona 
journey, a resting place, quarters for the 
night, and in later ecclesiastical Greek 
a monastery. See Soph., Lexicon. 
Mansions” reproduces the Vulgate 
‘““mansiones”. See further Wright’s 
Bible Word-Book. et 8 pn. . . “were 
it not so, I would have told you,” 
‘“‘ademissem vobis spem inanem,” 
Grotius. Had there been no such place 
and no possibility of preparing it, He 
necessarily would have told them, 
because the very purpose of His leaving 
them was to prepare a place for them. 
éroundoat témov, a figure derived from 
the custom of sending forward one of 
a party to secure quarters and provide 
all requisites. Cf. the Alcestis, line 363: 
aN’ obv éxeioe mpogddKa p’, Stav Odva, 
kat Sap” éroipal’, ds cuvoikycovcd pot. 
What was involved in the preparation 
here spoken of is detailed in Hebrews. 
Cf. Selby’s Ministry of the Lord, 275. 
—Ver. 3. Neither will He prepare a place 
and leave them to find their own way to 
it.—Kal éav wopev8o ... Are “If I 
go”; that is, the commencement of this 
work as their forerunner was the pledge 
of itscompletion. And its completion is 
effected by His coming again and receiv- 
ing them to Himself, or ‘‘to His own 
home,” wpos éuautév. Cf. xx. 10,— 
wadty €pxopat Kat wapadypwonor, ‘I 


come again and will receive”, The 
present is used in épxopar as if the 
coming were so certain as to be already 
begun, cf. v. 25. For mapaAypwopat 
see Cant. viii.2. The promise is fulfilled 
in the death of the Christian, and it has 
changed the aspect of death. The 
personal second coming of Christ is not 
a frequent theme in this Gospel. The 
ultimate object of His departure and 
return is tva éaov elpl ey, kal dpets Hre. 
Cf. 1 Thess. iv. 17, 2 Cor. v. 8, Phil. i. 
23. The object of Christ’s departure is 
permanent reunion and the blessedness 
of the Christian. 

Vv. 4-7. A second interruption occa- 
sioned by Thomas.—Ver. 4. «at Sov 
éy® imayw otSate Thy 686v. The éya is 
emphatic: the disciples knew the direc- 
tion in which He was going.—Ver. 5. But 
this statement bewilders the despondent 
Thomas, who gloomily interjects: Kvpte 
.. . el8évar; Thomas’ difficulty is that 


not knowing the goal they cannot know 
the way. Th the reply of eae both the 

oal and the way are disclosed.—Ver. 6. 
Fi ely... . pov. ‘I am the way and 


the truth and the life: no one comes te 
the Father save through me.”’ I do not 
merely point out the way and teach the 
truth and bestow life, but I am the way 
and the truth and the life, sothat by attach- 
ment to me one necessarily is in the way 
and possesses the truth and the life. ‘‘ The 
way ”’ here referred to is the way to the 
Father. He is the goal of all human 
aspiration: and there is but one way to 
the Father, ‘no one comes,” etc.—kal 
4 GAjGeca, “and the truth,” primarily 
about God and the way to Him, but also 
as furnishing us with all knowledge 
which we now require for life. Thomas 
craved knowledge sufficient to guide 
him in the present crisis. Jesus says: 
You have it in me.—«at 4 fwy, “ and the 
life’ ; the death which casts its shadow 
over the eleven and Himself is itself to 
be swallowed up in life. Those who 











3—12. 


Tov TaTépa, €t pt) Su epou. 


EYATTEAION 


823 


7. et éyvixerté pe, kal Tov Tatépa pou 


éyvdxerte Gv!- Kat* dm dpt ywwoKete atv, kal Ewpdxate adtdv.” & aes 


ren. 


8. Adyet att Gidumtos, “ Kupre, Seifov ijuty tov watépa, Kat ® &pKet h Prov. 


Apt.” 
kal odk €yvwxds pe Pihurre ; 


g. Aéyet adt@ 6 “Incods, “ Tocoitov xpévoy ped Spay cine, 


Xxx. 16, 


6 éwpakws ene, édpaxe Tov Tatépa 
A ~ a , ‘os] ¢ A 4A U 
kal 1s ob éyets, Aetgov Huty tov matépa ; 


10. ov MoTEvErs STL 


: ee > an ‘ we ‘ > , ce ee eS 
éyo év TO tworpl, kal 6 wathp év éyoi dom; Ta pypata & éyw 
Aad Gyuiv, ‘dw epautod ob AahG- 6 8€ marhp 6? év epot ! pévay, iv. 19 reff. 


rit \ -~ ae, 
Q@UTOS TOLEL TA Epya. 


mwathp év éuot: et Sé€ ph, Sid Ta Epya adta moreveTE por. 


II. MorteveTé por Ott éyw év TO TaTpl, kal 6 


ei) Viesonete, 


12. 


5 Fs i 
Aphy apny éyw uty, 6 motedwy eis ene, TA Epya & eyd Trotw, 


Kdkelvos Toijget, kal “pelLova TovTwy moijoer> Ste éyw mpds Tov 


k Mt. xxi. 
21. 


1 Instead of eyvwxerte av W.H. read av ndeare with BCL 33. 


are one with Jesus cannot die. They 


are possessed 0 € source of life. 
urther see Hort’s é ay, etc., 
and Bernard’s Central Teaching. — 


ovdels Epyetat, ‘no one comes to the 
Father save through me” as the way, 
the truth, the life. It is not ‘‘ through 
believing certain propositions regarding 
me” nor ‘‘ through some special kind of 
faith,’ but ‘‘ through me”’.—Ver. 7. He 
is the essential knowledge, eb éyvaxerré 
pe . . . Some press the distinction 
between éyvoxertre and Serre, “the 
first representing a knowledge acquired 
and progressive; the second a know- 
ledge perceptive and immediate”. But 
this discrimination is here inappropriate. 
The clause explains the foregoing. The 
Father is in Jesus, and to know Him 
is to know the Father. They had un- 
consciously been coming to the Father 
and living in Him. Now they were to 
do so consciously: aw’ Gpt. yiwooKere 
... autév. The repeated airdy brings 
out the point, that it was the Father that 
was henceforth to be recognised by them 
when they saw and thought of Jesus: 


*‘ve know Him and have seen Him”. 
Ww. 8-14. A third interruption by 
Philip ; to which Fesus replies, append- 
ing to His answer a promise which 
springs out of what He had said to 
Philip.—Ver. 8. Aéyer . . . Hptv. Philip, 
seizing upon the éwpdkare avrdév of ver. 
7, utters the universal human craving to 
see God, to have the same indubitable 
direct knowledge of Him as we have of 
one another. Perhaps Philip supposed 
some appearance visible to the eye 
would be granted. Always there persists 
the feeling that more might be done to 


make God known than has been done.— 
Ver. 9. Jesus corrects the error, and 
guides the craving to its true satisfaction. 
Tocottoy xpovoy . . . matépa [Toa~ovTOV 
xpévov may be a gloss for the dative 
which is found in SDL]. The mani- 
festation which Philip craves had been 
made, and made continuously for some 
considerable time; for so long that it 
was matter of surprise and regret to 
Jesus that Philip needed still to be 
taught that he who saw Jesus saw the 
Father. It is implied that not to see the 
Father in Jesus was not to know Him, 
—Ver. 10. ov miorevers ... éoTL; 
This unbelief was involved in Philip’s 
question, but when the question of the 
mutual indwelling of the Father and 
Jesus was thus directly put to him, he 
would kave no doubt as to the answer. 
cf. x. 38. The fact of the union is in- 
disputable; the mode is inexplicable; 
some of the results are indicated in the 
words: Ta pypata... Ta épya. See 
vii. 16-18 and v. 19. The mutual in- 
dwelling is such that everything Jesus 
says or does is the Father’s saying or 
doing. This was so obvious that Jesus 
could appeal to the works He did in case 
His assertion was disbelieved.—Ver. 11. 
mioreveTé por... miotevere. ‘ Believe 
me,” i.€., my assertion, not my mani- 
festation, ‘‘or if you find that difficult, 
believe on account of the works them- 
selves”. The mention of His works and 
the evidence they afford that He is in 
the Father suggests to Him a ground of 
comfort for His disciples in view of His 
departure. And from this point onwards 
in this chapter it is to the comforting of 
the disciples our Lord addresses Him- 


iva Sofac0y 5 warhp év TO uid. 


XIV. 


Kat 3 te Ov airjonte ‘ev 1H dvdpari 
14. édv Te 


™rnpyoare.! 16. 


824 KATA IQANNHN 
Ixv. 16 tatépa pov mopetopat. 13. 
lou, TOUTO Troijow* 
aimjonte év TO dvdpari pou, éyo trorjow. 
m Burton, 15. “"Edv dyawaré pe, Tas Evtohds Tag epds 
n ver. 26; Kal éy® épwrjow tov matépa, Kat ado 


xv 


Jo. il, 1. 
O xv. eH 
xvi. 


Jo. re 


xvi. Arh 1 Wa pévy pel Sudy eis Tov aidva, 17. 


“TapdkrynTov Sdoer Suv, 
°7d Tredpa THs GAnPeias, 5 6 


kédopos 08 Suvarar AaPetv, Ste oF Oewpet adits, Odd ywwoKer adits: 
* pets Sé yuwdonete adTd, Ste wap Spiv péver,” Kai év duiv eorar.® 


1 enpyoere is readin BL 54, 73, ‘ye will keep”’. This is adopted by Tr. Ti.W.H.R. 


TyHpyoatTe, * 
2 The vulg. has ‘‘ manebit,” 


3 T.R. supported by NAD?LN 33. 
Wi: 


self. First, in vv. 12-14; second, in vv. 
15-17; third, in vv. 18-21. The mention 
of the Paraclete in connection with this 
third item of encouragement gives rise to 
a fourth interruption, this time by Judas, 
vv. 22-24; and at ver. 25 Jesus resumes 
His explanation of the Paraclete’s func- 
tion, and closes with several considera- 
tions calculated to remove their fears.— 
Ver. 12. Gpiv... woujoer. The first 
encouragement is the assurance that 
through Christ’s absence the disciples 
would be enabled to do greater works 
than Jesus Himself had done. These 
‘greater’? works were the spiritual 
effects accomplished by the disciples, 
especially the great novel fact of conver- 
sion. See this developed in Parker’s 
The Paraclete. Such works were to be 
possible 6tt . . . wopevopat. It was by 
founding a spiritual religion and altering 
men’s views of the spiritual world Christ 
enavled His followers to do these greater 
works. Here this is explained on the 
plane of the disciples’ thoughts and in 
this form: ‘I go to my Father, the 
source of all power, and whatever you 
ask in my name I will do it’’.—Ver. 13. 
TOUTO Totyow, so what they do is still 
His doing ; one condition being attached 
to their prayers, that they ask év T@ 


évépart pov. The name of a person 
can only be used when we seek to en- 
“force his will and further his interests. 


This gives the condition of successful 
rayer: it must be for the furtherance 
o rist’s kingdom. For the end of all 
is tva Sofacby 6 warip év TO vid, that 
is, that the fulfilment of God’s purpose 
in sending forth His Son may be mani- 
fest in Christ’s people and in their 
beneficent work in the world.—Ver. 14. 
In ver. 14 the promise is repeated, as 


keep,” is found in ADQ, it. vulg. and other versions. 
having read pevet. 


So Arm, and Aeth. versions. 


eotiv by BD* 1, 22, and is adopted by Tr. and 


Euthymius says, for confirmation: 16 
aitd Aéyet BeBarav padtora tov Adyov. 
Perhaps, too, additional significance is 
given to His agency by introducing éyo. 
Cf. Bengel and Meyer. 

Vv. 15-17. The second encouragement: 
the Lomas of another Paraclete.—Ver. 
15. éav... Thpyoate. The fulfilment 
of the promise He is about to give 
depends upon their condition of heart 
and life. This therefore He announces 
as the preamble to the promise. On 
their side there would be a constant 
endeavour to carry out His instructions : 
on His side kayo épwryjow . . . During 
His ministry Jesus has said little of the 
Spirit. Now on the eve of His departure 
He directs attention to this ‘alter ego”’. 
He designates Him &@AAov wapdxdnrToy, 
implying that Jesus Himself was a 
Paraclete. See 1 John ii. 1. wapdaxAnTos 
is literally advocatus, called to one’s aid, 
especially in a court of justice. [Cf. 
mapaotatys in Arist., Thesm., 369; 
Eccl., 9.) See especially Hatch, Essays 
in Bibl. Greek, p. 82, and Westcott’s 
“ Additional Note’’. ‘‘ Comforter” in 
A.V. is used in its original sense of 
“‘strengthener” (con, fortis); as in 
Wiclift’s version of Phil. iv. 13, “I may 
all thingis in him that comfortith me”’ 
(see Wright’s Bible Word-Book). This 
Paraclete should remain with them fer 
ever, and He is specifically designated 
(ver. 17) TO mvedpa THIS GAnGelas, cf. xvi. 
13, 14; He would enable them to under- 
stand the new truths which were battling - 
with their old conceptions, and to re- 
adjust their beliefs round a new centre. 
He would explain the departure of Christ, 
and the principles of the new economy 
under which they were henceforth to 
live. This spirit was to be peculiarly 





13—21 
18. obx ddyjow tpas ° dphavods- 


€yo £0, kal bpeis Lhocobe. 


EYAPCEAION 


Tépxopwar mpds Spas. 
pikpov Kal 6 Kdcpos pe odK Ett Oewpel, bpeis Sé Oewpeité pre Ste 


825 


19. €tup Jas. i. 27 
q Ver. 3. 


, A a 
20. év éxeivy TH Hpepa yvicerGe Speis 
or SEQ a , Nie ~ 3) > ‘ tN > Ce) 
OTL Ey Ev TH Tatpl rou, Kal wets ev Epol, Kayo ev Spiv. 


21.6 


»” A > , ‘ A PRLS > Lay > « A 
eX@v Tas évTo\as pou Kat TY PMV GQuUTaS, EKELVOS EOTLY O ayatrav pe : 


S€ dyamay pe, dyamnOijcetar bd 


theirs, 6 6 Kéaopos od SvvaTar AaPeiv, the 
characteristically worldly cannot receive 
that which can only be apprehended by 
spiritually prepared persons. It has been 
proposed to render AaPeiv, “seize” or 
‘‘apprehend,”’ as if a contrast to the 
world’s apprehension and dismissal of 
Jesus were intended. But AopBdvew ro 
mvevpa is regularly used in N.T. to 
express ‘‘receiving the Spirit,’ Gal. iii. 
2; 1 Cor. ii. 12. The world cannot 
receive the Spirit St. od Oewpet ard, 
. . . Outward sense cannot apprehend 
the invisible Spirit ; and the world has no 
personal experience of His presence and 
power; but ye, tpets, have this experi- 
mental knowledge, ‘‘ because He is even 
now abiding with you (has already begun 
His ministry ; or, rather, has this for His 


ToG Tatpds pou: Kat éyo 

world would no longer see Him, but His 
disciples would be conscious of His 
presence, vpeis 52 Oewpeiré pe, present 


for immediate future. His presence 
would be manifested in_their-new Lie 
Ses ae NG eRe ort éyo 
@, Kat Uets Croce Oe 


This is confirmed 
by Paul’s ‘ No longer I, but Christ liveth 
inme”. Gal. ii.20. The grand evidence 
of Christ’s continued life and presence is 
the Christian life of the disciple.—Ver. 
20. év éxetvy TH Heep, ‘in that day,” 
which does not mean Pentecost, but the 
new Christian era which was to be 
characterised by these experiences. Cf. 
Holtzmann. The sense of a new life 
produced by Christ would compel the 
conviction 6Tt éy® év T@ marpi ; 
“that I am in the Father”’ in et union 


characteristic that He remains with you, with the source of all life, that 
making you the object of His work), and “you aré“in me,” vitally Saanecrel with 


shall be within you”. 
statement cf. 1 Cor. ii. 8-14. 

Vv. 18-21. The third encouragement - 
that Fesus Himself will come to them and 
make Himself known to them.—Ver. 18. 
Great as was the promise of this other 
helper, this spirit of truth, it did not 
seem to compensate for the departure of 
Jesus. ‘‘ Another,” any other, was un- 
able to fill the blank; it was Himself 
they craved. Therefore He goes on, ov« 
adyow vuas dpdavovs: Epxowat mpos 
vpas, “I will not abandon you as 
orphans,” épdavdés (orbus) ‘ bereaved,” 
used of fathers bereft of children (1 
Thess, 11. 17, Dionys. Hal., i.); as well 
as of children bereft of parents. See 
Elsner.’ matpirys evomdayyvies 7d 
peje, Euthymius. Cheesy ixeeic4s 
épdav@ ot joba BonPds. Wetstein 
quotes Rabbi Akiba as lamenting the 
death of Rabbi Eleazar, ‘‘Vae mihi. . 
quia totam hance generationem reliquisti 
orphanam’’. The utter helplessness of 
the disciples without their Master is 
indicated. €pyopat pds tpas. From the 
absence of éy# it may be gathered that 
Jesus means to point out not so much 
that it is He who is coming through the 
spirit to them, as that His apparent 
departure is really a nearer approach.— 
Ver. 19. Ina short time, ér puxpdv, the 


With the entire “me so as to receive that life that I live, 


“and I in you,” filling you a all the 


ulness that is in myself, living out my 
own life in and through you, and finding 
in you room for the output of all I am.— 
Ver. 21. The conditions on which de- 
pended the manifestation of the departed 
Christ are then exhibited, 6 gov... 
épavtéy. The love to which Christ pro- 
mises a manifestation of Himself is not 
an idle sentiment or shallow fancy, but a 
principle prompting obedience, 6 €xwv 
Tas évtoAds pou, cf. I John ii. 7, iv. 21, 
2 John 5; it means more than ‘“‘ hearing,” 

and is yet not equivalent to tyhpav; it 
seems to point to the permanent posses- 
sion of the commandments in conscious- 
ness. This finds its appropriate expres- 
sion in THp@v attas—‘ keeping them,” 
observing them in the life. This is the 
expression and proof of love, and this 
love finds its response and reward in the 
love of the Father and of the Son, and in 
the manifestation of the Son to the 
individual. The appropriateness of in- 
troducing the Father and His love 
appears in ver. 24. The love of Christ ~ 
is that which prompts the manifestation. 
épdavicw, the word is used by Moses in 
Exodus xxxili. 13. Reynolds says: 
‘¢ This remarkable word implies that the 
scene or place of the higher manifestation 


826 


dyamjow adtdv, nal eudaviow attd enautdv.” 
*lovSas, obx 6 “loxapidtys, ‘ 


r Exod. 
xxxiii, 13. 


KATA IQANNHN 


" €udaviLew ceautdv, kal obxi TO Kéopw ;” 


XIV. 


a2. Aéye aita 


‘Kupte, Tl yéyovey Ste Hpiv péAdeus 


23. AtrexpiOn 6 “Ingods 


Mt. xxvii. kal elev adtd, “Edy tis dyawa pe, Tov Adyov pou THpHEL, Kal 6 


Tam}p pou dyamyoet adtov, Kal mpds adtéy édevodpeba, Kai * poviy 
24. 6 ph dyawav pe, Tols Adyous pou of 


Typet: Kal 6 Adyos Sy dkoveTe, oUK EoTi ends, GAAG TOU méppavTds 


53- Heb. 
ix. 24. 

S ver. 2. Se : 1 
TAP QUTW TrOLNTOMEV. 
pe Tatpds. 

t ver. 16, 


25. “Taira AehéAnka Spiv map’ Spiv pévwv 26. 6 S€ *wapd- 


4 A ,@¢ a , c ‘ > LE at i 
KAnTOS, TO Nveupa TO Aytor, oO Tre wet oO TaTyp €v TH OVOMATL pou, 


éxetvos Suds Siddger mdvta, Kal Orouvyoe bpas mdavta & elroy bpiv. 


1 wotnoopeda has the stronger attestation, being read in BLX 33. 


will be in (év) the consciousness of the 
soul”. The word however is currently 
used for outward manifestation ; although 
here the manifestation alluded to is 
inward. Cf. Judas’ words. The nature 
of the manifestation has already been 
explained, ver. 19. 

Vv. 22-24. A fourth interruption, by 
‘udas.—Ver. 22. All that Jesus has said 
nas borne more and more clearly in upon 
the mind of the disciples the disappoint- 
ing conviction that the manifestation 
referred to is not to be on the expected 
Messianic lines. Accordingly Judas, not 
Iscariot, but Thaddaeus or Lebbaeus 
(Mt. x. 3; Lk. vi. 16), says: Tt yéyovev 
k. tT. A. ‘What has happened that,” 
etc. ? or, ‘‘ What has occurred to deter- 
mine you,” etc.? Kypke quotes from 
Arrian apposite instances of the use of 
this expression. Judas expresses, no 
doubt, the thought of the rest. Was 
there to be no such public manifestation 
of Jesus as Messiah, as would convince 
the world?—Ver. 23. To this Jesus 
replies édv Teg ... wowjoopev. The 
answer explains that the manifestation, 
being spiritual, must be individual and tq 

Ose __Spiritua repared. ‘It con- 
‘templates not a pub discovery of 
“power, but a sort of domestic visitation 
of love.” Bernard. pos avutoy éevao- 


peba, “to him we will come”; Jesus 
without scruple unites Himself with the 
Father. povny .. . wornodpea, a classi- 
cal expression see Thuc., i. 131, povyv 
+ . ToLtovpevos. ‘Wewill make our abode 
with him, will be daily his guests, yea, 
house and table companions.” Luther 
in Meyer. povy is here used in a sense 
different from that of ver. 2, where it 
means a place to abide in.—Ver. 24. 
The necessity of love as a condition of 


this manifested presence is further em- 
phasised by stating the converse, 6 py 
Gyarav pe... mwatpds. The xdopos 
of ver. 22 is here more closely defined by 
6 pq Gyame@v px. See Holtzmann. 

Vv. 25-31. The conversation closed by 
bequest of peace. The genuineness of 
this report of the last words of Jesus is 
guaranteed by the frequency with which 
He seems to be on the point of breaking 


off. The constant resumption, the add- — 


ing of things that occur on the moment, 
these are the inimitable touch of nature. 
At this point the close seems imminent. 
—Ver. 25. Tatra AekdAnka . . . péevwv, 
implying that this abiding and teaching 
were now at an end.—Ver. 26. But His 
teaching would be continued and com- 
pleted by the Paraclete: 6 8€ wapa- 
KAntos . . . viv. The Paraclete is now 
identified with 76 mvetpa +o dy.ov, and 
His connection with Christ is further 
guaranteed by the clause 6 wépiper o 
mwatip év TO dvopati pov, “which the 
Father will send in my name,” that is, 
as representing me and promoting my 
interests.: And this He will accomplish 
by teaching: éxetvos “‘ He,’’ and no 
longer the visible Christ, ‘will teach 
you all things,’ wavra in contrast to the 
TavTa (ver. 25) with which Christ had to 
be satisfied; but mavra must itself be 
limited by the needs and capacities of 
the disciples.—Kal vropvyoe . . . ‘and 
will bring to your remembrance all that 
I said to you,”’ that is, the teaching of 
the Spirit should so connect itself with 
the teaching of Christ as to revive the 
memory of forgotten words of His, and 
give them a new meaning. Cf. especially 
xvi. 12-14.—Ver. 27. eipyynvy apinpe 
vpiv, ‘‘ peace I bequeath to you”. The 
usual farewell was given with the word 














22—3I. 


EYATCEAION 


827 


27. elpnyyv Gbinpe Spiv, eipyyny Thy epiyy SiSepe dpiv: ob Kaas 6 


Kégp0s Sidworv, eyo Sidwpu Spiv. 
pyde * Setidtw. 
EpXopar Tpds Suds. 


“pi TapaccécOw spdv H Kapdia, u ver. x. 
28. jKovcate Ott éyw elroy Spiv, “Yadyw Kat vDeut.icr 


ei HyanGré pe, éxdpynte av Sr etmov, Noped- pean 
OpaL pds Tov TaTépa- Gt. 6 TaTHp pou pelLwy pou éori. 29. Kat 
viv elpnKa Gpiv "ply yeveoOar: iva Stay yevntat, morevonte. w Is. xlvi. 
30. “Odx Er. woddd Aadjow pel” Sudv- Epxetar yap *6 Tod Kivi ve 


ats 
xégpou TovTou dpxwy, Kai év éuoi odk exer odSév> 31. GAN iva yd reff. 


xii. 31 


6 kécpos, St. dyam@ tov waTépa, Kat Kabds évetetAaTd por 6 marip, 


o ~ 
OUT® TFOLW. 


‘“peace”’. And Jesus uses the familiar 
word, but instead of uttering a mere wish 
He turns it into a bequest, intimating 
His power not only to wish but to give 
peace in the further description eipyynv 
THY pty SiSwpe vpiv, ‘my peace I give 
unto you’’; the peace which He had at- 
tained by means of all the disturbance and 
opposition He had encountered. Leaving 
them His work, His view of life, His 
Spirit, He necessarily left them His 
peace.—ov Kxa0as 6 kdopos SlSworv, tye 
Sidwp. vutv, “not as the world gives 
give I to you”. This is referred by 
Grotius to the difference between the 
empty form of salutation and Christ’s 
gift of peace. (‘‘ Mundus, t.e., major 
pars hominum, salute alios impertit sono 
vocis, nihil saepe de re cogitans; et si 
cogitet, tamen id alteri nihil prodest.’’) 
So too Holtzmann and Bernard. Meyer 
considers this ‘‘ quite out of relation to 
the profound seriousness of the moment,” 
and understands the allusion to be to the 
treasures, honours, pleasures which the 
world gives. There is no reason why 
the primary reference should not be to 
the salutation, with a secondary reference 
to the wider contrast. This gift of peace, 
if accepted, would secure them against 
perturbation, and so Jesus returns to the 
exhortation of ver. 1, py Tapagaéc8w... 
“Observing that the opening sentence 
of the discourse is here repeated and 
fortified, we understand that all enclosed 
within these limits is to be taken as a 
whole in itself, and that the intervening 
_words compose a divine antidote to that 
troubling and desolation of heart which 
the Lord’s departure would suggest.” 
Bernard. He now adds a word, pnde 
SetAtatw, which carries some reproach 
in it. Theophrastus (Char., xxvii.) defines 
SevAia as Urevéis tis Wuyts Eudofos, a 
shrinking of the soul through fear. With 
this must be taken Aristotle’s description, 
Nic. Eth., iii. 6, 7, 6 8€ TG hoPeiobar 


eyeipeoe, 7 dywuev évre GOev. 


y xi.7 


Umep8dddwv Serdds. It may be rendered 
‘neither let your heart timidly shrink ”’. 
—Ver. 28. On the contrary quite other 
feelings should possess them: joy in 
sympathy with Him in His glorification 
aad in expectation of the results of His 
going to the Father: qKovoate... 
matépa. ‘If ye loved me,” an almost 
playful way of reproaching their sadness. 
There was no doubt of their love, but it 
was an unintelligent love. They failed 
to consider the great joy that awaited 
Him in His going to the Father. This 
going to the Father was cause for rejoic- 
ing, 67. 6 waryp pov [pov is not well 
authenticated and should be deleted] 
petLwv pov earl, ‘because the Father 
is greater than I”; and can therefore 
fulfil all the loving purposes of Christ to 
His disciples. ‘‘ The life which He has 
begun with them and for them will be 
raised to a higher level.” They had 
seen the life He had lived and were dis- 
turbed because it was coming to an end: 
but it was coming to an end because 
absorbed in the greater life He would 
have with the Father. The theological 
import of the words is discussed by 
Westcott, who cites patristic opinions 
and refers to Bull and Pearson. In 
all that Jesus did, it was the Father’s 
will He carried out, and with powers 
communicated by the Father: the Father 
is the Originator and End of all His 
work in the world. Throughout the 
ministry of Jesus the Father is repre- 
sented as “ greater’? than the Son. That 
it should require to be explicitly affirmed, 
as here, is the strongest evidence that He 
was Divine.—Ver. 29. Kalviv... mo- 
tevonte. ‘I have told you now before it 
came to pass,”’ z.¢., He has told them of 
His departure, that they might not be 
terrified or depressed by its occurrence, 
but might recognise it as foretold by 
Him as the consummation of His work 
and so might have their faith increased. 


828 KATA IQANNHN XV. 
a Ps. Lexx, XV. 1. “EPO cipe  “dpredos 4 *GAnOwh, kal 6 maryp pou 6 
SE il yewpyds dort, 2. wav KApa ev pot ph pépoy kapTov, ” alper adrd - 
b Rom. xi. Ea OR 2 , > ° , x 
17. kal wav TO Kkapmov péporv, KaBaiper adtd, tva welova kapmov pépy. 


Cf. xiii. 19.—Ver. 30. otxn ém... 
vpov. “I will no longer speak much 
with you”; ‘temporis angustiae 
abripiunt verba,” Grotius.—€pxerat . 
ovdév. “ The ruler of this world” is 
Satan, see xii. 31. He ‘*comes”’ in the 
treachery of Judas (xiii. 27) and all that 
followed. But this coming was without 
avail, because év épol ovx exer ovdev, 
‘‘in me he hath nothing,” nothing he 
can call his own, nothing he can claim 
as his, and which he can use for his 
purposes. He is ruler of the world, but 
in Christ has no possessions or rule. A 
notable assertion of sinlessness.—Ver. 
31. Jesus goes to death not crushed by 
the machinations of Satan, ‘“‘ but that 
the world may know that I love the 
Father and as the Father has commanded 
me,” ottw mo, “thus I do,’ applies 
to His whole life, which was throughout 
ruled by regard to the Father’s com- 
mandment, but in the foreground of His 
thought at present is His departure from 
the disciples, His death.—éyeipeoe, 
Gywpev évrevey, ‘arise, let us go hence,” 
similar to the summons in Mt. xxvi. 46, 
but the idea of referring so common an 
expression to a reminiscence of the 
Synoptic passage is absurd. On the 
movement made in consequence of the 
summons, see on xv. I. 

In chapters xv. and xvi. Jesus (1) 
explains the relation He holds to those 
who continue His work, xv. 1-17; (2) 
the attitude the world will assume to 
His followers, xv. 18-25; (3) the con- 
quest of the worid by the Spirit, 26-xvi. 
11; and (4) adds some last words, en- 
couragements and warnings, xvi. 12-33. 
In this last conversation, which extends 
from chap. xiii. to chap. xvi. inclusive, 
the closing words of chap. xiv., éyetpeoOe 
aywpev évtevOev, form the best marked 
division. At this point Jesus and His 
disciples rose from table. Whether 
the conversation was continued in the 
house or after they left it may be doubt- 
ful; but probabilities are certainly much 
in favour of the former alternative. A 
pacty of twelve could not conveniently 
talk together on the street. In xviii. 1 
we read that when Jesus had uttered the 
prayer recorded in xvii. é&@AGe abv Tois 
pabyrais aitod mwépay tov yeidppov 
tov KéSpwv. This, however, may refer 
to their leaving the city, not the house. 


Bengel thinks they may have paused in 
the courtyard of the house. 

CHAPTER XV.—Vv. 1-17. The rela- 
tion between Fesus and His disciples 
represented by the relation of the vine 
and its branches.—Ver. 1. "Ey elpr 4 
Gpmedos 4H GAnOivy, “1 am the true 
vine.” 1 aAnOivy suggests a contrast 
to other vines te which this title could 
not be applied: but not to a vine trailing 
across the window of the room where 
they were, nor to the golden vine on the 
Temple gate, nor to the vines on the 
slopes of Olivet; but to Israel, the 
stock which God had planted to bring 
forth fruit to Him, see Ps. Ixxx., Is. v., 
Jer. ii. 21. éya 88 épiteved ce Gprredov 
Kaptodépov wacay GAnoiwyjv. The vine 
was a recognised symbol also of the 
Messiah, see Delitzsch in Expositor, 
third series, iii., p. 68, and in his [7vis, 
pp. 180-190, E. Tr. On the Maccabean 
coinage Israel was represented by a 
vine. It was the present situation which 
here suggested the figure. As Jesus 
rose to depart the disciples crowd 
round Him with anxiety on every face. 
Their helplessness and trouble appeal 
to Him, and He encourages them by re- 
minding them that, although left to do 
His work in the world, they would still 
be united to Him as truly as the branches 
to the vine. He and His together are 
the true Vine of God. xatéwatyp pove 
yewpyds éott, ‘‘and my Father is the 
vine-dresser’’. What is now happening 
is the Father’s doing, and, therefore, 
tends to the well-being and fruitfulness of 
the vine. [‘‘ Pater qui cum diligit me, 
certe servabit totum fruticem.’’ Melanch- 
thon.]—Ver. 2. The function of the vine- 
dresser is at once described: wav xAjpa 
.. . d€pq. «Aypa, or more fully as in 
Xen., Oecon., xix. 8, kAfpa aparéAov, is 
the shoot of the vine which is annually 
put forth. It is from «Ado, “I break,” 
as also is kAdSos, but Wetstein quotes 
Pollux to show that kAa8os was appro- 
priated to the shoots of the olive, 
while xAjpa signified a vine-shoot. Of 
these shoots there are two kinds, the 
fruitless, which the vine-dresser atpet: 
“Inutilesque falce ramos amputans,” 
Hor. Efod., ii. 13; the fruitful, which 
He xaQatper [‘‘suavis rhythmus,” Ben- 
gel]. The full meaning of atpe: is de- 
scribed in ver. 6; «abaiper here denotes 


A 








iJ 


3. 78 Spets 
4. petvaTte év éuot, Kayo ev dpiv. 


EYATTEAION 


829 


kaQapot é€ote, Sid Tov Adyov Gv AeAdAnKa Opty. c xiii. ro, 11; 


XVii. 17. 


Kabes TO KARA ot SdvaTaL 


A , ~ 
Kaptrov pépe ah éauTod, dv pi pelvy ev TH Gpehw, oUTws ovde 


© = 2X > > ‘ , 
Gpets, edv ph év €or petyyte. 


Ul c 4 > > SN) De «18, 
K\yjpata. 6 pévwv év enol, Kaya 
Tohuv: St. xwpls euod od SuvacGe 


, 
pelvy! év épot, 


*cuvdyoucw atta Kal eis mip Bdaddouct, Kal Kaletar. 
“ , 
pelynte ev enol, kal Ta pypard pou ev duty peivn, 6 édv Oednte 


qrovety oudey. 


> , > ¢c + c can) ‘ 
€yo e€ipe  Gpmeos, bets TA 
év atT@, obtos péper Kapmév 


6. édv ph Tis 


€BAynOn eo ws Td KAHpa, Kal e€npdvOn, Kald Mt. iii. 10 


and vii.19. 
7: Edy eiv. 36. Mt. 
xiii. 47. 


1 evn is better authenticated, being found in $*ABD. 


especially the pruning requisit e for con- 
centrating the vigour of the tree on the 
one object, tva mAclova kapiov dépy, 
that it may continually surpass itself, and 
yield richer and richer results. The 
vine-dresser spares no pains and no ma- 
terial on his plants, but all for the sake 
of fruit. [Cf. Cicero, De Senec., xv. 53.] 
The use of xaBaipe. was probably deter- 
mined by the ka@apot of ver. 3.—Ver. 3. 
Sn tpeis KaSapot éore: “ Already ye 
are clean”. «a®apot here means ‘“‘ina 
condition fit to bear fruit”; in xiii. 10, 
II, it is suggested by the feet-washing, 
and means “free from inward stain”. 
It is similarly used even in classical 
writers. 81a Tov Adyov dv AeAGAnKa piv, 
“on account of the word which I have 
spoken unto you”. For 8a in this sense 
as indicating the source, see vi. 67. The 
word which Jesus had spoken to them, 
t.e., the whole revelation He had made, 
had brought spiritual life, and, therefore, 
cleansing. But this condition they must 
strive to maintain, petvare év épol, Kayw 
év tpiv. pev@ must be understood after 
kayo. Maintain your belief in me, your 
attachment to me, your derivatiun of 
hope, aim, and motive from me: and I 
will abide in you, filling you with all the 
life you need to represent me on earth. 
All the divine energy you know to be in 
me will now pass through you.—Ver. 4. It 
is in and through you I live henceforth. 
KaQas TO KAHGa... pelvarte [or pevnte] ; 
illustrating by the fgure the necessity 
of the foregoing injunction. A branch 
that falls to the ground, and no longer 
abides in the vine as a living part of it, 
cannot bear fruit, so neither can ye 
except ye abide in me. That is, ye can- 
not bear the fruit my Father, the vine- 
dresser, looks for, and by which He will 
be glorified, ver. 8.—Ver. 5. éyo... 
«Ayjpara—‘‘I am the Vine, ye are the 
branches,” together forming one tree and 


possessed by one common life. The 
stock does not bear fruit, but only 
the branches; the branches cannot 
live without the stock. Therefore it 
follows 6 pévov . .. ovdév. The one 
thing needful for fruit-bearing is that we 
abide in Christ, and He in us; that the 
branch adhere to the vine, and the life of 
the vine flow into the branch. ywpis 
énov, “in separation from me’. See 
Eph. ii. 12. Grotius gives the equiva- 
lents ‘seorsim,” ‘‘ separatim,” Kara 
povas, kat avré. ov Svvacbe troceiv 
ovdev, ye cannot do anything,” abso- 
jutely nothing according to i. 3,4; but 
here the meaning is, ‘“‘ye cannot do 
anything which is glorifying to God, 
anything which can be called fruit- 
bearing,” ver. 8.—Ver. 6. éav py tis 
petvy, “if any one shall not have abided 
in me”. éBdAyOy .. . é&ypavOy, the 
gnomic aorist, cf. 1 Peter i. 24; and see 
Burton, M. and T., 43, and Grotius: ‘‘ Hi 
aoristi sine designatione temporis signifi- 
cant quid fieri soleat, pro quo et praesens 
saepe usurpatur”’. The whole process 
undergone by the fruitless branch is 
described in these six verbs, atpet ver. 2, 
€BANOn, eEnpavOn, cvvayouoy, BadAover, 
kalerat, and each detail is thus given for 
the sake of emphasising the inevitable. 
ness and the completeness of the destruc- 
tion. éBdAyOy efw ws 7d KAT pa, ‘is cast 
out,’’ z.e., from the vineyard, as the next 
words show; here this means hopeless 
rejection. The result is é§qodv@n, the 
natural capacity for fruit- bearing is 
destroyed. The figure derived from the 
treatment of the fruitless branch is con- 
tinued in ovvdyouvow ... Kaierat, cf. 
Mt. xili. 49, 50; and 41, 42. On xaterat, 
Euthymius remarks o¥ pqv katakatovTas 
“but are not consumed”, And in Exod. 
iii. 2, the bush katerat, but ov Kate- 
kaleto ‘‘ burns, but was not consumed”’, 
But this only shows that without the 


830 


aitjocobe,) Kat yernoetar piv. 
‘iva Kapmov woddy pepntes Kal yevycecbe”? enol pabyrat. 


fiv. 34; XV. wou 
> 
12, etc, Ls 


KATA IQANNHN 


XV, 


8. év toUtw e80fdo0n 5 mrathp 


See Bur- 9. Kaus iyydryoé pe 6 twathp, Kdyo hydayca bpas: © petvarte év 


ton, 213. 
@ Vili. 31. 


TH &yary TH Epp. 


10. édv tds évtokds pou tTHpHonte, pevette ev 


TH dydry pou: KaOds eyo tds évTohds Tod Tarpds pou TeTHPHKA, 


kal péevw adtod év tH dydiy. 
xapa H éuh év duly peivy,® Kat 4 xapd spav mAnpwOh. 


II. taita AeddAnka Spiv, twa ¥ 
12. auTy 


hver.8reff.éotiv i évtodh 1 eph, “tva dyaware dddjdous, Kabds hydayoa 


laurnoeobe, although supported by § and lM, must give place to the im- 


perative atrnoacGe found in ABDL. 


2 T.R. in NA. yevnobe in BDLM adopted by Tr.W.H., ‘and that ye be my 


disciples ”. 
® 4 1n ABD 33; pavy in NLXN. 


miraculous interposition it would have 
been consumed.—Ver. 7. From the fate 
of those who do not abide in Him, Jesus 
turns to the results of faithful adherence— 
éav peivynte . . . tty. The expression is 
altered from that of vv. 3 and 5, instead 
of “and I in you,” we now have ‘‘and 
my words abide in you”’; it is by means 
of His teaching and His commandments 
that Christ abides in His people, an4 by 
His word they are fitted for fruit-bearing, 
ver. 3. Not that His words are a substi- 
tute for His personal presence, but its 
medium. But His presence is not to ener- 
gise in them as if they were machines; 
they are to consider the exigencies that 
arise, and, giving play to judgment and 
conscience, are to ask for appropriate 
manifestations of grace:  éav QéAnre 
aitycace, ‘ask what ye will’. Petitions 
thus prompted by the indwelling word of 
Christ will necessarily be answered: 
Kal yevyoeTat tpiv.—Ver. 8. Further 
assurance of an answer is given in the 
fact that the yewpyds is glorified in the 
fruit-bearing branches: év tovrTw, ‘in 
this pre-eminently,” z.e., in your bearing 
much fruit, cf. vi. 29, 30, 40. So, rightly, 
Weiss and Holtzmann. For construction 
with tva see Burton on Subject, Pre- 
dicate and Appositive clauses introduced 
by tva.—éSofac8n 6 ratip pov, tva, etc. 
o0fdoGn, proleptic; cf., xiii. 31. The 
Father is glorified in everything which 
demonstrates that through Christ His 
grace reaches and governs men.—«at 
yevyoeode enol pabyrat, “and ye shall 
become my disciples”. The époi 
palynrai seems to mean: This is the 
relation you will hold to me, viz., that 
of discipleship. ‘‘ A Christian never ‘is,’ 
but always ‘is becoming’ a Christian. 


And it is bv his fruitfulness that he in- 
dicates his claim to the name.” Westcott. 

Vv. 9-17. The disciples ave urged to 
fulfil Christ's purposes in the world, and 
are assured that if they abide in the love of 
Christ they will receive all they need for 
Sruit-bearing.—Ver. 9. Kaas qyarnce 
.. . &sy. Love is the true bond which 
gives unity to the moral world, and in- 
spires discipleship. All that Christ 
experiences is the result of the Father’s 
love: all that the disciples are called to 
be and to do is the outcome of Christ’s 
love. This love of Christ was to be 
retained as their possession by their con- 
forming themselves to it: petvate év TH 
ayary TH €q, ‘abide in my love,” no 
longer ‘‘abide in me,” but specifically 
‘“‘in my love”. Abide in it, for there is 
a possibility of your falling away from 
its enjoyment and possession.—Ver, Io. 
That possibility is defeated, éav ras 
évtolds pov typyonte. To encourage 
them in keeping His commandments He 
reminds them that He also has been 
subject to the same conditions, and by 
keeping the Father’s commandments 
has remained in His love.—Ver. 11. 
The great joy of His life had been found 
in the consciousness of the Father’s love 
andin the keeping of Hiscommandments: 
this joy He desires that they may inherit, 
TavTa hehdAnka tty tva H yapa H en7 ev 
iptv petvy, “‘my joy,” z.e., the joy I have 
enjoyed, the joy which I habitually feel in 
accomplishing the Father’s will. This 
joy is not an incommunicable monopoly. 
—kal } xapa tp@v mAnpwlG, ‘and your 
joy be fuil,’’ which it could not be until 
they, like Him, had the spring of full joy 
in the consciousness of His love, and 
perfect obedience to Him; standing in 











8—-17. 
c ~ 
ipdas. 
attod ‘07 bwép Tav pitwy adtod. 
a eo 3 A > c a 
Toute Goa eyo évteANopar spiv. 


$idous, ott wdévta & jKouca * 


EYATTEAION 


Tapa Tou 


831 


13. peiLova tavtns dydany obdels exe tva Tes Thy puxhy 
14. pets’ pidor pou éore, edy i x. 11 refi. 
me 


~ , ~ 
OTe 6 SovAOS ObK OLdE TL TroLtet avTOU 


Mt. xii. 50 
odkére buds A€yw Soddous, 
6 ey bpas dé eipnka 


TaTpds pou, eden Ope. k vill 26, 


16. obx Gpets pe efeheacbe, GAN eyw efeheEduny 6 Spas, kat | €8nka | Acts xx. 


Spas, iva Gpets Smdynte kal Kapmov pepyte, kai 6 Kapmos Spay 
pevn: Wa & te Gy aitionte Tov matépa ™ 
17. TadtTa evTéANopat Gpiv, iva dyamare aNAvdous. 


bpiv. 


the same relation to Him as He to the 
Father.—Ver. 12. And that they might 
know definitely what His commandment 
(ver. 10) is, He says, atry .. . tpas. 
“This is my commandment, that ye 
love one another as I have loved you.” 
Perhaps they expected minute, detailed 
instructions such as they had received 
when first sent out (Matt. x.). Instead 
of this, love was to be their sufficient 
guide. Kaas Hyatnoa tpas.—His love 
was at once the source and the measure 
of theirs, In His love for them ty 
were to find the spring of love to one 
another, and were to become trans- 
parencies through which His love would 
shine.—Ver. 13. And that they might 
not underrate the measure of this 
exemplary love, He says, petlova TavTHS 
Gyarnv .. . avTov. Tavrns is  ex- 
plained by tva .. . avrod as in ver. 8; 
and does not directly mean ‘than this 
which I have shown and still show,” 
as understood by Westcott and White- 
law. It is a general statement, the 
application of which is suggested in ver. 
14. Self-sacrifice is the high water mark 
of love. Friends can demand nothing 
more: there is no more that love can do 
to exhibit devotedness to friends, cf. 
Rom. v. 6, 8, to. Ver. 14. Then comes 
the application: tpeis ... tpiv. “Ye 
are my friends, if ye do what I command 
you.” You may expect of me this 
greatest demonstration of love, and 
therefore every minor demonstration of 
it which your circumstances may re- 
quire, “if ye do,” etc. This condition 
was added not to chill and daunt, but to 
encourage: when you find how much 
suffering the completion of my work 
entails upon you, assure yourselves of 
my love. It is copartnery in work that 
will give you assurance that you are my 
friends.—Ver. 15. ‘‘ Friends’”’ who may 
expect all the good offices of their 
Friend, not ‘‘slaves,”’ is the character in 
which alone you can carry on my work: 


28, 1 Cor. 
xii. 28. I 
Tim. i. 12 
év TO dvépartt pou, 86 m xiv. 14. 


ovKért tpas Aéyw Sovdous - +» Upiv. 
The designation “slave” is no longer 
(ovxeér) appropriate, cf. xiii. 16 and Jas. 
IT baile etc. Lt isynot appropriate, 
because 6 Soddos ovK olde TL ToLet avTOU 
6 KuUptos “the slave knows not what his 
lord is doing,” he receives his allotted 
task but is not made acquainted with the 
ends his master wishes to serve by his 
toil (‘‘servus tractatur ut épyavov”’. 
Bengel). He is animated by no sym- 
pathy with his master’s purpose nor by 
any personal interest in what he is doing. 
Therefore “friends” is the appropriate 
designation, tpas Sé eipyKa dfdous, ‘ but 
I have called you friends”. Schoettgen 
quotes from Jalkut Rubeni, 164, ‘‘ Deus 
Israelitas prae nimio amore primo vocat 
servos, deinde filios, Deut. xiv. 1”. 
Other remarkable passages on God’s call- 
ing the Israelites ‘“ friends” are also cited 
by him im loc. For the peculiar use of 
eipnka, cf. x. 35 and 1 Cor. xii. 3; and for 
parallels in the classics, see Rose’s Park- 
hurst’s Lexicon. 61. wavta & HKovoa 
mapa Tov watpdés pov, éyvapica tpiv. 
Jesus had opened to them the mind of 
the Father in sending Him to the world, 
and as this purpose of the Father had 
commended itself to Jesus, and fired Him 
with the desire to fulfil it, so does He 
expect that the disciples will intelli- 
gently enter into His purposes, make 
them their own, and spend themselves 
on their fulfilment.—Ver. 16. ov y tpeis 
. .. tpiv. This is added to encourage 
them in taking up and prosecuting the 
work of Jesus. Euthymius says it is Ao 
TEKLT|PLoy TOV ExELy AUTOUS HlAovs EavToOd; 
but it is more. They are invited to de- 
pend on His will, not on their own. Th 

had not discovered Him, and attached 
themselves to Him, as likely to suit their 
purposes. ‘‘Itis not ye who chose me.” 
But ‘‘I chose you,” as a king selects his 
officers, to fulfil my purposes. Kai €0yKa 
tpas, ‘and I set (or, appointed) you,” cf. 
I Cor. xii. 28, Acts xx. 28, etc., see Con- 


832 


ni. 1s. 
01 Jo. iv. 5. , 

Jas. iv. 4. /-EPLON KEV. 
purep Acts 


a 


KATA [QANNHN 


XV. 


18. “El & xéopos pas picet, yweonere Ste ene “mpdtov budv 
19. “ei €k TOU Kdcpou FTE, 6 Kdopos dv Td WBrov epider 


v.41; ix. Ore B€ ek Tod Kdcpou odK éoté, GAN éyo efehedpny Spas ex Tod 


16; xxi. 
13, etc. ; 
évexev Mt. 
xix. 29. 
Lk. xxi. 
1a, etc. 
qix. 41; xix. 


rr. 1 Jo. METEPOY THPY}TOUTL. 


Reel 1.18, Td dvopd pou, OTe odK oldacr Tov méewpavTd pe. 


Mt. xxiii. 
13. 


cordance. The purpose of the appoint- 
ment is tva tpets vraynrte, ‘that you 
may go away” from me on your various 
missions, and thus (resuming the original 
figure of the vine and branches) Kaprov 
$épyre, may bear fruit in my stead, and 
supplied by my life. Or to express this 
purpose in a manner which reveals the 
source of their power to bear fruit, tva 6 
wt dy aityonte . . . S@ dpiv, see ver. 7, 
and xiv. 13.—Ver. 17. tTavra évré\Aopat 


ipiv. ‘These things” which I have 
now spoken “I enjoin upon you,” tva 


a&yarate adAyAous, “in order that ye 
may love one another”. 

Vv. 18-25. The relation of the disciples 
to the world.—Ver. 18. Et 6 xéopos... 
pepionnev, “Ifthe world hates you,” as it 
does (indicative);‘‘ the world” is contrasted 
with ‘‘one another” of ver. 17, with the 
disciples who were to love. y.vwoxere, 
“ye know,” or, if it be taken as an impera- 
tive, ‘‘ know ye,” that it has hated me, 
apatov upav, ‘before you,” and, as in 
i. 15 where also the superlative is found, 
not only “‘before”’ in point of time, but 
as the norm or prototype.—Ver. Ig. et é« 
... epithe, “If ye were of the world, 
the world would love [that which is] 
its own’’; not always the case, but 
generally. 67. 8é. .. 6 Kécpos, “but 
because ye are not of the world,” do not 
belong to it, and are not morally identi- 
fied with it, “‘ but I have chosen you out 
of the world, therefore the world hates 
you”. So that the hatred of the world, 
instead of being depressing, should be 
exhilarating, as being an evidence and 
guarantee that they have been chosen 
by Christ.—Ver. 20. pvnpovevete tod 
Adyou . . . avrov. vypovevere (from 
Pvypev, mindful), ‘ be mindful of,” some- 
times used pregnantly, as in 1 Thess. i. 
3; Gal. ii. t0; “the words which I said 
to you,” viz., in xiii. 16, and Mt. x. 24, 
25. The outcome of the principle is seen 
in) 2m, M01, and x Peter viva. 
That He should speak of them as 


kdopou, Std TodTo pucet Spas 6 Kdopos, 


~ ~ id A 
od éyd elroy Spiv, OdK Ete SodA0s pelLwv Tod Kupiou abtou. 


20. pynpovevete TOU Néyou 
ei pe 


eiwgav, Kal Spas SiwFouow et tov Adyov pou erHpyoav, Kal Tov 


21. GANA Tadta wdvta wouncouow Gpiv ” Bd 


22. ei ph HdOov 


-~ , a“ 
kal €ddynoa adtois, Sdpaptiay odx *elyov®: viv Sé * mpddacw odK 


‘servants’ so shortly after calling them 
“friends,” shows how natural and ap- 
propriate both designations are, how 
truly service characterises His friends, 
and how He must at all times be looked 
upon as Supreme Lord. ei épé éSiwtav 
-+ + THpyaovew. ‘If they persecuted 
me, you also will they persecute ; if they 
kept my word, yours too will they keep.” 
In so far as they are identified with Him, 
their experience will be identical with 
His. The attitude of the world does not 
alter. Bengel takes érjpyoav in a hostile 
sense, “‘ infensis modis observare,’’ refer- 
ring to Mt. xxvii. 36, but in John tay 
Aéyov typeiv is regularly used of “ ob- 
serving” in the sense of ‘“ keeping,” 
practising, see vili. 51, ix. 16, xiv. 23; 
1 John ii. 3, 4, 5, etc.; Apoc. i. 3, iii. 8, 
etc.—Ver. 21. adda. ‘ But” be not dis- 
mayed at persecution, for ‘all these 
things they will do to you for my name’s 
sake”. vtavtTa wavta seems to involve 
that details had been given (cf. Mt. x. 
16 ff.) which were omitted by the reporter; 
or that xvi. 2 had been already uttered ; 
or that John, writing when the persecu- _ 
tions of the Christians were vell known, 
uses ‘‘all these things’’ from his own 
point of view. 81a 73 Svopa pov. The 
efficacy of this consolation appears 
everywhere in the Apostolic age; Acts v. 
41; Phil. i, 29, and cf. Ramsay’s Church 
in the Roman Empire. The “name” of 
Christ was hateful to the world, é7Tt ov« 
otSac. Tov wépavTa pe. They did not 
believe He was sent, because they did 
not know the sender. Had they known 
God, they would have recognised Christ 
as sent by Him. Cf. vii. 28, v. 38, et 
pn WAGov . . . at’rav.—Ver. 22. “If I 
had not come and spoken to them,” as the 
revealer of the Father, ‘‘ they would not 
have sin,” they would still be ignorant ot 
the Father, but would not have incurred 
the guilt which attaches to ignorance 
maintained in the presence of light. 
éxetv 4paprlay is Johannine, see ver. 24° 








18—27. 


€xougt Tepi THs Gpaptias auTay. 
rou pucet. 


EYATTEAION 


23. 


24. eb Ta Epya pi) emoinoa ev avTots, d obSets GAAOS 


333 


Cyr ge yea 3. ~ \ a 
O CHE BPLOWY, KAL TOV Tatépa 


, e , > > 1 A Se Age , ‘ , = 
TETTOLH/ KEY, ALAPTLAyY OUK €LXOV™* VUVY OE KOL EWPAKAGL, KaL PEON -s xiv. 9. 


kKagu Kal éué Kal Toy TaTépa pour 25. GAN’ iva wAnpwO 6 Adyos 6 


yeypappevos ev Ta vopw attdv, ‘*°Or. épionody pe Swpedy.’ 


26. t Ps. xxxv. 
19; lxix. 4. 


“Orav S€ €hOy 6 “ TapdKAnTos, by eyo wep yw Spiv mapa Tod Tatpds, u xiv. 16. 


To veda THs GAnOcias, 6 Y mapa Tod Tatpds * exmopeveTat, EKEivos v More freq. 


PapTupioer Trepi €pod* 27. kal pets S€ paptupeite, OT. dm dpxijs 


pet €u.00 eore. 
1 exyooav in NB; esxow in AD?, 


xix. If; I John i. 8. wiv 8 mpddacww 
ovK ExovgL Tept THS Gpaptias aitTay. 
“But now,” as I have come, ‘“ they have 
no excuse for,” etc., rpédacry, cf. Ps. cx. 
4: “Incline not my heart mpogacileo Oat 
mpchaces év Gpaptiats .—Ver. 23. In 
hating me, they hate my Father whom I 
represent, 6 éué pioav .. . poet. In 
hating and persecuting me, it is God 
they hate.—-Ver. 24. ei ta épya... 
ovx etxov. This repeats in a slightly 
varied form the statement of ver. 
22. He had not only come and 
spoken, but had done works which 
none other had done, cf. iii, 2; 
ix. 32; vil. 31. The miracles wrought 
by Christ were themselves of a kind 
fitted to produce faith. In them men 
were meant to see God, v. 17, 19, 20. 
So that He could say, viv 8 kal €wpaxact 
... pov. This is their guilt, that they 
have both seen and hated both me and 
my Father. This does not imply that 
they had been conscious of seeing the 
Father in Christ, but only that in point 
of fact they had done so. Cf. xiv. 9; i. 
18.—Ver. 25. This almost incredible 
blindness and obduracy is accounted for, 
as in xii. 37, by the purpose of God dis- 
closed in O.T. Scripture. ‘‘ Their law” 
is here, as in x. 34, etc., used of O.T. 
Scripture as a whole. awry is inserted, 
as tpetépw in viii. 17, to suggest that the 
very Scripture in which they had prided 
themselves would condemn them; see 
also v. 45, v.39. The words épionoav pe 
Swpedv do not occur in O.T.; but similar 
expressions are found in Ps, xxxiv. 19, 
ot piootytés pe Swpedv, and cviii. 3, 
érroh¢unodyv pe Swpeav. Entirely gratui- 
tous was their hatred and rejection of 
Christ, so that they were inexcusable, 
Ver. 26—xvi. 11. The conquest of 
the world by the Spirit.—Ver. 26. But 
the work of the Apostles was not to be 
wholly fruitless, nor was their experience 


with ex; 
cp. xvi. 28. 


to be wholly comprised in fruitless perse- 
cution. “Orav 8 €\Oy . . . wept épod. 
The Spirit of Truth will witness concern- 
ing me. The Spirit is here designated, 
as in xiv. 16, ‘‘the Paraclete,’’ and the 
Spirit of Truth. There, and in xiv. 26, 
it is the Father who is to give and send 
Him in Christ’s name: here it is év éyo 
Tépiyw Tapa TOU watpéds, as if the Spirit 
were not only dwelling with the Father, 
but could only be sent out from the 
Father as the source of the sending. 
This is still further emphasised in the 
added clause, 6 rapa tov marpos éxrropev- 
erat. To define the mode of being of 
the Spirit, or His essential relation to the 
Father, would have been quite out of 
place in the circumstances. ‘These words 
must be understood of the mission of the 
Spirit. What the disciples needed to 
know was that He came out from the 
Father, and of this they are here assured. 
éxelvos paptupyae. mepi épov, ‘ He,” 
that person thus elaborately described, 
who is truth and who comes out from 
Him who sent me, ‘will witness con- 
cerning me”.—Ver. 27. Kat tpets 82 
paptupette, ‘‘and do ye also witness,” 
or, if indicative, ‘‘and ye also witness”. 
Most prefer the indicative. ‘The dis- 
ciples were already the witnesses which 
they were to be in the future.” Meyer. 
This agrees with the éore following. 
They were able to act as witnesses Ott 
am’ apx7s peT €n00 éote, ‘‘ because from 
the beginning,” of the Messianic activity, 
“ye are with me”. The present, éore, is 
natural as Jesus is looking at their entire 
fellowship with Him, and that was 
still continuing. Cf. Mk. iii. 14, érroinoe 
Sadexa, tva dor per’ avrod ; also Acts i. 
21, iv. 13.—CHAPTER XVI. ver. 1. 
Tatra AeAdAnka tpiv, I have warned 
you of persecution, and have told you of 
the encouragements you will have, 
wa pn oxavdadtobqre, ‘that ye be not 


53 


334 


a Mt. xi. 6. 


KATA IQANNHN 


XVl 


XVI. 1. “Tadra eAdAnKa Spyir, va ph *oxavdadtobyre. 2. 


bix.22; xii. dmoouvaydyous Toijrouow bpds* GAN Epxetar dpa, “iva was 6 


42. 


cxii.23 ‘cp. drrokteivas Spas, Sd§ Aatpelay mpoodpepew TH Oca. 


Vv. 25 


woujrouow bpiv, Ste odK Eyvwoor toy matépa odde pe. 


3. kal TadTa 


4. &dda 


radra NeAddynKa Spiv, iva Stav EAOy F Spa, pynpovednte adtav, Ste 


dvi. 64 only; €y® elov Gui: tadTa Sé iptv °€& apyfs obx elroy, Ste ped” Spay 


Cp. XV. 27. » 


Apa. 


> a ° ee eee 
e xiii. 36. €pwTad pe, “Nou umayeis ; 
Ada TeTANpwKev Spdv Thy Kapdiav. 
fxiso;  déyw Spiv, ‘ouppéper Spiv iva ey drédOw. 
XVili. T4. 


staggered,” or stumbled, i.¢., that the 
treubles that fall upon you may not in- 
duce you to apostatise. See Thayer 
and Parkhurst, and Wetstein on Mt. v. 
29. Cf. also Mt. xi. 6.—Ver. 2. amoovuv- 
aydyous Toingovety tas. For the word 
amoovuv. see ix. 22, xii. 42; “they will 
put you out of their synagogues,” they 
will make you outcasts from their syna- 
gogues, AX’, “yea,” or ‘yea more” ; 
used in this sense Rom. vii. 7, 2 Cor. vii. 
II, where it occurs six times. Cf. Acts 
xix. 2.—€pyerat ... Oe. Epxerat dpa 
iva, cf. xii. 23, €AjAvOev 4 Gpa twa... 
and Burton, Moods and Tenses, 216, on 
the complementary limitation by tva of 
nouns signifying set time, etc. And for 
mwas 6 amoxtetvas, the aorist indicating 
those ‘‘ who once do the act the single 
doing of which is the mark of the class,” 
see Burton, 124, cf. 148.—86&y Aarpeiav 
mpoodépev, “may think that he offers 
sacrificial service”. Aarpeta is used in 
Exod. xii. 25, etc., of the Passover ; 
apparently used in a more general sense 
in t Macc. ii. I9, 22; and defined by 
Suicer ‘‘quicquid fit in honorem et 
cultum Dei,’ and by Theophylact as 
Qeapeotov épyov, a work well pleasing 
to God. Cf. Rom. xii. 1. Meyer and 
others quote the maxim of Jewish 
fanaticism, “‘ Omnis effundens sanguinem 
improborum aequalis est illi qui sacri- 
ficium facit”.—Ver. 3. This fanatical 
blindness is traced to its source, as in 
xv. 21, to their ignorance of God and of 
Christ: kat tavta...éyé. And He 
forewarns them that they might not be 
taken unawares.—Ver. 4. a@AAa TavTa 
... tptv. This repeats ver. 1, but He 
mow adds an explanation of His silence 
up to this time regarding their future: 
TavTaSétpiv ... pny. efapyqns=am’ 
apx7s of xv. 27, Holtzmann. If there is 
a difference, €& apx7s indicates rather 


5. viv Sé bmdyw mpds Tov méppovTd pe, Kai oddeis Ef dpdv 
6. GAN Ste Taira NekaAnKa bpty, F 


7. @AN eyh thy ddnberav 
éav yap pi arehOw, 


6 tapdkAntos ovK éevoeTat mpos bpas: éay de Tropev0G, ményw 


the point of time (cf. its only other 
occurrence, vi. 64) while am’ apyxjjs in- 
dicates continuity. The fact of the 
silence has been disputed: but no 
definite and full intimations have hitherto 
been given of the future experience of 
the Apostles, as representing an absent 
Lord. The reason of His silence was 
Ste peO” dpov Hpny, “ because I was with 
you”. While He was with them they 
leant upon Him and could not apprehend 
a time of weakness and of persecution. 
See Mt. ix. 15.—Ver. 5. wiv 82, “but 
now,” in contrast to é apyqs, trdyw, 
“TI go away,” in contrast to pe® tpov 
Wpny, mpos ... pe, “to Him that sent 
nie,’’ as one who has discharged the duty 
committed to Him. kal ovdeis €& tpav 
... Umayets, “and no one of you asks 
me, Where are you going?” They 
were so absorbed in the thought of His 
departure and its consequences of bereave- 
ment to themselves that they had failed 
to ascertain clearly where He was going. 
GAN Ste. . . KapSiav. The consequence 
of their absorption in one aspect of the 
crisis which He had been explaining t 

them was that grief had filled their heart 
to the exclusion of every other feeli g. 
Cf. xiv. 28.—Ver. 7. GAN éyo... 
aré\Ow. “ But,” or ‘ nevertheless I tell 
you the truth,” I who see the whole e ent 
tell you “it is to your advantage” and 
not to your loss “that I goaway”’. This 
statement, incredible as it seemed to the 
disciples, He justifies: éav yap py awehOw 
... spas. The withdrawal of the bodily 
presence of Christ was the essential con- 
dition of His universal spiritual presence. 
—Ver. 8. Kat éA@dv éxeivos . . . “and 
when He” (with some emphasis, “ that 
person”) “has come, He will reprove,’ 
or as in R.V., “convict the world” 

‘“‘ Reprove,” reprobare, to rebut or refute, 
as in Henry VI., iii., 1. 40, ‘‘ Reprove n0 





F 





I—I3. 


EYATTEAION 


835 


autov mpds Spas: 8. Kat eOdy éxetvos © ehéyfer Tov Kécpov ep) viii. 46. 1 


, 
Gpaptias kat mept Sikavocdvns Kat tepi Kpiceus. 


Cor. xiv. 


Nie , 
9. TEPL GWAPTLAS 24. 


peév, StL of morevougw eis ene IO. Tepl Sixarocuvns dé, OT. mpds 


Tov Tatépa pou tmdyw, Kal odx Ett Oewpetté pe. 


, A 
Kpicews, StL "6 Apxwv Tod Kdopou ToUTOU KéKpiTat. 


ttl 


12. 


Gpti* 13. Grav Sé EAOn exetvos, TS Tvedpa THs dAnOetas, ) 68yyjoer 
Spas eis waoav thy GAnOerav!- od yap Aadnoe. dd Eaurod, &AN’ 


Ere wokha éxw eye Gpiv, aAN od Sivacbe *Baotdlew 2. 


II. wept Seh xii. 51. 
i Rev. ii. 2. 
Mt. xx. 12 
1 Cor. iii 


j xiv. 26. 
Acts viii. 
31. Mt. 
xv. I4. 


1 ev ty adnfera macy in NDL, possibly originating in the common occurrence of 
oSnyewv with dative in Sept., see Ps. xxv. 5. 


allegation if you can,” is no longer used 
mthissense. The verb éAéy&er expresses 
the idea of pressing home a conviction. 
The object of this work of the Spirit is 
““the world” as opposed to Christ; and 
the subjects regarding which (aept) the 
convictions are to be wrought are “ sin, 
righteousness and judgment”. Regard- 
ing these three great spiritual facts, new 
ideas are to be borne in upon the human 
mind by the spirit—vVer. 9. In detail, 
new convictions trept adpaptias are to be 
wrought, StL ov mioTevovow eis ene. 
Each of the three clauses introduced by 
é7t is in apposition with the foregoing 
substantive, and is explanatory of the 
ground of the conviction, ‘‘ Concerning 
sin, because they do not believe on me”’. 
Unbelief will be apprehended to be sin. 
The world sins “‘ because” it does not 
believe in Christ, i.c., the world sins 
inasmuch as it is unbelieving, cf. iii, 18, 
19,363; xv.22. qept Sixaroovyns be... 
‘“« And concerning righteousness, because 
I go to my Father and ye see me no 
longer.”” The world will see in the 
exaltation of Christ proof of His right- 
eousness [8txkatov yap yvepicpa 7d 
mwopeverOar mpos tov Bedv Kal ovvei- 
vat avT@, Euthymius] and will accord- 
ingly cherish new convictions regard- 
ing righteousness. The clause kai ovK 
ért Gewpeité pe is added to exhibit 
more clearly that it was a spiritual 
and heavenly life He entered upon in 
going to the Father; and possibly to re- 
mind them that the invisibility which 
they lamented was the evidence of 
His victory.—Ver. 11. wept 8& kpicews, 
“‘and concerning judgment (between sin 
and righteousness, and between Christ 
and the prince of this world, xii. 31, 
xiv. 30), because the ruler of this world 
has been judged,” or “is judged”’, The 
distinction between sin and righteous- 
ness was, under the Spirit’s teaching, to 


become absolute. In the crucifixion of 
Christ the influences which move worldly 
men—6 Gpxwv Tov kdopov—were finally 
condemned. The fact that worldliness, 
blindness to the spiritually excellent, led 
to that treatment of Christ, is its con- 
demnation. The world, the prince of it, 
is ‘‘ judged”. To adhere to it rather than 
to Christ is to cling to a doomed cause, 
a sinking ship. 

Vv. 12-15. The Spirit will complete 
the teaching of Fesus,—Ver. 12. “Ett 
woAAG exw Aeyerv div, “I have yet 
many things to say to you”’; after all I 
have said much remains unsaid. There 
is, then, much truth which it is desirable 
that Christians know and which yet was 
not uttered by Christ Himself. His 
words are not the sole embodiment of 
truth, though they may be its sole cri- 
terion. GAX’ ov Svvace Baoralet apt, 
‘“but you cannot bear them now,”’ there- 
fore they are deferred ; truth can be 
received only by those who have al- 
ready been prepared for its reception. 
“Tis the taught already that profit by 
teaching ’’ (Ecclus. iii. 7; 1 Cor. iii. 15 
Heb. v. 11-14). The Resurrection and 
Pentecost gave them new strength and 
new perceptions. Baordlewv, similarly 
used in 2 Kings xvii. 14, 6 éav émOqs 
ém’ éne, Baotdow. To those who wish to 
become philosophers Epictetus gives the 
advice, “Av@pwie, oxépar th Stvacat 
Bacraoan (Diss. iii. 15, Kypke).—Ver. 13. 
What was now withheld would after- 
wards be disclosed, 6tav . . . adyOetav. 
The Spirit would complete the teach- 
ing of Christ and lead them “ into all 
the truth”. é8nyjoer tpas “ shall lead 
you,” ‘‘as a guide leads in the way, by 
steady advance, rather than by sudden 
revelation”. Bernard. This function 
of the Spirit He still exercises. It is the 
Church at large He finally leads into all 
truth through centuries of error, ov yap 


8 36 


KATA IQANNHN 


XVI. 


Soa Gv dxotoy Aadjoe, Kal TA épxdpeva dvayyehel dpiv. 14. 


k i. 16. exeivos éue Sofdcer, Str ek TOO Epod AnPerar, Kal dvayyedet piv. 

15. mdvra doa éxet 6 mathp, end €or Sid todro elwov, St. “ ex Tod 

ivii.33; pod Arperat,! Kal dvayyedet Spiv. 16. \Mixpdv Kal ob? Oewpeité 
Xiii. 33. 


‘ s N ae] r) a ¢ ak ey, Pe N N t 
PE, Kat wad petKpov KQaL oer € BE, OTL EYW UTTAYW TPOS TOY TraTEpa. 


3 


17. Elrov odv éx tev palytay aditod mpds GAAHous, “ Ti éote TodTO 


& dyer piv, Mexpov xal ob Oewpeité pe, Kat mad puxpdoy Kat 


1 KapBaver in BDEG adopted by Tr.Ti.W.H.R, 


* ovxette in NBD 33. 


* This clausé ort . . 
Tr. Ti.W.H.R. 
this may be a reminiscence of ver. Io. 


Aadyjoe.... tiv, “for He shall not 
speak from Himself, but whatever He 
shall have heard He will speak, and the 
things that are coming He will announce 
to you’’. This is the guarantee of the 
truth of the Spirit’s teaching, as of 
Christ’s, vii. 17, xiv. 10. What the Father 
tells Him, He will utter. Particularly, 
Ta épxdpeva avayyedet tpiv, “the things 
that are coming He will declare to you”. 
7a épxépeva means ‘the things that are 
now coming,” not ‘the things which at 
any future stage of the Church’s history 
may come”. It might include the events 
of the succeeding day, but in this case 
avayyedet could not be used; for al- 
though these events might require to 
be explained, they did not need to be 
“announced’’, The promise must there- 
fore refer to the main features of the 
new Christian dispensation. The Spirit 
would guide them in that new economy 
in which they would no longer have the 
visible example and help and counsel of 
their Master. It is not a promise that 
they should be able to predict the future. 
[‘‘ Maxime huc_ spectat apocalypsis, 
scripta per Johannem.” Bengel.}] In 
enabling them to adapt themselves to 
the new economy the centre and norm 
would be Christ.—Ver. 14. éxeivos épeé 
Sdtacer, “He will glorify me”. The 
fulfilment of this promise is found in 
every action and word of the Apostles. 
Under the Spirit’s guidance they lived 
wholly for Christ: the dispensation of 
the Spirit was the Christian dispensation. 
This is further explained in 6tt é« Tow 
é€uov AnwWerar ... “because He shall 
take of that which is mine, and declare 
it unto you”. The Spirit draws from no 
other source of information or inspira- 
tion. It is always ‘‘out of that which 
is Christ’s’’ He furnishes the Church. 


. warepa is not found in S¥BDL, and is deleted by 
It seems to have been inserted because of ver. 17, last clause ; but 


So only could He glorify Christ. Not 
by taking the Church beyond Christ, 
but by more fully exhibiting the fulness 
of Christ, does He fulfil His mission.— 
Ver. 15. There is no need that the Spirit 
go beyond Christ and no possibility He 
should do so, because wavta Soa éxer 6 
Narip épa éort, “all things whatsoever 
the Father has are mine,” cf. xvii. 10 
and xiii. 3; 1 Cor. xv. 24-28; Heb. ii. 8. 
The Messianic reign involved that Christ 
should be truly supreme and haye all 
things at His disposal. So that when 
He said that the Spirit would take of 
what was His, that was equivalent to 
saying that the Spirit had the unlimited 
fulness of the Godhead to draw upon. 
Vv. 16-22. The sorrow, occasioned by 
Christ's departure turned into joy at His 
return.—Ver, 16. Mukpov kai ov Sewpetré 
pe Kal adv pLKpov Kal GWeoGd pe. The 
first ‘‘little while” is the time till the 
following day; the second “little while,” 
the time till the resurrection, when they 
would see Him again. The similar 
expression of xiv. 19 has induced 
several interpreters to understand our 
Lord as meaning, “Ye shall see me 
spiritually ” ; thus Bernard says: ‘‘ The 
discrimination in the verbs employed 
affords sufficient guidance, and leads us 
to interpret as follows. A little while (it 
was but a few hours), and then ‘ ye be- 
hold me no longer’ (odKért Oewpeire pe) ; 
I shall have passed from the visible 
scene, and from the observation of spec- 
tators (that is the kind of seeing which 
the verb intends). ‘ Again, a little while’ 
(of but little longer duration), and ‘ ye 
shall see me’ (6eoOé pe), with another 
kind of seeing, one in which the natural 
sight becomes spiritual vision.” This 
distinction, however, is not maintained in 
xiv. Ig.—Ver. 17. Elmwow otv éx Tov 








14—23. 


dWeoG pe ; 


> “ec A sms) < , X a 
ouv, “*° ToutTo Tt €oTiv 0 héyet, TO [LLKPOY ; 


EYATTEAION 


Aha PIV x a 2 ” 
kal, OT. éyw Umdyw pos Tov Tatépa ; 


837 


18. "EXeyov 


ovk oldapev TL Nadel.” 


I ae ee 2) esl ake 46 \ a0aN 2 a \ 4 aA 
Q- yv@ ouv Oo Ingous OTL VEAOY GUTOV EpwTar, KQL ELTTEV QUTOLS, 


‘ a > 
“Tlept tovtou {yrette pet GAAiAwY, OTL eEttrov, Mikpdv Kal ov 


Bewpetté pe, Kal TaAW piKpoy Kal OperOE pe ; 


20. Guny dpny héyw 


uty, Or. ™KAadoete kal Opyvycete Gets, 6 S€ Kdopos XapyoeTat *m Mk. xvi. 


10, 


pets 8€ AuTyPycecbe, GAN  AdTH Sudv "eis Yapav yevyoeTar. n Acts v. 36 


21. H yuvh Stay tixtyn, AUTHy Exel, Str °HAOEv HY Gpa adtTAs* Stay 1. 
S€ yevvyjon Td Tradlovy, odK Ett pynpoveder THs OAipews, Sid Thy 
Xapav, ott. éyevynOn avOpwios els Tov Kdcpor. 


Rev. viii. 


0 ii. 4. 


Nae oa) > 
22. KL UMELS OUV 


Abmny pev viv exeTe- mad S€ dpouar bpds, kal xapyoerar buay 7 


kapdia, kal Thy xapdy Guay oddeis aiper! dd’ Spay. 


1 apes, future, in BD*F, vulg. “ tollet”’. 


pa@ntav avtov. A pause is implied; 
during which some of the disciples 
(rwwés understood, as in vii. 40; see 
Simcox, Gram. of N.T., p. 84) expressed 
to one another their bewilderment. They 
were alarmed, but could not attach their 
alarm to any definite object of dread.— 
Ver. 19. Jesus, perceiving their embar- 
rassment, and that they wished to inter- 
rogate Him—6tu 7Oedov attov épwrgv— 
said to them: [lept tovrov ... ‘‘ Are 
you inquiring among yourselves ? ’’—per’ 
GAAyAwvy, not as in ver. 17, ‘™pos 
a@AAnAovs, “about this that I said,” etc. ? 
—Ver. 20. Guynv ... Sti kAavoere Kal 
Opynvycete tpets, “ye shall weep and 
lament”; @pynvéw is commonly used of 
lamentation for the dead, as in Jer. xxi. 
10, py KAalete TOV TeOvynkdTa, prydé 
Opynvetre avtrév; 2 Sam. i. 17; Mt. xi. 
17; Lk. vii.32. Here it is weeping and 
lamentation for the dead that is meant. 
6 S€ Kécpos xapricetar, but while you 
mourn, the world shall rejoice, as achiev- 
ing a triumph over a threatening enemy. 
tpets 5 AuwnOyoeoOe, ‘and ye shall be 
sorrow-stricken, but your sorrow shall 
become joy”. Cf. aad wévOous eis xapav, 
Esth. ix. 22, and especially xx. 20, éxapy- 
oay ot paOnral idovres TOV Kiptov.—Ver. 
21. He adds an illustration of the manner 
in which anxiety and dread pass into joy : 
 yvvy ‘‘the woman,” the article is 
generic, cf. 6 Soddos, xv. 15, Meyer, érav 
vixty, ‘when she brings forth,’ Avanyv 
. .. avras, ‘hath sorrow because her 
hour ”’—the critical or appointed time of 
her delivery— is come”. The woman 
in travail is the common figure for 
terror-stricken anguish in O.T.: Ps. 
xlviii. 6; Jer. iv. 31; vi. 24, etc. Srav 


> 


23. Kai é& 
atper in RACD?2LN. 


Se yevvyoy TO Twatdiov ... “ but when 
the child is born, she no longer remem- 
bers the distress, for the joy that a man 
is born into the world ”. The comparison, 
so far as explicitly used by our Lord in ver. 
22, extends only to the sudden replace- 
ment of sorrow with joyin both cases. But 
a comparison of Is. lxvi. 7-9, Hos. xiii. 13, 
and other O.T. passages, in which the 
resurrection of a new Israel is likened 
to a difficult and painful birth, warrants 
the extension of the metaphor to the 
actual birth of the N.T. church in the 
resurrection of Christ. . Cf. Holtzmann. 
—Ver. 22. Kat tpeis ... tpaov, “and 
you accordingly,” in keeping with this 
natural arrangement conspicuous in the 
woman’s case, ‘‘have at present sorrow”’. 
This is the time when the results are 
hidden and only the pain felt: ‘‘ but I will 
see you again and your heart shall 
rejoice and your joy no one takes from 
you”. This joy was felt in the renewed 
vision of their Lord at the Resurrection. 
‘*All turns on the Resurrection; and 
without the experiences of that time there 
would have been no beholding Christ in 
the Spirit.’’ Bernard. 

Vv. 23-28. Future accessibility of the 
Father.—Ver. 23. wal év éxelvy TH Hepa, 
‘‘and in that day” of the Resurrection 
and the dispensation it introduces, see 
xiv. 20, in contrast to this present time 
when you wish to ask me questions, ver. 
19, ‘‘ ye shall not put any questions to 
me”. Cf. xxi. 12. He was no longer 
the familiar friend and visible teacher to 
whom at any moment they might turn. 
But though this accustomed intercourse 
terminated, it was only that they might 
learn a more direct communion with the 


838 


exeivy TH Hpépa ene ok epwrijcete obdéy. 


KATA LQANNHN 


XVI. 


*Apiy dpi héyw bytv, 


étt doa av aitionte tov tatépa ev TO dvduarti 8d jpiv.t 
t Soa ay airyonte Tt tépa €v TO dvdpati pou, Sacer Spiv. 


: ; Pp ° bal > > , > ‘ nm , , . q > Lal 
pii, 10. Mt. 24. P€ws dpt odk ytHoate obdey ev TO dvduari pou: Saireire, Kal 


xi. 12. Z 
q Mt. vii. 7. ANpeae, tva  xapa Spay 7 
r ii. 7-30. 
8 Ver. 29. 
Prov. i. 1. 


" reTANpwpery. 


25. Tavta év * rapo.- 


piats AehdAnka Spiv: GAN’ Epxerar dpa ‘bre odK Ete €y Taporptars 


Ecclus. AaAHow Spiv, GAG “wappyoia wept tod matpds dvayyehO” Spiv. 


xl vii. 17. , in A , 
Cp. Hatch, 26. év éxeivy TH Hpépa év TO dvdpati pou aitnoedbe> Kal ob éyw 
Essays, p. ¢ a ° Sia os , Q , Ai Meo en a) 6 N ec 
64. dpiy OTe €yo épwrngw tov matépa wept budv: 27. adtds yap 6 
OAL 


a x. 24. 


4 X m”" e€ aA o c leg > 4 hn 4 , ¢ 
TaTy Pp gu EL UWS, OTL UMELS EME Tepe KATE, KAL TETLOTEUKATE OTL 


1 Swoet vay before ev Tw ovopati pov in NBC*LX. T.R. in AC*D, it. vulg. Cp. 


tiv. 13, 14. 


2 For the avayyeAw of EGH amayyedw is read in ABC*D, while ¥ reads 


amayyediw. 


Father: apnv... 80c0e tpiv. The 
connection is somewhat obscure. The 
words may either be taken in connection 
with those immediately preceding, in 
which case they intimate that the in- 
formation they can no longer get from a 
present Christ they will receive from the 
Father: or they may begin a distinct 
paragraph and introduce a fresh subject, 
the certainty of prayer being heard.— 
Ver. 24. €ws Apri ovk ytyWoaTeE ovdey ev T. 
. .. “Until now ye have asked nothing 
in my name.” They had not yet realised 
that it was through Christ and on the 
lines of His work all God’s activity 
towards man and all man’s prayer to 
God were to proceed.—aireire... 
mem npwpevy, ‘ ask and ye shall receive, 
that your joy may be full,” or “‘ fulfilled,” 
or ‘‘completed’”’. The joy they were 
to experience on seeing their Lord 
again, ver. 22, was to be completed 
by their continued experience of the 
efficacy of His name in prayer. Prayer 
must have been rather hindered by 
the visible presence of a_ sufficient 
helper, but henceforth it was to be the 
medium of communication between the 
disciples and the source of spiritual 
power.—Ver. 25. Another great change 
would characterise the economy into 
which they were passing. Instead of 
dark figurative utterances which only 
dimly revealed things spiritual, direct 
and intelligible disclosures regarding the 
Father would be made to the disciples: 
Tavita év wapotpiat .. . Upiv. amap- 
ousta. See x. 6; “dark sayings” or 
“riddles” expresses what is here meant. 
It is opposed to rappyoia, open, plain, 
easily intelligible, meant to be under- 
stood. He does not refer to particular 
utterances, such as xv. I, xvi. 21, etc. 


but to the reserved character of the 
whole evening’s conversation, and of all 
His previous teaching. ‘The promise 
is that the reserve imposed by a yet un- 
finished history, by a manifestation in 
the flesh, by the incapacity of the hearers, 
and by their gradual education, will then 
be succeeded by clear, full, unrestricted 
information, fitted to create in those who 
receive it that ‘full assurance of under- 
standing’ which contributes so largely to 
the ‘full assurance of faith’.”” Bernard. 
mept Tov watpds, the Father is the 
central theme of Christ’s teaching, both 
while on earth and above.—Ver. 26. év 
éxelvy TH Hepa. ‘‘In that day,” in 
which I shall tell you plainly of the 
Father (ver. 25, €pxetat @pa), ‘ye shall 
ask in my name’’; this is the natural 
consequence of their increased knowledge 
ofthe Father. kal od Aéyw . . . e& Pov 
“‘And I do not say to you that I will ask 
the Father concerning you”—ept, al- 
most equivalent to tmép, here and in 
Matt. xxvi. 28; 1 John iv. ro, ‘in rela- 
tion to,” almost “tin behalf of ”’—(ver. 27) 
‘for the Father Himself loves you, be- 
cause ye have loved me, and have 
believed that I came forth from God”. 
The intention of the statement is to 
convey fuller assurance that their prayers 
will be answered. The Father’s love 
needs no prompting. Yet the interces- 
sion of Christ, so emphatically presented 
in the Epistle to the Hebrews and in 
Rom. vili. 34, is not ignored. Jesus says: 
“‘T do not base the expectation of answer 
solely on my intercession, but on the Fa- 
ther’s love, a love which itself is quick- 
ened and evoked by your love for me”. 
‘I do not say that I will ask”? means 
“I do not press this,” ‘‘I do not bring 
this forward as the sole reason why you 











24—33. 


28. 


éyh "mapa tod Geod! e&HOov. 


EYATTEAION 


839 


efi hOov "apa tod maps,” v See crit. 
note. 


kat é€d\nhuba eis tov Kdcpov: médwy "dinpt tov Kéopoy, Kai wiv. 3. 


Topevopar mpos Tov Tratepa.” 


im A »” a A 
29. A€youvowy abt of padytat attod, “"ISe viv? mappyoia Aadets, 


kat *Tapousiav ovdepiav Neyets. 


30. 


, A Se 
cal od xpelay exets Yiva tis oe epwtd. *év toUTw moTEvopey STL Joan ay. 
p. He 


Gd Qed ef Oes.” 


TEVETE ; 


ite Exaotos eis Ta SidLa, Kal Ee povoy dite: Kai SodK ei 


povos, ott 6 wathp pet pod eote. 
A 

év él eipyyny ExnTe. 

Pe en , x , oP) 

dy *veviknka Tov Kdopov. 


31. AmexpiOn adtots 6 ‘Inaods, “"Aptt mo- 
32. iSov, epxetar dpa kat viv* edydudev, *iva » oxopmo- 


> A ’ , ey 5. 2 . A 
év TO Kdopw Oip efete>- GANG Oapceite, 5. 


viv oidapey Ott oldas marta, * ver. 25. 
yii.25. 1 


Heb. 
Vv. 12. 
z 1 Jo.iii.19; 
iv. 2. 
, a ver. 2. 
Ub x: 12. 
C/X1X:/ 27. 


33- Tabta AehGAnKka Gptv, tva d viii. 16, 29. 


e1Jo.v. 4, 
Rev. 
li. 21. 


1 qatpos is read by W.H.R. following NcaBC*D. Geov is found in \*AC3, it. vulg. 
2 T.R. in NAC?, ex in BC*L 33. ex follows e&nAOov in viii. 42; ao in ver. 30, 


Xiil. 3, XVi. 30; mapa in ver. 27 and in xvil. 8. 


ex conveys the idea of origin, wapa 


of starting point, azo of the agency of the sender. 
5 ev with BCD nowhere else in John with Aadew, but in Ep. pera is used in 


Acts. 


4 vuv deleted by Tr. Ti.W.H.R. following RABC*D*L 33. 


5 exete in NABCL, etc. 


may expect to be heard’’. The mediation 
of Christ has here its incidence at an earlier 
stage than in the Apostolic statements. 
The love of God is represented as intensi- 
fied towards those who have accepted 
Christ as the revealer of the Father.—Ver. 
28. é&\Oov...warépa. “I came forth 
from the Father and am come into the 
world; again (reversing the process) I leave 
the world and go tothe Father.”’ There is 
a sense in which any man can use these 
words, but it is a loose not an exact 
sense. The latter member of the sentence 
—‘‘I leave the world and go to the 
Father ”—gives us the interpretation of 
the former—‘ I came forth,” etc. For to 
say ‘‘I leave the world” is not the same 
as to say “I go to the Father’’; this 
second expression describes a state of 
existence which is entered upon when 
existence in this world is done. And to 
say ‘‘I came forth from the Father” is 
not the same as to say ‘‘I am come into 
the world”’: it describes a state of 
existence antecedent to that which began 
by coming into the world. 

Vv. 29-33. Last words.— Ver. 209. 
The Lord’s last utterance, vv. 25-28, the 
disciples find much more explicit than His 
previous words: “lS viv mappyoia 
Aakeis, ‘‘ Behold, now (at length) Thou 
speakest plainly,” explicitly, kat mapor- 
pilav ovdepniav Adyets, ‘and utterest no ob- 


scure Saying,” ver. 25. Almost univers- 
ally viv, in vv. 29, 30, is understood to 
denote the present time 7” contrast to the 
future promised in ver. 25. As if the 
disciples meant: ‘‘Already Thou speakest 
plainly ; we do not need to wait for that 
future time’’. It seems simpler to take 
it as signifying a contrast to the past 
time in which He had spoken in dark 
sayings. — Ver. 30. viv otdcpey ... 
épwtg. The reference is to ver. 19, 
where they manifested dissatisfaction 
with the obscurity of His utterances. 
Here in ver. 30 two things are stated, 
that Jesus has perfect knowledge, otSas 
awayrTa, and that He knows how to com- 
municate it, od xpeiav éxers tva Tis oe 
épwra. Convinced that He possessed 
these qualifications, they felt constrained 
to accept Him as a teacher come from 
God, év tovrw (‘‘ herein,” or “by this,” 
ék tovrov in modern Greek version) 
miorevonev STt aro Oeov e&HOes, cf. iii. 
2.—Ver. 31. To this enthusiastic con- 
fession Jesus makes the sobering and 
pathetic reply: “Aptt morevete; Do 
ye now believe that I am God’s Re- 
presentative ? Is this your present at- 
titude? ti80d, eEpxerat Spa Kai viv 
eAyAv0ev, ‘ Behold, the hour is coming 
and is come,’ so imminent is it that 
the perfect may be used.—iva oxopmic- 
Ojte... abate. Cf. 1 Macc. vi. 54 


840 


axi.4r. 1 
Chron. 
xxi. 16, 
Is. xiv. 14. 

b Witl 
gen. ot a 


KATA IQANNHN 


‘ 
Sdtaodv aou Tov uldv, tva Kat 


XVII. 


XVII. 1. TAYTA €Addynoev 6 “Inaods, Kal *émijpe! rods dp9ad- 
pods adrod eis Tov odpavoy, Kal elwe, “Mdrtep, edyndubey 7 dpa: 


6 vids cou So0fdon ge- 2. Kabdrs 


obj. here €Dwkag adT@ *efougiay mdons capkds, iva “wav 6 S€5wxas aitd, 


and Mt. 


x. 1, Mk. vi. 7; usually with infin. or éwi with gen. or acc. 


1 T.R. in AC* and most versions, except vulg. 
Liicke says this is “‘ offenbar eine stylistische correctur”’, 


in NBC*DL 33. 
2 Omit cat with NABC*D. 


éoxopricOnaav éxagros els Tov Téov 
avtov. In x. 12 the wolf oxopwife: Ta 
mpdBata. Cf. especially Mk. xt. 27. 
eis Ta tra frequently of one’s own house, 
cf. xix. 27; Acts xxi. 6; Esth. v. 10, vi. 12, 
Here perhaps it is somewhat less definite, 
“to his own” is better than ‘‘ to his own 
house’. It includes ‘‘to his own 
interests,” or ‘‘ pursuits,” or ‘ familiar 
surroundings,” or ‘private affairs,” or 
all these together. Those whom He had 
gathered round Him and who believed 
in Him were yet destined to fail Him in 
the critical hour, and were to scatter 
each to his own, for the time abandoning 
the cause and Person who had held them 
together, leaving their loved Master 
(ver. 27) alone.—kat ov eipi povos ... 
éott, ‘and (yet) I am not alone, because 
the Father is with me’’. This presence 
supplies the lack of all other company. 
He was destined to lose for a time the 
consciousness even of this presence, Mt. 
xxvii. 46.—Ver. 33. Tatra... Kdapov. 
tavta embraces the whole of the con- 
solatory utterances from xiv. 1 onwards. 
His aim in uttering them was ‘‘ that in 
me ”’ (cf. Paul’s use of “in Christ”) ‘ye 
may have peace’’. év éuof and év To 
kdopw are the two spheres in which at 
one and the same time the disciples 
live, xvii. 15, Col. iii. rand5. Solongas 
they ‘‘abode in Christ” and His words 
abode in them, xv. 7, they would have 
peace, xiv. 27. So long as they were in 
the world they would have tribulation, 
Odi éxete, “in the world ye have 
tribulation ’.—@AAG @apacire, “‘ but be 
of good courage”. Cf. @dpoe téxvov, 
Mt. ix. 2, xiv. 27.—é€y® vevixnka Tov 
Kéapoy. viKay occurs only here in the 
Gospel, but twenty-two times in the 
Johannine Epistles and Apocalypse ; 
only four times in the other N.T. writ- 
ings; cf. especially 1 John v. 4,5. “I 
(emphatic) have overcome the world,” 
have proved that its most dangerous 
assaults can be successfully resisted ; and 
in me you are sharers in my victory; in 
me you also overcome. 


Cc Vi. 39. 


ewopas, without kat before eure, 


CHAPTER XVII.—Vv. 1-26. The clos- 
ing prayer of Fesus [ precatio summi 
sacerdotis,” Chytraeus]. Vv. 1-5, with re- 
ference to Himself ; vv. 6-19, for His 
disciples ; vv. 20-26, for all who should 
afterwards believe on Him.—Ver. 1. 
Tatra éhadynoev .. . kal éwfpe. The 
connection of é\dAnoev with émfjpe by 
«kat shows that the prayer followed im- 
mediately upon the discourse, and was, 
therefore, uttered in the hearing of the 
disciples. éwype . . . ovpavdv, so I 
Chron. xxi. 16. 7pa tT. 6$8., Ps. cxxi. 1, 
and cxxiii 1. From ovpavéy it cannot be 
argued that they were in the open air. 
‘““Fiir das Auge des Geistes is der freie 
Himmel iiberall.” Liicke. ‘The eye of 
one who prays is on all occasions raised 
toward heaven.”’ Meyer. Marep, édnAv- 
Gev 4 pa, ‘‘ Father,” the simplest and 
most intimate form of address, cf. xi. 41, 
xii. 27. ‘‘The hour is come,” z.¢., the 
hour appointed for the glorification of the 
Son ; cf. ii. 4, xii. 23. That this hour is 
meant is shown by the petition which 
follows: Sdfac6v cov tov vidv, “ glorify 
Thy Son”. gov, in position of emphasis. 
This glorification embraced His death, 
resurrection, and session at God’s right 
hand, as accredited Mediator, cf. vii. 30, 
xii. 16, 23. But this glorification itself 
had an object, tva 6 vids Sofdoy ce, “ that 
the Son may glorify Thee’. The 
Father is glorified by being known in 
His love and holiness.—Ver. 2. This is 
the object of Christ’s manifestation and 
reign. This glorification of the Son, 
which is now imminent, is in accordance 
with the purpose of the Father in giving 
the Son power over men: Kafas éSwxas 
atta éEovgiav ... aidviov. Only by 
His being glorified could the Son give 
this eternal life, and so fulfil the com- 
mission with which He was entrusted, 
éEovciav €dwkas is explained in ver. 27. 
and the verses preceding: Mt. xi. 27: 
Heb. i. 2. wdons owapkos represente 


“va-dp, Gen. vi. 12, Is. xl. 6, etc., 
ane: Tr 
and denotes the human race as possessed 





* 





I—5. 


Séon! adtots Lwhy aidvioy. 


, 
ywdokwot ve Tov povoy °ahnOvdv Cedv, kal dy améate:has “Incody 
2 4 A lol 
4. éyw oe €ddfaca emi tis yis° Td Epyov 'éteheiwan 2 6 
d€8wxds por Siva mowjow: 5. kal viv ” Sdfacdy pe od, watep, ‘rapa 


Xptordv. 


e 


geauT@, TH S66) 4 


EYATTEAION 


i Prov. ii. 1; iii. 13. 


841 


3. ality S€é €or H aidvios Lwh, 4 tva d vi. 29 reff. 


e1 Thess. i. 
g. Heb. 
1x. 14 (A) 
cp.1 Jo.v. 
20. Rev. 
iiss 


, £ Neh. vi.16. 


> A 
elxov }apd tod tov Kdopov civar Tapa Gol. gy. 36, 


h xiii. 33. 


j Prov. viii. 24. Ps. Ixxi. 5 


* For Son and ywwwoxwot some read Swoe. and yiwwoKover, but vide Simcox, 
Gram., p. 109, and W.H., Appendix, p. 171. 


2 reXMerwoas in $ABCLN 33 adopted by Tr.Ti.W.H.R. 


of a frail, terrestrial existence, lacking 
Cwhy aloviov. tva wav 6 SdSwxas aiTe, 
the neuter, as in vi. 39, resolved into 
the individuals in atrots; and on the 
nominative absolute, see Buttmann’s 
N.T. Gram., 379; and Kypke in loc.— 
Ver. 3. atrn d€ éotiv f aiwvios fwy iva 
... On tva in this construction, see 
Burton, 213, and cf. xv. 8; 6tt in 
iii. Ig is not quite equivalent. In 
Is. xxxvii. 20 God is designated 6 
Ocds povos, and in Exod. xxxiv. 6 
GAnfivds; cf. 2 Thess. i. 10. He is the 
only true God in contrast to many that 
are ‘‘called gods,’’ 1 Cor. viii. 5,6. But 
ef. especially 1 John v. 20. It was by mak- 
ing known to them this God, and thus 
glorifying the Father, that Christ ‘‘ gave 
men eternal life”. The life He gave 
consisted in and was maintained by this 
knowledge. But to the knowledge of 
the Father, the knowledge of ‘Him 
whom Thou didst send, Jesus Christ,” 
was necessary, i. 18, xiv. 6. Asini. 17, 
so here, *Incotv Xpiorév is the double 
name which became common in Apos- 
tolic times, and not (as Meyer and 
others) ‘‘an appellative predicate,” ‘‘Jesus 
as the Messiah”. Whether Jesus’ nam- 
ing of Himself as a third person can be 
accounted for by the solemnity of the 
occasion (‘‘der feierliche Gebetstyl,” 
Licke), or is to be ascribed to John, is 
much debated. Westcott seems justified 
in saying that “the use of the name 
‘Jesus Christ’ by the Lord Himself at 
this time is in the highest degree un- 
likely. . . . It is no derogation from the 
truthfulness of the record that St. John 
has thus given parenthetically, and in 
conventional language (so to speak), the 
substance of what the Lord said at greater 
length.”—Ver. 4. éyooe.. . Twoijow. 
This is a fresh ground for the petition of 
ver. I renewed in ver. 5: “glorify Thou 
me’. The ground is “I have glorified 
Thee on the earth; having finished 
‘perfectly accomplished, cf. tetéAeorat 


of the cross] the work which Thou 
gavest me todo”. But it is not the idea 
of reward that is prominent here, although 
that idea is found in Phil. ii. 6-11 ; Heb. 
il. Q-II ; v. 4-10; the immediate thought 
here is of the necessary progress which 
the hourdemanded. There remained no 
longer any reason for His continuance 
on earth. He did not desire, and did not 
need, any prolongation of life below. 
Beyschlag’s objection (N.T. Theol., i. 
254) is therefore baseless, as also is 
Grotius’ ‘‘ostendit, non iniquum se pe- 
tere”.—Ver. 5. Kal viv Sdfacov... 
oot. The precise character of the glori- 
fication He looks for is here presented. 
It is mapa weavT@, and it is a restoration 
to the glory He had enjoyed mpo rod tov 
Kécpov etvat. By mapa oeavt@ it is 
rendered impossible to understand rapa 
oot of an “ideal ”’ pre-existence ; because 
these two expressions are here equiva- 
lents, and Christ cannot be supposed 
to have prayed for an ‘‘ideal” glory 
when He asked that God would glorify 
Him mapa oeavtg. ‘There is, con- 
sequently, here, as in vi. 62, vili. 58, a 
continuity of the consciousness of the 
historical Christ with the Logos.” Tho- 
luck. On this verse Beyschlag remarks 
(i. 254): ‘‘The possibility of such a 
position was first won by Jesus through 
His lite and death on earth, so that, in 
point of fact, it forms the divine reward 
of that life and death; how then could 
He have possessed it realiter before the 
world was?” But the representation 
given by Paul in Phil. ii. is open to the 
same objection. Christ is represented 
as leaving a glory He originally enjoyed 
and returning to it when His work on 
earth was done and as the result of that 
work. The humanity was now to share 
in and to be in some way the organ of 
that divine glory; and this it could not 
be until it had been perfected by the 
experience of a human life. Wendt 
(Teaching of Fesus, ii. 169) says: “* Ac- 


KATA IQANNHN XVII. 


842 
6. “Epavépwod gov 1d Svopa Tois dvOpurroig obs SéSwxds ! por ek 
Tod Kdopou* Gol oar, kal enol adtods Sé5wxas* Kai Tov Adyov cou 


k viii. sr. 1“ rérnprjKagw. 7. viv Eyvwxav Ste mdvta doa Sddwxds por, mapa 


Kings xv. os ? a 
ne god €otw2+ 8. Ste TA Pypata & Sédwxds por, S€8wxa adrois: Kat 
1 Acts vii.38. a x ¥ 
* adtol EdaBov, Kal €yvwoay adyOds, St. mapa cod éfOov, Kai 


‘ a ~ 
émiuteucay 6tt ob pe dméoterkas. 9. eyo mept adtadv épwrd- ob 


mepl Tod Kdopou epwr@, GANA wepl Gv Sédwxds por, Ste coi eior. 


m 1 Chron. 
xxix. 14. 


1 For Se8wxas in both occurrences in ver. 6 eSwxas is read in NABDK. 
7 S8eSwxas is found in NCDL, «dwxas in AB. 


ABCD. 
2 cow in NBCL 33. 


cording to the mode of speech and con- 
ception prevalent in the N.T., a heavenly 
good, and so also a heavenly glory, can 
be conceived and spoken of as existing 
with God, and belonging to a person, not 
because this person already exists, and is 
invested with glory, but because the glory 
of God is in some way deposited and pre- 
served for this person in heaven’. The 
passages, however, on which he depends 
for this principle do not sustain it. Such 
expressions as i. 14, ii. 11, which indicate 
that already while on earth a divine 
glory was manifest in Christ, in no de- 
gree contradict but rather confirm such 
statements as the present. 


Vv. 6-19. Prayer for the dis- 
ciples—Ver. 6. "Edavépwod gov... 
kéopov. Ver. 4 is resumed and 
explained. ‘‘I have glorified Thee 


and finished my work by manifest- 
ing,” etc. To manifest the name 
here means to make God known 
as the holy and loving Father. This 
had been accomplished by Christ not in 
the case of all, but of those whom the 
Father had given Him; cf. vi. 37-44. 
Out of the world some were separated by 
the Father and allotted to Christ as His 
disciples. got qoav, ‘‘ Thine they were,” 
before they attached themselves to Jesus 
they already belonged to God in a 
special sense; as, ¢.g., Nath. i. 48.— 
Holtzmann. «ai tov Adyov gov Ter- 
Mpykact, “and they have kept Thy 
word,” the revelation of God which has 
come to them through various channels; 
in contrast to those mentioned in v. 38. 
—Ver. 7. As the result of this keep- 
ing of God’s truth, viv €yvwxav . . 

iotiv, “they have now”’’—in presence 
of this final revelation—‘‘ known that 
ail things whatsoever Thou hast given 


10. kal Ta €ud ™ mdyta od éott, kal TA Od End> Kal Seddgaopar ev 


In ver, 
In ver. 8 Se8wxas in KL, eSwkas in 


me are from Thee”. The object of 
the manifestation in Christ has been 
attained: the Father has been seen in 
and through Him. All the wisdom and 
power of Christ have been recognised as 
from God.—Ver. 8. 8ttTa pypata... 
améorethas. The result achieved, ver. 7, 
was due to the fidelity of the messenger, 
Ta pypata.. . S€Swxa aitois, and to 
the receptiveness of those prepared by 
God, avrot édaBoy, etc. cf. xvi. 30. éyo 
wept avtav épwrd. He desires solemnly 
to commit to the Father’s keeping those 
who have believed. He prays for them 
in distinction from the world, and for the 
present sets the world aside, od wept rod 
kéopov. The petitions now presented 
are only applicable to disciples, not to 
the world. Melanchthon says: ‘ Vide 
horrendum judicium Christi de mundo, 
cum negat se orare pro mundo, damnat- 
que quicquid est mundi, quantumvis 
speciosum”. But Luther more justly 
says: ‘‘To pray for the world, and not 
to pray for the world, must both be right 
and good. For soon after He says Him- 
self: ‘ Neither pray I for those alone, but 
for them also who shall believe on me’.” 
He prayed too for His crucifiers, Lk. 
xxiii. 34. His reason for praying for 
those who have received Him is ért ot 
eiot, ‘ because they are Thine’. God’s 
interest in them and work upon them 
have already been manifested, and are 
the promise of His further operation.— 
Ver. 10. Kal Ta éua wavra oa éortt, Kat 
7a oa ea, the community of property 
and therefore of interest is unlimited, 
absolute; extending not only to the 
persons of the disciples, but to all that 
Christ has spoken and done on earth, 
Kat Scddfacpat év avrois, ‘and I have 
been glorified in them,” 7.¢., in the dis- 








6—15. 


auvTots. 
>. Af A > 4 , » 
€iol, Kal é€y® mpos ce Epxopat. 


TO dvdpati cou, ots! S€5wxds por, 


~ , , > ‘ > n 
12. Ste Hpyy pet attav év TO Kdopw,” ey *érypouv odtods ev TH 4 


dvépati gou: ols® Sé8axds por Tépddaga, Kal obdeis €& abTav 


EYATTEAION 


. > 4 Die N > ~ , 4 a > lal , 
II. KQUt OUK ETL ELL EV To KOO LO, KQ@L OUTOL EV TH KOoOPW 


mdrep "Gye, *THpyoov aitods év 


843 


* n Josh. xxiv. 
19. 
o 1 Thess.v. 
a ce ~ 
tva Gow Pév, Kabws ‘pers. za 
PrX73Ong 

Prov. X1x. 

16. Wisd. 

XO5 yt XIX: 
1 Pet. 


dmddeto, et ph 6 Tulds THs dmwdelas, va youd’, mhypwbij. is. 


13. viv S€ apd € i taita Aah@ év TO Kécpw, iva 
3. vov S€ mpds oe Epxopar, Kal Tata Aah@ év Ta po, 
€xwou “thy xapav Thy éuhy mwemAnpwpéevny ev adtois. 


r 2 Kings 
LSS: 
lvii. 4. 2 
Thess. ii. 


14. éyo 


, > 4 N t Kuve Q Se 2 8 @ > 3: 
Sedaka QUTOLS TOV Adyov aoou, KGL oO KOOP.OS EMLONoEV QUTOUS, OTL OUK s xy. Ir. 


be lol , ‘ yee > SPAY > “A , 
ELOLV éx TOU KOoH.OU, Kabus eyo OUK €lpit EK Tou KOO}LOU. 


2 a ” > ‘ > a , > 2 a > A t> 
€pwT@ tva Gpyns adtods éx Tod Kdgpou, GAN’ iva THpHoONS avToOUs * ex 


t Rev. iii. 
Io; amo 
common. 


15. ouK 


lous D? and a few cursives; 0 in D*XU and a few cursives; w in NABCL, 


etc., Syrr. Theb. Arm. Tr.Ti.W.H.R. 
2 Omit ev Tw kogpw with NBC*DL. 


3 w read here also by BC*L, and xat inserted before epvAaka, 


ciples. In them it had been manifested 
that Christ was the messenger of God 
and had the words of eternal life.—Ver. 
Il. Kal ovkert cipi év7@ kéopo. The 
circumstances necessitating the prayer 
are now stated. Jesus is no longer in 
the world, already He has bid farewell to 
it, but the disciples remain in it, exposed 
without His accustomed counsel and 
defence. mdtep aye, ‘“ Holy Father”; 
this unique designation is suggested 
by the Divine attribute which would 
naturally assert itself in defending from 
the world’s corruptions those who were 
exposed to them. typygov airots év 
7@ dvopatl gov & Sedwxds pou, ‘ pre- 
serve them in [the knowledge of] Thy 


name, which Thou gavest me”. @ is 
attracted into dative by évépart. This 
was the fundamental petition. The 


retention of the knowledge which Christ 
had imparted to them of the Father 
would effect tva dow év Kaas pets. 
Without harmony among themselves, 
so that they should exist as a manifest 
“unity differentiated from the world, their 
witness would fail; xv. 8, 12. Kaas 
mpets is explained by xv. 9, 10.—Ver. 12. 
The protection now asked had been 
afforded by Christ so long as He was 
with the disciples. Ste Huny pet’ atta, 
éy® érypouwy... “when I was with 
them, I kept them in Thy name which 
Thou hast given me: and I guarded 
them, and not one of them perished, but 
the son of perdition, that the Scripture 
might be fulfilled”. On the detail of 
educative care spent on the disciples, 
and covered by érjpouv, see Bernard, 


Central Teaching, p. 370. 6 vids THs 
amwetas, cf. 2 Thess. ii. 3, in accord- 
ance with the usual Hebrew usage, the 
person identified with perdition, closely 
associated withit. Cf. Is. lvii. 4; xxxiii. 2; 
Mt. xxill.15.  Raphel quotes from Herod- 
otus, viii., tBptos vidy, with the remark, 
‘‘nec Graecis plane ignotus est hic lo- 
quendi modus’. The Scripture referred 
to is Ps. xli. 10, as in xiii, 18.—Ver. 13. 
As He Himself goes to the Father, He 
utters this petition aloud, and while yet 
with the disciples—ratta Aah@ év TO 
«dop@—that they might recognise that 
-the power of God was engaged for their 
protection, and might thus have repeated 
and perfected in themselves the same joy 
with which Christ had overcome all the 
trials and fears of life. Cf. xv. 11, xvi. 
24.—Ver. 14. éyw Sé8wxa .. . Kédcpov. 
Additional reason for soliciting in behalf 
of the disciples the protection of the 
Father consists in this, that the world 
hates them because they have received 
the revelation of God in Christ, and are 
thereby separated from the world as their 
Teacher was not of the world. Cf. ver. 
6.—Ver. 15. The simplest escape from 
the anger of the world was removal from 
it, but for this He would not ask: ovx« 
épwT@ iva apps avtovs Ek TOU Kdcpov. 
They had a work to do which involved 
that they should be in the world, It also 
involved the fulfilment of the petition, tva 
TUPHOYS AVTovs ek TOU tovnpod. Luther, 
Calvin, etc., take wovynpov as neuter; 
recent interpreters in general consider it 
to be masculine, ‘‘ from the evil one,”’ as 
in I John ii. 13, iv. 4, v. 18; cf. Mt. vi. 


ToO Tornpou. 
a x. 36. 
Exod.xiii, 
2 «v 6 ods adybed eons. 
Ecclus. 
xlv. 4. 


KATA [QANNHN 


XVII. 


16. ék tod xéopou ob elol, nabs eyo ex tod 
kdopou odk eipi. 17. “dylacov adtods év TH &Anbeta cou!+ 6 Ndbyos 
18. Kaas Ene dméoteidas eis tov Kdopov, 
kaya diréoreika attods eis Tov Kdopov: 19. Kal bmép abtav ey 


viEsdri, “dytdto €uautdv, iva Kat adtot dow iHyvacpévor ev adnOeta. 20. 


Od wept ToUTwy S€ Epwrd pdvov, GANA Kal aepl Tay moTevodvTwr ” 


} gov omitted in N"ABC*D, it. vulg. 


13. ‘The evil one” as the prince of 
this world and ‘‘a murderer from the 
beginning”? (viii. 44) was the instigator 
of persecution.—Ver. 16. For rypetv éx« 
see Rey. iii. ro, The reason of the world’s 
hatred and persecution is given here, as 
in xv. Ig, €k TOU kKOopov ... ‘ They do 
not belong to the world, as I am out of 
the world.”—Ver. 17. But besides this 
negative qualification for representing 
Christ, they must possess also a positive 
equipment, aylawov avrods év TE adybcia 
gov. ‘‘Consecrate them by thy truth.” 
ay.tafw is to render sacred, to set apart 
from profane uses; as in Exod. xiii 1, 
aylacdy pot wav mpwrdTtoKov; Exod. xx, 
8, ay. Rpépav; Exod. xxviii. 37, ayraoets 
avtois tva tepatevwot por; Mt. xxiii. 17 ; 
Heb. ix. 13. In x. 36 it is used of the 
Father’s setting apart of Christ to His 
mission. Here it is similarly used of the 
setting apart or consecration of the dis- 
ciples as Christ’s representatives. Meyer 
includes their ‘‘ equipment with Divine 
illumination, power, courage, joyfulness, 
love, inspiration, etc., for their official 
activity’. Wetstein’s definition is good; 
‘““ Sanctificare est aliquem eligere ad 
certum munus obeundum, eumque prae- 
parare atque idoneum reddere”. ‘ The 
truth,” as the element in which they now 
lived, was to be the efficient instrument 
of their consecration, cf. xiv. 16, xvi. 
7-13; the truth specifically which be- 
came theirs through the revelation of 
the Father, 6 Adyos 6 ads GAnPera éore, 
“«the word which is Thine,” ver. 14, but 
here emphatically distinguished as being 
the Word of the Father and no other. 
The article is absent before adm@eva, as in 
iv. 24, because GAvO. is abstract. ‘“ Thy 
word is’’ not only ‘‘ true” but ‘ truth ”.— 
Ver. 18, Kaas épe améorerhas ... 
“As Thou didst send me into the world, 


I also sent them into the world.” 
KaQas seems to imply ‘in pro- 
secution of the same purpose and 


therefore with similar equipment”’. eis 
Tov KOgpov is not otiose, but suggests 
that as Christ’s presence in the world 


3 muotevovTwy in NABCD, 


was necessary for the fulfilment of God’s 
purpose, so the sphere of the disciples’ 
work is also ‘the world,” cf. v. 15. 
améoretha, aorist, because already they 
had served as apostles, see iv. 38 and 
Mark iii. 14.—Ver. 19. The crowning 
plea is that it was for this end, their con- 
secration, Jesus consecrated Himself: 
Kat Urép avtav, ‘and in their behalf, 
that they may be consecrated in truth, 
do I consecrate myself”. ‘‘Aytafw in 
the present with t7ép can only be under- 
stood of Christ’s self-consecration to His 
sacrificial death.” Tholuck. éy& éxovoiws 
Ovoidlw éuavtdvy, Euthymius; so Meyer, 
Reynolds and others. This however is 
needlessly to limit the reference and to 
introduce an idea somewhat alien to this 
context and to x. 36. Calvin is right: 
** Porro sanctificatio haec quamvis ad 
totam Christi vitam pertineat, in sacri- 
ficio tamen mortis ejus maxime illustris 
fuit’”. va e.. The object of Christ’s 
consecration to His work was the sever- 
ance of His disciples from the world and 
their inspiration with the same spirit of 
self-sacrifice and devotedness to sacred 
uses, év aGA7Serq, understood by the 
Greek commentators as ‘real’? in con- 
trast to what is symbolic, cf. iv. 23. Thus 
Euthymius, tva cat avrot do. TeOupevor 
éy GAnbivg Ovoia, F yap vopixy Ovcia 
TUTOS iv, ovK GdyPera. “ Discernit a 
sanctificationibus legis.” Melanchthon. 
Similarly Godet. Meyer renders “truly” 
and remarks: ‘‘ As contrasted with every 
other a@ytérys in human relations, that 
wrought through the Paraclete is the 
true consecration”. But is it possible to 
neglect the reference to a\nOeig, ver. 17? 
As Liicke points out, John (3 John 3, 4) 
does not always distinguish between 
GAjGera and 4 aAyGera. The object of 
Christ’s consecration was to bring the 
truth by and in which the disciples might 
be consecrated. 

Vv. 20-26. Prayer for future believers. 
—Ver. 20. Ov wept tovTwv 8 épwTa 
povoy ... The consecration of the dis- 
ciples and His sending them forth natu- 





| 


16 —26. EYArTDEAION 


dud Toi Adyou adray eis End> 21. iva mdvtes ev dar Kalas od, 
, 1 > > A a A > . oo ‘4 > A > c x a 2 > 7] 
TdtTep,' €v €pol, Kadyw ev gol, iva Kat abdtol ev piv ev? dow: iva 


6 Kdopos TioTEvon OTL OU pe GméoTELhas. 22. Kal eyo “ THy Sdéay wi. 14. 








a ms ‘ Num. 
fv, SedwKds por, S€dwKka adtots, va @ow ev, Kabws Yuets * ev Eopev: xxii. 20. 
> > > > 
Bee) aN ye SEY EE RNC Ey sure , XX. 30. 
23. €yw €v avTots, Kal ov ev Epo, tva Mou TeTeNeLwpevor Ets Ev, KAL Zech x¥ 
) > > 
I. 
iva ywadokn 6 Kdgpos STL OU pe amréoTEtNas, Kal HYdTHOAS atTOUS 
t *) > > onl 
66 tN > , Ly 3 a4 yao) , 9 ates y, 
Kaus eve Hydmnoas. 24. Mdrtep,® ots * Sédwxds po, Ow iva ner and 
i fs ms ph. i. 4. 
OTou €ipt ey, KaKELVOL Gow peT Epod* tva Oewpaor Thy Sogay Thy 1 Pet. i. 
203 aro 
Epiyy, Hv edwxds po, Ste Hydwynods pe 7 mpd KataPodjs Kdopov. seven 
; 5 imes. 
25. Mdtep *Sikare, kat 6 Kdopos ce ovK Eyvw, Ey Bé ce Eyvwr, Kal z Here only 
x with 
odtor Eyvwoav OT. ad pe dméotekas> 26. Kai Eyvapioa attois TO rérep, but 
4 , ‘ , a) ¢ , aes , > 5S cp. 1 Jo. 
Gvoud gov, Kat yywplow: iva H dyad, Hy hydmnyods pe, ev adTots j.o; ii. 20. 
* Baniass las 98 Rev. xvi. 
q> Kayo €v adtois. 5: 


1 garep in SACL; wartnp in BD. 


8 catnp in AB, watep NCDL. So in ver. 25. 


rally suggests the enlargement of the 
Church and of His care.—Ver. 21. For 
those who through their preaching be- 
lieve on Him He prays that they may be 
one. Naturally the extension of the 
Church imperils its unity, the évéryns Tov 
aveupatos, Eph. iv. 3. “This unity is in- 
finitely more than mere unanimity, since 
it rests upon unity of spirit and life.” 
Tholuck. This unity of all believers finds 


its ideal in the unity of the Father and the” 


Son: xa6os ov, watep x. 7. A., and not 
~only its ideal but its unifying principle 
and element, év Hpiv. This unity ofall 
believers is to result in the universal 
belief in Christ’s mission, tva 6 kéopos 
. Gwéorethas.—Ver. 22. That the 
unity of believers in the Father and the 
Son might be perfect, it was needful that 
even the glory which Christ possessed by 
the Father’s gift (ver. 5) should be given 
to His people. The perfect tense is 
used, because the gift had already been 
determined. The nature of the glory 
spoken of is interpreted both by ver. 5 
and by ver. 24. It could not be com- 
pletely and actually bestowed until the 
point indicated in ver. 24 was reached.— 
Ver. 23. tva dow év of ver. 22 becomes 
in ver. 23 tva dou treTeAerwpevor eis Ev, 
“‘that they may be perfected into one’’. 
They are perfected by being wrought to 
a Divine unity. The work of Christ is 
accomplished when men are one by 
Christ dwelling in them. God is in Him, 
He is in each believer, and thus a true 
and final unity is formed. One result is 
the conviction wrought in the world, ott 
ov pe awéorethas .. . Hyamyoas. The 


2 ev omitted in BC*D, read in SACIL. 
*ovs in ACL, it.; o in NBD. 


mission of Christ and its results prove 
not only the Father’s love of the Son 
but His love for men.—Ver. 24. Narep, 
6 S€dwxas por, “that which Thou hast 
given me,” 1.é., the community of 
believers; @é\w, ‘I will,” no longer, 
€pwt@, “that where I am, there they 
may be also”; 6 resolved into individuals, 
To share in the destiny of Christ has 
already been promised to His followers, 
x. 26; cf. xiv. 3. This is the consumma- 
tion of Christian blessedness. They are 
not only in the same condition as their 
Lord, but enjoy it in fellowship with 
Him, pet épov.—iva Oewpdor thy Sdtay 
THhv épnv. To see Christ honoured and 
supreme must ever be the Christian’s 
joy. But this glory of Christ resulting 
from the eternal love of the Father is not 
only seen but shared in by the disciples 
in the measure of their capacity, v. 22, 
2 Tim, ii. 12, Rev. iii. 21.—Ver. 25. 
Marep Sixare, ‘“ Righteous Father”. 
The appeal is now to God’s justice; 
“ut tua bonitas me miserat servandsn 
si qua fieri potuisset, omnibus; ita tui, 
justitia non patietur ob quorundam ia- 
credulitatem frustrari vota credentium”’. 
Erasmus. The Father’s justice is 
appealed to, that the believing may not 
share the fate of the unbelieving world 
kal 6 kéopos Elsner translates ‘* quam- 
vis,’ and Lampe says all difficulty thus 
disappears. But Elsner’s examples are 
irrelevant. Meyer renders “ Righteous 
Father—(yea, such Thou art!) and 
(and yet) the world knew Thee not”. 
Simcox suggests that the first kat is 
correlative not to the immediately follow- 


846 


XVIII. 


a vi. I. 


b 2 Kings a 
xxiii. 6, elonGev adtds Kal ot pabytatl adtod. 
c Mt. Tapadidods adtév, Tév TéTov * 
XXVili, 12. aS. = mya ys 
peta TOv pabyTay adtov: 3. 
d vii. 32. 


KATA [QANNHN 


XVIII. 


I. TAYTA eitav 6 “Incois eff\Oe ody Tots palytats 
aitod “wépav tod >xetndppou tav Kédpwy,! Sou fv Kitos, eis ov 


2. yder S€ Kal “lovSas, 6 
Ste TWOMAdKLS * ouUVXOy 6 “InGods Exet 
5 obv “loddas AaBdy Thy omeipay, Kal 


€x TOv dpxtepéwy Kal apicaiwy “dmnpéras, epxerar exet peta 


‘ twv KeSpwv in NCBCLXT, Orig. Chrys. Cyr.-Alex. Tr.W.H.R. [cp. 2 Sam. xv. 


23]. 


tov Kedpov in $\*D, Ti.; tov KeSpwv in A(S)A, vet. lat. vulg. Meyer, Weiss, 


Holtzmann, who understand it as = pv? black, a name frequently given to 


“If the original reading was tov KeSpqv it is easy to understand how 


each of the two corruptions came to be substituted for it by copyists knowing only 


streams. 

Greek.”’ Sanday. 

ing 8é, but to the secon: «al, the 
effect being something like: ‘‘ While 


the world knew Thee not, though I knew 
Thee, these on their part knew” 
Similarly Westcott; ‘‘it serves to co- 
ordinate the two main clauses.... 
The force of it is as if we were to say: 
Two facts are equally true; it is true 
that the world knew Thee not; it is 
true that these knew that Thou didst 
send me.’’ May the kat not be intended 
to connect this clause with the preceding 
é7Tt . . . KOapov, and to mark the con- 
trast between the love that was in God 
before the foundation of the world and 
the world’s ignorance of Him, and 
especially of His love? But ‘‘I knew 
Thee and these knew,’ etc. They did 
not know God directly as Christ did, 
but they knew they could accept Him as 
the Revealer of God. And to them who 
were willing to receive my message, 
because they knew I was sent by Thee, 
I made known Thy name and will make 
it known by my death (Weiss) and by 
sending the Spirit of truth (Westcott). 
The end in view in this manifestation by 
Christ was that the love with which the 
Father had loved the Son might rest on 
the disciples. tva 4 ayarn qv Hyamnods 
pe. The construction is found in Eph. 
li. 4, and is frequent in the classics; 
4 Kpiots fv éxpién, Lysias; rq ving fy 
évixnoe, Arrian.—See Kypke. Kayo év 
avtots. This is the end and crown of 
all. That He should desire this intimate 
communion with men, and should seek 
above all else to live in and through His 
disciples, is surprising proof of His love. 
CHAPTER XVIII. — Friedrich Spitta 
(Zur Geschichte und Litteratur des Ur- 
christentums, i. 157 ff.) believes that the 
second section of this chapter has been ac- 
cidentally dislocated, and that its original 
order was as follows: (1) 12, 13, Jesus 


is brought to Annas; (2) 19-23, He is 
examined before the high priest; (3) 
24, 14, He is passed on to Caiaphas; 
(4) 15-18, 256-27, the triple denial of 
Peter ; (5) 28, Jesus is sent to the 
Praetorium. 

But this arrangement also has its 
difficulties. It requires us to suppose 
that Caiaphas had come to the house of 
Annas and conducted the examination 
recorded in 19-23, and that when it is 
said that Annas sent the prisoner to 
Caiaphas, after this examination, it is 
only meant that he sent Him to the 
house or palace of Caiaphas where the 
Sanhedrim sat. 

Vv. 1-12. The arrest of fesus.—Ver, 
1. Having finished His prayer and His 
discourse, Jesus ef Ge, “went out’ ’ from 
the city, as is suggested by wépay rov 
XEtappov, “to the other side of the 
torrent,” cf. vi. I.  Xelpappos sc. Xetpap- 
poos ToTapds, a stream that flows in 
winter, a torrent ; of Jabbok, Gen. xxxii. 


35; of Kidron, 2 Sam. xv. 23. T@v 
KéSpwv, “the Kidron,” described in 
Henderson’s Palestine, 90. Sov Fv 


Kimos ‘where was a garden,” in Mark 
xiv. 32, described as xwpiov (a country 
place, or estate), and called [e@onpavy. 
The owner was probably a friend of 
Jesus. Into this garden He went with 
His disciples—Ver. 2. Set 8€ kat 
*lovSas. ‘‘And Judas also knew the 
place, because Jesus and His disciples 
had frequently assembled there”? on 
previous visits to Jerusalem, Lk. xxi. 
37. This is inserted to account for what 
follows, and to remind the reader of the 
voluntariness of the surrender. There 
was no attempt to escape or hide.— 
Ver. 3. dovtv ‘lovdas AaBov thy o7eipay 
Kal . . . tarnpéras. oeipa (Spira, 
anything rolled up or folded together), 
a Roman cohort (Polyb., xi. 23, 1) or tenth 





EYALTEAION 847 


I—Io, 


pavav Kat Kaprddwy kat STAwY. 4. "Ingots obv eldas mdvTa Ta 


2 a a ” : 
“épxopeva em avtov, éfeh\Oav elmev attots, “Tiva {ntette;” 5. Sian Sh 
p. Is. 

> , at x sy A p 
AmekplOncav atta, ““"Incodv tov Nafwpatov.” A€yer dtois 6 xliv. 7. 


Etornker S€ Kat ‘lovdas 6 wapadid0ds attov 
, 


an >. 
*Ingods, ‘* Eyo ets.” 
A 6 ) 
6. ‘Qs ody eimev adtois, “ “Ore tyes cipt, 


> cal 
eT adTor. 
, = > ‘ 2 , 4- 
7. WaAw ouv avtods EmNpW- g vi. 66; xx. 


darA Gor § fiv. 26; viii. 
2 


x .? Ay aes F. \ >» lh , 
€lS TA OMWLOW, KAL ETTETOV Xap-ae. 


, a ’ 5 R 14. 2Pet. 
tye, “Tiva {ytrette;” Ot 8é ettov, “"Incotv tov Nafwprtov.” ii. ar. 2 
rol 0 e 3 a Cone en ¢ ENT ae) >, elf « “Kingsixx 
. AtrexpiOy 6 ‘Ingots, “Etrov bpiv, ote eyo) etpr. el ouv epe ir. 
io i>» , pay ” o yn 0A € XN a h ix. 6. Job 
{yrette, ‘dete tovtous bmdyew-” 9. tva mAypwOh 6 Adyos by ij. 20. 

a k ; 7m i xi. 44; xii. 

eitev, ‘Ott ols dedwxds por, ovK admddeca €§ adtdv ovdéva.’ 5’ Las 
v. 38, etc. 


/ s , ” , ETaeAS NSF. 
10. Zipwy ouv Meétpos exwv pdxaipav, ethkugev adTiy, kal emaie 
Tov Tod dpxtepews SodAov, kal dmékowpev adtod Td @riov” Td Sektdy, 


1 amnA€av, erecay in NBD. * wraptory in SBC*L, vulg. “ auriculam”, 


fluous is, however, no proof that it was. 





part of a legion, and therefore containing 
about 600 men. 
garrison of the castle Antonia, which, 
during the Passover, was available to 
assist the Sanhedrim in maintaining 
order. Part of it was now used in case 
“the servants of the Sanhedrim,” ék« 
TOV... Umnperas, should not prove 
sufficient. A considerable body of troops 
would obviate the risk of a popular rising, 
Vii. 32-49, xii. 42; especially Mk. xiv. 2. 
They were furnished with gavév kat 
Aapradwv kal émAwyv. gavds was a link 
or torch, consisting of strips of resinous 
wood tied together, and in late Greek 
was used for Avxvovxos, a lantern; 
Aapiras was the opentorch. See Ruther- 
ford’s New Phryn., p. 131, and Wetstein. 
Both open lights and lanterns were in 
use in the Roman army, and would be at 
hand. ‘ The soldiers rushed out of their 
tents with lanterns and torches.” Dion. 
Hal., xi. 5. It was new moon, but it 
might be cloudy, and it would certainly 
be shady in the garden.—Ver. 4. Jesus, 
then, not with the boldness of ignorance, 
but knowing wavta ra épyopeva em avtév, 
“all that was coming upon Him,” cf. 
Lk. xiv. 31, épxopéevw em” aitdv, “ went 
out”’ from the garden, or more probably, 
ver. 26, from the group of disciples, ‘‘ and 
says, Whom seek ye?” to concentrate 
attention on Himself and prevent a 
general attack.—Ver. 5. ‘Inootv tov 
Nalwpaioy ‘Jesus the Nazarene,” cf. 
Acts xxiv. 5, Nafapnvéds occurs Mk. 
xiv. 67, etc. éy@ eipt, “Iam He”. He 
had already been identified by Judas’ 
kiss, Mt. xxvi. 47, but Jesus wished to 
declare Himself as one who did not fear 


identification. That the kiss was super- 


The cohort denotes the __not given. 


Etoryker 5€ kat “lovdas ... 
This remark is inserted not to bring o t 
that Judas fell to the ground with the 
rest (Holtzmann), but to point out that 
Judas had not only given directions, but 
had actually come, and now confronted 
his Lord and companions.—Ver. 6. The 
immediate effect of His calm declaration 
was: darqAOov eis Ta dtrlow Kal erecov 
xapat, ‘‘they went backwards and fell to 
the ground”’. Job i. 20, Teoav xapat; 
similarly used by Homer, etc., as = 
xapate. This might have been con- 
sidered a fulfilment of -Ps. xxvii. 2, ot 
OAtBovrés pe... Emeray. The recoil, 
which necessarily causes stumbling and 
falling in a crowd, was natural, especially 
if the servants here employed were the 
same as those who had been sent to take 
Him on a former occasion, vii. 46. No 
one wished to be the first to lay hands 
on Him. Similar effects were produced 
by Mohammed (when Durthur stood over 
him with drawn sword), Mark Antony, 


Marius, Coligny. But_the_object_in 
narrating the circumstance may have 








Christ’s surrender.—Ver. 7. Declaring 





~ His identity a second time, Jesus ex- 


plicitly reminds the officials that by their 
own acknowledgment they are instructed 
to arrest none but Himself. ei ovv épeé 
tnreire . . . ovdéva. In thus protecting 
His companions, Jesus, according to 
John, fulfils xvii. 12; although here the 


~ fulfilment is more superficial than that 


which was intended. (Cf. 2 Sam. xxiv. 
17.)—Ver. 10. Peter did not wish to be 
thus dissociated from the fate of his 
Master, xiii. 38, and thinks a rescue 


XVIII, 


11. elrev odv & “Inoods 7 Nétpw, 


848 KATA IQANNHN 
fv 82 Svopa 7G SovAw Mddyos. 
jExck Bde thy pdxatpdv cou! eis Thy Oyjxyy. 1d! wormptov & Séduxé 
xxl. $I. 


Ps. xvi. 5. [LoL § Tati) p, ob py) Triw auto ; y? 


Mt. xx. 
23, etc, 


12. ‘H odv ometpa kal 6 xiAlapxos Kal ot danpérat ray “loudalwy 


k Acts i. 16.* ouvé\aBov tov “Ingodv, kat ESyoav adtov, 13. kal dmyyayov? aitdy 


2 Kings 
xX. I4. 
1 Gen. ace = tae 
xxxviii. 13. TOU EVLAUTOU EKELVOU. 
m Xi. 49. 


n Ps. 
Ixxxvili.8. ¢ 


mpds “Avvay mpatov: fy yap ' 


tevOepds Tod Kaidda, ds hv dpxrepeds 


14. hv S€ Katdpas 6 “oupBoudevoas Tots 
"loudaiors, Ste ouppéper Eva GvOpwrov dwohécGar® bwép tod aod. 
15. HxododGer 8€ TO “Ingod Lipwy Métpos, kai 6* addos palyTHs. 


Acts i. 19,0 S€ paOnTHs Exeivos Hy “ywwords TH Apxrepel, Kai cuveronAOe TO 


1 gov omitted in NABCDLN. 


2 myayov without avrov in Q*BD. So in Tr.Ti.W.H.R, 


3 aqo8aver in WBC*D 33. 


40 omitted in \*ABD, inserted in NcbCLM. The article is out of place here, 


though appropriate in xx. 3, 4. 


possible, as only the Sanhedrim officials 
would enter the garden, leaving the 
soldiers outside. €xwv payatpay, “ having 
a sword,” “‘ pro more peregrinantium in 
iis locis,” Grotius, and cf. Thucyd., i. 6; 
Luke xxii. 36. He struck tov row 
apxcepéws Sotdov, “the high priest’s 
servant’’. The SodXor are distinguished 
from the tmnpérat, ver. 18. John, being 
acquainted with the high priest’s house- 
hold, both identified the man and knew 
his name, wnich was a common one, see 
Wetstein, and cf. Neh. x. 4; also, Por- 
phyry, Life of Plotinus, 17. “In my 
native dialect I (Porphyry) was called 
Malchus, which is interpreted, king.” 
aréxoWev avTov Td Gtiov TS Sefidy. In 
Mark xiv. 47 Gdetvey TO dtaptov. rd 
Seidv indicates eye-witness or subse- 
quent intimate knowledge. 
no doubt, to cleave the head.—-Ver 


11. Peter's action, however, was not 


commended, Bare... Onxynv. “Res 
evangelica non agitur ejusmodi praesi- 
diis.’ Erasmus. O6y«yn, a receptacie; 
sometimes £tpoOyKn; usually kodAeds. 
+o wotyptov ... avTd. For the figure 
of the cup, see Ezek. xxiii. 31-34; Mt. 
xx. 22, and xxvi. 39. Shall J refuse the 
lot appointed me by the Father ?—Ver. 
12. “H otv owmetpa...aitédv. The 
Roman soldiers, 7 omwetpa, under the 
orders of their Chiliarch (Tribune, 
Colonel), abetted the officers of the San- 
hedrim, twnpérat tav “lovdaiwv, in the 
apprehension of Jesus. As a matter of 
course and following the universal prac- 
tice €dnoav avtdv, “they bound Him,” 
with His hands shackled behind His back. 


Peter meant, 


Vv. 13-24. Examination before Annas. 
—Ver. 13. wat amyyayov avtov, “and 
they led Him to Annas first”. mp@tov 
refers to the subsequent examinations, 
vv. 24, 28. The reason for taking Him 
to Annas first was that he was father- 
in-law of the actual high priest, Caiaphas, 
and was a man of commanding influence. 
He had himself been high priest from 
A.D. 7-14, while five of his sons occupied 
the office in succession. Caiaphas held 
office till 37 A.D. On adpxtepeds tod 
éviautov éxelvov see xi. 49.—Ver. 14. 
The attitude Caiaphas was likely to 
assume towards the prisoner is indicated 
by his identification with the person who 
uttered the principle, xi. 50, 6tt oupdéper 
.. » GtmoddoOar.—Ver. 15. *“Hxodovder 
-.. padyrys. ‘There followed Jesus 
Simon Peter ’’—with whom the narra- 
tive is now concerned—“ and another 
disciple,” in all probability John. He is 
mentioned to explain how Peter found 
access to the high priest’s residence. 
“That disciple was known to the high 
priest,” #.e., probably to Caiaphas, and 
accordingly went in with Jesus eis tH 
atAny Tov apxtepews, “into the palace 
(or court) of the high priest”. avArj, 
originally the court or quadrangle round 
which the house was built, was used of 
the residence itself. Apparently, and 
very naturaliy, Annas had apartments 
in this official residence now occupied 
by Caiaphas.—Ver. 16. Peter, not being 
known to the household, was excluded 
and stood outside at the door, rpés Ti 
Opa eéw, cf. xx. 11. John, missing him, 
spoke to the doorkeeper and introduced 


yt 


11—23. 


Ingod eis Thy addhy Tod dpyxiepéws * 
TH Bpa efw. 


dpxvepel, kat ele TH Oupwpd, Kai eionyaye Tov Meérpov. 


EYATTEAION 


16. 6 S€ Métpos elotyKet mpds 
e&q bev obv 6 pabytis 6 GAAos bs Hv yrwotds TO 


17. héyer 


abv 7 °aradioxn % Oupwpds TO Nétpw, “Mh kal od ek tev pabyTGv oGal. iv. 22. 


A ” 
el T00 dvOpwtrou ToUToOu ; 


~ ] 
Ad€yet éketvos, “ Odx eipt.’ 


Gen, xx. 


18 Etotn- 17. 


Ketoav S€ of Soddor Kal ot Uebllesse poneoneey TETOLNKOTES, OTL P xxi. 9. 


WuxXos Hv, kal EBeppatvorto - 
Geppatvdpevos. 


pabytav adtol, Kat mept THs Sidaxhs adTod. 
"Ingots, ““Ey® “mappycia edddyoa! 


edidagéa ev TH ” 


‘ fol 
guvepxovTal, kat “év kpuTTa eMddnoa ovderv. 
2 , ‘ 2 , LAP AE NY) > S 
émepwtyoov TOUS akynKodTas, Ti EAdAnoa avTots: 
22. Taita S€ adtod cimdvtos, els tav SmypeTav 


ame ee 
a@ €l\TOv €eyw. 


a Qs a ¢ ~ 8 , 
TuUVaywyy KOOL EV TW LEP, OTTOU TWAVTOTE 


Ecclus.xi. 


Hy de pet avTav 6 Meétpos éotas KQL 32. 4 


Mace. ix. 


1g. ‘O oby dpxtepeds ApwtyHGE Tov “Incody Tept Tay 20. 


20. atekpiOy adte 6 
t 
= X , . 
€EyW WAVTOTE q vii. 4 reff. 
3 


nn , 
TO Kdope 
ot loudator 
y, 2 ne es 
21. Tu pe EmEpwras ; r vii. 4. 
” al ” 
id€ OUTOL OLOGOLY 


~ A , 
TapecTHKas *€dwxe *"Pdtiopa TO “Incod, eimav, “OUTws doKpivy s xix. 3. Is. 


TO & figs 
D dpxvepet ; 


1 AeAcAnKa in MABC*L. 


23. AmexpiOn ait@ 6 “Inaois, “ El kaKds éXdAnoa, 


1. 6, 


2 Omit ty with NRABCD. 


3 wavtes in SABC*L and most versions. 


him. tq @vpwp@, female doorkeepers 
appear 2 Sam, iv. 6, Acts. xii. 13, and 
see Wetstein.—Ver. 17. Naturally he 
concluded from John’s introducing him 
that Peter was also a disciple, and asa 
mere innocent and purposeless remark 
says: My cat od... TOUTOU ; “Are 
you also one of this man’s disciples rade 
He says, ov« eipi, “‘ I am not ”’.—Ver. 18. 
Eioryjeroav .. . Ceppatvdpevos. The 
household servants and the Sanhedrim 
servitors had made a fire in the open 
court of the house and were standing 
round it warming themselves. Peter, 
unabashed by his lie, joined himself to 
this group and stood in the light | of the 
fire. Cf. Lk. xxii. 56, mpds 7d das. 
Jerusalem, lying 2500 feet above sea- 
level, is cold at night in spring.—Ver. 
19. “Oovv dpxepeds npotnoe .. . “The 
high priest then interrogated Jesus about 
His disciples and about His teaching,” 
apparently wishing to bring out on what 
terms He made disciples, whether as 
a simple Rabbi or as Messiah. But 
Jesus answered: *Eyo® Tappyoia eAadnoa 

. . ovdévy. The high priest’s question 
was useless. Jesus had nothing to tell 
which He had not publicly and fre- 
quently proclaimed. Similarly Socrates 
replied to his judges (Plato, Afol., 33), 
“If any one says that he has ever 
learned or heard anything from me in 
private which the wo-ld has not heard, 


be assured he says what is not true” 
twappyota ‘ without reserve,” ruckhalts- 
los, Holtzmann. 7@ kéopa, ‘to every- 
body,” to all who cared to hear; cf. 
Socrates’ Synpootg. ‘I always taught in 
synagogue and in the temple”; the 
article dropped as we drop it in the 
phrase “tin church”; ‘‘ where,” 7.¢., in 
both synagogue and temple, mwavres ‘all 
the Jews assemble”.—Ver. 21. ‘‘ Why 
do you interrogate me? Ask those who 
have heard, what I said to them.” 
Similarly Socrates appeals to his dis- 
ciples. The otro: might be construed as 
if Jesus looked towards some who were 
present.—Ver. 22. Tatra .. . Gpxtepet; 
pamiopa. The older meaning of pawifew 
was “to strike with arod”’ sc. paBdiler ; 
but in later Greek it meant ‘‘to give a 
blow on the cheek with the open hand”’, 
This is put beyond doubt by Field, Otium 
Norv., p. 71; cf. Rutherford’s New 
Phryn., p. 257. R.V. marg. ‘with a 
rod”? is not an improvement on R.V. 
text.—Ver. 23. The calmness and rea- 
sonableness of Jesus’ retort to this blow 
impressed it on the memory of John, 
whose own blood would boil when he 
saw his Master struck by a servant.— 
Ver. 24. As nothing was to be gained 
by continuing the examination, Jesus is 
handed on to Caiaphas, ’Améovrethev .. , 
apxepea. 

Ver. 25 resumes the narrative inter- 


Sit 


850 


KATA ILQANNHN 


XVIII 


(Heb. v.14. paptupnoov wept Tod *KaKxod~ ef B€ ‘adds, ti pe Séoeg;"? 24 


*"Hpyyjgaro ékeivos, 


26. Adyet eis éx t&v SoUAwy TOO dpxtepews, 


27. Nadu odv Apyicato 6 Métpos, kat eb0éws 
\ 


‘ il 
Kai adTot ox eioqdOov eis Td mpattdptov, tva py 


29. €&mOev ody 6 Mddtos 8 


Ch. iv. 17. 
Exod. Améotedev? adtav 6 “Avvas Seden€évov mpds Kaidday tov apxrepéa. 
xxii, 28, i x 52 , é kant \ ~ 
25. "Hy 8€ Eipwy Métpos éotds kal Oeppavdpevos: elrov ody 
adta, “Mi kal od éx tdv pabytady adtod et ;” 
kat eltev, “ OdK ip.” 
a Lk. i. 36. “ouyyevs ay ob dméxowpe Métpos TO @tiov, “ Odx éys oe eldov ev TO 
Rom. xvi. , se ee 
etc. KiTW LET GUTOO ; 
v xiii, 38. ddéxtwp * épdvygcer. 
w xix. 9. 28. “ATOYEIN oly Tov “Incodv dd Tod Kaidda eis To * mpartwptov. 
Acts xxiii. , ~ a 9 
35. Ful. HY 8é mpwia *- 
3. 33. a o 
sities eh eee pravOdouy, add’ va pdywou To Waoxa. 
Heb. xil. 


‘ , , A 
15. Tit, TpOs adrods, kat elie, “‘Tiva Katnyopiav * bépete kata Tod dvOpd- 


i. 15. 
Jude 8. 
y Acts xxv. 


, ” 
TOU TOUTOU ; 


‘ 4 > » 5 , year Set 
18, 2Pet. KQKOTTOLOS, OUK GY GOL TAPE WKOLEV aQuTov. 


ii. 11. 


> 7 9) 
auTOV. 


4 ~ 
30. "AtrexpiOnoav Kai etrov atte, “Et ph hy obtos 


31. Etrev ov adtots 


F . a 
5 Middtos, “AdBete adrév Gpets, kat Kata Tov vopoy bpav KpivaTe 


r > ~ A~ - 
Eiror odv adt@ ot ‘lovdator, ‘“Hyty obk efeotiw daroKxtetvat 


1 ovv inserted in BC*L 33, which compels the translation ‘‘ Annas therefore sent 
[lim,”’ and forbids the meaning ‘“ Annas had sent Him”’, 


2 Better mpwt as in RABCD. 
3 Metdkaros in ABC, Mtdatos in ND. 
with a javelin”. 


has ‘‘ malefactor”’. 


rupted at vv. 18-19, and resumes by 1e- 
peating the statement that Simon Peter 
was standing and warming himself. 
While he did so the servants and officers, 
ver, 18, who were round the fire said, Mj 


kal ov... ‘Are you also of His dis- 
ciples?”—Ver. 26. Aéye els ex tov 
SovAwy . . . @ttov, “one of the servants 


of the high priest, who was a kinsman of 
him,” etc., ‘‘a detail which marks an 
exact knowledge of the household (ver. 
15),” Westcott.—Ver. 27. MdAw otv... 
éhpavynoev . . . A cock crew, the dawn 
approaching, and the warning of xiii. 38 
was fulfilled. See on xiii. 38. 

Vv. 28—xix. 16. Fesus before Pilate.— 
Ver. 28. “Ayovowy, “ They lead,’ 7.e., 
the Sanhedrists who had assembled lead : 
in Luke xxiii. 1, dvaotayv Grav To wAAO0s 
avTay. amo Tot Kaiaga. Field prefers 
translating ‘from the house of Caia- 
phas,” cf. Mark v. 35; Acts xvi. 40. 
mpattoptoy, praetorium, lit. “ the gene- 
ral’s tent’; here probably the governor’s 
quarters in Antonia, but possibly the 
magnificent palace of Herod used by the 
Roman governor while in Jerusalem ; see 
especially Keim, Fesus of Nazareth, vi. 


It represents the Latin pilatus, “ armed 


e—w is added in NBC*L 33. 
4 kaxov totwy read by Tr.Ti.W.H. on the authority of Sc°BL 33. 


The Vulgate 


79 E. Tr. Av 82 rpwita kal adtot ovk eionA- 
Qov ... “It was early morning (the 
fourth watch, from 3 to 6 a.Mm., see Mark 
xiii. 35; see on xiii. 38) and they them- 
selves entered not into the palace that 
they might not be defiled but might eat 
the passover.”” The dawning of the day 
seems to have reminded them of its 
sacred character. To enter a house 
from which all leaven had not been re- 
moved was pollution. Probably too the 
mere entrance into the house of a Gen- 
tile was the gnat these men strained at. 
The plain inference from the word is 
that the Paschal Supper was yet to be 
eaten. But see Edersheim’s Life of 
Fesus, ii, 566.—Ver. 29. eéqAPev otv O 
MuAaros ... The examination began 
therefore in the open air in front of the 
building; cf. xix. 13. Pilate opened the 
case with the formal inquiry, Tiva 
Kkatnyoptav «.7.A.3; To this reason- 
able demand the Sanhedrists evasively 
and insolently reply (ver. 30): ‘‘ Had 
He not been a kakotrotds we should not 
have delivered Him to you”. It appears 
therefore that having already condemned 
Him to death (see Mt. xxvi. 6t tvoxos 





¥ 





24—36. 


EYAILTEAION 


851 


~ 3 A ~ a , . 
obSéva-’’ 32. va & Néyos Tod “Ingo mAnpwOi, dv etme * onpatvuy z xii. 33. 


Trotw Oavdtw *peddev droOvyjcKerv. 
t ‘ 


33- Elof Bev ovy eis Td 


~ A . as 
Tpattwpioy mad 6 Muddtos, kat “€puvynge Tov “Ingodv, Kal eimey ai. 49; ii. 10. 


ca ‘ lol > , ” 
ait@, “Xd et 6 Bacdeds Tay ‘loudaiwy ; 


34. Amexpi0y atta 6 


"Inoods, ‘Ad’ Eautod ad Toiro héyets, H GAOL gor etmov Tepihv. 19. 


€no00 ; ” 


ZOvos TO ody Kal ol Gpxtepets Tapedwxdy oe Eepoi- 
36. “ArexpiOn 6 “Ingods, ““H Baciheia H epi) odk eotw 


35. ‘Amexpidn 6 Middtos, “°Myte ey "loudatds eipn ; 


TO c iv. 29. 
d yo93 , 7 
Tl eTPOLNOAS ; diSam.xx, 
e2 Gy BE 

€K TOUVe ili. 31, 


4 , pete} ~ , , 2 ¢ , 6) SEN ¢ 
kdcp.ou ToUTou’ ei €k Tod Kdopou ToUTou jy 7 Pacthela H Epi), ot 


Smwypérar av ot got dywviLovto, iva pi mapadso0a Tots ‘loudatats - 


Oavdrov éort. Mk. xiv. 64) they handed 
Him over—rapedanapev—to Pilate, not 
to have their judgment revised, but to 
have their decision confirmed and the 
punishment executed. kakomo.ds is 
found in Arist., Eth., iv. 9, Polybius, and 
frequently in 1 Peter.—Ver. 31. This 
does not suit Roman ideas of justice ; and 
therefore Pilate, ascribing their reluct- 
ance to lay a definite charge against the 
prisoner and to have the case reopened 
to the difficulty of explaining toa Roman 
the actual law and transgression, bids 
them finish the case for themselves, 
AaBere avtov tyets ... cf. Acts xviil. 
14.—Ver. 32. This, however, they de- 
cline to do, because it is the death 
penalty they desire, and this they have 
no right to inflict: qpiv otk éfeorw 
amokxtetvat ovdéva. In the Roman pro- 
vinces the power of life and death, the 
jus gladii, was reserved to the governor. 
See Arnold’s Roman Prov. Administra- 
tion, pp. 55, 57; and Josephus, Bell. 
Fud., li. 8, 1, who states that when the 
territory of Archelaus passed to the pro- 
vincial governor, Coponius, the power of 
inflicting capital punishment was given to 
him, péxpt Tod Ktetvery AaBov wapa Tov 
Katocapos éfovciay. See also Stapfer’s 
Palestine, p.100. By being thus handed 
over to the Roman magistrate it came 
about that Jesus was crucified, a form of 
capital punishment which the Jews never 
inflicted even when they had power; and 
thus the word of Jesus was fulfilled 
which He spake intimating that He 
would die by crucifixion, xii. 32, 33. 

Vv. 33-37. Fesus examined by Pilate 
in private.—Ver. 33. Pilate, being thus 
compelled to undertake the case, with- 
draws within the Praetorium to con- 
duct it apart from their prejudices and 
clamours. He calls Jesus and says to 
Him, 2d ef 6 Bacirteds tav “lovdalwv; 
How did Pilate know that this was the 
katnyopia against Jesus? John omits the 


information given in Lk. xxiii. 2 that the 
Sanhedrists definitely laid this accusation. 
And the answer of Jesus implies that He 
had not heard this accusation made in 
Pilate’s presence. The probability there- 
fore is that Pilate had privately obtained 
information regarding the prisoner. 
There is some contempt as well as sur- 
prise in Pilate’s Zv. ‘“‘ Art Thou,” whose 
appearance so belies it, ‘‘ the king of the 
Jews? ”—Ver. 34. Jesus answers by ask- 
ing: ’Ad’ eavtod ov TovTo héyets . . -3 
Pilate’s reply, ‘Am I a Jew?”’ precludes 
all interpretations, however inviting (see 
especially Alford and Oscar Holtzmann), 
but the simple one: ‘Do you make 
this inquiry from any serious personal 
interest and with any keen apprehension 
of the blessings attached to the Kingdom 
of God, or are you merely echoing a 
formal charge brought against me by 
others ?”’—-Ver. 35. To this Pilate with 
some heat and contempt replies: Myre 
éy® lovdaids eipr; ““Amla jew?” How 
can you suppose that I have any personal 
interest in such a matter ?—7é €0vos TO 
oov ... épot. ‘ Your own nation and 
the chief priests handed you over to me.” 
It is their charge I repeat. rt éwolnoas; 
“‘what hast Thou done?” He scouts 
the idea that he should take any interest 
in the Jewish Messiah, and returns to 
the practical point, ‘‘what have you 
done ?””—Ver. 36. But Jesus accepts 
the allegation of the Jews and proceeds 
to explain in what sense He is king: ‘H 
Baovrela 7 enn K. TA. My kingdom is 
not of a worldly nature, nor is it estab- 
lished by worldly means. Had it been 
so, my servants would have striven to 
prevent my being surrendered to the 
Jews. But as things are, voy, since it is 
indisputable that no armed resistance or 
rescue has been attempted, it is put 
beyond question that my kingdom is 
not from hence. ‘ The substitution of 
‘hence’ for ‘of this world’ in the last 


852 


voy Se 4 Bacidela H eph odk Eotw evreddev.” 
5 Middros, “ OdKodv Bacteds ef od ;”’ 
Aéyets Ste Baorheds cipe eyd. 
rodTo é\nAuba eis Tov Kdopor, iva paptupjow tH adnbeta. 
dy ex Tis adnGetas fdxover pou TiS pwrijs.” 
Middros, “Ti got &djOera ;”’ 


fx. § 


KATA LQANNHN 


XVIII. 37—40. 


37. Elev obv air 
"AtrekpiOn 6 “Ingois, ‘Xd 
éy® eis todto yeyévynpat, Kat eis 
was 6 
38. A€yer atta 6 
Kai todto eimay, mad e&7Oe 


mpds Tods ‘louSatous, Kal dyer adtois, “’Eyd odSepiay aitiav 


¢ Dan. fx. eipioxw *éy adtd. 
20. 


wer > , ”» 
Tov “loudatuy ; 


clause appears to define the idea of the 
world by an immediate reference to the 
representatives of it close at hand.” 
Westcott. Perhaps this rather limits the 
reference. Jesus uses évrevOev as one 
who has other worlds than this in view. 
—Ver. 37. Pilate understands only so 
far as to interrupt with Ovxotv . . . ov; 
“So then you are a king?” On 
ovKovy see Klotz’s Devarius, p. 173. 
To which Jesus replies with the ex- 
plicit statement: EU Aéyers .. . eyo. 
‘Thou sayest.” This, says Schoettgen 
(Mt. xxvi. 25), is ‘‘solennis adfirman- 
tium apud Judaeos formula’’; so that 
étt must be rendered with R.V. 
marg. ‘because’? I am a king. Eras- 
mus, Westcott, Plummer, and others 
render, ‘‘ Thou sayest that I am aking,” 
neither definitely accepting nor rejecting 
the title. But this interpretation seems 
impossible in the face of the simple od 
Aéyers of the synoptists, Mt. xxvii. 11, 
Mark xv. 2, Luke xxiii. 3. We must 
then render, “‘ Thou art right, for a king 
Iam”. In what sense a king, He ex- 
plains: éy@ eis Tovro yeyévynpar kK. T. Ae 
‘‘ For this end have I been born, and for 
this end am I come into the world;”’ the 
latter expression, by being added to the 
former, certainly seems to suggest a prior 
state. Cf. i. g. The end is expressed 
in iva paptupyow ty adnOela, “that I 
might witness to the truth,” especially 
regarding God and His relation to men. 
The consequence is that every one who 
belongs to the truth (moral affinity ex- 
pressed by éx) obeys Him, axover in a 
pregnant sense, cf. x. 8-16. They 
become His subjects, and form His 
kingdom, a kingdom of truth. For 
which Pilate has only impatient scorn: 
te éorw Gdy0era;— ‘Tush, what is 
Aletheia?”’ It was a kingdom which 
could not injure the empire. What have 


39. ot. S€ cuvyPera Spiv, 


iva éva piv 


dmodtow év TH méoxa: BovdecBe obv byiv drodtiow Tov Baohéa 
40. “Expatyacov ody mddwv mdvtes, Aéyovres, 
“Mi TodTov, GANG Tov BapaBBay-’’ Fv S€ 6 BapaBBas AnorHs. 


I to do with provinces that can yield no 


tribute, and threaten no armed rebellion? 


Vv. 38-40. Pilate declares the result 
of his examination.—Ver. 38. Pilate 
waited for no reply to his question, but 
Tovto elroy, wad. ééqAGe. The noting 
of each movement of Pilate suggests the 
eye-witness, and brings out his vacilla- 
tion. “Eyo ovSeplay airiay . . . “I for 
my part find no fault, or ground of accusa- 
tionin Him.” Naturally, therefore, Pilate 
will acquit and dismiss Him; but no. He 
attempts a compromise: éott Sé ovvy Pera 
tpiv “ You have a custom,” of which we 
have no information elsewhere; although 
Josephus (Antiq., xx. 9, 3) relates that at 
a passover Albinus released some robbers. 
Analogies in other countries have been 
produced. This custom Pilate fancies 
they will allow him to follow in favour 
of Jesus: BovAerOe . . . *lovdalwv; amro- 
Avow, aorist subjunctive ; cf. Mt. xiii. 28, 
OéXers ovdAAEwpev; Lk. ix. 54, Oéders 
eitapev; BovrdeoOe kadkGpev; BovAcobe 
elrw, etc., commonly occur in Aristo- 
phanes and other classical writers. 
*"Expavyacav . . . Mi Tovrov, aha Tov 
BapaBBav, “They shouted,” showing 
their excitement: maAtv, previous shout- 
ings have not been mentioned by John, 
but this word reflects light on the manner 
in which the accusations had been made. 
jv S¢ 6 BapaBBas Ayorys. Bar-Abbas, 
son of a father, or of a Rabbi, d:d5ac- 
Kddov vids. In Mt. xxvii. 16, Origen 
read “Incotv tov Bap., but added ‘in 
multis exemplaribus non continetur’’. 
He found a mystery in the circumstance 
that both prisoners were called “ Jesus, 
the Son of the Father’”’, Barabbas is 
designated Agerns, or, as Luke (xxiii. 19) 
more definitely says, he had been im- 
prisoned for sedition in the city and for 
murder. John does not bring out the 
irony of the Jews’ choice, which freed 


a? 
es celle, 0 








XIX. 1—6. 


EYATTEAION 


853 


XIX. 1. Tote obv *éXaBev 6 Muddtos tév “Inooiv, kat » épaori-a Mt. xiii. 


yowoe. 


ereOnkav adtod TH kehady Kal ipdriov mophupody “wepreBadoy adrov,! 5. 


c A pe 31. 
2. Kal of otpati@tar *wheavtes otépavov é& dxavOdr, b is. 1.6. 


i¢ Is. xxviii. 


d Mt. xv. 513 


. Kat €Xeyov, “ Xatpe, 6 Baciteds tav “loudaiwy:” Kat ° 23(8ouv e xviii. 22. 
Yyov, 


> nA @c , 
QUT® paTLoOLaTa. 


4. Efq ev ody méduy éfw 6 Muddtos, kal Adyer 


a ~ A J A eee 
adtois, “"ISe dyw spiv adrov ew, iva yOre bt ‘ev adtd oddepiay f xviii. 38. 


5. EgqOev otv 6 


ae (Ped ” 
GLTLaY EUpicKw. 


Q.vov atépavoy, Kal TO Toppupody ipdrtiov. 


5 avOpwios.”’ 


”» 
expatyacay héyovtes, “ Etavpwoov, stavpwooy. 


"Ingods €fw, * hopay tov dxdv- g Ecclus. xl, 


a +: 
kat héyet adtots, “Ide” 


6. “Ore oty eidov attév ot dpxtepets Kat ot danpérat, 


A€yer attois 6 


Muddros, “AdBete adtov Gpets kal otaupdcate> éyw yap * ody 


1 Insert kat npxovto mpos avTov with $QBL 33, omitted in AD by homoioteleuton. 


2 Sov in SWBL 33. 


the real and crucified the pretended 
mover of sedition. 

CHAPTER XIX.—Vv. 1-6. Pilate, after 
scourging Fesus, again pronounces Him 
guiltless—Ver. 1. Téte otv... épac- 
atywoe. Keim (vi. 99) thinks that Pilate 
at this point pronounced his ‘‘ condemno”’ 
and ‘ibis in crucem,’” and that the 
scourging was preparatory to the cruci- 
fixion. This might seem to be warranted 
by Mark’s very condensed account, xv. 
15. payedAdoas tva oravpwhy (ac- 
cording to the Roman law by which, 
according to Jerome, it was decreed “ut 
qui crucifigeretur, prius flagellis verberare- 
tur”; so Josephus, B. ¥., v. 11, and 
Philo, ii. 528). But according to John 
the scourging was meant as a compromise 
by Pilate; as in Lk. xxiii. 22: ‘‘ what 
evil hath He done? I found in Him 
nothing worthy of death ; I will therefore 
scourge Him and let Him go.” Neither, 
then, as part of the capital punishment, 
nor in order to elicit the truth (quaestio 
per tormenta) ; but in the ill-judged hope 
that this minor punishment might satisfy 
the Jews, Pilate ordered the scourging. 
The victim of this severe punishment was 
bound in a stooping attitude to a low 
column (column of the Flagellation, now 
shown in Church of Holy Sepulchre) and 
beaten with rods or scourged with whips, 
the thongs of which were weighted with 
lead, and studded with sharp-pointed 
pieces of bone, so that frightful laceration 
followed each stroke. Death frequently 
resulted. kat otorpati@ra: . . . pamti- 
opara, ‘and the soldiers plaited a crown 
of thorns” in mockery of the claim to 
royalty (for a similar instance, see Keim, 
vi, 121). Of the suggestions regarding 


the particular species of thorn, it may be 
said with Bynaeus (De Morte Christi, iii. 
145) “nemo attulit aliquid certi”. iparvov 
moppvupovv, ‘a purple robe,” probably 
a small scarlet military cloak, or some 
cast-off sagum, or paludamentum, worn 
by officers and subject kings.—Ver. 3. 
Kal 7pXovTo pds avtoy, “and they went 
on, coming to Him,” imperfect of con- 
tinued action; ‘and hailing Him king,” 
xatpe kK. T. A., as they were accustomed 
to shout ‘‘ Ave, Caesar”, At the same 
moment they struck Him on the face 
with their hands.—Ver. 4. Pilate, judg- 
ing that this will content the Jews, brings 
Jesus out that they may see Him and iva 
yoTe ... evploxw, that Pilate may have 
another opportunity of pronouncing Him 
guiltless.—Ver. 5. Still wearing (opayv) 
the mocking symbols of royalty, an ob- 
ject of derision and pity, Jesus is led out, 
and the judge pointing to Him says, 
“"I8e 6 GvOpwaros, Ecce Homo, “Lo! the 
man,” as if inviting inspection of the 
pitiable figure, and convincing them how 
ridiculous it was to try to fix a charge 
of treason on so contemptible a person. 
6 Gv@pwros is used contemptuously, as in 
Plutarch, Them., xvi. 2, ‘‘ the fellow,” 
“the creature”. Other instances in 
Holden’s note in Plut., Them. The 
result is unexpected.—Ver. 6. Instead 
of allowing him to release the prisoner, 
‘“‘the chief priests and their officers,’ 
not ‘‘the people,” who were perhaps 
moved with pity (Liicke), ‘ roared” 
(€xpavyaoay) ‘ Crucify, crucify’; ‘To 
the cross”. To this demand Pilate, 
“in angry sarcasm’’ (Reynolds), but 
perhaps rather merely wishing strongly 
to assert, for the third time, that he 


XIX. 


> , A a 
7. “AmexpiOycav adtd ot “lovdaio, 


““Hineig vduov Exopev, Kat KaTa Tov vopov Hudv ” deiher Arobavely, 


8. “Ore ody Hxoucev 6 Middtos Todrov Tév Adyov, paAdov epoBrOn, 


‘ eX. > aS y ‘ ‘ lal a 
g. Kal elonOev eis TO ‘mpartuptov mahi, Kal héyer TO Inood, 
« > A lol 
O 8€ “Inoods 'dmdxpiow odx eSwxev atTd. 


00K oldasg OTL 


> > a , aA ’ 
éfouclay é€xw otaupdcat ce, Kal efouciay exw “amodical ce ;’ 


II. Amexpidn 6 ‘Incods, “Odx elxes éfouciay odSeniay Kar’ emod, 


ae 2A - ag ” 
edpiokw éy adT® attiay. 
h xiii. 14. 
iv. 18. Stu‘ €aurdv vidv Tod Oeod eroinger.” 
j xviii. 28. 
kvii.27; ‘** Md0ev ef ot;”” 

ix. 29. L re 
Li. 22. 10. Néyet obv adt@ 6 Middtos, “’Epot od Aadets ; 
mM xviii. 39. 

Nn iii. 27. 


1 wapadouvs in NBE, it. vulg. 


for his part would not condemn Jesus to 
death, ‘‘ If He is to be crucified, it is you 
who must do it,” retorts, AaBere.. . 
airiay, ‘‘ Take ye Him and crucify Him, 
for I find no fault in Him”. 

Vv. 7-12a. Second private examina- 
tion by Pilate—Ver. 7. The Jews are 
as determined that Pilate shall condemn 
Jesus as he is resolved not to condemn 
Him, and to his declaration of the pris- 
oner’s innocence they reply, “Hpeis vépov 
éxopey . .. éroinoev. He may have 
committed no wrong of which your 
Roman law takes cognisance, but ‘‘ we 
have a law (Lev. xxiv. 16), and according 
to our law He ought to die, because He 
made Himself God’s Son’. For the 
construction see v. 18. The occasion 
they refer to is His profession to the 
Sanhedrim recorded in Mk. xiv. 62. 
vidv Geod here means more than “ Mes- 
siah,” for the claim to be Messiah was 
not apparently punishable with death 
(see Trefiry’s Eternal Sonshipf), and, 
moreover, such a claim would not have 
produced in Pilate the state of mind 
suggested by (ver. 8) paddov éhoBryOn, 
words which imply that already mingling 
with the governor’s hesitation to con- 
demn an innocent man there was an 
element of awe inspired by the prisoner’s 
bearing and words. The words also 
imply that this awe was now deepened, 
and found utterance in the blunt inter- 
rogation (ver. g), Mo@ev et av; ‘ Whence 
art Thou?”’ What is meant by your 
claim to be of Divine origin? To this 
question Jesus a@méxpiow otk edoxev 
avTo, ‘did not give him an answer”. 
Pilate had no right to prolong the case; 
because already he had three times over 
pronounced Jesus innocent. He needed 
no new material, but only to act on 
what he had. Jesus recognises this and 


»el ph Ty cor Sedopevoy dvwley. S14 Todto & mwapadidods | pé oor 


declines to be a party to his vacillation. 
Besides, the charge on which He was 
being tried was, that He had claimed to 
be King of the Jews. This charge had 
been answered. Legal procedure was de- 
generating into an unregulated wrangle. 
Jesus therefore declines to answer.— 
Ver. 10. At this silence Pilate is 
indignant; "Ewolt od Aadeis; “To me 
do you not speak?” It is intelligible 
that you should not count it worth your 
while to answer the charges of that 
yelling mob; but do you not know that 
I have power to crucify you and have 
power to release you ?—Ver. 11. Jesus 
answered, Ovx elyes . . . Exet. avwev, 
“from above,” 2.¢e., from God. Pilate 
must be reminded that the power he 
vaunts is not inherently his, but is given 
to him for God’s purposes. From this 
it follows, 81a totro, that 6 mapadidovs 
pé oot, “he that delivered me unto thee,” 
to wit, Caiaphas (although the designa- 
tion being that which is constantly used 
of Judas it has not unnaturally been 
referred to him), pelLova apapriav exer, 
‘‘hath greater sin,’’ not than you, Pilate 
(as understood by most interpreters), but 
greater than in other circumstances it 
would have been. Had Pilate been a 
mere irresponsible executioner their sin 
would have been sufficiently heinous ; 
but in using the official representative of 
God’s truth and justice to fulfil their own 
wicked and unjust designs, they involve 
themselves in a darker criminality. So 
Wetstein : ‘“‘ Comparatur ergo, nisi fallor, 
peccatum Judaeorum cum suis circum- 
stantiis, cum eodem peccato sine istis 
circumstantiis: hoc Judaeos aggravat, 
eosque atrocioris delicti reos agit, quod 
non per tumultum sed per Praesidem, 
idque specie juris, me quaerunt de medio 
tollere’”’.—Ver. 12. In consequence of 








7—14. 


ld 
petLova duaptiav ° éxe.”” 


* Grrokioat attév. 


Grovons, obk et idos Tod Katoapos. 


aA wn , 
Tov, * dvrudéyer TO Katoapr.” 


EYATTEAION 


12. P’Ex rodtou Té{yre. & Middtos 0 ix. at. 
ot S€ “loudator éxpafov! Aéyovtes, “Edy ToUTOoy q v. 16. 


13. ‘O obv Middtos dkovcas ToTov iv. 4. 


855 


Pp vi. 66 reff. 

ae nEAV EL 7-1 
QUTOY sls. xxii. 22; 

Hos. 
Lk. 


Tas 6 Baotéa 


a , ” ” 4 2 A Nish inp ety A , ll. 34. 
Tov Adyov, Hyayev Efw Tov “Ingody, Kat exdbioey emt Tod Bypyatos, tv. 2: w. 


eis Témov Aeydpevovy AvOdotpwrov, *‘EBpaioti Sé TaBBaba- 14. Fv 
d€ Tapackeul) To’ mdcxa, dpa S€ doel extn.” 


17, 20. 

Rey. ix. 
‘ , a LEX VIS 

Kal A€yer Tots 46. 


7 expavyatov is adopted by Tisch. after AIL; expavyacayv by W.H. after BD 33. 


2 Ti.W.H. read wpa nv ws with NAB. 


cursives. 


this and from this point, é« tovrov, as 
in vi. 66, “upon this,” with a causal as 
well as a temporal reference, é{jrer 6 
Miraros aroktoat avrév, Pilate sought 
(ineffectually, imperfect) to set Him free. 

Vv. 126-16, Fresh assault upon Pilate 
and his final surrender.—Ver. 12. ot 8é 
*lovdaior, ‘but the Jews,” a new turn 
was at this point given to the case by the 
cunning of the Sanhedrists, who cried 
out, éxpalov héyovres Eav . . . Kaioapu. 
ditos tot Katcapos. Wetstein says: 
‘‘ Legati, praesides, praefecti, consiliarii, 
amici Caesaris dicebantur,’’ but it is not 
in this titular sense the expression is here 
used. The meaning is: Thou dost not 
show thyself friendly to Caesar. The 
reason being that every one who makes 
himself a king, avridéyer TO Kaioapr, 
“‘ speaks against Caesar”. Euthymius, 
Field, Thayer, etc., prefer ‘‘setteth him- 
self against Caesar,’”’ ‘‘ resisteth his 
authority ’’. And as Jesus made Himself 
a king, Pilate would aid and abet Him 
by pronouncing Himinnocent. This was 
a threat Pilate could not despise. Tiberius 
was suspicious and jealous. [‘‘ Judicia 
majestatis . . . atrocissime exercuit.” 
Suetonius, T7b., 58. Treason was the 
makeweight in all accusations. Tacitus, 
Annals, iii. 38.]|—Ver. 13. Pilate therefore, 
when he heard this, brought Jesus out, 
Kal éxa@ioey ert tod Byparos. In the 
Gospel according to Peter, éxd@ioev is 
understood transitively: kat éxd@.ucav 
avrov éwi KxaOddpav Kpicews Adyovres 
Arxatws xpive, Baothked tod “lopand. 
Similarly in Justin, I. Afol., i. 35. 
This rendering presents a_ strikingly 
dramatic scene, and admirably suits 
the ‘‘behold your king” of ver. 14. 
(See Expositor for 1893, p. 296 ff., 
and Robinson and James’ Gospel accord- 
ing to Peter, p. 18.) But it is extremely 
unlikely that Pilate should thus have 
degraded his seat of justice, and much 
more natural to suppose that éxa@ioev 


tptty is found SycDsuppLX and some 


is used intransitively, as in xii. 14, etc. 
(Joseph., Bell. Fud., ii. 9, 3, 6 MiAatos 
kaQioas éwl Byyaros), and that Pilate’s 
taking his seat is mentioned to indicate 
that his mind was now made up and 
that he was now to pronounce his final 
judgment. The Bypa was the suggestum 
or tribunal, the raised platform (Livy, 
XXX 20) 3)ssaCs,) Lvst., olv.1625)) Or iseat 
(Suet., Aug., 44) on which the magistrate 
sat to administer justice. See 2 Macc. xiii. 
26.—eis témov Aeyopevov AvOdaTpwrov, 
‘at a place called Lithostroton,”’ 7.e., 
lit. Stone pavement, or Tesselated 
pavement (of which see reproductions 
in Rich’s Antiq.). Cf. 2 Chron. vii. 3, 
Joseph., Bell, Fud., vi.1,1. Pliny (xxxvi. 
15) defines Lithostrota as mosaics, 
“ parvulis certe crustis,” and says they 
were a luxury introduced in the time of 
Sulla and found in the provinces rather 
than in Rome (see Krebs im loc.). The 
space in front of the praetorium where 
the Bipa stood was thus paved and 
therefore currently known as “ Litho- 
stroton”’; ‘EBpaiorl 8€ TaBBaba, “ but 
in Hebrew,” z.e., in the popular Aramaic, 
“ Gabbatha,” which is not a translation 
of Lithostroton, but a name given to the 
same place from its being raised, from 


4, a ridge or elevation. The tribunal 


was raised as a symbol of authority and 
in order that the judge might see and be 
seen (see Liicke).—Ver. 14. jv 5é wapa- 
oKevy TOV macya, “ now it was the pre- 
paration of the Passover”’. mapackevy 
was the usual appellation of Friday, the 
day of preparation for the weekly Sabbath. 
Here the addition tod macya shows that 
it is used of the day preceding the 
Passover. This day was, as it happened, 
a Friday, but it is the relation to the 
feast, not to the ordinary Sabbath, that 
is here indicated. Cf. ver. 42. dpa 8 
@oe extn. “It was about the sixth 
hour,” z.¢., about 12 o’clock. But Mark 


856 


KATA IQANNHN 


XIX, 


15. OF S€ expadyacay, 


“*Apov, dpov, oradpwoov adtév.” Adye. adtois 6 Middtos, “ Tdv 


, Lf i er ” 
wi.ag,etc. "louSalorg, “""ISe & Baceds spar. 
A ” 
Bacida Spay otaupdcw ; 
» id ” 
vaKings *X°HEY Baoihéa ei pi) Katoapa. 
Heres adTots, iva craupwO7. 
ee ae NapéAaBov 8€ roy “Incouy kal dmyyayor!- 
Acts xv. 


10, 


w Dan. xii, \¢yerat “EBpaiotl Todyoba - 
aitod aXous Svo * évtedOev Kal evredbev, péoov 8€ Tov ‘“Incody. 


5. Rev. 
xxii. 2. 


"AtrexpiOnoav ot dpxtepeis, “ OdK 
16. Tote ofv wapédwxev abrov 


17. kal * BaordLwy 


tov oraupdv abtod? e&iOev eis Tov eydpevov Kpaviou rémov, bs 


18. Strov adtév éotavpwoay, Kal pet’ 


1 Tr. Ti.W.H.R. omit kat arnyayov following BLX 33. 


2 Instead of the genitive NL read eavtw, BX 33 avree 


(xv. 25) says: “It was the third hour 
and they crucified Him”. The various 
methods of reconciling the statements 
are given in Andrew’s Life of Our Lord, 
p. 545 ff. Meyer leaves it unsolved 
‘‘and the preference must be given to 
the disciple who stood under the cross ”. 
But if the crucifixion took place midway 
between nine and twelve o’clock, it was 
quite natural that one observer should 
refer it to the former, while another 
referred it to the latter hour. The height 
of the sun in the sky was the index of 
the time of day; and while it was easy 
to know whether it was before or after 
midday, or whether the sun was more or 
less than half-way between the zenith 
and the horizon, finer distinctions of time 
were not recognisable without consulting 
the sun-dials, which were not everywhere 
at hand. Cf. the interesting passages 
from rabbinical literature in Wetstein, 
and Professor Ramsay’s article in the 
Expositor, 1893, vol. vii., p. 216. The 
latter writer found the same conditions 
in Turkish villages, and ‘‘cannot feel 
anything serious” in the discrepancy 
between John and Mark. ‘The Apostles 
had no means of avoiding the difficulty 
as to whether it was the third or the 
sixth hour when the sun was near mid- 
heaven, and they cared very little about 
the point.” Kai Adyer. . . tpov, “and 
he says to the Jews: Behold your 
king!”’ words uttered apparently in sar- 
casm and rage. If he still wished to free 
Jesus, his bitterness was impolitic.— 
Ver. 15. They at once shouted, "Apov, 
&pov, etavpwoov aitév. To this Pilate 
could offer only the feeble opposition of 
more sarcasm, Tov Baowkea tov orav- 
pwow; where, of course, the emphasis is 
on the first words, John with his artistic 
perception exhibits their final rejection of 


Christ in the form in which it appeared 
as a reckless renunciation of all their 
national liberties and hopes: Ovx éxopev 
Bacthéa ci pm Kaicapa. Even yet Pilate 
will take no active part, but hands Jesus 
over to the Sanhedrists with the requisite 
authorisation ; wapéSwxev, used in a semi- 
technical sense, cf. Plut., Dem., xiv. 4, 
and the passages cited in Holden’s note. 

Vv. 17-30. The crucifixion.—-Ver. 17. 
The Jewish authorities on their part 
“received” Jesus, kal Gayyayov. Kal 
Baordfwv ... Podyo@a. ‘ And carrying 
the cross for Himself, He went out to the 
place called Kraniou (of a skull), which 
in Hebrew is called Golgotha.” The 
condemned man carried at least part ot 
the cross, and sometimes the whole. 6 
pehAwy oTavp@ mpoondotobat mpdtepov 
avrov Baoraler, Artemid., Oveir., ii. 56. 
Other passages in Keim, vi. 124. Since 
Tertullian (adv. Fud., 10) a type of this 
has been found in Isaac’s carrying the 
wood tor the sacrifice. é§#\@ev, it was 
usual both in Jewish and Roman com- 
munities to execute criminals outside the 
city. In Athens the gate through which 
they passed to the place of punishment 
was called yap@vera Oupa. Cf, Bynaeus, 
De Morte Christi, 220; Pearson, On the 
Creed (Art. iv.); Heb. xiii. 12; Lev. xxiv. 
14. The place of execution at Jerusalem 
was a small knoll just beyond the 
northern wall, which, from its bare top 
and two hollow caves in its face, bears a 
rough resemblance to a skull, and was 
therefore called xpaviov, Calvaria, Skull. 
“Golgotha” is the Aramaic form of 
Gulgoleth, which is found in 2 Kings 
ix. 35. It is described in Conder’s Hand- 
book, p. 355; Henderson’s Palestine, pp. 
163, 164.—Ver. 18. Sov... ‘Ingovyv. 
All information regarding the cross has 
been collected by Lipsius in his treatise 








15—25. 


EYATTEAION 


857 


4 A ~ 
19. "Eypae S€ kat tithov 6 Muddtos, kat EOyKev emt Tod otaupod * 


jv 8€ yeypappévor, “"Inaods 6 NaLwpatos 6 Bactheds Tay ‘lovdatwy.”” 


an A > , q 
20. Todtov odv tov TitNov ToAdol dvéyvwoay Tv ‘loudatwy, Ott 


*éyyis fv Tis méNews 6 Téros, Sou éoraupdOn 6 “Ingods* Kaix vi. 19 reff 


fv yeypappévoy “EBpaiori, “EAAnnoti, “Popaiott. 


21. €heyov ouv 


TH Middtw ot dpxuepets TOv “louSaiwy, “Mi ypdde, “O Baorheds 


Tav “loudaiwy: GAN Ste exetvos eitre, 
22. “Amexpi9n 6 Muddtos, 


wy? 


Bactheds eipt Tov loudalwy.”’ 


O yéypaha, yéypada.” 23. Ot odvy Gen. xiii 
14. 


~ a > , .Y > A > a e , > A 
oTpatiatar, dre Eotavpwoay Tov ‘Ingodv, ehaBov Ta twdtia adTod, 


kal éwoltnoay tégoapa pépy, ExGoTw oTpaTidty pepos, Kal Tov 


X'Tava. 


Hv 8é 6 xiTav Gppados, ek Tav * dvwHey 


2 A <a z Mk. xv. 38. 
“Udavrds St Odou. a Exod. 
Xxviil. 28. 


24. elroy ouv mpds GAAHAous, “MH” oXlowpey adtov, GANA * AdXwper b xxi. 1. 


Is. XXXVil. 


mept adtod, Tivos éotat’” tva “4 ypapy mAnpwhH f Aéyouga, 1. Lk. v. 


36. Mk. 


‘ , ge é , = c “ ‘ ay ss a ¢ , 
Avewepicayto TQ tp Tia pou EQUTOLS, KOL ETL TOV LLOaTLO OV pou xv. 38. 


€Badov xk\ijpov.’ 


« ‘ s A A > , - > c , de A 
oO. pev Ouv OTPATLWTAL TAUTGA ETTOLNOAYV 25. ELOTYKELOaY O€ Tapa 


TH oTaup@ Tod “inood  pHTHp adto0, Kal 7 adedhy Tis pntpds 18, 


De Cruce, Antwerp, 1595; Amstel., 1670; 
and in vol. ii. of his collected works, 
published at Lugduni, 1613. With Jesus 
were crucified ‘‘ other two,” in Mt. xxvii. 
38, called “robbers,” probably of the 
same class as Barabbas. Jesus was 
crucified between them; possibly, to 
identify Him with the worst criminals. 
‘The whole of humanity was repre- 
i — . 

sented there: the sinless Saviour, the 
Saved penitent, the condemned impeni- 
“tent.” Plummer.—Ver. 19. "Eypate Se 
Kat tithov 6 [Mudatos. ‘And Pilate 
wrote a ‘title,’ also, and set it on the 
cross.” The ‘‘title,” airia, was a board 
whitened with gypsum (cavis, \evKwopa) 
such as were commonly used for public 
notices. Pilate himself, meaning to 
insult the Jews, ordered the precise 
terms of the inscription. kat titdov, 
‘‘a title also,” in addition to all the 
other insults he had heaped on them 
during the trial.—Ver. 20. This title 
was read by ‘‘many of the Jews,” 
because the place of crucifixion was 
close to the city, and lay in the road of 
any coming in from the north; also it 
was written in three languages so that 
every one could read it, whether Jew or 
Gentile.—Ver. 21. Naturally the chief 
priests remonstrated and begged Pilate 
so to alter the inscription as to remove 
the impression that the claim of Jesus 
was admitted. Ver. 22. But Pilate, ‘‘ by 
nature obstinate and stubborn”’ (Philo, 
ii. 589), peremptorily reiused to make 


c Here only 
in this 
sense, see 
Thayer. 
Ps. xxii. 


any alteration. 6 yéypada yéypada.— 
Ver. 23. ‘‘The soldiers, then, when 
they had crucified Jesus, took His gar- 
ments ’’—the executioner’s perquisite 
(Apuleius has the comparison ‘ naked 
as a new-born babe or as the cruci- 
fied ’’)—and as there were four soldiers, 
tetpao.ov, Acts xii. 4, they divided the 
clothes into four parts. This was the 
more easily done because the usual dress 
of a Jew consisted of five parts, the head- 
dress, the shoes, the chiton, the outer 
garment, and the girdle. The yitov 
remained after the four other articles 
were distributed. They could not divide 
it into four without spoiling it, and so 
they cast lots for it. It was seamless, 
G&ppados, unsewed, and woven in one 
piece from top to bottom.—Ver. 24. 
‘Vhe soldiers therefore said, My oxiowpev 
avrév a\Aa Adywpev, ‘let us not rend it 
but cast lots”. Aayydvew is, properly, 
not ‘‘to cast lots,’ but ‘‘to obtain by 
lot”. See Field, Otium Norv., 72. In 
this John sees a fulfilment of Ps. xxii. 
18, the LXX. version of which is here 
quoted verbatim.—Ver. 25. This nart 
of the scene is closed (that another 
may be introduced) with the commen 
formula, ot pév ov orpari@tat TavTa 
éwotnoav. (‘‘Graeci , . . saepissime 
hujusmodi_ conclusiunculis  utuntur.”’ 
Raphel im loc.) ot pev.. . elotyKeroay 
82... The soldiers for their part acted 
as has been related, but there were others 
beside the cross who were very difierently 


858 


aitod, Mapia * tod Kwa, kai Mapia y MaySahniy. 


KATA ITQANNHN 


XIX. 


26. “Inoods 


obv (Sav Thy pytépa, Kal tov pabythy mapeotara by hydma, déyet 


TH pytpl adtod, “Tuvat, i80d 6 uids gov.”’ 


e xi. 53. ae stm , 
Feet ea | Babes “ead Hiptenpise: 
: ya c - 
S07 XXxi. auTiy re) pabytis €ig Ta sik 
gii.6; xx. mdvta 7mdSn teTéMeoTaL, iva 
5; xxi. 9. 
h Ps. Ixix. 


27. Elta déyer TO 
Kai *dm éxeivns tis Spas edaPev 
28. Meta todTo ciShs 6 “Ingods, ott 


tedew0y 7% ypadih, déyet, “ Aupa.””’ 


29. Exedos obv * éxerto "dkous peotdv: ot S€, TARGavTEs oTdyyor 


21. 
i Prov. vii.3." Sous, kal boodmw ‘tepiOévtes, mpoojveykay adTod TH oTdpatt. 


affected. 4 pytyp ..- MaySadnvy. It 
is doubtful whether it is meant that three 
or that four women were standing by the 
cross; for Mapia 4 rod KAwra may either 
be a further designation of 7 a8eAph THs 
BNTpos avTov, or it may name the first 
member of a second pair of women. 
That four women are intended may be 
argued from the extreme improbability 
that in one family two sisters should bear 
the same name, Mary. The Synoptists 
do not name the mother of Jesus among 
those who were present, but Matthew 
(xxvii. 56) and Mark (xv. 40) name Mary 
Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, 
and Salome the mother of John. Two 
of these three are mentioned by John 
here, and it is natural to infer that the 
unnamed woman (fH a8eAp7 «x. T. A.) is 
the third, Salome; unnamed possibly 
because of this writer’s shyness in naming 
himself or those connected with him. 
But the fact that Luke (xxiv. 10) names 
Joanna as the third woman reflects some 
uncertainty on this argument. If Salome 
was Mary’s sister, then Jesus and John 
were cousins, and the commendation of 
Mary to John’s care is in part explained. 
% tov KXwra may mean the mother, 
daughter, sister, or wife of Klopas; pro- 
bably the last. According to Mt. xxvii. 
56, Mk. xv. 40, Lk. xxiv. 10, the Mary 
here mentioned was the mother of James 
and Joses. But in Mt. x. 3 we learn 
that James was the son of Alphaeus. 
Hence it is inferred that Klopas and 
Alphaeus are two slightly varying forms 


of the same name spr. —Ver. 26. 


John’s interest in naming the women is 
not obvious except in the case of the first. 
"Ingots ... i pyATHP Gov. Jesus when 
He saw His mother, and the disciple 
whom He loved standing beside her (the 
relevancy of the designation, tov pa@yrnv 
év Wya7a, is here obvious, and the most 
convincing proof of its truth and signifi- 
cance is now given), says to His mother, 
** Woman, behold thy son”; 7.¢., turn- 
ing His eyes towards John, There is 


your son, Me you are losing, so far as 
the filial relation goes, but John will in 
this respect take my place.—Ver. 27. 
And this trust He commits to John in 
the simple words, “Sod 4 pytnp gov, 
although his natural mother, Salome, 
was also standing there. [Cf. the bequest 
of Eudamidas: “I leave to Aretaeus the 
care of nourishing and providing for my 
mother in her old age’. Lucian’s 
Toxaris.| John at once accepted the 
charge, ‘‘ from that hour (which cannot 
be taken so stringently as to imply that 
they did not wait at the cross to see the 
end) the disciple took her to his own 
home”; eis ta tOta, see i. II, XVi. 
32. The circumstances of the Nazareth 
home which made this a possible and 
desirable arrangement are not known. 
That Mary should find a home with her 
sister and her son is in itself intelli- 
gible, and this close intimacy of the two 
persons whose hearts had been most 
truly the home of Jesus must have helped 
to cherish and vivify all reminiscences of 
His character and words.—Ver. 28. 
Mera totro... Aupa. ‘After this, Jesus 
knowing that all things are now finished, 
that the scripture might be completely 
fulfilled, saith, I thirst.” JéSus did fot 
“feel thirsty and proclaim it with the 
intention of fulfilling scripture—which 
would be a spurious fulfilment—but in 
His complaint and the response to it, 
John sees a fulfilment of Ps. lxix. 22 

Thy Siav pov émoticdy pe of0s5. Only 
anon Tot atce had bien attended to 
(eiSas x. t. A.) was He free to attend to 
His own physical sensations.—Ver. 29. 
Zketos . . . peatdv—‘ There was set a 
vessel full of vinegar”; the mention of 
the vessel betrays the eye-witness. ‘‘ The 
Synoptists do not mention the oxevos, 
but John had stood beside it.” Plummer. 
dtos, the vinegar used by soldiers. 
[Ulpian says: ‘“vinum atque acetum 
milites nostri solent percipere, uno die 
vinum, alio die acetum”. Keim, vi. 162.] 
Here it seems to have been provided for 
the crucified, for as Weiss and Plummer 





26—34. 


EYATTEALON 


859 


a os 
30. Ste odv EhaBe Td Stos 6 “Ingois, ete, “TetéNeoTar:” Kal 


, an 
KAtvas Thy Kepahiy, mapedwKe To TvEedpa. 


c s > - o x , 5) 38 A A A 4 
31. Ot oty “lovdator, iva pi) petvy él tod otavpod Ta odpata év 


7® caBBatw, émel tapackeuy Hv: Hv yap! ihn 1H Huepa exetvou j vii. 37. I 
A D, p Hv: qW yap‘ peyddy F Hpepa exetvou j vii. 37. Is 


~ a ~ 1. 13. ‘ 
To caBBdrou> Apdtycay tov Middrov, iva *xateay@ouw adtav Ta k Jer. xxxi. 


oKEAH, Kal ap0douy. 


a > c A ‘ A A 
32- WAGov odv ot otpatidtat, Kal Tod pey 


25; 


mpatou katéagay Ta oKEAN Kal TOG GAou TOD GuTTaUpwHEvTos atTs - 


33. emt S€ tov “Inoodvy eNOdvtes, ws eldov adtdv Hy TeOvyKOTa, od 


katéagay adtod Ta oké\yn: 34. GAN els TOY oTpatiwTav A6yxy 


observe, there were a sponge and a 
hyssop-reed also at hand. oi 88, i.e., the 
soldiers, but cf. Mk. xv. 36; wAyoavres 
... They filled a sponge, because a cup 
was impracticable, and put it round a 
stalk of hyssop, and thus applied the 
restorative to His mouth. The plant 
called “‘ hyssop”’ has not been identified. 
All that was requisite was a reed (cf. 
meptOeis kaNdpw, Mt. xxvii. 48, Mk. xv, 36) 
of two or three feet long, as the crucified 
was only slightly elevated.— Ver. 30. 
bre ovv ... mvedpa. The cry, teré- 
Aeorat, “it is finished,” was not the 
gasp of a worn-out life, but the deliberate 
utterance of a clear consciousness that 
His work was finished, and all God’s 
purpose accomplished (xvii. 4), that all 
had now been done that could be done 
to make God known to men, and to 
identify Him with men. apédwxe Td 
mvetpa, ‘‘ gave up His spirit,’ according 
to Luke xxii. 46, with an audible com- 
mendation of His spirit to the Father. 
adrjKke mvevpa in Eurip., Hecuba, 569; 
adjke THY Wuxyy Plut., Dem., xxix. 5. 
Vv. 31-37. The piercing of Fesus’ side. 
—Ver. 31. ‘‘ The Jews, therefore, since 
it was the preparation,” 7.¢., Friday, the 
day before the Sabbath, “and as the day 
of that Sabbath was great,’’ being not only 
an ordinary Sabbath but the Passover, 
“that the bodies might not hang on the 
cross on the Sabbath” and so defile it, 
‘they asked Pilate that their legs might 
be broken, and that they might be re- 
moved’’, The law of Deut. xxi. 23 was 
that the body of a criminal should ‘“ not 
remain all night upon the tree”. This 
law seems not to have been in view; but 
rather the fear of polluting their great feast. 
The Roman custom was to leave the body 
to birds and beasts ot prey. To secure 
speedy death the crur:fragium, breaking 
of the legs with a heavy mallet or bar, 
was sometimes resorted to: as without 
such means the crucified might in some 
cases linger for thirty-six hours. Neander 


(Life of Christ, p. 473) has an interesting 
note on crurifragium; and cf. the 
Gospel according tu Peter on oxedoxoria, 
with the note by the Author of Supernat. 
Religion.—Ver. 32. The two robbers 
were thus despatched. éai 82 rév “Inocotv 
éA\@dvres, but when the soldiers who 
were carrying out Pilate’s orders came 
to Jesus and saw that He was already 
dead, they refrained from breaking His 
legs.—Ver. 34. But one of the soldiers 
Aoyxp avtod THY WAevody évvke, pierced 
His side with a spear”. But Field 
prefers ‘‘ pricked His side”’ to keep up 
the distinction between évute (the milder 
word) and éfexévrnoe (ver. 37). He 
favours the idea of Loesner that the 
soldier’s intention was to ascertain 
whether Jesus was really dead, and he 
cites a very apt parallel from Plutarch’s 
Cleomenes, 37. But €yyet vvée occurs in 
Homer (J/., v. 579), where death followed, 
and as the wound inflicted by this spear 
thrust seems to have been a_ hand- 
breadth wide (xx. 25) it may be presumed 
the soldier meant to make sure that 
Jesus was dead by giving Him a thrust 
which itself would have been fatal. The 
weapon with which the blow was in- 
flicted was a Adyxn, the ordinary Roman 
hasta, which had an iron head, egg- 
shaped, and about a hand-breadth at the 
broadest part. Following upon the blow 
evOds efqAGev ata Kat Vdwp. Dr. Stroud 
(Physical Cause of the Death of Christ) 
advocates the view that our Lord died 
from rupture of the heart, and thus 
accounts both for the speedy cessation 
of life and for the effusion of blood and 
water. Previous literature on the sub- 
ject will be found in the Critici Sacri 
and select passages in Burton’s Bampton 
Lec., 468-9. Without physiological 
knowledge John records simply what he 
saw, and if he had an eye to the Docetae, 
as Waterland (v. 190) supposes, yet his 
main purpose was to certify the real 
death of Jesus. The symbolic signifi. 


860 KATA TOQANNHN 
i Rev, xiv. 
20. 1 Jo. 
v. 6. 
pues BY Kdkelvog oldey Ste GANOA A€yer, iva Spets moredonte. 


adtod tiv meupdy Evuge, cat eds |‘ ebqAOev aipa Kal Tdwp. 


XIX, 


35: 


kal 6 éwpaxds pepaptipyxe, kal ™ddnOwh adtod éoriv 4 paptupia, 


36. éyéveto 


46. Ps. yap tadta, tva  ypadt mAnpwOh, ‘*’Ootoiv of ouvtpiByceToe 


Xxxiv. 20. 


o Zech. xii. aUTOO.’ 
10. < F 
éfexevTnoav. 
p Hereonly, 
qi Kings 
xiii. 29 


Px, M0s) Xe 5 
16 


s Here only » 


ri IN: > A ‘ ~ a? a 
in N.T, )AGev ouv Kat “ype TO OHpa Tod Ingod. 


Ecclus. 


37. Kal wadw érépa ypadph éyer, ‘*”"OWovrar cis dv 


38. META 8€ taita Apatyce Tov Middtov 6 “lwo 6 dard “Apya- 
. Balas, dv pabyths Tod “Incod, ’ kexpuppevos S€ Sid tov dBov Tay 
loudaiwy, tva 4dpy Td GHpa Tod “Incod: Kal émérpeper 6 MiddTos. 


39. mAOe Sé Kal NiKddynpos 


xxxviii. 8,8 €AOMv mpds Tov “Ingodv vuKTds "Td TpGTov, pépwy * wlypa optpyns 


cance of the blood and water so 
abundantly insisted on by the Fathers 
(see Burton, B. L., 167-72, and West- 
cott’s additional note) is not within 
John’s horizon.—Ver. 35. When he goes 
on to testify, 6 €wpakas . . . itis not the 
phenomenon of the blood and water he 
so emphatically certifies, but the veritable 
death of Christ. To one who was 
about to relate a resurrection it was a 
necessary preliminary to establish the 
bona-fide death. ‘That John here speaks 
of himself in the third person is quite in 
his manner. Here, as in chap. xx., he 
shows that he understood the value of an 
eye-witness’stestimony. It is that which 
constitutes his paprupia as adn Auv4, it is 
adequate. Besides being adequate, its 
contents are true, addynéq. ‘‘ Testimony 
may be sufficient (e.g., of a competent 
eye-witness) but false; or it may be in- 
sufficient (e.g., of half-witted child) but 
true. St. John declares that his testimony 
is both sufficient and true.’”’? Plummer. 
The reason of his utterance, or record of 
these facts, is tva tpets miorevonrte, 
‘‘ that ye might believe,”’ first, this record, 
and through it in Jesus and His revela- 
tion.—Ver. 36. éyévero yap taita. He 
records these things, contained in this 
short paragraph, because they further 
identify Jesus as the promised Messiah. 
*Ocroty ot ouvtpiByoeTtar avtrov. The 
law regarding the Paschal lamb ran 
thus (Exod. xii. 46): éortotv ob ovv- 
tpiete Gm avTov, cf. Ps. xxxiv. 20. 
Evidently John identified Jesus as the 
Paschal Lamb, cf. 1 Cor. v. 7. Kat 
mddu ... éfexévrnoay. Another Scrip- 
ture also here found its fulfilment, Zech. 
xii. 10. The original is: ‘*‘ They shall 
look upon me whom they pierced”’. The 
Sept. renders: émBAdbovrat pds pe avd’ 
@y xatwpxyyjcavto: ‘ They shall look 
towards me because they insulted me’’. 


John gives a more accurate translation: 
“Oovrar els dv ekexévrnoav: ‘ They 
shall look on Him whom (ékeivov 6yv) 
they pierced’. The same rendering is 
adopted in the Greek versions of Aquila, 
Theodotion and Symmachus, and is also 
found in Ignatius, Ep. Traill., 10; Justin, 
I. Apol., i. 77; and cf. Rev. i. 7, and 
Barnabas, Ep., 7. In the lance thrust 
John sees a suggestive connection with 
the martyr-hero of Zechariah’s prophecy. 

Vv. 38-42. The entombment.—Ver. 38. 
Mera S¢ ratra, ‘ But after these things”’. 
In ver. 31 the Jews asked that the bodies 
might be removed. Had this request 
been fulfilled by the soldiers, they would 
have cast the three bodies together into 
some pit of refuse, cf. Josh. vili. 29; 
but before this was done Joseph of 
Arimathaea—a place not yet certainly 
identified—who was a rich man (ef. Is. 
liii. g) and a member of the Sanhedrim 
(Mt. xxvii. 57; Mk. xv. 43 ; Lk. xxiii. 50), 
but also ‘‘a disciple of Jesus,’”’ though 
“a hidden one, kexpuppévos, through 
fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that 
he might remove the body of Jesus”. 
This required some courage on Joseph’s 
part, and Mark therefore uses the word 
toApyoas. Reynolds says that ype- 
aynoev “implies something of claim and 
confidence on his part. The Synoptists 
all three use yryjoato, which rather 
denotes the position of a supplicant for 
a favour.” The reason, however, why 
at4ca70 is used in the Synoptists is that 
it is followed by an accusative of the 
object asked for; while jpétyve is used 
in John because it introduces a request 
that something may be done. With 
Joseph’s request Pilate complied. 7AGev 
...'Inood. For jpe To capa, cf. I 
Kings xiii. 29. Another member of 
Sanhedrim countenanced and aided 
Joseph.—Ver. 39. 7AGe 8@ wal Nuxd- 








35—42. XX. I—3. 


kat '&ddns doel "Aitpas Exardv. 


3 lol ‘\ ” eee | 
Ingod, Kal €Snoav add 


€005 éatt tots “loudators % évtadidterv. 


eoTaupwen, KiTos, Kal év TO 


EYATTEAION 


861 


40. €\aBov obv Td cHpa Toi t Here only. 


‘A U xii. 3. 
*dBoviots peta Tay “dpwrdtwv, * kabis v xX, 5, 6,7. 
w WK. XVI. 
41. qv 8€ TO Témw, Sou 1, etc. 
t ‘ 
x1 Mac. x. 


2K tov Kawvov, év @ obdeTrw 
Kimo pynpelov Kowvdv, év @ obd€ 89. 2 


Chron 
A ~ 3 , e 
obdeis ern. 42. ket ody Sta Thy *TapacKeuyy Tay ‘lovdaiwy, OTL xvi. 14. 
\. a a » Mier A y Mat. xxvi. 
eyyls hv TO pyypetov, EOnKay Tov ‘Inoody. a 


2 Kings 


XX. 1. THe 88 *pud tv caBBdrwv Mapia 4 MaySadyvh epxetae ~ xxi. 26. 


a ver. 14. 


“ 4 , 
> apt, ckotlas ett ovons, eis TO pyynpetov’ Kat Bremer Tov ALBoV a Acts xx. 7, 


Appevov ek Tod pyynpetou. 


Mk. xvi. 2. 


a , 9 AQ , 
2. THEXEL OUV KAL EpXETaL TPOS Lipwva py Gen. i. 5, 


Mk. i. 35. 


Nérpov kat mpds Tov Gdoy palythy Sv epithe 6 “Ingots, kat Aéyet. Cy Mk. 


a nw , A n~ 
adtots, “*”"Hpay tov KUptov é€k TOU pYyELOU, Kal OUK oidapev TOO 4 


” > , ” 
eOykav adtov. 


Sypos. ‘Thus Jesus by being lifted up 
is already drawing men unto Him. 
These Jewish aristocrats first confess 
Him in the hour of His deepest de- 
gradation.” Plummer. Nicodemus is 
identified as 6 é\@av... Td mparTov, 
‘‘he who came to Jesus by night at the 
first’; iii. I, in contrast to the boldness 
of his coming now. ¢é€pwv plypa... 
éxatév. plypa, a ‘confection’ or 
“© compound,” g Ecclus. xxxviii. 8. 
opipyyns Kal aAdéys, “of myrrh and 


aloes”. Myrrh was similarly used by 
the Egyptians, see Herod., ii. 83. Cf. 
Ps. xlv. 9. @oet Aitpas éxatdv. The 


Aitpa (libra) was rather over eleven 
ounces avoirdupois. The enormous 
quantity has been accounted for as a 
rich man’s expression of devotion, or as 
required if the entire body and all the 
wrappings were to be smeared with it, 
and if the grave itself was to be filled 
with unguents as in 2 Chron. xvi. 14. 
—Ver. 40. €daBov . . . évradiatery. 
They wrapped the body in strips of linen 
along with the aromatic preparations (2 
Chron. xvi. 14, G@pwpatwv), as is the 
custom (@s @00s éoti, 1 Macc. x. 89) 
with the Jews (other peoples having 
other customs) to prepare for burial.— 
Ver. 41. évradgidfew, see Gen. |. 1-3. 
jv év tO tOomw, ‘There was in the 
place,” 7.¢e., in that neighbourhood, 
Kjos, a garden, which, according to 
Mt. xxvii. 60, must have belonged to 
Joseph. pynpetov kavdv, a tomb, rock- 
hewn according to Synoptists, which 
had hitherto been unused, and which 
was therefore fresh and clean.—Ver. 42. 
“There, accordingly, on account of the 
preparation of the Jews, because the 
tomb was at hand, they laid Jesus.” 
The Friday was so nearly at an end 
that they had not time to go to any 


3. "E&ANOev obv 6 Métpos Kal 6 GAdos pabyTijs, 


xiv. 46. 
ver. I; 
xix. 38. 


distance, and therefore availed them- 
selves of the neighbouring tomb as a 
provisional, if not permanent, resting- 
place. 

CHAPTER XX.—The resurrection and 
subsequent manifestations.—Vv._ 1-10. 
The empty tomb.—Ver. 1. THe 8 pug 
TOV hi Ce “And on the first day 
of the week”. Mk. (xvi. 2) and Lk. 
(xxiv. 1) have the same expression. Mt. 
(xxviii. 1) has éé 8 caBBdarov, rH 
émipwokotoy els piav oafParev. [In 
the suspected ninth verse of Mk. xvi. 
™poTy appears instead of pig.|—Mapia 
 Maydadnvi epxetat, Mary of Magdala, 
now Mejdel, a fishing village north of 
Tiberias ; she is further described in Mk. 
xvi. g aS wap fs éxPeBAjKer éwra 
Satpdvia (cf. Lk. viii. 2), which lends 
significance both to her being at the 
tomb and to her being the first to see the 
Lord. She alone of the three women 
present is here named, because she alone 
is required in John’s account. The time 
is more exactly described as mpwt, oxotias 
ért ovons. Mk. (xvi. 2) has Atav wpot, 
but adds avatefAavros tod *Alov, ap- 
parently having chiefly in view, not the 
first arrival of the women, but the 
appearance of Jesus to Mary. Luke’s 
dpOpov Babéos agrees with John’s ex- 
pression. Phrynichus defines dp@pos as 
the time before the day began while a 
lamp was still needed. ([Cf. Plato’s 
Crito at the beginning, and Roger’s note 
on Aristoph., Wasps, 215.] The dark- 
ness is noticed by John to account for 
her seeing nothing of what Peter and 
John afterwards saw. She could not, 
however, fail to see tov AlOov Appévov éx 
Tov pynpetov; the slab closing the 
sepulchre had been removed. Seeing 
this she naturally concluded that the 
tomb had been violated, possibly that 


862 


civ. 36; xxi. kal pxovTo €ig TO puynpeEtov. 


KATA IQANNTIN 


XX, 


4. €tpexov S€ of Bo *dpod- Kal 6 


GAAos pabyT}s mpoddpapye TdxLov Tod Métpou, Kal 7AVe mpHTos eis 


f ver. xX. 
Jas. i, 25. 
g xix. 28, 


eionAOev. 6. EpxeTar ody 


Td pvnpetov, 5. Kal *mapakdpas Bhérer * keipeva TA dOdvia, oF pévTor 


Xipwr Mérpos dkodouldv adtd, Kal 


clay Mev eis TS pynpetov, kat Oewpet ta SOdvia * kelpeva, 7. Kal Td 


souddproy 8 iy emi rhs Kepadfjs adrod, od peta Tay dOoviwy Keipevoy, 


bh Adv. here GANA “ywpls evtetudtypevoy eis Eva Térrov. 


only, 


8. tote obv cio be 


kai 6 GdAos pabyris 6 EMOdv mpdros eis TS pyypetov, Kal ede, Kal 


iLk.xxiv.7. érioteugev* g. od8€mw yap ySeocay tiv ypaddhy, ot ‘Set adrov ek 


the authorities for purposes of their own 
had removed the body.—Ver. 2. tpéxet 
ovv ... avrov. She therefore runs, dis- 
regarding unseemliness, and comes to 
those who would be most interested, and 
without preface, breathless and anxious, 
exclaims: jpav... “they have re- 
moved the Lord from the tomb, and we 
know not where they have laid Him”, 
Evidently she had no idea that a resur- 
rection had taken place. The plural 
otdSapnev may naturally be accepted as 
confirming Mark’s account that she 
was not alone.—Ver. 3. At once the 
two men éfmdOev... Kat *pxovto, 
singular and plural as frequently, aorist 
and imperfect, the one referring to the 
passing beyond the city wall, the other 
to the whole course from the house to 
the tomb.—Ver. 4. é€rpexov S€ ot Svo 
6pov, “and the two ran together”: 
equally eager; but 6 G@AAos pabytis 
mpoéSpape taxiov tod Meérpov, ‘the 
other disciple ran on before more 
quickly than Peter’; probably John 
was the younger man. [Lampe sug- 
gests two other reasons: either Peter’s 
steps were slower ‘‘ob conscientiam 
cuipae,” or “forte via Joanni magis 
nota erat’’.] Consequently John 7\Oe 
mpatos ... “came first to the tomb”. 
—Ver. 5. kal wapaxvwas... The R.V. 
renders tapaxupas by ‘‘stooping and 
looking in,” A.V. has merely ‘ stooping 
down”; the Vulgate “cum se inclinasset,”’ 
Weizsacker ‘‘ beugte sich vor”. Field 
(Otium Norvic. on Luke xxiv. 12) prefers 
‘‘ looking in,”’ although, he says, ‘‘ peep 
in’? would more accurately define the 
word wapaximrery. He quotes Casau- 
bon’s opinion that the word implies “‘ pro- 
tensionem colli cum modica corporis 
incurvatione’’. See also Kypke on 
Luke xxiv. 12, and Lid. and Scott Lex. 
60d6v.a are the strips of linen used for 
swathing the dead; the cerecloths. 66évy 
is frequent in Homer (J1., 3, 141 ; 18, 595) 
to denote the fine material of women’s 


dress; in Lucian and Herodian of sails; 
in Acts x. 11 ofasheet. otwSdv is the word 
used by Luke (xxiii. 53); so Herodotus, 
ii, 86. ov pévror eionAOev, “he did not 
however enter,” withheld by dread of 
pollution, according to Wetstein; by 
terror, according to Meyer. It isenough 
to suppose that it did not occur to John 
to enter the tomb, or that he was with- 
held by a feeling of reverence or delicacy. 
—Ver. 6. Peter is notso withheld. He 
enters kat @ewpei Ta d0dvia . . . Térrov, 
Bewpet is probably used here in its stricter 
sense of seeing so as to draw conclusions. 
—Ver. 7. What he saw was significant ; 
the linen wrappings lying, and the nap- 
kin which had been on His head not 
lying with the linen cloths, but separately 
folded up in a place by itself. The first 
circumstance was evidence that the body 
had not been hastily snatched away for 
burial elsewhere. Had the authorities or 
any one else taken the body, they would 
have taken it as it was. The second 
circumstance gave them even stronger 
proof that there had been no hurry. The 
napkin was neatly folded and laid ‘ into 
one place,” the linens being in another. 
They felt in the tomb as if they were in 
wthamber where one had divested him- 
self of one set of garments to assume 


another. [Euthymius is here interesting 
and realistic.] oovSdprov, sudarium, 
from sudo, I sweat.—Ver. 8. On Peter 


reporting what he saw réte otv... 
ériotevoey, “then entered accordingly 
the other disciple also, who had first 
arrived at the tomb, and he saw and 
believed”. Standing and gazing at the 
folded napkin, John saw the truth. 
Jesus has Himself risen, and disencum- 
bered Himself of these wrappings. Cf. 


xi. 44. It was enough for John; étio- 
tevoev. He visited no other tomb; he 
questioned no one. — Ver. 9. The 


emptied and orderly grave convinced 
him, ov8érw yap ySewav .. . avarrqvat; 
it was not an expectation founded on 
ne 








4—16. 


vexpav dvacrfvat. 10. drqdOov obv mahi! mpds gautods of pabytal. J 
II. Mapia 8€ elothKer mp3s TO pyynpetov Kdalovoa efw. 
éxAare, “ mapéxuipey eis TO pynpetov, 12. Kat Dewpet SU0 dyyéAous ev 
Keukols KabeLopevous, eva mpds TH KEpady, Kal Eva mpds Tots Trooly, ! 


a A 4 ~ a >? ~ 

Sou ExettTo TO Goya Tod ‘Ingod. 
, , A 

“Tuva, Ti kNalers;” Ayer adtots, 


fel ” 
kai oUK olda Tod ” EOnKay adtov. 


, 4 w~ > ~ A 
“cis Ta OTrigwW, Kal Oewpet Tov “Ingodv EoTHTAa~ Kal oUK det STL dq 


"Ingots ? éott. 
4 rive tytets ;” 


EYATTEAION 


15. eyer adth 6 “Ingods, “Tuvat, ti KNaters ; 


863 


1 Sam. 
XXVi, II. 
Num. xxiv. 
25. Lk. 
XXiv. 12. 
k ver. 5. 

Pl. Exod. 
XXXiil. 4. 


c = 
@S ouyv 


13. Kal héyouow adr éxetvor, m xix. 38; 


and ver. 2. 
n xix. 41. 


iJ 
“Ore ™ ipav Tov KUpLdv jou, 0 xix. 
© xviii. 6 


14. Kal tadta eimodca éotpddy reff. 


p i. 40. 
Gen. 
XXXVii. 15. 
Cp. XVili. 7. 


, A ~ 
*Exetvy Soxoica ott 6 "Knmoupds éott, Aéyer adTG, r Here only. 


“Kupe, eb od *éBdotacas atrév, eimé por mod adtévy ” €OnKas -s Cp. xii. 6. 


Kay adtov ‘apd. 16. A€yer abtij 


heica éxeivy héyer attG,) “*“PaBBourt-”’ 


6 “Ingots, “ Mapta.” 


t ver. 13. 
u Mk. x. 51 
& A€yetot, SiSdoKade. only. 


itpa- 


1 Insert EBpatore with $$ BDLOX 33 Syrr. Aegypt. Arm. Aeth., omitted in AEGK 


vulg. Cyr.-Alex. 


scripture which prompted belief in the 
resurrection; but only those matter-of- 
fact observations, the empty grave and 
the folded napkin.—Ver. 10. Satisfied 
in their own minds amw7Oov otv.. . 
ot pabytai. mpos éavtovs or avTovs or 
avrovs = home; “chez eux,’’ Segond’s 
French version; eis ra ida, modern 
Greek. Kypke gives examples of a phrase 
which he says is “‘ trita profanis”. 

Vv. 11-18.—Fesus reveals Himself to 
Mary.—Ver.11. Mapia 8é citorycer... 
é&. Hitherto John has told us simply 
what he himself saw: now he reports 
what Mary told him, see ver. 18. She 
had come to the tomb after the men, but 
could not share in their belief. She re- 


mained outside the tomb helplessly and 
nepelesty weeping: She herself had 
oO € disciples that the tomb was 


empty, and she had seen them come ou 
Of it; but again wmapéxupev els 7d 


“pvijpetov “she peered into the tomb”; 
mimi fal touch. e could 
att élieve her Lord was gone. «al 


Oewpet . . . “Inood. 
mann, is a mere reminiscence of Luke 
xxiv. 4. But even the description of the 
angels differs. They were ‘seated one 
at the head and one at the feet where 
the body of Jesus lay”; sitting, says 
Bengel, ‘‘ quasi opera quapiam perfunc- 
tos, et exspectantes aliquem, quem doce- 
rent’. Lampe has little help to give 
here ; and Licke is justified in saying 
that neither the believing nor the critical 
inquirer can lift the veil that hangs over 
this appearance of angels. In Mary’s 
case it was wholly without result; for no 


sooner does she answer the angels’ ques- 
tion than she turns away, probably hear- 
ing a footstep behind her.—Ver. 14. 
éotpapy eis Ta dmiow.. . “And she 
sees Jesus standing and did not know 
that it was Jesus”; not merely because 
her eyes were dim with tears, but 
because He was altered in appearance ; 
as Mark (xvi. 12) says, év érépa popdy. 
So little was her ultimate recognition of 
Jesus the result of her expectation or her 
own fancy embodied.—Ver. 15. Aéyer... 
tnrets; That she was searching for some 
one she had lost was obvious from her 
tears and demeanour. But not even the 
voice of Jesus sounds familiar. ’Exeivy 

. &p@. She supposed Him to be the 
gardener (or garden-keeper) not because 
He had on the gardener’s clothes—for 
probably He wore merely the short 
drawers in which He had been crucified 
(see Hug and Lucke)—nor because He 
held the spade as represented in some 


_held the spade as_ 
pictures, but because no one else was 





ikely to be there at that early hour and 


This, says Holtz-to question her as to her reason for being _ 


‘there. Her answer shows that she 
thought it possible that it had been found 
inconvenient to have the body of Jesus in 
that tomb and that it had been removed to 
some other place ofsepulture. In this case 
she will gladly relieve them of the encum- 
brance. It is none to her.—Ver. 16. 
héyer .. . AtSdoxade. His uttering her 
name, Mapidu, revealed that He was a 
friend who knew her; and there was 
also that in the tone which made her 
instantly turn fully round to search Him 


with her gaze. Surprise, recognition, 





864 KATA IOANNHN XX, 


viii, rg; vi 17. Néyet adry 6 "Ingots, “Mi pou Grou, orw ydp * dvaBéByKa 
iit mpds Tov Tatépa pous mopecu S€ mpds Tods AdeAhods pou, kal Ele 
abtois, * AvaBaivw mpds Tov watépa pou kal tatépa bpav, kal Oedy 
jou Kal @edv dpay.” 18. “Epxerar Mapia * MaySadnvi) dayyéh- 


houga Tois palytats, Str éwpake Toy KUptov, Kal Taita elrev adTH. 
w ver. I. a , ~ A A 
x xviii. 2. 19. Ovens obv dipias, TH Tuépa éxelvy TH ” pid Tdv caBBartwr, 


ksth. ix. 


ear a > € ‘x 4 
15. kal Tov Bupdy KekNetopevey, Orrou Foav ot pabyTat * cuvnypévor, rd 
y ver. 26. s A 
Sind wig, tov béBov t&v *loudaiwy, AOev 6 “Inods, Kai Eoty ” Eis Td pécov, 
Dan. x.19. 


A a , ‘ lol 
axix.34, Kal Aéyer adtois, “*Eipyyy Spt.” 20. Kat tovto eimay edertev 


Esth. ix. F . , 
ee  adrois Tas xetpas Kal Thy “wAeupdy adtod. éxdpycay ovv ot 


“people on eart 

significance, as in ‘Monsieur,’ etc. to God. The form of the expression is 
Lampe quotes the saying; ‘‘Majus est dictated by His desire to give them 
Rabbi quam Rabh, et majus est Rabban assurance. They had no doubt God 
quam Rabbi,” cf. Mk. x. 51. With the was His God and Father. He teaches 
exclamation Mary made a forward move- them that, if so, He is their God and 
ment as if to embrace Him. Butthisis Father. épyerat . . . avrg, Mary 
forbidden.—Ver. 17. My pov Gmrov, carries forthwith the Lord’s message 
‘‘noli me tangere,”’ not because it was to the disciples, cf. Mk. xvi. 10; Mt. 
indecorous (Lk. vii. 38); nor because xxviii. 10; Lk. xxiv. ro. 

she wished to assure herself by touch Vv. 19-29. Manifestations of the risen 
that the appearance was real, a test Lord to thedisciples, first without Thomas, 
which He did not prevent His disciples then with Thomas.—Ver. 19. The time 
from applying; nor because her embrace of the manifestation is defined, it was rq 
would disturb the process of glorification tpépq ... oaBBartwv ‘on that day, the 
through which His body was passing; first of the week,” and during the evening, 
nor, following Kypke’s note, can we ovons ovtv dias, which agr es with 
suppose that Jesus forbids Mary to Luke’s account, from which we learn 
worship Him [although K. proves that that when Jesus and the two disciples 
amwrec@Gar is used of that clinging tothe reached Emmaus, two hours from Jeru- 
knees or feet which was adopted by salem, the day was declining. The 
suppliants], because He accepts Thomas’ evening was chosen, probably because 
worship even before His ascension; but, then the disciples could be found to- 
as He Himself says, ovaw yap avaBéByxa gether. The circumstance that the doors 
mpos Tov watépa pov, “for I have not were shut seemed to John significant 
yet ascended to my Father,” implying regarding the properties of the risen body 
that this was not His permanent return of Jesus. tov Oupav Kekhe peévev, ‘the 
to visible fellowship with His disciples. doors having been shut,” i.e., securely 
Mary, by her eagerness to seize and hold fastened so that no one could enter, 
Him, showed that she considered that because the precaution was taken $a 
the puKpdy, the ‘little time,” of xvi. 16, dv 6B v tov *lovdafwy. So soon had 
was past, and that now He had returned the disciples begun to experience the 
to be for ever with them. Jesus checks risks they ran by being associated with 
her with the assurance that much had Jesus. Calvin supposes Jesus opened 
yet to happen before that. His disciples the doors miraculously; but that is no 
must at once be disabused of that mis- suggested in the words. Rather it is 
apprehension. Therefore, wopevov ... indicated that His glorified body was not 
tpav, “Go to my brothers [a8eAgpovs subject to the conditions of the natural, 
pov, here for the first time; in anticipa- earthly body, but passed where it would. 
tion of the latter part of the sentence, Suddenly earn eis 7d pewov (cf. Lk. xxiv. 
cf. Mk. iii. 35] and tell them, Lascend to 36). ‘‘Phrasis notat se in publico 
my Father and your Father, and my omnium conspectu sistere.’’ Kypke. Not 
God and your God”. _He thus forms a_ only as the ordinary salutation, but to 
relationship which bound Him to them calm their perturbation at this sudden 


the pronominal suffix had ceased to have I h as His rights carry Him 





17—26. EYATTEAION 


865 


pabntal iSdvtes Tov KUptov. 21. elev obv adtois 6 “Ingots maw, 
“* Eiphyy bulv: KaQws dméotadké pe 6 TaThp, Kayo wéumw Spas.” anda 
Et a a an. x. 19 
22. Kat tovTo eitav ° éveddonge Kal héyet adtois, ““AdBete MveGpa c Here only 
” be Wel , sy 1 2 ~ » an N.T. 
23. Gv Tiwy abate Tas GpapTias, ApievTar* auTots- av Gen. ii. 7. 
a a vii. 39. 
24. Owpas 8€, ets ex Tay SHdexa 6 


25-e xi. 16 
‘O Se 
eimev ators, “"Edv pi dw év tats xepoly adtod Tov TUTov? 


“Aytov. 
TLWwWY KpaTHTE, KEKPATHYTaL.” 
heydpevos °AiSupos, obk Fy pet attav Ste AAOev 6 “Inoods. 
éheyov ody adTa@ ot GAAor pabytat, “‘“Ewpdkapev tov Kuptov.”” 

Tay 
Hwy, Kal Bddw tov Séeewddv pou eis Tov TUTov? Tay ov, Kat 


aN AS FASS, , ‘ Xx x > A > x , ” 
Baw Thy xElpa pou ety THY WAEeupay auTOU, OU PN TLOTEVTw. 


26. Kat peO tpepas dxtm médw joav *éow of palytal adtod, Kal fEzek.ix.6, 


Acts v. 23, 


~ > ~ A A A 
Owpds pet adtav. Epxetar 6 “Ingods, trav Oupdy Kexeropévar, Kat 


1 adewvras with RCADL. 


2 +yqov in its first occurrence in this verse is rendered in the Vulgate by 
“ fxuram,” which may mean “the spot where the nail was fixed”; “ figuram,” 
“fissuram,” and “locum” are also read. See Wordsworth and White im loc. 
rotrov is read by Tisch. instead of tutrov in its second occurrence on the authority 
of A only, some old Lat. and Syr. versions. 


apparition (cf. Lk, xxiv. 37), He greets exercised and set in the forefront of His 
them with Eipyjvy tpiv, and to assure ministry. They must be able in His 





them of His identity €Sevgev . . . avrov. 
—vVer. 20. His body, therefore, however 
changed in its substance, retained its 
characteristic marks. The fear of the 
disciples was replaced by joy, éxapynoav 
. . . Kuptov. In this joy the promise of 
xvi. 22 is fulfilled (Weiss).—Ver. at. 
When they recognised Him and com- 
posed themselves, He naturally repeated 
His greeting, eipyvy tpiv, but now adds, 
KaQos ... tpas. ‘As the Father hath 
sent me, so send I ygu.”” In these words 
(cf. xvii. 18) He gives them their com- 
mission as His representatives. And in 
confirmation of it, (ver. 22) Tovto 
eimov . . .”Ayov. ‘He breathed on 
them,” évepvonoe; the same word is 
used in Gen. ii. 7 to describe the dis- 
tinction between A dats ne SOU 
‘breathed into him by God, and the lite 
e 


vey the impression that His own very 
Spirit was imparted to them.—Ver. 23. 
The authorisation of the Apostles is 
completed in the words: av twov... 
Kexpatnytat. ‘ Whosesoever sins ye for- 
give, they are forgiven to them: whose- 
soever ye retain, they are retained.” 
The meaning of kexpatnvta is deter- 
mined by the opposed adéwyrat [the 
better reading]. The announcement is 
unexpected. Yet if they were to repre- 
sent Him, they must be empowered to 
continue a function which He constantly 


name to pronounce forgiveness, and to 
threaten doom This Teleed formed the 





“was by receiving His Spirit they were 


“fitted for it. The burden was laid upon 
‘them of determining who should be for- 
given, and who held by their sin. Cf, 
Acts iii. 26, v. 4.—Ver. 24. Owpas dé... 


‘Ingots. Owpas [Oia or OND 
a twin, from ONS) to be double; of 


Tw 

which At8Supos from 8vo is the Greek 
equivalent]. els éx tov Sd8exa “ one of 
the twelve,” the familiar designation still 
used of the eleven, ovK qv... ‘‘ was 
not with them when Jesus came,” why, 
we do not know.—Ver. 25. The rest 
accordingly, when first they met him, 
possibly the same evening, said, €wpaxapev 
tov Kuptov; which he heard with in- 
credulity, not because he could mistrust 
them, but because he concluded they 
had been the victims of some hallucina- 
tion. Nothing would satisfy him but 
the testimony of his own senses: *Eav 

y iw... motevow. The test pro- 
posed by Thomas shows that he had 
witnessed the crucifixion and that the 
death and its circumstances had deeply 
impressed him. ‘To him resurrection 
seemed a dream. But he still associated 
with those who believed in it.—Ver. 26. 
Kai pe@ qpepas...avtav. pel’ qpepas 
éxt® waduv. Probably he had been with 


55 


866 


z ver. 19. 
ver. 21. 


KATA TQANNHN 


®Eoty eis TO pécov, Kal elev, “" Eipyyn Spiv.”” 


XX, 27—31. 


27. Eira Neyer 7 


Owpa, “dépe tov Sdxtuddv cou Ode, kal iSe Tas xelpds pou Kal 


hépe thy xeipd cou, Kat Bade eis Thy wAeupdv pou Kat pi) ylvou 


. ses ” ‘ ” 
i Gal. iii.9. dmuotos, GANG | mods. 
Acts xvi. 


~ ‘4 , ” 
1, etc. see AUTO, ““O KUpids pou Kal 6 Oeds pou. 


28. Kai daexpi@n 5 Owpas, kal eliev 


29. Aéyet att 6 “Inaois, 


Thayer. a 
“Ort éwpakds pe, Owpd, wemioteukas pakdpror ot pi) lddvtes, 
Kal murrevoavTes.” 
j xii. 37; 30. / ModAa pev odv Kal GANa onpeta eroinoev 6 "Inaois ) évdarioy 
xxi. 25. m ee ai 
Tay pabyntav attod,’ & odk éoTt yeypappéva ev TH BiBiw ToUTw. 
ki 34; ii 31. Tadta 8€ yéypanta, iva morevonte? te 6 “Inaods éotw 6 


a 


69. ia a 2 
Tek ote iii 6: Xpiords *§ vids Tod Oeod, Kal iva moTevortes Cwhy exnte Vey TO 


iv. 10; ZK jo? A ing 
Cor. vi.rr, OVOHATL AUTOU. 
1 avrov deleted in NB. 


them every day during the interval, but 
as Bengel remarks, ‘‘interjectis diebus 
nulla fuerat apparitio”’. On the first da 

of the second week the Misciples were 
again,” as on the previous Sunday, 
“within,” in the same convenient place 


them. As on the previous occasion (ver. 
1g), the doors were shut and Jesus sud- 
denly appeared among them and greeted 
them with the customary salutation.— 
Ver.27. EtraXéyer...miotds. Hedoes 
not need to be informed of Thomas’ in- 
credulity; although it is quite possible 
that, as Licke supposes, the others had 
mentioned it to Him. Still, this is not 
in the text. Cf. Weiss, who also quotes 
Bengel’s characteristic note: ‘ Si Phari- 
saeus ita dixisset, Nisi videro, etc., nil 
impetrasset; sed discipulo pridem pro- 
bato nil non datur’’, Weiss supposes 
the hands were seen (t8e), the side 
only touched under the clothes. Some 
suppose that as the feet are not men- 
tioned in this passage, they had not 
been nailed but only bound to the cross. 
See Liicke’s interesting note. «el ph 
yivov Gmiurtos GANG miords, “ Incre- 
dulitas aliquid habet de voluntario ”’.— 
Ver. 28. Grotius, following Tertullian, 
Ambrose, Cyril and others, is of opinion 
that Thomas availed himself of the 
offered test: surely it is psychologically 
more probable that the test he had 
insisted on as alone sufficient is now 
repudiated, and that he at once exclaims, 
“O Kupids pov Kal 6 Beds pov. His 
faith returns with a rebound and utters 
itself in a confession in which the gospel 
culminates. The words are not a mere 
exclamation of surprise, That is for- 


2 vorevyte in KB. 


bidden by elev atr@; they mean “ Thay 
art my Lord and my God”. The re- 
peated pronoun fends emphasis. In 
Pliny’s letter to Trajan (112 A.D.) he 
describes the Christians as singing hymns 
to Christ as God. Our Lord does not 
reject Thomas’ content  bak eee) 
teminds him that there is a higher faith 
than that which springs from visual evi- 
dence: “Ort édpakds pe. .. Kal mo- 
Tevoavtes. Jesus would have been better 
pleased with a faith which did not re- 
quire the evidence of sense: a faith 
founded on the perception that God was 
in Christ, and therefore He could not die; 
a faith in His Messiahship which argued 
that He must live to carry on the work 
of His Kingdom. The saying is cited 
as another instance of the care with 
which the various origins and kinds of 
faith are distinguished in this gospel. 
Vv. 30-31. First conclusion of the 
gospel—Ver. 30. moda pév otv.., 
tout». That this was the original or 
intended conclusion of the gospel is 
shown by the use of the words ‘‘in this 
book,’’ which indicate that the writer 
was now looking back on it as a whole 
(Holtzmann). Perhaps tovt@ is em- 
phatic, contrasted with the Synoptic 
gospels in which so many other signs 
were recorded. The expression moda 
pev otv Kat adda is necessarily of fre- 
quent occurrence and is illustrated by 
Kypke. Beza says these particles in the 
usage of John ‘‘proprie conclusionibus 
adhibentur’’. ‘‘ Many other signs there- 
fore” (R.V.) is not an improvement on 
A.V. ‘And many other signs truly.” 
‘Many other signs indeed did Jesus ”’ is 
sufficient. Why évémiov tav pabntay ? 








ML. rs, 


XXI. 1. META taita * 


EYATTEAION 


867 


epavépwoey eautov mddw 6 “Incods Tots ai. 31° il. 11. 
pabytats emi THs Oaddoons THs ” TeBepiddos - 


* épavépwoe S€ oUTws. b vi. 1. 


2 Hoar °du0d Lipwy Métpos, kal Owpds 6 eydpevos * AiSupos, Kalc xx. 4 ref. 


Nadavanr 6 °amd Kava tas TadtAaias, kat ot tod ZePedaiou, 


GhAot ex Tav pabytdv adtod Suo. 


¢. 
“Vardyw ‘ ddcevev.”” 
2297 
gol. 


‘ 
vukte © émiacay ovdev. 


. d xx. 24. 
Kat ei. 46. 


3. Néyer adtois ED Nétpos, 
A€youow atta, “Epydspe8a Kat pes ou 
"EEAOov Kal dvéBnoay eis TO TAotov EUOds,! Kal ev exeivy i 16. 


4. Tpwtas Sé 7Sn yevouerns 7 


f Once only 
in LXX., 
Jer. xvi. 


er. 10. 
*éorn 6 "Ingois © Rev. xix. 


» eis Tov aeyeaney od pévtor ydevoay ot ores dtu ‘Incods * éoti. hae 19, 26. 


5. héyet odv adtois 6 "Ingods, “Madia, py te! mpoopdyroy ExeTe ; 


1 evOus omitted in NBC*DL 1, 33. 


' iene only, 


2 ywopevns is read by Tr.Ti.W.H.R. following ABC*EL ; yevop. in QC?DXA, it. 


vulg. “‘ mane autem Ea 


Probably because they are viewed as the 
cause of faith. attra S€ yéypamrat, 
“but these have been written,” these, 
viz., which have been included in this 
book, tva ... avrov, with an object, 
and this object has determined their 
selection: ‘‘that ye may believe that 
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God”. 
The use of the 2nd pers. suggests that 
the writer had in view some special class. 
But his object was of universal signifi- 
cance. See the Introduction. 

CHAPTER XXI.—Supplementary chap- 
ter in which Fesus again manifests Him- 
self after the resurrection. 

[There is no reason why this chapter 
should be ascribed to a different hand. 
The style is the same as that of the 
gospel, and although the gospel closed 
at the end of chap. xx., this supplementary 
chapter must have become an integral 
part of the gospel at a very early period. 
No trace exists of a gospel without it. 
It is by no means so certain that ver. 25 
is Johannine. It seems an inflated ver- 
sion of xx. 30. The twenty-fourth verse 
is also rejected by several critics on the 
ground of oi8apev. This may be valid 
as an objection; but it is in the manner 
of the Apostle to testify to his own truth- 
fulness, xix. 35 ; and the use of the plural 
instead of the singular is not decisive. ] 

Ver. 1, Mera tatrta, John’s usual 
indefinite note of time, épavépwoev 
éavtov, cf. vii. 4, xiii. 4; Mark xvi. 12; 
amaXuv, over and above the manifestations 
in Jerusalem, at the Sea of Tiberias; see 
vi. 1.—Ver. 2. foav épod, seven of the 
disciples had kept together, Simon Peter, 
Thomas, Nathanael, further designated 
as 6 amo Kava tas FaktAatas, not to 
remind us of the miracles wrought there 


(Reynolds), nor ‘‘ without any special 
design”? (Meyer), but to emphasise the 
ép00 by showing that even though not 
belonging to the lake-side Nathanael 
remained with the rest. John indicates 
his own presence with his usual reserve, 
ot tov ZePedaiov.—Ver. 3. As the 
disciples stand together and see boat 
after boat put off, Simon Peter can stand 
it no longer but suddenly exclaims, 
‘Yrdayw adteverv, “I am off to fish”. 
This is a relief to all and finds a ready 
response, "Epxopefa Kai qpets avy cot, 
At once they embark, and as we watch 
that boat’s crew putting. off with their 
whole soul in their fishing, we see in how 
precarious a position the future of Chris- 
tianity hung. They were only sure of 
one thing—that they must live. But év 
éxelvy TH VUKTL Eriagay ovder, “ during 
that night they took nothing”. ‘AAt- 
okovTat S¢ padiota ot ixOves wpd AAiov 
avatohijs kai peta THY Svoty—Aristotle, 
Hist. Animal., vill. 19, quoted by Lampe. 
[On érrtacayv, see | vii. 30 and Rev. xix. 20. 

—Ver. 4. mpwtas 8& 78n yevopevns, 
‘but early morning having now arrived,” 
i.e., when all hope of catching fish was 
past, €otn 6 “Inoots eis [or emt] Tow 
aiytaXdv, ‘‘ Jesus stood upon the beach”’; 
for orn, cf. xx. I9, 26. It seems to in- 
dicate the suddenness of the appearance. 
ov pevTon . . . €ort, ‘the disciples, how- 
ever, were not aware that it was Jesus”. 
—Ver. 5. Aéyer ovw ... €xete; The 
ovv is not merely continuative, but 
indicates that what Jesus said was in 
some respect prompted by their ignorance 
of His identity. This is neglected by 
Liicke when he says that wa:dia is not 
Johannine, and that texvia is the regular 
term used by Jesus in addressing the 


868 KATA ITQANNHN RT, 


. ”~ ” 
k Mk. i. 16. "AtrexpiOnoay aire, “* OU. 
S. XIX. 5. 


A Ld , 
Ta Sed pepy tod mAolou rd Biktuovy, Kai edpycere.’’ 


° ~ 
| Hab. i 15. 00v, Kal odk ére add | éAKdoat 


m Mk. v. 4, 5 


, 
etc. ix Over. 
N xiii. 23; ” 
xx.2. Meétpw, ““O kupids éote. 


oxrSam. éom, Tov 


XViil. 4. 
p Cp. xiii. 4. €autov €ts Thy Oddacoav. 
q xi 18, 7AGov 7 


1 toxvov in RBCDL. 


disciples. Yes, when He openly ad- 
dresses them ; but here He uses the word 
any stranger might use, and the render- 
ing ‘‘ children” retained even in R.V. is 
wrong. It should be “lads”; matdifov 
being the common term of address 
to men at work, see Aristophanes, 
Clouds, 137) Frogs, 333 Euthymius, €80s 
yap Tovs épyatikots otTws dvopdLlery. 
Jesus appeared as an intending purchaser 
and cries, pat tpoapaytoy éxete ; “Have 
you taken any, fish? >’ i(ReVac0: have ye 
anything to eat?” misapprehends both 
the words and the situation). mpooda- 
ylov, as its composition shows, means 
anything eaten as seasoning or ‘‘kitchen’’ 

to bread; being the Hellenistic word 
used instead of the Attic owov or 
mpoodynpa. Athenaeus and Plutarch 
both tell us that fish was so commonly 
used in this way that mpoogdaytov came 
to mean ‘“‘fish”’. €yere has its quasi- 
technical sense, ‘‘have ye caught?” 
For this sense, see Aristophanes, Clouds, 
705 (723, 731), where Socrates asks Strep- 
siades under the blanket, eyets TL; on 
which the Scholiast remarks, XapevTws 
TO Exes TL, TH TOV GypevTav edger 
Xpopevos* Tots yap adrevow 7H dpviba- 
YpeuTats otw haciv, exerts TL. So that 
the words of Jesus are: ‘“‘ Lads, have ye 
caught no fish?” amekpi6nocav aito, 
«<03”. “They answered Him, ‘ No,’”’ 
without any Kupte or Atéackahe.—Ver. 
6. ‘OSé elwev . Kal evpyoere. 
“‘Cast your net on the right side of the 
boat, and you will find.”” They sup- 
posed the stranger had been making 
observations from the shore, had seen a 
shoal or some sign of fish, and unwilling 
to come in empty, €Badovoty ... ix@vev. 
“They cast therefore, and were no 
longer (as they had been before) able to 
draw it [€Axv¥oat, not éAxvoat, see 
Veitch’s Ivreg. Verbs, seems here to be 
used as we use ‘draw’ in connection 
with a net, meaning to draw over the 


7. héyer ody 6 pabyths exetvos 


°émevduTHy ? dteLdoaro- 


« 7 ~ 
6. ‘O 8€ elwev adrois, “* Badere eis 
*"EBahov 
” ~ ~ 
“loxuoav! dd tod mAyOous Tov 
ne > , > lol ~ 
ov Hydta 6 Ingots TO 


Lipwy obv Mérpos dxovoas Sti 6 KUpids 


Rv yap yupvos: Kat €Badev 


8. ot 8€ GddAot palyrat TO Tovapi 
od yap yoav paxpdv awd THs yis, GAN ds Sard myXOov 


side of the boat so as to secure the fish. 
Contrast ovpovtes in ver. 8] for the 
multitude of fishes”’; aad often means 
‘on account of” in Dionysius Hal., 
Plutarch, and even in Thucydides and 
Sophocles as shown by Kypke.—Ver. 7. 
This sudden change of fortune John 
at once traced to its only possible 
source, ‘O Kupids éorme. “Vita quieta 
citius observat res divinas quam activa.’ 

Bengel. Zipwv otv . . . O@ddhaccav, 
The different temperaments of the two 
Apostles as here exhibited have constantly 
been remarked upon; as by Euthymius, 
“John had the keener insight; Peter 
the greater ardour”. Peter tov érevSuTHy 
SteLaoaro. Some writers identify the 
émevduTns with the inner garment or 
xttwv, others suppose it was the outer 
garment or ipattov. And the reason 
assigned, qv yap yupvds, they say, is that 
he had only the xitwv. That one who 
was thus half-dressed might be called 
yupves is well known (see Aristoph., 

Clouds, 480); but it was not the outer 
garment round which the belt was girt, 
but the inner. And besides, Peter must 
often have appeared before Jesus in their 
boat expeditions without his upper gar- 
ment. And to put on his Tallith when 
about to plunge into the sea was out of 
the question. He was rowing, then, 
with as little on as possible, probably only 
a subligaculum or loin-cloth, and now 
picks up his éwevéuTys, a garment worn 
by fishers (Theophylact), and girds it on, 
and casts himself into the sea. —Ver. 8. 
The rest came in the little boat, od yap 
TCV wate LX Bvwv. Bengel correctly 
explains the yap, “Celeriter hi quoque 
venire poterant’’ They were not far 
from the land, "a Ss dard THXev 
Staxociwy, “about one hundred yards”. 

a3nxX@v, says Phrynichus, is Sevas avar- 
Tikov; we must use the form mnxéwv. 
Observe the unconscious exactness of the 
eye-witness. For the Hellenistic con- 





| 


ona 








6—14. 


Siaxoctwy, "ovpovtes TO Siktuov TOV ixOUwr. 
eis Thy yay, BAerovow * dvOpakrdy *kepevyy Kal ddprov émkeipevor, 


‘ » 
Kal apTov. 


, a. 
dpapiwy Oy " émdcate viv. 


‘ 8 ae ~ ~ 1 > > bu aN > ‘ 
TO OlKTUOY ETL THS YNS, PEoTOV LxVUwWY HEyGAwY EKaTOY TEYTHKOVTG- 
rptav* Kal TodoUTwy dvTwy, obK ” ecxicby Td Siktuov. 
S > Con) en, le] a > , 
12. A€yet avtois 0 Inoous, Acute aptoTynoate. 


~ lol , ”? 
Tov pabyntay egerdcar adtov, “Xd tis et; 


* éotw. 


‘ > a ‘ Oy ES , < , 
Si8woww avtots, Kal TO oWdprov OMOLws. 


ébavepdOy & “Inaods Tots palytats adtod, éyepBeis ex vexpav. 


l eus Thy ynv in NABCL. 


struction with amd, cf. xi. 18. The 
others came otpovtes . . . txOvov, 
‘‘hauling the net of the fishes,” or ‘‘ net- 
ful of the fishes”; genitive of contents, 
like 8éaras oivov, a cup of wine. It is 
needless, with Licke, to complete the 
construction with peortév, cf. ver. 11.— 
Ver 92) Qs ouv =: ; aptoy... ‘When; 
then, they got out upon the land, they 
see a fire (or heap) of coals laid and fish 
laid thereon, and bread”’; or, possibly, 
‘(a fish”’ and ‘‘a loaf,” but see ver. 13. 
For av@paxia, see xviii. 18. The dis- 
ciples were evidently surprised at this 
preparation.—Ver. 10. But miracle is 
not gratuitously wrought; indeed, Weiss 
maintains there is neither miracle nor the 
appearance of one in this preparation. 
Accordingly Jesus says, ’Evéyxate ... 
viv. And in compliance aveBy.. . 
Sixrvov. ‘Simon Peter went on board 
and drew the net on shore full of large 
fishes, 153, and though there were so 
many the net was not torn.’’ Mysteries 
have been found in this number. In 
Hebrew characters Simon Iona is equiva- 
lent to 118 + 35, 7.e., 153. Some of the 
Fathers understood that 100 meant the 
Gentiles, 50 the Jews, 3 the Trinity. 
Jerome cites the authority of naturalists 
to prove that there were exactly 153 
species of fish, and he concludes that the 
universality of the Gospel take was thus 
indicated. Calvin, with his usual robust 
sense, says: ‘quantum ad piscium nu- 
merum spectat, non est sublime aliquid 
in eo quaerendum mysterium’’. Peter 
never landed a haul of fish without 
counting them, and John, fisherman as 
he was, could never forget the number of 
his largest takes. The number is given, 
because it was large, and because they 
were all surprised that the net stood the 


EYATTEAION 


869 


9. ‘Qs obv &réBynoay 5 2 Sam. 
XVii. 13. 
Acts viii 


a > A ~ 3. 
10. héyer attots 6 ‘Ingots, “"Evéykate dad Tay s xviii. 18 


t xix. 28. 


11. "AvéBy Lipwy Métpos, kal * etAkuge u ver. 3. 


v ver. 6. 
W XIX. 24. 
ovdeis dé eTOApa 


> Ld iJ c , , 
eiddétes Ott 6 KUpids 


12. épyetar ouv 6 “Incous, Kat AawBdaver Tov ApToy Kai xi. 4o. 
p) 4 


14. TodTo n9y  TpiTOV y 2 Cor. xii. 
14; Xiii. 1. 


strain. The only significance our Lord 
recognises in the fish is that they were 
food for hungry men.—Ver. 12. )éyet 
... Gptotioate, Jesus takes the place 
of host and says, ‘‘Come, breakfast,” 
make your morning meal. ovdeis .. . 
Kvpids éoriv, not one of the disciples 
ventured to interrogate Him; éferacat 
is ‘to examine by questioning”. Each 
man felt convinced it was the Lord, and 
a new reverence prevented them from 
questioning Him.—Ver. 13. When they 
had gathered round the fire, épxetat 
.. + 6potws. “Jesus approaches and 
takes the bread and gives to them, and 
the fish”’ (used here collectively) ‘in 
like manner.” Evidently there was 
something solemn and significant in His 
manner, indicating that they were to con- 
sider Him as the Person who supplied all 
their wants. If they were to be free from 
care as His Apostles, they must trust 
Him to make provision for them, as He 
had this morning done.—Ver. 14. A 
note is added, perhaps indicating no 
more than John’s orderliness of mind, 
explaining that this was the third mani- 
festation given by Jesus to His disciples 
after rising from the dead. For the form 
of expression, Totto 754 Tpitov, see 2 
Cor. xiii. I. 

Vv. 15-18. Fesus evokes from Peter a 
confession of love, and commissions him 
as shepherd of His sheep.—Ver. 15. 
“Ore otv Apioryoay, “ when, then, they 
had broken their fast,’? a note of time 
essential to the conversation following. 
Peter had manifested the most ardent 
affection, by abandoning on the instant 
the net of fish for which he had been 
toiling all night, and by springing into 
the sea to greet his Lord. But was not 
that a mere impulsive demonstration, 


XXI, 


Adyer attd, “Nat 
t 


A€yet atta, ““Booxe Ta dpvia 


> ~ 
Aéyeu atta, 


870 KATA IQANNHN 
15. “Ore odv ipiorncary, éyer TH Lipwn Nétpw 8 "Inoods, 
tiga. **Finwy “lwva,! dyamds pe whetov todTwr ;” 
ee kupte* od oldas Ste gidd oe.” 
pou.’ 16. Aéye adtd mddw Sedtepov, “ Xipnwv “lova, dyamds pe ;” 
ie Aéyer ait@, “Nat Kdptes od oldas ote dihO oe.” 
S. Xi. Ir. 


9 ” 
Song i. 8,” Motpawe ta mpdBartd ” pou. 


17. Aéyet tT 76 TpiTov, “ Lipwv 


Better lwavov with NBC*DL. So in 16, 17. 


* wpoBaria in BC; mpoBara in NAD. 


Some have thought there was a climax, 


apvia, mpoBatia, mpoBata. ‘“Pasce agniculos meos, pasce agnos meos, pasce 


Oviculas meas.” 


‘the wholesome madness of an hour”? 
Therefore He lets Peter settle down, He 
lets him breakfast and then takes him at 
the coolest hour of the day, and, at last 
breaking silence, says, Zipwv “lwva [better, 
*lwavov] ayamds pe meio (better, mAdov] 
tovTwy; ‘Simon, son of John, lovest 
thou me more than these?” So far as 
grammar goes, this may either mean 
‘**Lovest thou me more than the other 
disciples love me?” or ‘‘ Lovest thou 
me more than this boat and net and 
your old life?”’ It may either refer 
to Peter’s saying, ‘‘ Though all should 
forsake Thee, yet will not I,” or to 
his sudden abandonment of the boat 
and fishing gear. If the former were 
intended, the second personal pronoun 
would almost necessarily be expressed ; 
but, as the words stand, the contrast is not 
between ‘‘you”’ and “these,” but be- 
tween ‘‘me” and ‘these’. Besides, 
would the characteristic tact and delicacy 
of Jesus have allowed Him to put a 
question involving a comparison of Peter 
with his fellow-disciples? The latter 
interpretation, although branded by 
Liicke as “eine geistlose lacherliche 
Frage,’’ commends itself... Difference of 
opinion also exists about the use of 
ayamras and qiAG, most interpreters 
believing that by the former a love based 
on esteem or judgment is indicated, by 
the latter the affection of the heart. 
The Vulgate distinguishes by using 
“‘diligis” and “amo”. Trench (Syno- 
nyms, 38) uses this distinction for the 
interpretation of this passage, and main- 
tains that Peter in his reply intentionally 
changes the colder a@yamas into the 
warmer g.id@. It is very doubtful 
whether this is justifiable. The two 
words are used interchangeably to ex- 
press the love of Jesus for John, see xiii. 
23, and xx. 2; also for His love for 
Lazarus, xi. 3, 5, 36. And that the 
distinction cannot be maintained at any 


rate in this conversation is obvious from 
ver. 17; for if the words differed in 
meaning, it could not be said that 
“Peter was grieved because Jesus a 
third time said, diAeis pe”; because 
Jesus had not used these words three 
times. The words seem interchanged for 
euphony, as in Aelian, Var. Hist., ix. 1, 
where Hiero is said to have lived with 
his three brothers, wdvy ofddpa 
ayam7cas av’Tovs kal in’ adtav didrnbeis 
év T@ pépet. In Peter’s answer there is 
no sense of any discrepancy between the 
kind of love demanded and the love felt. 
It comes with a vat, Kupte. Why need 
He ask? ov olfas. . . . In this appeal to 
Christ’s own knowledge there is probably, 
as Weiss suggests, a consciousness of 
his own liability to be deceived, as shown 
in his recent experience.—Ver. 16. To 
this confession, the Lord responds, 
Béoxe Ta dpvia pov, ‘ Feed my lambs,” 
showing that Jesus could again trust 
him and could leave in his hands those 
whom He loved. ‘‘Lambs” is used 
instead of “sheep” to bring out more 
strongly the appeal to care, and the 
consequent complete confidence shown 
in Peter. Aéyet ... pov. The second 
inquiry is intended to drive Peter back 
from mere customary or lip-profession to 
the deep-lying affections of his spirit. 
But now no comparison is introduced 
into the question, which might be para- 
phrased: ‘‘Are you sure that love and 
nothing but love is the bond between 
you and me?” This test Peter 
stands. He replies as before; and 
again is entrusted with the work in 
which his Lord is chiefly interested, 
Notpawve ta mpdBara pov. No different 
function is intended by qwofwatve: it re- 
peats in another form the commission 
already given.—Ver. 17. But to him 
who had uttered a threefold denial, op- 
portunity is given of a threefold confes- 
sion, although Peter at first resented the 











[5—22. 


lava, ides pes” 
“didets pes” 


wwoKers STL PtA@ ce.” 
vf 


pou. 


EYATTEAION 


871 


~ , 
"EdummOn 6 Metpos, ote ettev abt ° Td TplToy, c ver 14. 
kat eimev att, ‘“Kupre, ob mdvta oidas: od 
(2 De lkS, a [73 , x , , 
Aé€yet att@ 6 ‘Inaods, “ Booke Ta mpdBata 


18. dpiyy apy Aéyw cor, Ste Hs vewtepos, 9 eLdvvues TeauToy, d ver. 7. 


. , o ” iJ 8 A , e.> “oy A A , 
KQL TEPLETTATELS OTTOU nOedes * OTav 0€ yypaons, ° EKTEVELS TAS XELPAS e Ecclus. 


gou, Kat GANos ce Lwdoet, Kai oloer Strou ov Hédets.”’ 
cite, onpaivwry moiw Oavdtw Sofdoer tov Oéov. 
*Emuotpadets S¢1 6 Métpos 


héyer adt@, “’AkohodOer por.”’ 


20. 


A xv. 16, 
19. Todto Se 


KQL TOUTO ELTMY 


Brewer tov pabythy, ov Hydra 6 “Ingots, dkodov9odvTa, os Kal 


f 


eoti 6 Tapadidous oe; ” 
, ” 
““Kdpte, obtos S€ TL; 


Odkw péverw Ews *epxopar, * 


~ Aw > 
22. A€yer at7@ 6 “Inaods, “’Edv abtév 


, 
tl "mpds ce; 


le > rn , 28 XS ~ > ~ Ao ce , oss 

dvétecev é€v TO Seltvw EwL TO GTHVos adTod Kai eime, “ Kupte, TLS f xiii. r2ref 
A a? a P i 

21. Tottov idav 6 Métpos Aeyer TO ‘Inood, gx Tim. iv. 


13. Bur- 
ae 326. 
Mt. xxvil. 
od dkohover por.” 4. 


1 Se omitted in ABC 33; inserted in DX. 


reiterated inquiry: "EAvryéy ... He 
was grieved because doubt was implied, 
and he knew he had given cause for 
doubt. His reply is therefore more 
earnest than before, Kvpte . . . ptA@ oe. 
He is so conscious of deep and abiding 
love that he can appeal to the Lord’s 
omniscience. The ov mavrta otSas [or 
mavrTa ov otoas with recent editors] re- 
flects a strong light on the belief which 
had sprung up in the disciples from their 
observation of our Lord. And again he 
is commissioned, or commanded to mani- 
fest his love in the feeding of Christ’s 
sheep. The one qualification for this is 
love to Christ. It is not for want of time no 
other questions are asked. There was time 
to put this one question three times over ; 
and it was put because love is the one 
essential for the ministry to which Peter 
and the rest are called.—Ver. 18. To 
this command our Lord unexpectedly 
adds a reflection and warning emphasised 
by the usual apnv apy Adyw cor. It 
had been with a touch of pity Jesus had 
seen the impulsive, self-willed Peter gird 
his coat round him and plunge into the 
sea. It suggested to Him the severe 
trials by which this love must be tested, 
and what it would bring him to: ére 4s 
vedtepos, “when thou wert younger” 
(the comparative used not in relation to 
the present, but to the ynpaons follow- 
ing) ‘‘thou girdedst thyself and walkedst 
whither thou wouldest,” z.e., your own 
will was your law, and you felt power to 
carry it out. The “girding,”’ though 
suggested by the scene, ver. 7, symbolises 
all vigorous preparation for arduous work. 
Srav 5€ ynpaons ... OéAers. The in- 


terpretation of these words must be 
governed by the succeeding clause, which 
informs us that by them Jesus hinted at 
the nature of Peter’s death. But this 
does not prevent us from finding in them, 
primarily, an intimation of the helpless- 
ness of age, and its passiveness in the 
hands of others, in contrast to the self- 
regulating activity and confidence of 
youth. The language is dictated by the 
contrasted clause, and to find in each 
particular a detail of crucifixion, is to 
force a meaning into the words. ékrtevetg 
Tas Xelpas gov is not the stretching out 
of the hands on the cross, but the help- 
less lifting up of the old man’s hands to 
let another gird him. So0fdce. tov Gedy. 
‘* Magnificus martyrii titulus.” Grotius. 
‘Die conventionelle Sprache der Mar- 
tyrerkirche klingt an in Sof. tov Oedv: 
weil der Zeugentod zu Ehren Gottes 
erlitten wird.” “Holtzmann. The expres- 
sion has its root in xii. 23, 28. kal tovro 
... pot. It is very tempting to refer 
this to xiii. 36, akoAov0ycets 5é Yorrepov, 
and probably there is a latent reference 
to this, but in the first instance it is a 
summons to Peter to accompany Jesus 
as He retires from therest. This is clear 
from what follows.—Ver. 20. *Emrrpa- 
dels . . . oe. Peter had already followed 
Jesus some distance, but hearing steps 
behind him he turns and sees Johs 
following. The elaborate description ot 
John in this verse is, perhaps afmos» 
unconsciously, introduced to justify his 
following without invitation. On the 
word aveéreoev, see Origen, im Foan., ii. 
1gt (Brooke’s edition).—Ver. 21. Peter, 
however, seeks an explanation, Kvov 


872 


KATA IQANNHN 


XXI. 23—25. 


i Dan. ii. 13. 23. ‘’E&@AOev odv 6 Adyos OUTS Eis Tods ! AdeAods, “OTL 6 palyThs 
. 3 7 ry pavy 


Mt, ix. 
26. 
Here only 


~ 


freq. in ” 


31. 
Xxi. 19. 


Acts TAUTA* Kal ofdapev Ste GAnOys eat  paptupia adTod. 


éxeivos ox dmoOvjoxer:” Kal otk elev atta 6 “Ingods, St odk 
in Gospp., dtoOvjoKxer* GAN’, "Edy adtév O€Xw pévew ews Epxopat, ti mpds 


24. OYTOE éotw 6 pabyths 6 paptupav Tept ToUTwy, Kai ypdwpas 


25. €oTt 


Eph. v.33. 0€ Kal *GAXa wokAd Soa Emoingey 6 “Ingods, dria édv ypddytar 


m ii. 6, 
Gen. xiii. 
6. 2 , > re 
Chron. iv. BiBXta. Apny. 
5. 


1 Tisch. omits this verse with \\*. 


xwpyoat of AC*D xwpycetv is found in BC*. 


... 7; “Lord, and this man, what of 
him ?’’—Ver. 22. To which Jesus replies 
with a shade of rebuke, "Eav . . . pot. 
Peter, in seeking even to know the future 
of another disciple, was stepping beyond 
his province, tl mpés oe; ov axodove 
pot. Your business is to follow me, 
not to intermeddle with others. Cf. A 
Kempis’ description of the man who 
“neglects his duty, musing on all that 
other men are bound to do’’. De Imit. 
Christi, ii. 3. | Over-anxiety about any 
part of Christ’s Church is to forget that 
there is a chief Shepherd who arranges 
for all. This part of the conversation 
might not have been recorded, but for a 
misunderstanding which arose out of it. 
—Ver. 23. “E&m\Oev . . . mpés ce; 
“There went forth this saying among 
the brethren, that that disciple should 
not die”. John himself, however, has 
no such belief, because he remembers 
with exactness the hypothetical form of 
the Lord’s words, ’Eav avrov 6éhw péverv 
. . . Another instance of the precision 
with which John recalled some, at least, 
of the words of Jesus. 

In ver. 24, the writer of the gospel is 
identified with the disciple whom Jesus 


For oga of AC%D a is read in $BC*X, 


‘kad’ évy, od8€ adrév ofpat Tov Kdopov ™ xwpfoa Ta ypapdpeva 


For 
Apny is omitted in ABCD 1, 33 


loved, and a certificate of his truth is 
added. The whole verse has a strong 
resemblance to xix. 35, and it seems im- 
possible to say with certainty whether 
they were or were not written by the 
evangelist himself. The otSapev might 
seem to imply that several united in this 
certificate. But who in John’s old age 
were there, who could so certify the 
truth of the gospel? They could have no 
personal, direct knowledge of the facts; 
and could merely affirm the habitual 
truthfulness of John. Cf. too the otpat 
of ver. 25 where a return to the singular 
is made; but this may be because in the 
former clause the writer speaks in the 
name of several others, while in the 
latter he speaks in his own name. Who 
these others were, disciples, Ephesian 
presbyters, friends, Apostles, it is vain to 
conjecture. tovtwv and ratra refer to 
the whole gospel, including chap. xxi. Be- 
sides the things narrated éort 8... 
*Apynv. The verse re-affirms the state- 
ment of xx. 30, adding a hyperbolical 
estimate of the space required to re- 
count all that Jesus did, if each detail 
er separately told, éav ypapyrat xa 
Ve 


PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY 
THE ABERDEEN UNIVERSITY PRESS 








AUS 17 2005 








i 

mit ht 
NR 
Wnty 


ee 


Soy 


; 
if ia 
i} 

ai i ie 


Ss 


} 
J 
A 


es 


LSM Hy 
we tha ett) 
Hest sah 


% * 
. ma } Pe 
Rane 
ee 


+ 
Sh 
ai 


haat 


ERS 
im] 


giresircri soe 
aes 


" 
i) 
:) 

Hy 

H} 


ier 
Ai 
(th) 
a 


7 
4 
ret 
ina 
HID 


(iy 

i Hite 
A 
i tht 
eh 
de atete 


Rass 
Hi 
7 


hobh ) 

1 uy 
194) 

a) A 


‘_ 
“ODN DAF 
f Seti rht 


i 
iis 
Ri 


H 
ait i 
th 


Ress 


vy 


ty! 


i 
bi 


ht 
ah ae bby 
{} 
th hip 


ih 
i) 
mi 


i 
ist 


mi 


Pai 
RMR 
ie hy Oh 
i aan 


at 
fh 


See 
a> 


ere 


i ue it 


Hh 


ar 


i} 
Hi 


‘; 
ne 


f 
i 

(, 

3 hi 


ii 


} 
+ 


Kr 
Het 


a 


Hale 


t 
\ Hig Sa) 
ia} 


hth 
1, 


‘ 


} 


! 





i 


;