6:1-5. The first Incident on the Sabbath (see Maurice, Lectures an St. Luke, pp. 82, 83 ed. 1879). The Call of Peter was followed by two healings which provoked opposition to Christ: and now the Call of Levi is followed by two incidents on the sabbath, which lead to similar opposition. Mk. agrees with Lk. in placing these two immediately after the call of Levi; Mt. has them much later (12:1-14). On the connexion here see Schanz, ad loc.

1. ἐν σαββάτως δευτεροπρώτως. This passage is a well-known crux in textual criticism and exegesis. Is δευτεροπρώτως part of the true text? If so, what does it mean? The two questions to some extent overlap, but it is possible to treat them separately.

1. The external evidence is very much divided, but the balance is against the words being original.1 The reading is Western and Syrian, and “has no other clean pre-Syrian authority than that of D a ff.” The internal evidence is also divided. On the one hand, “The very obscurity of the expression, which does not occur in the parallel Gospels or elsewhere, attests strongly to its genuine. ness” (Scriv.), for “there is no reason which can explain the insertion of this word, while the reason for omitting it is obvious” (Tisch.) On the other hand, “all known cases of probable omission on account of difficulty are limited to single documents or groups of restricted ancestry, bearing no resemblance to the attestation of text in either variety or excellence” (WH.). Moreover, if any sabbath had really borne this strange name, which is introduced without explanation as familiar to the readers, it would almost certainly have been found elsewhere, either in LXX, Philo, Josephus, or the Talmud. In the life of Eutychius (512-582) by his chaplain Eustathius δευτεροπρώτη κυριακή is used of the first Sunday after Easter, but the expression is obviously borrowed from this passage, and throws no light. In the whole of Greek literature, classical, Jewish, or Christian, no such word is found independently of this text. The often quoted δευτεροδεκάτη, “second tenth” (Hieron. ad Ez. xlv. 13), gives no help. The analogy of δευτερογάμος, δευτεροτόκος, κ.τ.λ., suggests the meaning of “a sabbath which for a second time is first”; that of δευτερέσχατος, which Heliodorus (apud Soran. Med. vet.) uses for “last but one,” suggests the meaning “first but one” i.e. “second of two firsts.” But what sense, suitable to the passage, can be obtained from either of these? The more probable conclusion is that the word is spurious.

How then did it get into the text and become so widely diffused? The conjecture of Meyer is reasonable. An early copyist inserted πρώτως to explain ἐν έτέρως σαββάτως in ver. 6; this was corrected to δευτέρως because of 4:31; and the next copyist, not understanding the correction, combined the two words. A few MSS. have the reading δευτέρως πρώτως, among them R (Cod. Nitriensis). a paümpsest of the sixth cent. in the British Museum. See Knight’s Field.

2. If the word is genuine, what can be its meaning? Jerome put this question to Gregory Nazianzen, and the latter eleganter lusit, saying, Docebo te superhac re in ecclesia (Hieron. Ep. 52.). Of the numerous conjectures the following may be mentioned as not altogether incredible. (1) The first sabbath of the second year in a sabbatical cycle of seven years. This theory of Wieseler has won many adherents. (2) The first sabbath in Nisan. The Jewish civil year began in Tisri, while the ecclesiastical year began in Nisan; so that each year there were two first sabbaths, one according to civil, the other according to ecclesiastical reckoning: just as Advent Sunday and the first Sunday in January are each, from different points of view, the first Sunday in the year. It would be possible to call the second of the two “a second first Sunday.” But would anyone use such languale and expect to be understood? (3) The first sabbath of the second month. It is asserted that the story of David obtaining the shewbread would often be in the lesson for that sabbath. But the lectionary of the synagogues in the time of Christ is unknown. See on 4:17. For other guesses see Godet, McClellan, and Meyer. Most editors omit or bracket it. Tisch. changed his decision several times, but finally replaced it in his eighth edition.

διαπορεύεσθαι αὐτὸν διὰ σπορίμων. Excepting Romans 15:24, the verb is peculiar to Lk. (13:22, 18:36; Acts 16:4). In N.T. σπόριμος occurs only here and parallels. In Theophr. (H. P. vi. 5. 4) we have ἡ σπορίμη, sc. γῆ. In Genesis 1:29 it is applied to the seed, πάντα χόρτον σπόριμον σπεῖρον σπέρμα; so that like σπείρεσθαι, it can be used either of the field or of the seed.

ἔτιλλον οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἤσθιον τοὺς στάχυας. For this Mk. has ἥρξαντο ὁδὸν ποιεῖν τίλλοντες τοὺς στάχυας, which has been interpreted to mean “began to make a way by plucking the ears.” But (1) all three imply that Jesus was walking in front of the disciples. What need was there for them to make a way? (2) How would plucking the ears make a path? (3) In LXX ὁδὸν ποιεῖν is used for iter facere (Jdg 17:8). All three mean that the disciples went along plucking the ears. This was allowed (Deuteronomy 23:25).

ψώχοντες ταῖς χερσίν. This and the τίλλοντες constituted the offence: it was unnecessary labour on the sabbath. According to Rabbinical notions, it was reaping, thrashing, winnowing, and preparing food all at once. Lk. alone mentions the rubbing, and the word ψώχειν seems to occur elsewhere only in the medical writer Nicander (Theriaca, 629). It is from the obsolete ψώω, a collat. form of ψάω. Comp. Hdt. iv. 75, 2. For the action described see Robinson, Res. in Pal. i. pp. 493, 499.

2. τινὲς δὲ τῶν φαρισαίων. As in 5:30, they are represented as addressing their question to the disciples. In Mark 2:24 and Matthew 12:2 the charge against the disciples is addressed to Christ, while in Mark 2:16 and Matthew 9:11 the charge against Christ is addressed to the disciples. The τοῖς σάββασιν may mean either “on the sabbath days” (AV. and most English Versions) or “on the sabbath day” (RV.). Although Vulg. has in sabbatis, Wic. has “in the saboth”; Cov. also “upon the sabbath.” See on 4:31,

3. οὐδὲ τοῦτο ἀνέγνωτε ὃ ἐποίησεν Δαυείδ. “Have ye not read even this that David did?” Does your knowledge not extend even thus far? RV. follows AV. in translating ὃ ἐποίησεν as if it were the same as the τί ἐποίησεν of Mt. and Mk., “what David did.”

καὶ οἱ μετʼ αὐτοῦ. “The young men,” whom David was to meet afterwards. He came to Nab alone (1 Samuel 21:1).

4. εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ Θεοῦ. This is not stated in O.T., but may be inferred from his being seen by Doeg the Edomite, who was “detained before the Lord”: i.e. he was in the tabernacle as a proselyte, perhaps to be purified, or to perform a vow.

τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως. Lit. “the loaves of the setting forth.” These were the twelve loaves of wheaten bread placed before the Lord in the Holy Place every sabbath. The word “shewbread” first appears in Coverdale, probably from Luther’s Schaubrote. Wic. follows the panes propositionis of Vulg. with “looves of proposisiounn,” which is retained in Rhem. Tyn. has “loves of halowed breed.” In O.T. we have also ἄρτοι τοῦ προσώπου, i.e. of the presence of God (1 Samuel 21:6; Nehemiah 10:33), or ἄρτοι ἐνώπιοι (Exodus 25:30), or ἄρτοι τῆς προσφορᾶς (1 Kings 7:48), or again οἱ ἄρτοι οἱ διαπαντός, i.e. “the perpetual loaves” (Numbers 4:7). But the expression used here, Matthew 12:4 and Mark 2:26, occurs Exodus 39:36?, 40:23; 1 Chronicles 9:32, 1 Chronicles 23:29: comp. 2 Chronicles 4:19. For the origin of ἡ πρόθεσις τῶν ἄρτων (Hebrews 9:2) comp. 2 Chronicles 13:11, 2 Chronicles 29:18. See Edersh. The Temple, pp. 152-157; Herzog, Pro_2 art. Schaubrote.

καὶ ἔδωκεν τοῖς μετʼ αὐτοῦ. This also is not stated in 1 Sam. 21., but it is implied in David’s asking for five loaves, and in Abimelech’s asking whether the wallets of the young men were Levitically clean. For ἔξεστιν c. acc. et inf. see on 20:22.

5. κύριός ἐστιν τοῦ σαββάτου ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. In all three accounts Κύριος comes first with emphasis. The Son of Man controls the Sabbath, not is controlled by it. This does not mean that He abrogates it (Matthew 5:17-20), but that He has power to cancel the literal observance of it in order to perform or permit what is in accordance with its spirit. Mk. gives the additional reason that “the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath,” i.e. that it was given to be a blessing, not a burden. Even the Rabbis sometimes saw this; “The sabbath is handed over to you; not, ye are handed over to the sabbath” (Edersh. L. & T. 2. p. 58). Ritual must give way to charity. The Divine character of the Law is best vindicated by making it lovable; and the Pharisees had made it an iron taskmaster. And, if the sabbath gives way to man, much more to the Son of Man. In John 5:17 Christ takes still higher ground. The Father knows no sabbath in working for man’s good, and the Son has the same right and liberty. For ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου see on 5:24. The point here is that Christ as the representative of man defends man’s liberty.

Cod. D transfers ver. 5 to after ver. 10, and instead of it has the remarkable insertion: τῆς αὐτῆς ἡμέρα θεασάμενός τινα ἐργαζόμενον τῶς σαββάτως εἶπεν αὐτῶς ἄνθθρωπε, εἰ μὲν οἰδας τί ποιεῖς, μακάριος εἰ· δὲ μὴ οἰδας, ἐπικατάρατος καὶ παραβάτης εἶ τοῦ νόμου. For ἄνθρωπε comp. 12:14; ἐπικατάρατος Galatians 3:10; παραβάτης νόμου, Romans 2:25, Romans 2:27; Jam 2:11. It is possible that the tradition here preserved in Cod. D is the source from which both S. Paul and S. James derive the phrase παραβάτης νόμου. In Rom. 2., where it occurs twice, we have the address ἄνθρωπε twice (vv. 1, 3). There is nothing incredible in Christ’s having seen a man working (not necessarily in public) on the sabbath. The words attributed to Christ are so unlike the undignified, silly, and even immoral inventions in the apocryphal gospels that we may believe that this traditional story is true, although it is no part of the Canonical Gospels. D has other considerable insertions Matthew 20:28 and John 6:56. See A. Resch, Agrapha Aussercanonische Evangelienfragmente (Leipzig, 1889) pp. 36, 189.

6-11. The Second Incident on the Sabbath. Matthew 12:9 would lead us to suppose that it was the same sabbath (μεταβὰς ἐκεῖθεν ἦλθεν). Lk. definitely states that it was ἐν ἑτέρως σαββάτως, but not that it was “on the very next sabbath following.” He alone mentions that Jesus taught in the synagogue on this occasion, and that the withered hand that was healed was the right one.

6. Ἐγένετο δὲ … εἰσελθεῖν αὐτὸν … καὶ ἦν … καὶ ἦν. The same Hebraistic constr. as in ver. 1, somewhat modified in accordance with classical usage: see note at the end of ch. 1. We have ξηροί at the Pool of Bethesda (John 5:3); but outside N.T. the word seems to mean, when applied to the human body, either “not wet” or “lean.”

7. παρετηροῦντο δὲ αὐτὸν οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ φαρισαῖοι. Lk. alone tells us who the spies were. Mt. puts their inquisitiveness into words, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath day?” The verb signifies “watch narrowly,” esp. with sinister intent, perhaps from looking sideways out of the corner of one’s eyes, ex obliquo et occulto. As in Galatians 4:10, the mid. gives the idea of interested observance. Mk. has παρετήρουν: comp. 20:20; Sus. 12, 15, 16; Polyb. xvii. 3. 2; Aris. Rhet. ii. 6, 20; Top. vii. 11, 1.

εἰ ἐν τῷ σαββάτῳ θεραπεύει. The present has reference to His habitual practice, of which His conduct on this occasion would be evidence. But א B with other authorities read θεραπεύσει, which is probably genuine in Mark 3:2, and may be genuine here. The future would limit the question to the case before them.

ἵνα εὕρωσιν κατηγορεῖν αὐτοῦ. According to what is probably the invariable rule in N.T. we have the subj. in spite of the past tense on which the final clause is dependent. The opt. for this purpose is obsolete; for γνοῖ (Mark 9:30) and similar forms are probably meant to be subj. Simcox, Lang,. of N.T. p. 107.

8. αὐτὸς δὲ ᾔδει τοὺς διαλογισμοὺς αὐτῶν. “But He,” in contrast to these spies (5:16, 8:37, 54) “knew their thoughts.” For διαλογισμός comp. 2:35, 5:22, 9:46, 24:38. It commonly means intellectual and inward questioning rather than actual dis puting: but see on 5:22 and comp. 1 Timothy 2:8.

τῷ ἀνδρὶ τῷ ξηρὰν ἔχοντι τὴν χεῖρα. “To the man who had his hand withered,” not “who had the withered hand.” For ἀνδρί comp. 5:12: Mt. and Mk. have ἀνθρώπῳ.

Ἔγειρε καὶ στῆθι εἰς τὸ μέσον. Lk. alone has καὶ στῆθι. Christ’s method is as open as that of His adversaries is secret. “Arise and stand into the midst” i.e. “Come into the midst and stand there”: comp. 9:7; Acts 8:40. Win. l. 4, b, p. 516. In what follows note Lk.’s favourite ἀναστάς (1:39), which neither Mt. nor Mk. has here.

None of them records any words of the man; but Jerome in commenting on Matthew 12:13 states, in evangelio quo utuntur Nazareni et Ebionitæ … homoiste qui aridam habet manum cæmentarius scribitur, istiusmodi vocibus auxilium precans, Cæmentarius eram, manibus victum quæritans. precor te, Jesu, ut mihi restituas sanitatem, ne turpiter mendicem cibos. See on 18:25.

9. Ἐπερωτῶ ὑμᾶς. He answers the questioning in their hearts by a direct question which puts the matter in the true light. To refuse to do good is to do evil; and it could not be right to do evil on the sabbath.

The reading of TR., ἐπερωτήσω ὑμᾶς τι, is wrong in both variations; and has the disadvantage of being ambiguous, for τι may be indefinite or interrogative. “I will ask you something, Is it lawful?” etc. Or, “I will ask you what is lawful,” etc.

ψυχὴν σῶσαι ἤ ἀπολέσαι. It was a principle of the Rabbinists that periculum vitæ pellit sabbatum; but the life must be that of a Jew. This canon was liberally interpreted; so that a large number of diseases might be attended to on the Sabbath, as being dangerous. These modifications of the rigid rule were based on the principle that it was lawful to do good and avert evil on the sabbath; and to this Jesus appeals. If the Pharisees said, “This man’s life is not in danger,” the answer would have been easy, “You do not know that, any more than in the cases always allowed.” The addition of ἢ ἀπολέσαι has special point, for this was what these objectors were doing. They did not consider that they were breaking the sabbath in plotting to destroy Jesus on this day (ver. 7). Were they to be allowed to destroy, while He was forbidden to save?

10. περιβλεψάμενος πάντας αὐτούς. Mk. adds, still more graphically, μετʼ ὀργῆς, συλλυπούμενος ἐπὶ τῇ πωρώσει τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν: but πάντας is peculiar to Lk. See on 7:35 and 9:43. Mt. omits the whole of this, but inserts the case of the sheep fallen into a pit. Lk. has a similar question about a son or ox fallen into a well, which was asked on another occasion (14:5).

Ἔκτεινον τὴν χεῖρά σου. As His challenge to His enemies remained unanswered, He now makes trial of the man. The attempt to obey this command was evidence of his faith.

With the double augment in ἀπεκατεστάθη comp. ἐπροέταξα, ἐροεφήτευον, ἐκατεσκεύασαν, ἐσυνεμαρτύρουν, ἠφώρισται, which occur in vinous writers. Exodus 4:7, ἀπεκατέστη; Jeremiah 23:8, ἀπεκατέστησεν Ign. Smyr. xi., ἀπεκατεστάθη. Win. 12:7. a, p. 84.

D Cod. here inserts ver. 5.

11. ἀνοίας. The phrensy or loss of reason which is used by extreme excitement; dementia rather than insipientia (Vulg.) or amentia (Beza). Plato distinguishes two kinds of ἄνοια, τὸ μὲν μανίαν, τὸ δʼ ἀμαθίαν (Tim. 86 B). It is the former which is intended here. Elsewhere 2 Timothy 3:9; Proverbs 22:15; Ecclesiastes 11:10; Wisd. 15:18, 19:3; 2 Malachi 4:6, etc.

τί ἂν ποιυήσαιεν. “What they should do,” if they did anything. In Lk. the opt. is still freq. in indirect questions: see on 3:15. Mk. says that the Pharisees forthwith took counsel with the Herodians how they might destroy Him (ἀπολέσωσιν). They would be glad of the assistance of the court party to accomplish this end. With their help Antipas might be induced to treat Jesus as he had treated the Baptist. Lk. nowhere mentions the Herodians.

The Aeolic form ποιήσειαν is not found is the best MSS, here. In Acts 17:27 ψηλαφήσειαν is probably genuine.

6:12-8:56. From the Nomination of the Twelve to Their First Mission

In proportion as the work of Christ progresses the opposition between Him and the supporters of moribund Judaism is intensified.

12-16. The Nomination of the Twelve. Common to all three: comp. Mark 3:13-19; Matthew 10:2-4. L’élection des Douze est le premier acte organisateur accompli par Jésus-Christ. Sauf les sacraments, c’est le seul. Car c’éait ce collège, une fois constitué, qui devait un jour faire le reste (Godet).

12. ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τ.. See on 1:39. This expression, and ἐγένετο and ἦν with the participle, are characteristic of Lk., and are not found in the parallels in Mt. and Mk. For the constr. comp. vv. 1 and 6; for προσεύξασθαι see Introd. § 6. The momentous crisis of choosing the Twelve is at hand, and this vigil is the preration for it.

διανυκτερεύων. Here only in N.T., but not rare elsewhere; Job 2:9 (where LXX has much which is not in the extant Heb.); Jos. Ant. vi. 13. 9; B. J. i. 29, 2; Xen. Hellen. v. 4, 3. The analytical tense emphasizes the long continuance of the prayer.

τῇ προσευχῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ. The phrase occurs nowhere else. It means prayer which has God for its object: comp. ζῆλος Θεοῦ (Romans 10:2); ὁ ζῆλος τοῦ οἴκου σου (John 2:17); πίστις Ἰησοῦ (Galatians 3:22). Win. xxx. 1. a, p. 231.1 That προσευχή here means an oratory or place of prayer is incredible: see on Acts 16:13, Lightfoot says that some Rabbis taught that God prays: “Let it be My will that My mercy overcome My wrath.” But such trifling has no place here. Mark 11:22 and Jam 2:1 are perhaps parallel.

13. ἐγένετο ἡμέρα. The phrase is freq. in Lk. (4:42, 22:66; Acts 12:18, Acts 12:16:35, Acts 12:23:12, 27:29, 33, 39).—προσεφώνησεν. “Called to Him, summoned.” This is the more correct use of the word. Elsewhere in N.T. it means “address, call to”; and, excepting Matthew 11:16, it is used only by Lk. (7:32, 13:12, 23:20; Acts 21:40, Acts 22:2).—τοὺς μαθητάς. These are the larger circle of disciples, out of whom He selected the Twelve. Comp. John 6:70; Matthew 19:28; Revelation 21:14. That either the larger circle or the Twelve had spent the night with Him is neither stated nor implied.

ἐκλεξάμενος. This implies the telling over (λέγειν) in preference to others (ἐκ) for one’s own advantage (mid.). The word is fatal to Lange’s theory that Judas was forced upon our Lord by the importunity of the other Apostles (L. of C. ii. p. 179).

οὓς καὶἀποστόλους ὠνόμασεν. Not at the time possibly, but afterwards. The καί marks the naming as a separate act from the election. The word ἀπόστολος is used only once each by Mt. (10:2), Mk. (6:30), and Jn. (8:16); by Lk. six times in the Gospel (9:10, 9:49, 17:5, 22:14, 24:10) and often in the Acts. In the Gospels the Twelve are generally called the Twelve. The word occurs once in, LXX, ἐγώ εἰμι ἀπόστολος πρός πρός σε σκληρός (1 Kings 14:6); and once in N.T. it is used of Christ (Hebrews 3:1), See Lft. Galatians, pp. 92-101, 6th ed.; D. B.2 art. “Apostle” Harnack in Texte u. Untersuch. ii. 111 ff.; Sanday on Romans 1:1. The theory that Lk. writes in order to depreciate the Twelve, does not harmonize with the solemn importance which he assigns to their election. And criticism is out of harmony with itself, when it adopts this theory, and then suggests that Lk. has invented this early election See on 22:45.Mark 3:14 is doubtful.

14-16. In construction the twelve names are in apposition to ἀποστόλους, and the narrative is not resumed until ver. 17. The four lists of the Apostles preserved in the Synoptic Gospels and the Acts agree in two main features. 1. The names are arranged in three groups of four. 2. The same Apostles, War, Philip, and James of Alphæus, stand first in each group. Only in respect of one name is there material difference between the lists. In the third group Lk. both here and Acts 1:13 has Judas of James; for whom Mt. (10:3) and Mk. (3:18) have Thaddæus or Lebbæus. In both places Thaddæus is probably correct, Lebbæus being due to an attempt to include Levi among the Apostles. Levi = Lebi or Lebbi, the Greek form of which might be Λεββαῖος, as θαδδαῖος of Thaddi. Some Mss. read Λεβαῖος, which is still closer to Levi. See WH. ii. App. pp. 12, 24. The identification. of Thaddæus with Judas of James solves the difficulty, and there is nothing against it excepting lack of direct evidence. No pairing oft he Apostles is manifest in this list as in that of Mt. If the καί after Θωμᾶν be omitted, there is a break between the second and third group; but otherwise the list is a simple string of names. In the first six names Lk. agrees with the first three pairs of Mt. In the other six he places Matthew before Thomas (while Mt. places himself last in his group) and Simon, Zelotes before Judas of James.

14. Σίμωνα ὃν καὶ ὠνόμασεν Πέτρον. The similarity to the preceding clause is marked. This certainly does not mean that Simon received the name of Peter on this occasion, and there is nothing to show that the Twelve received the name of Apostles on this occasion. But it should be noticed that henceforth Lk. always speaks of him as Peter (8:45, 51, 9:20, 28, 32, 33, 12:41, etc.) and not as Simon. In 22:31 and 24:34 Lk. is quoting the words of others. Hitherto he has called him Simon (4:38, 5:3, 4, 5, 10) and once Simon Peter (5:8), but, never Peter. In the Acts he is never called Simon without the addition of the surname. The usage with regard to the names Saul and Paul is very similar. See papers by Dean Chadwick on “The Group of the Apostles” and on “Peter” in Expositor, 3rd series, vol. 9. pp. 100-114, 187-199, 1889; also Schanz, ad loc. p. 216.

Ἀνδρέαν. Only in his lists of the Apostles does Lk. mention Andrew. Mt. mentions him on one other occasion, and Mk. on three others (Matthew 4:18; Mark 1:16, Mark 1:29, Mark 1:13:3). Nearly all that we know about him comes from Jn. (1:41, 44, 6:8, 12:22). Although one of the earliest disciples, he does not become one of the chosen three, although Mark 13:3 seems to indicate special intimacy. For legends respecting him see Lipsius, Apokryphen Apostelgeschichten u. Apostellegenden, i. pp. 543-622; Tregelles, Canon Muratorianus, pp. 17, 34.

Ἰάκωβον καὶ Ἰωάνην. This is their order according to age, and it is observed in all three Gospels; in Acts 1:13 John precedes James. The fact that James was the first of the Twelve to be put to death is evidence that he was regarded as specially influential. James and John were probably first cousins of the Lord; for, according to the best interpretation of John 19:25, their mother Salome was the sister of the Virgin Mary. That the title of Boanerges was given to them “at the time of the appointment of the Twelve” (D. B.2 i. p. 1509) is a baseless hypothesis. See Trench, Studies in the Gospels, pp. 138-146; Suicer, Thesaurus, s.v. βροντή. For legends see D. B.2 i. p. 1511; Lipsius, iii. pp. 201-228, i. pp. 348-542.

φίλιππον. All that we know of him comes from Jn. (1:44-49, 6:5-7, 12:21, 22, 14:8, 9). There seems to have been some connexion between him and Andrew (John 1:44, John 12:22); and both in Mark 3:18 and Acts 1:13 their names are placed together in the lists; but the nature of the connexion is unknown. Lipsius, iii. pp. 1-53.

βαρθολομαῖον. The ancient and common identification with Nathanael is probable, but by no means certain. 1. As Bar-tholomew is only a patronymic, “son of Talmai,” the bearer of it would be likely to have another name. 2. The Synoptists do not mention Nathanael; Jn. does not mention Bartholomew. 3. The Synoptists place Bartholomew next to Philip, and Philip brought Nathanael to Christ. 4. The companions of Nathanael who are named John 21:2 are all of them Apostles. Lipsius, iii. pp. 54-108.

15. Μαθθαῖον καὶ Θωμᾶν. In all three these names are combined; but Mt. reverses the order, and after his own name adds ὁ τελώνης, which is found in none of the other lists. All that we know of Thomas is told us by Jn. (11:16, 14:5, 20:24-29, 21:2). Lipsius, iii. pp. 109-141, i. pp. 225-347.

Ἰάκωβον Ἀλφαίου. His father is probably not the father of Levi (Mark 2:14), and James himself is certainly not the brother of the Lord (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; Galatians 1:19) who was the first over seer of the Church of Jerusalem (Acts 12:17, Acts 12:15:13; Galatians 2:9, Galatians 2:12) The brethren of the Lord did not believe on Him at this time (John 7:5), and none of them can have been among the Twelve. But the Apostle James the son of Alphæus is probably identical with James the Little (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; John 19:25), for Alphæus and Clopas may be two different Greek forms of the Aramaic Chalpai; but this is uncertain. See Mayor, Ep. of S. James, pp. 1-46; also Expositor’s Bible, S. James and S. Jude, pp. 25-30 (Hodder, 1891). In all the catalogues James of Alphæus heads the third group of Apostles. Lipsius, iii. 229-238.

τὸν καλούμενον ζηλωτήν.1 Lk. has this in both his lists, while Mt. and Mk. have ὁ Καναναῖος, which in some authorities has been corrupted into Κανανίτης. Neither of these forms can mean “Canaanite,” for which the Greek is Χαναναῖος (Matthew 15:22 and LXX), nor yet “of Cana,” for which the Greek would be Καναῖος Καναναῖος. is the Aramaic Kanan in a Greek form (on the analogy of φαρισαῖος from Pharish and Ἀσσιδαῖος from Chasid) and = ζηλωτής. Lipsius, iii. pp. 142-200. See on 1:36.

Rhem. leaves the word untranslated, Cananæus, and Wic. makes it unintelligible, “Canane.” All the other English Versions make it a local adj., “of Cana” or “of Cane,” or “of Canaan,” or “of Canaanite.” or “the canaanite.” The last error seems to begin with Cranmer in 1539. RV. is the first to make clear that “Kananæan” means “Zealot.” Lft. On Revision, pp. 138, 139 (154, 155, 2nd ed.); Fritzsche on Matthew 10:4. The Zealots date from the time of the Maccabees as a class who attempted to force upon others their own rigorous interpretations of the Law. S. Paul speaks of himself as περισσοτέρως ζηλωτὴς ὑπάρχων τῶν πατρικῶν μου παραδόσεων (Galatians 1:14), i.e. he belonged to the extreme party of the, Pharisees (Acts 22:3, Acts 22:23:6, Acts 22:26:5; Php 3:5, Php 3:6). Large numbers of this party were among the first converts at Jerusalem (Acts 21:20). From these extremists had sprung the revolt under Judas of Galilee (Acts 5:37; Jos. Ant. xviii. 1, 1, 6), and the Sicarii, who were the proximate cause of the destruction of Jerusalem (Jos. B. J. iv. 3, 9, 5, 1, 7, 2, vii. 8, 1, 10. 1, 11, 1). Milman, Hist. of the Jews, ii. pp. 191, 291, 299, 323, 4th ed. 1866; Ewald, Hist. of Israel, vii. 559 ff., Eng. tr.; Herzog, Pro_2 art. “Zeloten.” Whether the Apostle Simon was called ζηλωτής because he had once belonged to this party, or because of his personal character either before or after his call, must remain uncertain.

16. Ἰούδαν Ἰακώβου. That there were two Apostles of the name of Judas is clear from John 14:22, although Mt. and Mk. mention only one; and the identification of their Thaddæus with the Judas not Iscariot of Jn. and with this Judas of James makes all run smoothly. Ἰούδας Ἰακώβου must be rendered “Judas the son of James,” not “the brother of James,” for which there is no justification. When Lk. means “brother” he inserts ἀδελφός (3:1, 6:14; Acts 12:2). Nonnus in his Paraphrase (Μεταβολή) of John 14:22 has Ἰούδας υἱὸς Ἰακώβοιο. Ἰούδας ἀδελφὸς Ἰακώβου (Judges 1:1) is quite a different person, viz. the brother of James the )Lord’s brother. Tyn. Cov. and Cran. rightly supply “sonne” here, and Luth. also has sohn The error begins with Beza’s fratrem. Of this James, the father of Judas Thaddæus, nothing is known. Lk. adds the name of the father, because his arrangement places this Judas next to the traitor.

Ἰσκαριώθ. This epithet probably means “man of Kerioth,” which was a place in Judah (Joshua 15:25), or possibly in Moab (Jeremiah 48:24). John 6:71 confirms this; for there and John 13:26 the true reading gives “Judas son of Simon Iscariot”; and if the name is a local epithet, both father and son would be likely to have it. In this case Judas was the only Apostle who was not a Galilean, and this may have helped to isolate him. Other derivations of “Iscariot,” which connect the word with “lying,” or “strangling,” or “apron,” i.e. bag, or “date-trees” (καριωτίδες), are much less probable. We know nothing about Simon Iscariot. Farrar identifies him with Simon Zelotes, which is most improbable. Simon was one of the commonest of names. The MSS. vary between Ἰσκαριώθ, which is right here, and Ἰσκαριώτης, which is right 22:3. Here only is προδότης used of Judas: it occurs in the plur. Acts 7:52; 2 Timothy 3:4; and in the sing. 2 Mac. 5:15, 10:13. All English Versions go wrong about ἐγένετο προδότης. Nowhere in Scripture is Judas styled “the traitor,” and ἐγένετο should be distinguished from ἦν: therefore, not “was the traitor,” but “became a traitor,” as the American Revisers proposed. Judas “turned traitor.” The difficulty about the call of Judas is parallel to the powers bestowed upon a Napoleon. The treason of Judas shows that no position in the Church, however exalted, gives security against the most complete fall.

The verb used of the treachery of Judas is never προδιδόναι, but παραδιδόναι (22:4, 6, 21, 22, 48; Matthew 10:4; Mark 3:19; John 6:64, John 6:71). In class. Grk. προδιδόναι commonly has this meaning; παραδιδόναι rarely. Here the Lat. texts vary between proditor (Vulg.) and traditor (c f ff2 r) and qui tradidit eum or illum (d e).

17-19. The Descent from the Mountain, and many Miracles of Healing. The parallel passages in Mark 3:7-12 and Matthew 4:24, Matthew 4:25 are very different from Lk. and from one another in wording.

17. ἐπὶ τόπου πεδινοῦ. This may mean a level spot below the summit; but in connexion with καταβάς, and without qualification, it more naturally means level ground near the foot of the mountain. Hither it would be more likely that multitudes would come and bring their sick, than to a plateau high up the mountain.

The Latin texts vary: in loco campestri (Vulg.), in loco campense (a), in l. lano (f) in l. pedeplano (1.).

καὶ ὄχλος πολὺς μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ. Not a nom. pendens, but included in the preceding ἔστη: comp. the constr. 8:1-3. He stood, and they stood. But the ἔστη is no evidence as to Christ’s attitude during the discourse, because the healings intervene: 4:20 shows that Lk. is aware of Christ’s sitting to preach.

καὶ πλῆθος πολὺ τοῦ λαοῦ, κ.τ.λ. This is a third group. Christ and the Twelve form one group. The multitude of disciples in the wider sense form a second. And besides these there is a mixed throng from Judæa and the sea-coast: see on 11:29.

ἰαθῆναι ἀπό. The prep, is not classical; but we say “to to be cured from” (Mark 5:29). In the perf., 1 aor. and 1 fut. pass. the dep. ἰάομαι is pass. in meaning (7:7, 8:47, 17:15; not Acts 3:11). Except in Lk, the verb is rare in N.T. writers.—There should be at least a colon at τῶν νόσων αὐτῶν: here the long sentence which began at ver. 13 ends.

18, 19. For similarly condensed accounts of groups of miracles comp. 4:40, 5:15, 7:21. We once more have an amphibolous expression: see on 2:22. Here ἀπὸ πνευμάτων ἀκαθάρτων may be taken either with ἐνοχλούμενοι or with ἐθεραπεύοντο. From ver. 17 and 7:21 we infer that the latter constr. is right: “They that were troubled with them were healed of unclean spirits.” But in the other cases the gen. with ἀπό follows the verb; so that ἐνοχλούμενοι ἀπό may be right. The “and” before “were healed” in AV. is from a corrupt reading: not only Wic. and Rhem. with Vulg., but also Cov., omit the “and.” For πνευμάτων ἀκαθάρτων see on 4:33. Note πᾶς and πάντας here and πάσης in ver. 17. They are not found in Mark 3:7, Mark 3:10: see on ver. 30. With παρʼ αὐτοῦ ἐξήρχετο comp. John 16:27. Lk. commonly writes ἐξέρχομαι ἀπό: see small print on 4:35, and comp. 8:46, which illustrates ἅπτεσθαι, δύαμις and ἐξήρχετο. For δύναμις and ἰᾶτο see on 4:36.

20-49. The Sermon ἐπὶ τόπου πεδινοῦ. D.B. v. art. “Sermon.”

To call it “the Sermon on the Plain,” following the AV. in ver. 17, is convenient, but scarcely justifiable. “The plain” has not been mentioned, and τὸ πεδίον does not occur in N.T. Moreover, it is by no means certain that this τόπος πεδινός was at the foot of the mount. And to talk of “the Sermon on the Plain” assumes, what cannot be proved, that the discourse here recorded is entirely distinct from “the Sermon on the Mount” (Matthew 5:1-7, Matthew 5:29). The relations between the two discourses will never cease to be discussed, because the materials are insufficient for a final decision. The following are the chief hypotheses which have been suggested in order to explain the marked similarities and differences. 1. They are reports, at first or second hand, of two similar but different discourses, distinct in time, place, and circumstance (Auger, Greswell, Osiander, Patritius, Plumptre, Sadler; so also in the main Barradius, Basil, Doddridge, Toletus, Tostatus). 2. They are reports of two different discourses delivered on the same day, Mt. giving the esoteric address to the disciples on the mountain, Lk. the exoteric address to the mixed multitude below (Augustine, Lange), 3. The are recensions, with interpolations and omissions, of two independent reports of one and the same sermon (Schleiermacher). 4. They are recessions of the same report, to which Mt. adds material from other sources, and from which Lk. perhaps omits portions (B. Weiss). 5. Mt. gives a conflate arrangement of sayings which were uttered on various occasions, and some of these occasions are given by Lk. (Bleek, Calvin, Godet, Holtzmann, Keim, Kuinoel, Neander, Pott, Semler, Weizsäcker, Wieseler). 6. Both sermons are a conglomeration of detached sayings collected into an anthology of aphorisms (Strauss, and to some extent Baur). Besides the writers mentioned above under the last four heads, a multitude of commentators adopt the view that the main portions of the reports given by Mt. and Lk. represent one and the same discourse (Bengal, Bucer, Calovius, Caspari, Chemnitz, Chrysostom, De Wette, Ebrard, Edersheim, Ellicott, Ewald, Farrar, Fritzsche, Grotius, Hilgenfeld, Keim, Lewin, Luther, McClellan, Meyer, Milman, Olshausen, Oosterzee, Origen, Robinson, Schanz, Schneckenburger, Sieffert, Stroud, Tholuck, Tischendorf, Wordsworth).

Bad or inadequate arguments are used on both sides. It is a great deal too much to say with Schleiermacher that the fact that the portions common to both appear in the same order, with the same beginning and end, “Proves incontrovertibly the identity of the discourse.” Any preacher repeating a carefully prepared sermon would begin and end in the same way, and would put his points in the same order. And it is mere dogmatism without argument when Sadler asserts that “the Lord must have pronounced each [beatitude] which St. Matthew records, and yet it is equally plain that He could hardly have pronounced them according to St. Luke’s form. He would not have said, Blessed are ye meek ones, Blessed are ye merciful ones, Blessed are ye peacemakers. The four given by St. Luke are the only ones which could well have been pronounced personally on the disciples; so that the beatitudes as given by St. Matthew and St. Luke respectively, could not have been altered forms of the same discourse.” Much more reasonable is the position of Grotius, who beleives that both record the same sermon: sicut facti narrationes circumstantiis congruents non temere ad res diversas referendæ sunt, ita sermones nihil vetat sæpius habitos eosdem aut similes, præsertim continents vitæ totius præcepta, quæ non potuerunt nimium sæ repeti (on Luke 6:17). We know beyond all question that some of our Lord’s words were uttered several times, and there is nothing antecedently improbable in the hypothesis that the words of this discourse, quæ non potuerunt nimium sæpe repeti, were delivered one or other of these forms more than once. Nor does it follow that those portions which Lk. gives as having been uttered on other occasions were not also uttered as parts of a continuous discourse. A preacher naturally repeats fragments of his own sermons in giving catechetical instruction, and also gathers up detached items of instruction when composing a sermon. The fact that Lk. meant to record these other occasions may have been part of his reason for omitting the similar words in this discourse. Another consideration which may have determined his selection is the thought of what would best suit Gentile readers. But in any case the dictum of Grotius must be remembered, that the hypothesis of a repetition of verbally similar sayings may be used with much more freedom than hypothesis of a repetition of circumstantially similar acts.

The conclusion arrived at by Sanday and P. Ewald is of this kind. The beatitudes originally stood in the Logia in a form similar to that in Matthew 5:3-12. Lk. used the Logia, but had also a rocument entirely independent of the Logia; and this contained a discourse, spoken originally on some other occasion, but yet so like the Sermon on the Mount as to be identified with it by Lk. The sermon in Luke is, therefore, a compound of the reports of two similar but different discourses; and in this compound the elements derived from the Logia are dominated by those derived from the independent document (Expositor for April 1891, p. 315). It seems, however, simpler to suppose that Lk. took the whole of his report from the document which contained this very similar, but different sermon. See Paul Feine, Ueber das gegenseit. Verhältniss d. Texte der Bergpredigt bei Matthä und Lukas in the jahrb. für Protest. Theologie, ix. 1.

The following tables will show the parallels between the two Evangelists:—

Between the Two Sermons.

Luke 6:20, Luke 6:21.Matthew 5:3, Matthew 5:4, Matthew 5:6. Luke 6:37, Luke 6:38. Matthew 7:1, Matthew 7:2.

22, 23. 11, 12. 41, 42. 3-5.

27-30. 39-42. 43-46. 16-21.

31. 7:12. 47-49. 24-27.

32-36. 5:42-48.

Between detached Sayings in Lk. and the Sermon in Mt.

Luke 14:34, Luke 14:35.Matthew 5:13.Luke 11:34-36. Matthew 6:22-23.

8:16 and 11:33. 15. 16:13. 24.

16:17. 18. 12:22-31. 25-34.

12:58, 59. 25, 26. 11:9-13. 7:7-11.

16:18. 32. 13:24. 13.

11:2-4. 6:9-13. 25-27. 22, 23.

12:33, 34. 19, 21.

Between the Sermon in Lk. and detached Sayings in Mt.

Luke 6:39. Matthew 15:14.Luke 6:40. Matthew 10:24.

This last saying was frequently uttered. It is recorded twice by Jn. (8:16, 15:20), and the four records seem to refer to four different occasions; besides which we have a similar utterance Luke 22:27.

These tables leave three verses of the sermon in Lk. without a parallel in Mt. (or any other Gospel), viz. the four woes corresponding to the beatitudes, vv. 24-26. The portions of the sermon in Mt. which have no parallel in Lk. amount to forty-one verses, viz. Matthew 5:5, Matthew 5:7-10, Matthew 5:14, Matthew 5:16, Matthew 5:17, Matthew 5:19-24, Matthew 5:27-31, Matthew 5:33-38, Matthew 5:43, 6:Matthew 5:1-8, Matthew 5:14-18, Matthew 5:7:6, Matthew 5:14, Matthew 5:15.

The plan of both discourses is the same. 1. The qualifications of those who can enter the kingdom (Lk. 20-26; Matthew 5:1-12); 2. The duties of those who have entered the kingdom (Lk. 27-45; Mat_5:13-12); 3. The judgments which await the members of the kingdom (Lk. 46-49; Matthew 7:13-27). Encouragement, requirement, warning; or invitation, principles, sanction;—these are three gradations which may be traced in these discourses; and, as Stier remarks, the course of all preaching is herein reflected.

There is considerable unanimity as to the spot where the sermon was delivered (Stanley, Sin & Pal. pp. 368, 369, Caspari, Chron. and Geograph. Int. to the L. of C. § 108, p. 171; Robinson, Pal. ii. 370, iii. pp. 241, 485; Farrar, L. of C. i. p. 250, and on Luke 6:12; Keim, Jes. of Nas. ii. p. 289). On the other hand, Edersheim asserts that “the locality is for many reasons unsunable”; but he gives no reasons (L. & T. 1. p. 524; see also Thomson, Land and Book, ii. p. 118).

20-26. The Qualifications necessary for Admission to the Kingdom: the Happiness of those who possess them (20-23), and the Misery of those who possess them not (24-26). This contrast of Blessings and Woes at the beginning of the sermon corresponds with the contrast in the parable with which it ends.

The Beatitudes common to Mt. and Lk. with the corresponding Woes in Lk.

Μακάριοι Μακάριοι Οὐαί

1. οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι, ὄτι αὐτῶν ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν. 1. οἱ πτωχοί, ὄτι ὑμετέρα ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ. 1. ὑμῖν τοῖς πλουσίας, ὄτι ἀπέχετε τὴν παράκλησιν ὑμῶν.

2. οἱ πενθοῦτες, ὄτι αὐτοὶ παρακληθήσονται. 3. οἱ κλαίοντες νῦν, ὄτι γελάσετε. 3. οἱ γελῶντες νῦν, ὅτι πενθήσετε καὶ κλαύσετε.

4. οἱ πεινῶντες καὶ διψῶτεσς τὴν δικαιοσύνην, ὄτι αὐτοὶ χορτασθήσονται. 2. οἱ πεινῶντες νῦν, ὅτι χορτασθήσεσθε. 2. ὐμῖν οἱ ἐμπεπλησμένοι νῦν, ὄτι πεινάσετε.

8. ἐστε ὄταν ὀνειδίσωσιν ὑμᾶς καὶ διώξωσιν καὶ εἴπωσιν πᾶν πονηρὸν καθʼ ὑμῶν ψευδόμενοι ἔνεκεν ἐμοῦ.

Χαίρετε καὶ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, ὄτι ὀ μισθὸς ὑμῶν πολὺς ὲν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς γὰρ ἐδίωξαν τοὺς προφήτας τοὺς πρὸ ὑμῶν. 4. ἐστε ὄταν μισήσωσιν ὑμᾶς οἱ ἄνθρωποι, καὶ ὄταν ἀφορίσωσιν ὐμᾶς καὶ ὀνειδίσωσιν καὶ ἐκβάλωσιν τὸ ὄνομα ὑμῶν ὡς πονηρὸν ἔνεκα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου· χάρητε ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ καὶ σκιρτήσατε, ἰδοὺ γὰρ ὁ μισθὸς ὑμῶν πολὺς ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ· κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ γὰρ ἐποίοιν τοῖς προφήταις οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν. 4. ὅταν καλῶς ὐμᾶς εἴπωσιν πάντες οἱ ἄνθρωποι, κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ γὰρ ἐποίουν τοῖς ψευδοποφήταις οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν.

6:20-23. Four Beatitudes; which correspond to the first, second, fourth, and eighth in Matthew 5:3-12; those relating to the meek, the merciful, the pure in heart, and the peacemakers being omitted. In the four that Lk. gives the more spiritual words which occur in Mt. are omitted, and the blessings are assigned to more external conditions. Actual poverty, sorrow, and hunger are declared to be blessed (as being opportunities for the exercise of internal virtues); and this doctrine is emphasized by the corresponding Woes pronounced upon wealth, jollity, and fulness of bread (as being sources of temptation). It is in the last Beatitude that there is least difference between the two. Even in Lk. unpopularity is not declared to be blessed, unless it is “for the son of Man’s sake”; and there is no Woe pronounced upon popularity for the Son of Man’s sake. See Hastings, D. B. 1. p. 261.

20. Καὶ αὐτὸς ἐπάρας τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ εἰς τοὺς μαθητάς. Lk.’s favourite mode of connexion in narrative: see on 5:14 and comp. 8:1, 22, 9:51, etc. With ἐπάρας τ. ὀφθ. comp. 18:13 and John 17:1. We must not take εἰς with ἔλεγεν; Lk. would have Written πρός, and after ἔλεγεν: contrast 22:65 and Mark 3:29. Mt. has προσῆλθαν αὐτῷ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ. καὶ … ἐδίδασκεν αὐτούς. The discourse in both cases is addressed to the disciples; there is nothing to indicate that the discourse in Lk. is address mixed multitudes, including unbelieving Jews and heathen. These Beatitudes would not be true, if addressed to them. It is to the faithful Christian that poverty, hunger, sorrow, and unpopularity are real blessings; to others they may be mere sterile suffering. Whereas, even for the heathen, to be poor in spirit and to hunger and thirst after righteousness are blessed things. In Mt. the Beatitudes are in the third person and have a wider sweep.

μακάριοι οἱ, This is the common constr, both in LXX and N.T., the reason for the blessedness being expressed by a noun or participle which is the subject of the sentence (Psalm 2:12, 40:5, 41:2, 84:5, Psalm 2:6, 13, 89:16, etc.); but the reason is sometimes expressed by the relative with a finite verb (Psalm 1:1, 32:1, Psalm 1:2; Luke 14:15; Jam 1:12), or by ὅτι (14:14; 1 Peter 4:14), or by ἐάν (John 13:17; 1 Corinthians 7:40).

οἱ πτωχοί. See on 4:18. We have no right to supply τῷ πνεύματι from Mt. It is actual poverty that is here meant. Nor is it the meaning that actual poverty makes men “poor in spirit.” Still less does it mean that in itself poverty is to all men a blessing. There is no Ebionite doctrine here. But “to you, My disciples, poverty is a blessing, because it preserves you in your dependence on God, and helps you to be truly His subjects”: τὸ γὰρ ὑμετέρα δεικτικῶς πρὸς πάροντας ἐλέγετο (Eus.) Some of these disciples had made themselves poor by surrendering all in order to follow Christ. Comp. Psalm 72:12, Psalm 72:13.

ὑμετέρα ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία. “Yours is the kingdom,” not “Will be.” It is not a promise, as in the next Beatitudes, but the statement of a fact. But the Kingdom is not yet theirs in its fulness; and those elements which are not yet possessed are promised in the Beatitudes which follow.

21. οἱ πεινῶντες νῦν. “Those of you who are suffering from actual want in this life. Ye shall have compensation.”

χορτασθήσεσθε. Originally the verb was confined to supplying animals with fodder (χόρτος), and if used of men implied a brutish kind of feeding (Plato, Rep. 9. p. 586). But in N.T. it is never used of cattle, and when it is used of men it has no degrading associations (9:17; John 6:26; Php 4:12; Jam 2:16); not even 15:16, if the word is genuine there, nor 16:21. Comp. τοὺς πτωχοὺς αὐτῆς χορτάσω ἄρτων (Psalm 132:15). In LXX χορτάζω and πίμπλημι are used to translate the same Hebrew word, sometimes in the same verse: ὅτι ἐχόρτασεν ψυχὴν κενήν, καὶ ψυχὴν πεινῶσαν ἐνέπλησεν ἀγαθῶν (Psalm 107:9). Here the filling refers to the spiritual abundance in the Kingdom of God. In all four cases, although the suffering endured is external and literal, yet the compensating blessing is spiritual.

οἱ κλαίοντες νῦν. Mt. has πενθοῦντεσς, which empresses the mourning, while κλαίοντες implies outward manifestation of grief in loud weeping, just as γελάσετε implied outward expression of mirth in laughter. Though common in LXX, γελάω occurs in N.T. only here and ver. 25.

22. ἀφορίσωσιν ὑμᾶς. “Mark you off from (ἀπό) by a boundary (ὅρος).” It is used both in a good sense (Acts 13:2; Romans 1:1; Galatians 1:15) and also in a bad, as here. Comp. καί μʼ ἀπὸ γᾶς ὥρισε (Eur. Hec. 940). Excommunication from the congregation as well as from social intercourse is here meant. The usual sentence was for thirty days, during which the excommunicated might not come within four cubits of any one. Comp. John 9:22, John 12:42, John 16:2. Whether there was at this time a more severe form of excommunication is uncertain. Herzog, Pro_2 art. Bann bei den Hebräern; Grotius on Luke 6:22; Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. on John 9:22.

ὀνειδίσωσιν. The object to be supplied may be either the preceding ὑμᾶς (so most English Versions) or the following τὸ ὄνομα ὑμῶν (Bede, Weiss). Vulg. supplies nothing; and Tyn. and Gen. have simply “and rayle” without an object Neither AV., nor RV. has “you” in italics.

ἐκβάλωσιν τὸ ὄνομα ὑμῶν ὡς πονηρόν. “Throw your name contemptuously away, reject it with ignominy, as an evil thing.” There is no idea of striking a name off the list as a mark of disgrace, ex albo expungere, a meaning which ἐκβάλλειν never has. It is used of hissing an actor off the stage and otherwise dismissing with contempt (Aristoph. Eq. 525; Nub. 1477; Soph. O. C. 631, 636; O. T. 849; Plato, Crito, 46 B). “Your name” means “the name by which you are known as My disciples,” as Christians. “Christian” or “Nazarene” was a name of bad repute, which it was disgraceful, and even unlawful, to bear, for Christianity was not a religio lictia. For πονηρόν as an epithet of ὄνομα comp. Deuteronomy 22:19.

ἕνεκα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. A vital qualification. The hatred and contempt must be undeserved, and be endured for Christ’s sake; not merited by one’s own misconduct.

23. σκιρτήσατε. Peculiar to Lk. See on 1:41 and comp. Malachi 4:2.

κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ γὰρ ἐποίουν τοῖς προφήταις. This implies that they are to receive “a prophet’s reward” (Matthew 10:41), as in this world, so in the next.

For the dat. comp. τοῖς μισοῦσιν ὐμᾶς (ver. 27). In class. Gk. we should have had τὰ αὐτὰ ἐποίουν τοὺς προφ. Thus, ἐγὼ δὲ ταῦτα τοῦτον ἐποίησα σὺν δίκῃ (Hdt. i. 115. 3, iv. 166., 3: comp. Aristoph. Nub. 259; Vesp. 697). In later Gk. the dat. of relation becomes much more common.

οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν. The gen. refers to οἱ ἄνθρωποι in ver. 22; “the fathers of them” who hate and abuse you.

24-26. Four Woes corresponding to the four Beatitudes. There is no evidence that these were not part of the original discourse. Assuming that Mt. and Lk. report the same discourse, Mt. may has omitted them. But they may have been spoken on some other occasion. Schleiermacher and Weiss would have it that they are mere glosses added by Lk. to emphasize and explain the preceding blessings. Cheyne thinks that some of them were suggested to Lk. by Isaiah 65:13-16. We have no right to assume that no persons were present to whom these words would be applicable. Even if there were none present, yet these Woes might have been uttered as warnings both to those who heard them and to others who would learn them from those who heard. Just as the Beatitudes express the qualifications of those who are to enter the Kingdom, so these show the qualities which exclude men from it. It is possible that some of the spies and adversaries from Judæa were among the audience, and thus Jesus warns them of their condition. When the discourse as placed by Mt. was spoken there was less opposition to Christ, and hence no Woes (Pastor Pastorum, p. 256).

24. πλήν. Curtius makes πλήν an adverbial form of πλέον, so that its radical meaning would be “more than, beyond” (Gr. Etym. 282); but Lft. (Php 3:16) connects it with πέλας, in the meaning “besides, apart from this, only.” For the accusatival form comp. δίκην, ἐπίκλην, clam, coram. It sometimes restricts, sometimes expands, what precedes. It is a favourite word with Lk., in the Gospel as an adv. (ver. 35, 10:11, 14, 20, 11:41, 12:31, 13:33, 17:1, 18:8, 19:27, 22:21, 22, 42, 23:28), in the Acts as a prep. (8:1, 15:28, 27:22). “But” is the only possible rendering here.

οὐαὶ ὑμῖν τοῖς πλουσίοις. As a matter of fact the opponents of Christ came mostly from the wealthy classes, like the oppressors of the first Christians (Jam 5:1-6). see Renan, L’Antechrist, p. 12; Ewald, Hist. of Israel, 7. p. 451. But the cases of Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea show that the rich as such were not excluded from the kingdom.—ἀπέξετε. “Ye have to the full”; so that there is nothing more left to have. The poor consolation derived from the riches in which they trusted is all that they get: they have no treasure in heaven. Comp. Matthew 6:2, Matthew 6:5, Matthew 6:16; Philemon 1:15; and see Lft. on Php 4:18. This meaning is classical: comp. ἀπολαμβάνω, ἀπεγάζομαι. Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 229, For παράκλησιν see on 2:25, and comp. 16:25 of Lazarus.

25. οἱ ἐμπεπλησμένοι νῦν. “Sated with the good things of this life,” like Dives (Ezekiel 16:49). Grotius compares. the epitaph, τόσσʼ ἔχω ὅσσʼ ἔπιον καὶ ἐδήτυα. It may be doubted whether the change of word from χορτάζεσθαι (ver. 21) indicates that horum plenitudo non meretur nomen satietatis (Beng.): comp. 1:53. In Lat. Vet. and Vulg. we have saturor both here and ver. 21.

πεινάσετε. This received a partial and literal fulfilment when Jerusalem was reduced to starvation in the siege: but the reference is rather to the loss of the spiritual food of the Kingdom. Comp. Isaiah 65:13. Hillel said, “The more flesh one hath the more worms, the more treasures the more care, the more maids the more unchastity, the more men-servants the more theft The more law the more life, the more schools the more wisdom, the more counsel the more insight, the more righteousness the more peace.”

οἱ γελῶτες νῦν. “Who laugh for joy over your present prosperity,” the loss of which will surely come and cause grief. But the worst loss will be that of spiritual joy hereafter (Isaiah 65:14).

26. ὅταν καλῶς εἴπωσιν ὑμᾶς. It is the wealthy who are commonly admired and praised by all who hope to win their favour. The praise of worldly men is no guarantee of merit: rather it shows that those who have won it do not rise above the world’s standard (John 15:19; Jam 4:4). Plutarch says that Phocion, when his speech was received with universal applause, asked his friends whether he had inadvertently said anything wrong.

τοῖς ψευδοπροφήταις. Just as the persecuted disciples are the representatives of the true Prophets, so the wealthy hierarchy whom all men flatter are the representatives of the false (Jeremiah 5:31; comp: 23:17; Isaiah 30:10; Micah 2:11).

Having stated who can and who cannot enter the Kingdom, Jesus goes on to make known the principles which regulate the Kingdom. See Hastings, D.B. 1. p. 783.

27-45. Requirement: the Duties to be performed by those who are admitted to the Kingdom of God. This forms the main body of the discourse. Lk. omits the greater portion of what is reported in Mt. respecting Christ’s relation to the Mosaic Law (5:17-19), and His condemnation of existing methods of interpreting it (5:20-48) and of fulfilling it (6:1-18). This discussion of Judaic principles and practices would not have much meaning for Lk.’s Gentile readers. The portion of it which he gives is stated without reference to Judaism. The main point in Mt. is the contrast between legal righteousness and true righteousness. In Lk. the main point is that true righteousness is love; but the opposition between formalism and the spirit of love is not urged. The opposition which is here marked is the more universal opposition between the spirit of selfishness and the spirit of love. There is a break in this main portion, which Lk. marks by making a fresh start, Εἶπεν δὲ καὶ παραβολὴν αὐτοῖς, but the second half (39-45) continues the subject of the working of the principle of love.

27. Ἀλλά. What is the contrast which this ἀλλά marks? The emphatic position of the ὑμῖν seems to show that the contrast is between those on whom the Woes have been pronounced and the faithful hearers now addressed. Others interpret, “But, although I have denounced them, I do not allow you to to them: you must love them.” There is, however, no indication that the enemies who are to be loved are the wealthy who have just been denounced, and such a limitation of the meaning of enemies cannot be justified: comp. Matthew 5:44.

τοῖς ἀκούουσιν. “Who give ear and obey,” τοῖς πειθομένοις (Euthym.). It is unnatural to take it literally as meaning “My audience,” in contrast to the rich who have just been addressed in their absence. Representatives of the rich may have been present among the audience. Schanz interprets “who listen with attention.”

There is on the whole a double climax in what follows,—the worse the treatment received, the better the return made; but it is not quite exact. One would expect that ἀγαπᾶτε would be coupled with τοῦς μυσοῦντας. This is the first time that Lk. uses the word ἀγαπᾷν, which sums up the whole spirit of the Gospel: it is most frequent in the writings of Jn. “It should never be forgotten that ἀγάπη is a word born within the bosom of revealed religion: it occurs in the Septuagint; but there is no example of its use in any heathen writer whatever” (Trench, Syn. xii.). This is not true of ἀγαπᾷν and ἀγαπάζειν, which are common in class. Grk. But Christianity has ennobled the meaning of both ἀγαπᾷν and φιλεῖν, with their cognates: ἐρᾷν, which is scarcely Capable of such advancement, does not occur in N.T. See on 11:42, the only place where ἀγάπη occurs in Lk. Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 198.

τοὺς ἐχθρούς. For the combination with τοῖς μισοῦσιν comp. 1:71; Psalm 18:18, 106:10; and for the fourfold description of enmity comp. ver. 22. In Matthew 5:44 we have only enemies and persecutors according to the best texts; and as καλῶς ποιεῖτε τοὺς μις. ὑμᾶς (note the acc.) is not genuine there, this is the only passage in which καλῶς ποιεῖς ποιεῖν = “benefit, do good to”: comp. καλῶς εἰπεῖν (ver. 26), and contrast Matthew 12:12; Mark 7:37; Acts 10:33; 1 Corinthians 7:37, 1 Corinthians 7:38; Php 4:14; Jam 2:8, Jam 2:19; 2 Peter 1:19; 3 John 1:6.—τοῖς μισοῦσιν. For the dat. comp. τοῖς προφήταις (ver. 23) and τοῖς ψευδοπροφήταις (ver. 26). See the expansion of this principle Romans 12:17-21; 1 Thessalonians 5:15; 1 Peter 3:9. Comp. Exodus 23:4; Job 21:29; Proverbs 17:5, Proverbs 24:17, Proverbs 25:21. See detached note on the relation of Rom. 12-14 to the Gospels at the end of Rom_13.

28. εὐλογεῖτε τούς καταρωμένους ὑμᾶς. In class. Grk. εὐλογεῖν means “praise, honour,” whether gods or men: comp. 1:64, 2:28; Jam 3:9. The meaning “invoke blessings upon” is confined to LXX and N.T. (Genesis 14:19, Genesis 14:22:17, 48:9; Romans 12:14; Acts 3:26).

In class. Grk. καταρᾶσθαι is followed by a dat. (Hom. Hdt. Xen. Dem.), as in Ep. Jer. 65: but in N.T. by an acc. (Mark 11:21; Jam 3:9); and the interpolation Matthew 5:44.—For προσεύχεσθε περί we might have expected πρ. ὑπέρ, and the MSS. here and elsewhere are divided between ὑπέρ and περί (Galatians 1:4; Colossians 1:3; Romans 1:8). But comp. Acts 8:15; Hebrews 13:18; Colossians 4:3. Win. xlvii. 1, 2, P. 478.

τῶν ἐπηρεαζόντων ὑμᾶς. Aristotle defines ἐπηρεασμός as ἐμποδισμὸς ταῖς βουλήσεσιν, οὐχ ἵνα τι αὑτῷ, ἀλλʼ ἵνα μὴ ἐκείνῳ (Rhet. 2:2, 3.). It is “spiteful treatment.”

29, 30. Whereas vv. 27, 28 refer to the active ἀγάπη which returns good for evil, these refer rather to the passive μακποθυμία, which never retaliates. The four precepts here given are startling. It is impossible for either governments or individuals to keep them. A State which endeavoured to shape its policy in exact accordance with them would soon cease to exist; and if individuals acted in strict obedience to them society would be reduced to anarchy. Violence, robbery, and shameless exaction would be supreme. The inference is that they are not precepts, but illustrations of principles. They are in the form of rules; but as they cannot be kept as rules, we are compelled to 1ook beyond the letter to the spirit which they embody. If Christ had given precepts which could be kept literally, we might easily have rested content with observing the letter, and have never penetrated to the spirit. What is the spirit? Among other things:—that resistance of evil and refusal to part with our property must never tae a personal matter: so far as we are concerned we must be willing to suffer still more and to surrender still more. It is right to withstand and even to punish those who injure us: but in order to correct them and protect society; not because of any personal animus. It is right also to withold our possessions from those who without good reason ask for them; but in order to check idleness and effrontery; not because we are too fond of our posessions to part with them. So far as our personal feeling goes, we ought to ready to offer the other cheek, and to give, without desire of recovery, whatever is demanded or taken from us. Love knows no limits but those which love itself imposes. When love resists or refuses, it is because compliance would be a violation of love, not because it would involve loss or suffering.

29. τῷ πύπτοντί σε ἐπὶ τὴν σιαγόνα. A violent blow with the fist seems to be meant rather than a contemptuous slap, for נשׁוגאסִ means “jaw-bone” (Jdg 15:15, Jdg 15:16; Ezekiel 29:4; Micah 5:1; Hosea 11:4). In what follows also it is an act of violence that is meant; for in that case the upper and more valuable garment (ἱμάτιον) would be taken first. In Matthew 5:40 the spoiler adopts a legal method of spoliation (κριθῆναι), and takes the under and less indispensable garment (χιτῶνα) first. See on 3:2 and comp. John 19:23.

Here only do we find τύτειν ἐπί c. acc. In clam Grk. c. gen., e g. ἐπὶ κόρρης τύπτειν or πατάσσειν (Plato, Gorg. 486 C, 508 D, 527 A). Some times we have εἰς (Matthew 27:30), which some MSS. read here and 18:13. Comp. Xen. Cyr. v. 4, 5. So also κωλύειν ἀπό is not common. Comp. οὐ μὴ κωλύσει τὸ μνημεῖον αὐτοῦἀπὸ σοῦ (Genesis 13:6) and ἀπὸ σοῦ κωλύων (Xen. Cyr. i. 3, 11, iii. 3. 51). The more usual constr. both in N.T. and class. Grk. is either acc. and inf. (23:2; Acts 16:6, Acts 24:23) Or acc. of pers. and gen. of thing (Acts 27:43). Note that αἴρειν, does not mean simply “take,” which is λαμβάνειν, but either “take up” (5:24, 9:23) “take away” (19:24, 23:18).

30. παντὶ αἰτοῦντί σε δίδου There is no παντί in Matthew 5:42, and this is one of many passages which illustrate Lk.’s fondness for πᾶς (ver. 17, 7:35, 9:43, 11:4). The παντί has been differently understood. “No one is to be excluded, not even one’s enemies” (Meyer, Weiss). Omni petenti te tribue, non omnia petenti; ut id des, quod dare honeste et juste potes (Aug.). Neither remark is quite right. Our being able to give juste et honeste depends not only on what is asked, but upon who asks it. Some things must not be conceded to any one. Others ought to be given to some petitioners, but not to all. In every case, however, we ought to be willing to part with what may be lawfully given to any. The wish to keep what we have got is not the right motive for refusing.

δίδου, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ αἴροντος τὰ σὰ μὴ ἀπαίτει. The pres. in all three cases implies continual action, making a practice of it. “Continually give, and from him who continues to take away the goods do not continue to ask them again.” For αἴρειν in the sense of “take as one’s own, appropriate,” comp. 11:52, 19:21; Mark 15:24. It does not imply that violence is used. But the μὴ ἀπαίτει implies that hitherto asking them back has been usual. The verb ἀπαιτεῖν is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (12:20: comp. Wisd. 15:8; Ecclus. 20:15; Hdt. i. 3, 2). Prof. Marshall thinks that we have here another instance of different translation of the same Aramaic, and that Lk.’s αἴροντος and Mt.’s δανείσασθαι may represent the same word; also Lk.’s ἀπαίτει and Mt.’s ἀποστραφῇς. See on 5:21 and 8:15. See Hastings, D.B. 1. p. 68.

31. καὶ καθὼς θέλετε. The καὶ introduces the general principle which covers all these cases: “and in short, in a word.” How would one wish to be treated oneself if one was an aggressor? How ought one to wish to be treated? But obviously the principle covers a great deal more than the treatment of aggressors and enemies. In Tobit 4:15 we have, “Do that to no man which thou hatest”; but this purely negative precept, which was common with the Rabbis, falls immeasurably short of the positive command of Christ. Isocrates has ἃ πάσχοντες ὑφʼ ἐτέρων ὀργίζεσθε, ταῦτα τοῖς ἄλλοις μὴ ποιεῖτε, and the stoics said, Quod tibi fieri non vis, alteri ne feceris; and the same is found in Buddhism. In the Δισαχή, 1:2, and Apost. Const. vii. 2, 1, we have both the positive and the negative form. Cod. D, Iren. (3:12, 14), Cypr. (Test. iii. 119) and other authorities insert the negative form Acts 15:29. How inadequate the so-called Rabbinical parallels to the sermon on the Mount are, as collected by Wünsche and others, has been shown by Edersheim (L. & T. 1. p. 531). Note the καθώς, “even as, precisely as”: the conformity is to be exact. For θέλειν ἵνα Comp. Matthew 7:12; Mark 6:25, Mark 6:9:30, Mark 6:10:35; John 17:24, and see on 4:3. The καὶ ὑμεῖς before ποιεῖτε is omitted by B and some Latin texts. “Do likewise” occurs only here, 3:11, and 10:37.

32-35. Interested affection is of little account: Christian love is of necessity disinterested; unlike human love, it embraces what is repulsive and repellent.

32. ποία ὑμῖν χάρις. “What kind of thank, or favour, have you?” This may be understood either of the gratitude of the persons loved or of the favour of God. The latter is better, and is more clearly expressed by τίνα μισθὸν ἔχετε; (Matthew 5:46). Other wise there does not seem to be much point in οἱ ἁμαρτωλοί. For χάρις of Divine favour comp. 1:30, 2:40, 2:52; Acts 7:46.

καὶ γάρ. “For even”; nam etiam. Comp. Matthew 8:9; Mark 7:28?, 10:45; John 4:45; 1 Corinthians 12:14; and see Ellicott on 2 Thessalonians 3:10; Meyer on 2 Corinthians 13:4. Syr-Sin. omits the clause.

33. Here only is ἀγαθοποιεῖν found with an acc. after it. It does not occur in profane writers, and elsewhere in N.T. is absolute: vv. 9, 35; Mark 3:4; 1 Peter 2:15, 1 Peter 2:20, 1 Peter 2:3:6, 1 Peter 2:17; 3 John 1:11. But in 1 Pet. and 3 Jn. it is used of doing what is right as opposed to doing what is wrong, whereas it Lk. and Mt. it is used, as in LXX, of helping others as opposed to harming them: Numbers 10:32; Judges 1:17:13 (Cod. B ἀγαθυνεῖ); Zephaniah 1:12. Hatch, Bibl. Grk. p. 7; but see Lft. on Clem. Rom. Cor. 2. p. 17.

For ἁμαρτωλοί Mt. has in the one case τελῶναι and in the other ἐθνικοί. Of course both “publicans” and “heathen” are here used in a moral sense, because of their usual bad character; and Weiss confidently asserts that Lk. is here interpreting, while Mt. gives the actual words used. But it is possible that Mt. writing as a Jew, has given the classes who to Jews were sinners κατʼ ἐξοχήν instead of the general term.

34. This third illustration has no parallel in Mt., but see Matthew 5:42; and comp. Proverbs 19:17.

δανίσητε. The texts are divided between this form, δανείσητε, δανείζητε, and δανείζετε. In N.T. δανίζω is to be preferred to δανείζω, which is the class. form. The verb means to “lend upon interest,” whereas κίχρημι indicates a friendly loan; and therefore τὰ ἴσα would include both interest and principal.

ἀπολάβωσιν. “Receive as their due, receive back, ” or perhaps “receive in full”; comp, ἀπέχω in ver. 24, and see Lft. on Galatians 4:5; also Ellicott and Meyer. The phrase ἀπολ. τὰ ἴσα need not mean more than “receive equivalent services,” but more probably it refers to repayment in full: comp. ἐρανίζω and ἀντερανίζω.

35. πλήν. See on ver. 24. “But, when this kind of interested affection has been rejected as worthless, what must be aimed at is this.” Note the pres. imperat. throughout: “Habitually love, do good, and lend”; also that Christ does not change the word δανίζετε, nor intimate that it does not here have its usual meaning of lending on interest.

μηδὲν ἀπελπίζοντες. The meaning of this famous sayin depends partly upon the reading, whether we read μηδέν or μηδένα, 1 but mainly upon the interpretation of ἀπελπίζοντες. All English Versions previous to RV. adopt the common view that ἀπελπ. means “hoping for in return,” a meaning which is without example, but which is supposed to be justified by the context, or rather by the corrupted context. Thus Field argues: “No doubt this use of the word is nowhere else to be met with; but the context is here too strong for philological quibbles (!). ‘If ye lend to them παρʼ ὧν ἘΛΠΙΖΕΤΕ ἈΠΟλαεῖν, what thank have ye?’ Then follows the precept: ‘Lend μησὲν ἈΠΕΛΠΙΖΟΝΤΕΣ, ’ which can by no possibility bear any other meaning than μηδὲν ἐλπίζονες ἀπολαβεῖν” (Otium Norv.. 3. p. 40). The argument would be precarious, even if the facts were as stated; but the true reading is παρʼ ὧν ἐλπίζετε λαβεῖν ( א B L X, Justin), and therefore the whole falls to the ground. The usual meaning of ἀπελπίζω, “I give up in despair,” makes excellent sense; either “despairing of nothing,” or “despairing of no one” (μηδένα). “Despairing of nothing” or “never despairing” may mean either “never doubting that God will requite you,” or “never despairing about your money.” The latter meaning is almost identical with “despairing of no one,” i.e. “never doubting that your debtor will pay.” But it has been suggested that μηδένα may be neut. plur., on the authority of Steph. Thesaur. v. col. 962 [3. col. 3645]. If this were correct, the two readings would have the same meaning. On the authority of a single passage in the Anthologia Palatina (ii. 114, p. 325, Brunck), Liddell and Scott give ἀπελπίζω a transitive meaning, “causing to despair”; but there ἄλλον ἀπελπίζων (of an astrologer who said that a person had only nine months to live) may mean “giving him up in despair”: comp. Polyb. ii. 54, 7. Therefore we may safely abandon the common interpretation and render “giving up nothing in despair” or “never despairing.” Comp. ἐπὶ φίλον ἐὰν ἐὰν σπάσῃς π̔ομφαίαν, μὴ ἀπελπίσῃς (Ecclus. 22:21); ὁ δὲ ἀποκαλύφας μυστήρια ἀπήλπισε (27:21); ταὶ κατʼ αὐτὸν ἀπελπίσας (2 Mac. 9:18), of Antiochus when stricken with an incurable disease. Galen often uses the verb of desperate cases in medicine; see Hobart, p. 118, and Wetst.1

D and many early Latin texts have nihil desperantes. See the valuable note in Wordswoth’s Vulgate, p. 344. But he thinks it possible that Lk. may have written ἀπελπίζειν for ἐλπίζειν ἀπό on the analogy of ἀπεσθίειν for ἐσθίειν ἀπό and ἀπολαβεῖν for λαβεῖν ἀπό.

ἔσεσθε υίοὶ ψ̔ίστου. In Matthew 5:9 peacemakers are called υἱοὶ Θεοῦ. The moral likeness proves the parentage. Just as in vv. 32, 33 Lk. has the generic ἁμαρτωλοί where Mt. has the specific τελῶναι and ἐθνικοί, so here we have “is kind towards the unthankful and evil” instead of “maketh His sun to rise on” the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust” (Matthew 5:45). For Ὑψίστου comp. 1:32, 35, 76.

36, 37. A further development of the principle of Christian love. Having told His disciples to cherish no personal animus against those who injure them, He now warns them against judging others respecting any supposed misconduct. To pose as a general censor morum is unchristian. Censoriousness is a transgression of the royal law of love, and an invasion of the Divine prerogatives. Not only vengeance but judgment belongs to God. And judgment, when it is inevitable, must be charitable (ἀπολύετε), directed by a desire to acquit rather than to condemn. Comp. 1 Corinthians 13:4; Jam 4:11, Jam 4:12. Hillel said, “judge not thy neighbour until thou comest into his place” (Ewald, Hist. of Israel, 6. P. 27). See on ver. 31.

The loose citations of these two verses by Clement of Rome (i. 13:2) and Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 2:18, P. 476, ed. Potter) are interesting. Both have the words ὡς χρηστεύεσθε, οὕτως χρηστευθήσεται ὑμῖν immediately before ᾦ μέτρῳ, κ.τ.λ. They represent γίνεσθε οἰκτίρμονες in Lk., for which Justin has γίνεσθε δὲ χρηστοὶ καὶ οἰκτίρμονες (Try. 96.; Revelation 1:15). Comp.ClemHom 3:57. It is probable that Clem. Alex. here quotes Clem. Hom. unconsciously.

38. The transition is easy from charity in judging others to benevolence in general. Comp. ver. 30 and 3:2. God remains in debt to no man. “He giveth not by measure” (John 3:34), nor does He recompense by measure, unless man serves Him by measure. Disciples who serve in the spirit of love make no such calculations, and are amply repaid. We are here assured of this fact in an accumulation of metaphors, which form a climax. They are evidently taken from the measuring of corn, and Bengal is clearly wrong in interpreting ὑπερεκχυννόμενον of fluids: εἰς τὸν κόλπον is conclusive. The asyndeton is impressive.

The form ὑπερεκχυννόμενον seems to occur nowhere else, excepting as v.l. Joel 2:24. The class. form is ὑπερεκχέω.

δώσουσιν εἰς τὸν κόλπον ὑμῶν. Who shall give? Not the persons benefited, but the instruments of God’s bounty. The verb is almost impersonal, “there shall be given,” δοθήσεται. Comp. αἰτοῦσιν (12:20) and αἰτήσουσιν (12:48). The κόλπος is the fold formed by a loose garment overhanging a girdle. This was often used as a pocket (Exodus 4:6; Proverbs 6:27; and esp. Psalm 79:12; Isaiah 65:6; Jeremiah 32:18). Comp. Hdt. 6:125, 5; Liv. 21:18, 10; Hor. Sat. 2:3, 172, and other illustrations in Wetst.

ᾧ γὰρ μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε. There is no inconsistency, as Weiss states (stimmt immer nicht recht), with what precedes; but he is right in condemning such interpretations as τῷ αὐτῷ μέτρῳ, οὐ μὴν τοσούτῳ (Theophyl.) and eadem mensura in genere sed exuberans (Grot.) as evasions. The loving spirit uses no measure in its services; and then God uses no measure in requiting. But the niggardly and grudging servant, who tries to do just the minimum, receives just the minimum in return. In Mark 4:24, Mark 4:25 we have this saying with a different application.

39. The second half of the discourse begins here, and this is marked by a repetition of the introductory εἶπεν. The connexion with what precedes perhaps is, that, before judging others, we must judge ourselves; otherwise we shall be blind leaders of the blind. This saying occurs in quite another connexion Matthew 15:14. It may easily have been uttered several times, and it is a common place in literature. We are thus shown the manifold application of Christ’s sayings, and the versatility of truth. See Wetst. on Matthew 15:14. With the exception of Mark 12:12, the phrase εἶπεν παραβολήν is peculiar to Lk. (12:16, 15:3, 18:9, 19:11, 20:19. 21:29).

εἰς βόθῡνον. “Into a pit” rather than “into the ditch,” which all English Versions prior to RV. have both here and Matthew 15:14. In Matthew 12:11 nearly all have “a pit.” The word is a doublet of βόθρος, puteus, and is perhaps connected with βαθύς. Palestine is full of such things, open wells without walls, unfenced quarries, and the like. For ὁδηγεῖν comp. Acts 8:31; John 16:13; Psalm 24:5, 85:11, 118:35; Wisd. 9:11, 10:17.

40. This again is one of Christ’s frequent sayings. Here the connexion seems to be that disciples will not get nearer to the truth than the teacher does, and therefore teachers must beware of being blind and uninstructed, especially with regard to knowledge of self. In 22:27 and in John 13:16 the meaning is that disciples must not set themselves above their master. In Matthew 10:24 the point is that disciples must not expect better treatment than their master. So also in John 15:20, which was a different occasion.

κατηρτισμένος δὲ πᾶς ἔσται ὡς ὁ διδάσκαλος αὐτοῦ. The sentence may be taken in various (ways. 1. Every well instructed disciple shall be as his master (AV.). 2. Every disciple, when he has been well instructed, shall be as his master. 3. Every disciple shall be as well instructed as his master (Tyn. Cran.). But Perfectus autem omnis erit, si sit sicut magister ejus (Vulg.), “Every one shall be perfect, if he be as his master” (Rhem.), Wenn der Juünger ist wie sein Meister, so ist er vollkommen (Luth.), is impossible. The meaning is that the disciple will not excel his master; at the best he will only equal him. And, if the master has faults, be disciple will be likely to copy them. Syr-Sin. omits.

For καταρτίζω “make ἄρτιος equip,” comp. Matthew 4:21; Mark 1:19; 1 Thessalonians 3:10; Galatians 6:1; Hebrews 10:5, Hebrews 11:3, Hebrews 13:21. It is a surgical word, used of setting a bone or joint: for examples see Wetst. on Matthew 4:21. There is no πᾶς in Matthew 10:24, Matthew 10:25; see on ver. 30.

41, 42. In order to avoid becoming a blind teacher, whose disciples will be no better than oneself, one must, before judging and attempting to correct others, correct oneself. Self-knowledge and self-reform are the necessary preparation of the reformer, without which his work is one of presumption rather than of love.

41. κάρφος “Anything small and dry”: in class. Grk. usually in plur. of chips, twigs, bits of wood, etc. Curtius connects it with σκαρφίον, “a splinter” (Grk. Etym. 683); but better with κάρφειν, “to dry up.” In Genesis 8:11 it is used of the olive twig brought by the dove. See Wetst, on Matthew 7:3. The δοκός is the “bearing-beam, main beam,” that which receives (δέχομαι) the other beams in a roof or floor. It is therefore as necessarily large as a κάρφος is small.

κατανοεῖς . “Fix thy mind upon.” It expresses prolonged attention and observation. Careful consideration of one’s own faults must precede attention to those of others. The verb is specially freq. in Lk. (12:24, 27, 20:23; Acts 11:6, Acts 27:39: comp. Hebrews 3:1, Hebrews 3:10:24; Romans 4:19).

42. πῶς δύνασαι λέγειν . “With what face can you adopt this tone of smug patronage?” In Matthew 7:4 the patronizing Ἀδελφέ is wanting.

ἄφες ἐκβάλω . For the simple subj. after ἀφίημι comp. Matthew 27:49; Mark 15:36. Epict. Diss. 1:9, 15, 3:12, 15. In modern Greek it is the regular idiom. Win. 41:4. b, P. 356.—In οὐ βλέπων we have the only instance in Lk. of οὐ with a participle: “When thou dost not look at, much less anxiously consider” (κατανοῶν): see small print on 1:20.

ὑποκριτά The hypocrisy consists in his pretending to be so pained by the presence of trifling evil that he is constrained to endeavour to remove it Comp. 13:15. That he conceals his own sins is not stated; o some extent he is not aware of them. The τότε means “then, and not till then”; and the διαβλέψεις is neither imperative nor concessive, but the simple future. When self-reformation has taken place, then it will be possible to see how to reform others. Note the change from βλέπειν to διαβλέπειν; not merely look at, but “see clearly.” In class. Grk. διαβλέπω means “look fixedly,” as in deep thought. Plato notes it as a habit of Socrates (Phœdo, 86D).

43. οὐ γάρ ἐστιν Codex D and some versions omit the γάρ, the connexion with the preceding not being observed. The connexion is close. A good Christian cannot but have good results in the work of converting others, and a bad Christian cannot have such, for his bad life will more than counteract his efforts to reclaim others.

The etymological connexion between καρπός (carpo, Herbst, harvest) and κάρφος is by no means certain. But if it is a fact, it has no, place here. The phrase ποιεῖν καρπόν is not classical, but a Hebraism (3:9, 8:8, 13:9; Genesis 1:11, Genesis 1:12; Psalm 107:37). By σαπρόν (σήπω) is meant (1) what is “rotten, putrid,” and (2) what is “worthless.” See Wetst. on Matthew 7:18. A rotten tree would produce no fruit; and fishes just caught would not be putrid (Matthew 13:48). In both places the secondary meaning is required.

44. The unreformed can no more reform others than thorns and briars can produce figs and grapes. It is by their fruits that each comes to be known (γινώσκεται). The identification of the many Hebrew words which denote thorny shrubs is a hopeless task. Neither the originals nor their Greek representatives can be satisfactorily determined (Groser, Trees and Plants of the Bible, p. 172). Elsewhere in N.T. βάτος is used of the burning bush (20:37; Acts 8:30, Acts 8:35; Mark 12:26; Exodus 3:2, Exodus 3:3, Exodus 3:4): in Hom. it is a “thorn-bush, bramble” (Od. 24:230). The verb τρυγάω is specially used of the vintage (Revelation 14:18, Revelation 14:19; Leviticus 19:10, Leviticus 19:25:5, Leviticus 19:11; Deuteronomy 24:21). Comp. the similar sayings Jam 3:11, Jam 3:12, which are probably echoes of Christ’s teaching as remembered by the Lord’s brother.

45. This forms a link with the next section. When men are natural, heart and mouth act in concert. But otherwise the mouth sometimes professes what the heart does not feel.

46-49. The judgments which await the Members of the Kingdom. The Sanction or Warning. Matthew 7:13-27. This is sometimes called the Epilogue or the Peroration: but it is not a mere summing up. It sets forth the consequences of following, and the consequences of not following, what has been enjoined.

46. The question here asked may be addressed to all disciples, none of whom are perfect. The inconsistency of calling Him Lord and yet failing in obedience to Him was found even in Apostles. What follows shows that the question applies to the whole of Christian conduct. Of the four parables in the latter half of the sermon, the first two (the blind leading the blind; the mote and the beam) have special reference to the work of correcting others; the third (the good and bad trees) may be either special or general; while the fourth (the wise and foolish builders) is quite general. With Κύριε comp. 13:25; Matthew 25:11, Matthew 25:12; Jam 1:22, Jam 1:26.

47. For πᾶς ὁ ἐρχόμενος see small print on 1:66, and for ὑποδείξω see on 3:7 and Fritzsche on Matthew 3:7.

48. ἔσκαψεν καὶ ἐβάθυνεν καὶ ἔθηκεν θεμέλιον “He dug and went deep (not a hendiadys for ‘dug deep’) and laid a foundation.” The whole of this graphic description is peculiar to Lk. Robinson stayed in a new house at Nazareth, the owner of which had dug down for thirty feet in order to build upon rock (Res. in Psa_2. p. 338). The parables in Mt. and Lk. are so far identical that in both the two builders desire to have their houses near a water-course, water in Palestine being very precious. In Mt. they build on different places, the one on the rock and the other on the sand, such as is often found in large level tracts by a dry water-course. Nothing is said about the wise builder digging through the sand till he comes to rock. Each finds what seems to him a good site ready to hand.

πλημμύρης “A flood,” whether from a river or a sea: and hence a flood of troubles and the like. See Jos. Ant. ii. 10, 2 and examples in Wetst. Here only in N.T., and in LXX only Job 40:18 (23).

οὐκ ἴσχυσεν . “Had not strength to.” The expression is a favourite one with Lk. (8:43, 13:24, 14:6, 29, 16:3, 20:26; Acts 6:10, Acts 6:15:10, 19:16, 20, 25:7, 27:16). For σαλεῦσαι Comp. 7:24, 21:26; Acts 2:25 fr.Ps. 15:8, 4:31 : freq. in LXX.

διὰ καλῶς οἰκοδομησσθαι αὐτήν. This is certainly the true reading (א B L Ξ 33 157, Boh. Syr-Harcl. marg.). The common reading, τεθεμελίωτο γὰρ ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν (A C D X etc.; Latt. Syrr. Goth. Arm.), is obviously taken from Mt. The Ethiopic combines the two readings. Syr-Sin. omits.

49. ῇ προσέρηξν ὁ ποταμός Lk. gives only the main incident, the river, created by the rain, smiting the house. But Mt. is much more graphic: κατέβη ἡ βροχὴ καὶ ἦλθον οἱ ποταμοὶ καὶ ἔπνευσαν οἱ ἄνεμοι καὶ προσέκοψαν τῇ οιικιᾳ ἐκείνῃ.

συνέπεσεν. “It fell in,” i.e. the whole fell together in a heap: much more expressive than ἔπεσεν, which some texts (A C) here borrow from Mt.

ἐγένετο τὸ ῥῆγμα. To harmonize with προσέρηξεν. This use of ῥῆγμα for “ruin” (so first in Rhem.) seems to be without example. In class. Grk. it is used of bodily fractures or ruptures, and also of clothes; so also in 1 Kings 11:30, 1 Kings 11:31; 2 Kings 2:12. But Amos 6:2 of rents in a building, πατάξει τὸν οἷκον τὸν μέγαν θλάσμασν, καὶ τὸν οἷκον τὸν μικρὸν ῥάγμασιν Hobart Contrasts the βροχή, προσέκοψαν, ἔπεσεν, and πτῶσις of Mt. with the πλήμμυρα, προσέρρηξεν, συνέπεσεν, and ῥῆγμα of Lk., and contends that the latter four belong to medical phraseology (PP. 55, 56).

The μέγα like μεγάλη in Mt., comes last with emphasis. Divine instruction, intended for building up, must, if neglected, produce disastrous ruin. The κεῖται εἰς πτῶσιν (2:34) is fulfilled. The audience are left with the crash of the unreal disciple’s house sounding in their ears.

Similar Rabbinical sayings are quoted, but as coming from persons who lived after a.d. 100, by which time Christ’s teaching had filtered into both Jewish and pagan thought. “Whosesoever wisdom is above his works, to what is he like? To a tree whose branches are many and its roots few. Then the wind cometh and rooteth it up and turneth it over. And, whosesoever works are above his wisdom, to what is he like? To a tree whose branches are few and its roots many. Though all the winds come upon it, they move it not from its place” (Mishna, Pirqe aboth, 3:27.). And again, “To whom is he like, that with many merits uniteth great wisdom? To him who first layeth adding, yet and then bricks. Though ever so mighty floods wash round the adding, yet they cannot make it give way. But to whom is he like, who knoweth much and fulfilleth little? To him who layette the foundation with bricks, which am disturbed by the least water (Aboth R. Nathan, 23). See Edersh. L.& T. 1. p. 540; Nicholson on Matthew 7:24.

1 ins. A C D A H K M R S U V X Γ D L Π most cursives, Vulg. Syr-Harcl. Goth. Arm., Epiph. Chrys. Greg-Naz. Arab. Hieron. and perhaps Clam-Alex. om. א B L six or seven good cursives, Syrr. Boh. Aeth. That evengelistaria omit is not of much moment, as they often omit notes of time.

D D. Cod. Bezae, sæc. vi. Given by Beza to the University Library at Cambridge 1581. Greek and Latin. Contains the whole Gospel.

Tisch. Tischendorf.

WH. Westcott and Hort.

AV. Authorized Version.

RV. Revised Version.

Vulg. Vulgate.

Wic. Wiclif.

Cov. Coverdale.

Rhem. Rheims (or Douay).

Tyn. Tyndale.

Edersh. Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah.

אԠא Cod. Sinaiticus, sæc. iv. Brought by Tischendorf from the Convent of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai; now at St. Petersburg. Contains the whole Gospel complete.

B B. Cod. Vaticanus, sæc. 4. In the Vatican Library certainly since 15331 (Batiffol, La Vaticane de Paul 3, etc., p. 86).

Win. Winer, Grammar of N.T. Greek (the page refers to Moulton’s edition).

TR. Textus Receptus.

Ign. Ignatius.

Jos. Josephus.

1 Green compares ἐπʼ εὐσεβείᾳ Θεοῦ (Jos. Ant. ii. 8, 1) and πρὸς ἱκετείαν τοῖ Θεοῦ (ii. 9, 3): and, for the art. before προσευχῇ “as an abstract or general term,” Matthew 21:22; Acts 1:14; 1 Corinthians 7:5 (Gram. of N. T. p. 87).

D. B. Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, 2nd edition.

1 This use of καλούμενος is very common in Lk. (7:11, 8:2, 9:10, 10:39, 21:37, 22:3, 23:33), and still more so in Acts. Not in Mt. Mk. or Jn.

Luth. Luther.

Eus. Eusebius of Cæsarea

Gen. Geneva.

Beng. Bengel.

Lat. Vet. Vetus Latina.

Euthym. Euthymius Zigabenus.

Trench, Trench, New Testament Synonyms.

C

C. Cod. Ephraemi Rescriptus, sæc. 5. In the National Library at Paris. Contains the following portions of the Gospel: 1:2-2:5, 2:42-3:21, 4:25-6:4, 6:37-7:16, or 17, 8:28-12:3, 19:42-20:27, 21:21-22:19, 23:25-24:7, 24:46-53.

These four MSS. are parts of what were once complete Bibles, and are designated by the same letter throughout the LXX and N.T.

A A. Cod. Alexandrinus, sæc. v. Once in the Patriarchal Library at Alexandria; sent by Cyril Lucar as a present to Charles 1. in 1628, and now in the British Museum. Complete.

Aug. Augustine.

Iren. Irenæus.

Cypr. Cyprian.

Syr Syriac.

Sin. Sinaitic.

1

The external evidence stands thus—

For μηδέν ἀπ. A B L R C Γ Δ etc., Latt. syr-Harcl.? Boh.

For μηδένα ἀπ. א Ξ Π *, Syrr. Tisch. is almost alone among recent editors in preferring μηδένα; WH. and RV. place in the margin.

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

X X. Cod. Monacensis, sæc. ix. In the University Library at Munich. Contains 1:1-37, 2:19-3:38, 4:21-10:37, 11:1-18:43, 20:46-24:53.

Wetst. Wetstein.

1 What mischief the common interpretation (sanctioned by the Vulgate, nikil inde sperantes) has wrought in Europe is strikingly shown by Döllinger (Akademische Vorträge i. pp. 223ff.; Studies in European History, pp. 224 ff.). On the strength of it Popes and councils have repeatedly condemned the taking interest, and Christians were forbidden to take it, money-lending passed into the hands of the Jews, and added greatly to the unnatural detestation in which Jews were held. The paradox that Christians may not take interest has been revived by Ruskin. See Morfill and Charles, Book of the Secrets of Enoch, p. 58.

Clem. Alex. Clement of Alexandria.

Clem. Hom. Clementine Homilies.

Grot. Grotius.

Ξ̠Ξ. Cod. Zacynthius Rescriptus, sæc. viii. In the Library of the Brit. and For. Bible Soc. in London. Contains 1:1-9, 19-23, 27, 28, 30-32, 36-66, 1:77-2:19, 21, 22, 33-39, 3:5-8, 11-20, 4:1, 2, 6-20, 32-43, 5:17-36, 6:21-7:6, 11-37, 39-47, 8:4-21, 25-35, 43-50, 9:1-28, 32, 33, 35, 9:41-10:18, 21-40, 11:1, 2, 3, 4, 24-30, 31, 32, 33.

Boh. Bohairic.

Harcl. Harclean.

Latt. Latin.

Goth. Gothic.

Arm. Armenian.