CHAPTER 18

Luke 18:1. δὲ καί] B L M א, min. Copt. codd. of It. Or. have δέ. So Lachm. Tisch. But the καί, which might be dispensed with, was easily passed over; it is wanting also in Luke 18:9 in not unimportant authorities (bracketed by Lachm.). After προσεύχ. Lachm. and Tisch. have αὐτούς. It is preponderatingly attested; there would have been no reason for its addition; while in favour of its omission, the word being superfluous, it may be noticed that προσεύχεσθΑΙ would the more readily be followed by κΑΙ, that in the doctrine of the parable the generality of the reference most readily presented itself.

Luke 18:5. ὑ̔πωπιάζῃ] Griesb. recommends ὑποπιάζῃ on insufficient attestation. It was altered from misunderstanding, as also in the case of the variant ὑποπιέζῃ. Comp. on 1 Corinthians 9:27.

Luke 18:7. ποιήσει] ποιήσῃ is so decisively attested that, with Lachm. Tisch., it is to be adopted. The future was introduced by anticipation of Luke 18:8.

μακροθυμεῖ (Lachm. Tisch.) is also attested quite decisively, instead of which μακροθυμῶν (Elz.) was intended to assist the construction of the sentence.

Luke 18:13. εἰς before τ. στῆθος is wanting in B D K L Q X Π א, min. Slav. Arm. Vulg. It. Or. Antioch. Cypr. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. But why should it have been added? As being perfectly superfluous (comp. Luke 23:48, Luke 22:64), it was overlooked.

Luke 18:14. Elz. has ἢ ἐκεῖνος, which, on decisive evidence, is to be condemned. Griesb. Matth. Scholz, Tisch. have ἢ γὰρ ἐκεῖνος, following A E G H K M P Q S U V X Γ Δ Λ, min. Syr.p. Goth. Bas. ms. Theophyl. Grot. and Lachm. have παρʼ ἐκεῖνον, in accordance with B L א, min. Copt. Sahid. Or. Naz. (Vulg.: db illo). To these is added also indirectly D, with μᾶλλον παρʼ ἐκεῖνον τὸν Φαρισαῖον (comp. Syr. Pers.p. It. Cypr. Hilar. Ambr. Aug.). The reading of Lachm. is consequently the oldest; and since ἢ γὰρ ἐκεῖνος is opposed to the sense, it is to be judged that Γ Α Ρ came into the text instead of ΠΑΡ by a transcriber’s error of ancient date, and became blended with the gloss ἢ ἐκεῖνος

Luke 18:15. ἐπετίμησαν] B D G L א, min. Lachm. Tisch. have ἐπετίμων; the Recepta is from Matthew 19:13.

Luke 18:22. διάδος] A D L M R Δ א, min. Fathers have δός. So Lachm. It is from the parallels, from which, moreover, came also ἐν οὐρανῷ, instead of which is to be read, with Lachm. and Tisch., following B D, ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (A L R א [Tisch. 8] read: ἐν οὐρανοῖς).

Luke 18:24. περίλυπ. γενόμ.] is wanting in B L א, min. Copt.; deleted by Tisch. But it was in accordance with the parallels more easily passed over than added.

Luke 18:25. τρυμαλιᾶς] Lachm. and Tisch. have τρήματος, in accordance with B D א, 49. Rightly; in accordance with Matthew and Mark, there was introduced in some authorities τρυπήματος (L R, min.), in others τρυμαλιᾶς (A E F G, etc. Elz.).

Instead of ῥαφίδος read, with Lachm. and Tisch., βελόνης, in accordance with B D L א, min. The former is from the parallels.

εἰσελθεῖν] Lachm. has διελθεῖν. It is more weakly attested, and the reading is to be decided as at Matthew 19:24.

Luke 18:28. ἀφήκαμεν τάντα καί] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἀφέντες τὰ ἴδια, in accordance with B D L א** min. vss., and this Griesb. also recommended. The Recepta is from the parallels.

Luke 18:30. ἀπολάβῃ] B D M, min. have λάβῃ. So Lachm. The simple form is from the parallels, just as D, in particular, takes ἐὰν μὴ λάβῃ from Mark 10:30.

Luke 18:39. σιωπήσῃ] The preponderatingly attested σιγήσῃ is adopted by Schulz, Lachm. and Tisch. The Recepta is from the parallels. In the New Testament only Luke and Paul have the verb σιγᾶν.

Luke 18:41. λέγων before τί is, with Tisch., to be deleted, in accordance with B D L X א, 57, as a familiar addition, instead of which Or. has εἰπών.

Luke 18:1. What Jesus has hitherto said of His Parousia was of such weighty and everlastingly decisive concern for His disciples, that it was calculated to stimulate them to unremitting prayer, that they might become partakers of the ἐκδίκησις which the Parousia was to bring to them (Luke 18:7). Hence (without the omission of any intervening dialogue, Schleiermacher, Olshausen) now follows the parable of the widow and the unjust judge, peculiar to Luke, and its application (Luke 18:1-8). This parable is no addition inserted without a motive (Köstlin, Holtzmann), nor is it taken from the Logia; but it comes from the source of the account of the journey. Weizsäcker alleges that it must have been a later growth, annexed by Luke to his source of the narrative of the journey; that the judge is the heathen magistracy; the widow, the church bereaved after the departure of Christ; her adversary, the hostile Judaism. Here also (comp. on Luke 15:11, Luke 16:1; Luke 16:19) is a transferring of later relations to an early period without sufficient reason.

πρός] in reference to.

πάντοτε] It is not the continual disposition of prayer (“as the breath of the inner man,” Olshausen) that is meant, but the constant actual prayer, in respect of which, however, πάντοτε is not to be pressed, but to be taken in a popularly hyperbolical sense. Comp. Luke 18:7; 1 Thessalonians 1:10.

ἐκκακεῖν] to become discouraged, not: in their vocation (Schleiermacher), but, according to the context: in their prayers. As to the form ἐκκ., for which Lachm. has ἐγκ. (and Tischendorf: ἐνκ.), which, although here preponderatingly attested, is to be regarded as an improvement, see on 2 Corinthians 4:1.

Luke 18:2-3. Τὸν θεὸν … κ. ἄνθρωπ. κ.τ.λ.] Similar characterizations from profane writers may be seen in Wetstein. Bengel well says: “Horum respectuum alterutrum certe plerosque mortalium movere solet et injustitiam (Luke 18:6) judicum cohibere.”

ἐντρεπόμ] standing in awe of, Matthew 21:37; Luke 20:13; 2 Thessalonians 3:15; Hebrews 12:9. In the Greek writers more frequently used with a genitive. The disposition implied by ἐντρεπόμ. is respect and regard.

ἤρχετο] Grotius aptly says: ventitabat. See Kühner, II. p. 76 f.

ἐκδίκησόν με ἀπὸ κ.τ.λ.] revenge me (and deliver me by this my judicial restitution) of, etc. Comp. Jdg 11:36 : ποιῆσαι σοι κύριον ἐκδίκησιν … ἀπὸ τῶν υἱῶν Ἀμμών.

Luke 18:4-5. Ἐπὶ χρόνον] for a time, Hom. Il. ii. 299; Plat. Protag. p. 344 B, Phaed. p. 84 C; Nägelsbach, Anm. z. Ilias, ed. 3, p. 284.

διάγε] as at Luke 11:8.

ἵνα μὴ κ.τ.λ.] is explained: that she may not continually (εἰς τέλος equal to διὰ τέλους, see Kypke and Wetstein; comp. לָעַד, לָנֶצַח) come and plague me. See also Luther’s gloss. But that ὑπωπιάζω (to strike any one’s eyes black and blue, see Wetstein) is to be taken in the general sense of harass, annoy, there is no proof, since it is an error to adduce not merely 1 Corinthians 9:27, but also Aristoph. Pax 541, where the πόλεις ὑπωπιασμέναι are represented as smitten and wounded persons, and hence the word is to be taken in the literal sense, to beat black and blue. But the assumption of a Latinism, after the manner of obtundere (Beza, Grotius), is arbitrary, and does not at all correspond with the special idea of the Greek word. Accordingly there is nothing left us but to interpret: that she may not at last come and beat my face black and blue. The judge mockingly puts the case of the woman at length becoming desperate, and actually laying hands on him and beating his face black and blue. The Vulgate rightly has it: sugillet me. Comp. also Bleek and Schegg. On εἰς τέλος, at the end, finally, comp. Herod. iii. 40, ix. 37; Xen. Oec. xvii. 10; Soph. Phil. 407, and thereupon Hermann; Genesis 46:4, and elsewhere. τέλος, without any preposition, might also have been used.

Luke 18:6-7. Hear what the unrighteous judge (ὁ κρίτης τῆς ἀδικίας, see on Luke 16:8) says! But God, will He not, etc. In this contrast lies the conclusion that the ἐκδίκησις, on which that worthless judge decided in respect of the perseveringly praying widow who was so troublesome to him, is the more certainly to be expected from God in respect of the elect, who are so dear to Him, and who so constantly cry to Him for the final decision. On οὐ μή in a question, see Winer, pp. 449, 454 [E. T. 634, 642].

According to the reading κ. μακροθυμεῖ ἐπʼ αὐτοῖς (see the critical remarks), the most simple explanation is: but God, will He not fulfil the avenging of His elect, and does He tarry[222] for their sakes? and is it His concern, in reference to them, to delay His interposition, or postpone His aid? See Sir 32:18. Comp. Maldonatus, Grotius, Bornemann in the Stud. d. Sächs. Geistl. 1842, p. 69 f, Bleek. In respect of the delay which nevertheless, according to human judgment, does occur, Grotius rightly observes: “illud ipsum tempus, quamvis longum interdum ferentibus videatur, re vera exiguum est imo momentaneum, unde to τὸ παραυτίκα τῆς θλίψεως dixit Paulus, 2 Corinthians 4:17.” According to Bengel and Ewald, ΚΑῚ ΜΑΚΡΟΘΥΜΕῖ ἘΠʼ ΑὐΤ. is connected hebraistically with ΤῶΝ ΒΟΏΝΤΩΝ: and over them He is forbearing; whereby the delay of the ἐκδίκησις would be derived from the patience with which God still allows to His elect further time for more perfect sanctification (2 Peter 3:9). According to the construction, this would be harder, and in its meaning less in correspondence with the subsequent ἘΝ ΤΆΧΕΙ. The Recepta would have to be understood: will He not … fulfil, even although He delays in reference to them?[223]—that is to say, with that ἑκδίκησις of them; ΚΑΊΤΟΙ ΜΑΚΡΟΘΥΜῶΝ ΚΑῚ ΦΑΙΝΌΜΕΝΟς ἈΝΗΚΟΥΣΤΕῖΝ ΤῶΝ ΔΕΟΜΈΝΩΝ ΑὐΤΟῦ ΝΥΚΤῸς ΚΑῚ ἩΜΈΡΑς, Theophylact, not, with Hassler (in the Tüb. Zeitschrift, 1832): since He is still patient towards them, i.e. does not lose patience as that judge did. For, apart from the incorrect view of the use of the καί, the thought itself is unsuited to the doctrinal narrative, since it was actually through the judge’s loss of patience (rather: his becoming annoyed) that the ἐκδίκησις of the woman was brought about. Moreover, de Wette is wrong in remarking against the reading ΜΑΚΡΟΘΥΜΕῖ, and its meaning, that if the thought that God delays were removed, the parable would have no meaning at all, since ΜΑΚΡΟΘ. corresponds to the ΟὐΚ ἬΘΕΛ. ἘΠῚ ΧΡΌΝΟΝ, Luke 18:4. Therein is lost sight of the fact that the example of the unrighteous judge teaches e contrario (see already Augustine, Serm. 36) the procedure of God.

The ἐκδίκησις τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν consists in the deliverance from their enemies who are punished at the Parousia, and in their own exaltation to the salvation of the Messiah’s kingdom for which they are chosen. Comp. Luke 21:22. The idea of this ἐκδίκησις enters so essentially into the texture of the New Testament eschatology, that in various forms it runs through the entire New Testament, and hence it is not easily to be seen why it should be regarded as standing apart from the views of our evangelist, and should remind us of the fiery zeal of the apocalyptic writer (Köstlin, Hilgenfeld). Comp. preceding passages in Luke (Luke 1:51 ff., Luke 1:71 ff.).

[222] The expression μακροθυμεῖ corresponds to the idea of the ἐκδίκησις, which includes within it the punishment of the enemies.

[223] Lange is wrong in saying: although even over them He rules high-mindedly (and therefore inscrutably).

Luke 18:8. An answer to the two parts of the preceding question: (1) ποιήσει … αὐτῶν, and (2) ἐν τάχει.

This ἐν τάχει is the opposite of delay (μακροθυμεῖ, Luke 18:7): quickly, without delay (Acts 12:7; Acts 22:18; Acts 25:4; Romans 16:20; 1 Timothy 3:14; Revelation 1:1; Revelation 2:5; Revelation 22:6; Wis 18:14; Pind. Nem. v. 35; Xen. Cyr. vi. 1. 12), declaring the speedy advent[224] of the Parousia (Luke 9:27), at which shall follow the ἐκδίκησις.

ΠΛῊΝ Ὁ ΥἹῸς Κ.Τ.Λ.] It is to be accentuated ἎΡΑ (so also Lachmann and Tischendorf); comp. on Galatians 2:17. In connection with the glad promise, to wit, which Jesus has just given in reference to the elect, there comes painfully into His consciousness the thought what a want of faith in Him He would nevertheless meet with at His Parousia. This He expresses in the sorrowful question: Nevertheless will the Son of man when He is come find faith on the earth? Theophylact well says: ἐν σχήματι ἐρωτήσεως τὸ σπάνιον τῶν τότε εὑρεθησομένων πιστῶν ὑποσημαίνων. The subject: Ὁ ΥἹῸς Τ. ἈΝΘΡ. and ἘΛΘΏΝ is, with a sorrowful emphasis, placed before the interrogative ἆρα, on account of the contrast with what follows. See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 183. The πίστις is the faith in Jesus the Messiah, which many of His confessors not persevering unto the end will have given up, so that they do not belong to the elect (Matthew 24:5; Matthew 24:10 ff., Matthew 24:24), and He will meet them as unbelievers.[225] Hence there is no reason for concluding from the passage before us (de Wette), that the putting of the parable into its present shape probably belongs to a time when the hope of the Parousia had begun somewhat to waver (2 Peter 3:3 f.).

ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς] is correlative with the coming down from heaven, which is meant by ἐλθών.

[224] It is in vain to weary oneself and twist about in the attempt to explain away this simple meaning of the words, as, for example, Ebrard does on Revelation 1:1, p. 104. There is only this to be said, that the final deliverance, how long soever it may appear to be delayed as to its beginning, shall still be so internally and potentially hastened that it shall be made an unexpectedly hasty ending to the condition of tribulation that precedes it. See, on the other hand, Düsterdieck.

[225] So many, as the Lord sees, shall be seduced into unbelief (as to the ἐνεστὼς αἰὼν πονηρός, comp. on Galatians 1:4), that in grief thereat He puts the question generally, whether He shall find faith. Herein lies a sorrowful hyperbole of expression.

Luke 18:9. It is the more arbitrary to assume that the following doctrinal narrative was originally delivered in another connection (Paulus, Olshausen, de Wette; comp. Kuinoel), that it rather affords a confirmation of the probability (see on Luke 17:22) that the Pharisees, after our Lord’s rejoinder to them, Luke 17:20 f., were no longer present. The historical connection with what precedes is not more closely to be indicated than is pointed out by the characterization of the τινές as τοὺς πεποιθ. κ.τ.λ. These men, according to Luke 18:9, must in some way or another have made manifest their disposition, and thereby have given occasion to Jesus to deliver the following discourse as far as Luke 18:14. Who are the people? Assuredly not Pharisees, since it is actually a Pharisee that Jesus presents as a warning example. Possibly they were conceited followers of Jesus (Schleiermacher, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius), but more probably: Jews of a Pharisaic disposition, since Luke does not here, as at Luke 18:1, designate the disciples expressly, and it was just for Jews of this kind that not only the example of the Pharisee, but also that of the publican, was the most humiliating.

πρός] He spoke to them. To take it as at Luke 18:1 (Kuinoel, de Wette, and many others) is unsuitable, since there are persons in this place, and the context suggests no occasion for departing from the usual ad quosdam (Vulgate).

τινας τοὺς πεποιθότας] designates the persons in the abstract indefinitely, but in the quality in question specifically. See on Galatians 1:7, and Bornemann, Schol. p. 113; Bernhardy, p. 318.

ἐφʼ ἑαυτ.] they put on themselves the confidence that they were righteous. For others they did not entertain this confidence, but assumed the contrary and despised them.

Luke 18:11-12. Σταθείς] See on Matthew 6:5. He took his stand, a trait of assurance, comp. Luke 19:8; Acts 2:14. See, on the other hand, Luke 18:13 : μακρόθεν ἑστώς.

πρὸς ἑαυτόν] does not belong to σταθείς, so that it would mean apart (Syr., Beza, Grotius, Paulus, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, and others), which would be καθʼ ἑαυτόν (Xen. Anab. v. 10. 11; Acts 28:16; Jam 2:17; Zechariah 12:12), as D actually reads; but to προσηύχετο (Luther, Castalio, Bengel, Wetstein, and others, including Olshausen, de Wette, Bleek[226]): by himself, to himself, apud animum suum, as at 2Ma 11:13, and frequently in the classical writers: λέγειν πρὸς ἑαυτόν, to speak in thought, and the like. Naturally he would not allow such a prayer to be heard. The publican is otherwise, Luke 18:13.

ὅτι οὐκ εἰμὶ κ.τ.λ.] πρότερον γὰρ εἶπεν ἃ οὐκ ἔστιν, καὶ τότε κατέλεξεν ἅ ἐστιν, Theophylact.

οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν ἀνθρ.] comp. Revelation 9:20; Kühner, II. p. 122.[227]

ἄδικοι] unjust in the more limited sense.

ὡς οὗτος ὁ τελώνης] contemptuously, this publican here! “who skins and scrapes every one, and clutches wherever he can,” Luther, Predigt.

Luke 18:12. νηστεύω] of private fasting, which was observed twice in the week (τοῦ σαββ., Mark 16:9; 1 Corinthians 16:2), on Thursday and Monday. See on Matthew 6:16; Matthew 9:14; Lightfoot, p. 866.

κτῶμαι] not possideo (Vulgate, Castalio, Beza, and others), which would be κέκτημαι, but: what I acquire for myself. He gives tithes of everything, what he gains in natural products, everything without exception. The vainglorious πάντα ὅσα has the emphasis; his payment of tithes is beyond what the law required, as at Matthew 23:23. Moreover, comp. Pirke Aboth, ii. 13 : “Quando oras, noli in precibus bona tua enumerare, sed fac preces misericordiarum et pro gratia impetranda coram Deo.”

[226] From this construction it is plain that in B L א** min. Vulg. Copt. Arm. Slav. Or. Bas. Cypr. πρὸς ἑαυτ. stands after ταῦτα.

[227] “Duas classes Pharisaeus facit; in alteram conjicit totum genus humanum, altera, melior, ipse sibi solus esse videtur,” Bengel.

Luke 18:13-14. Μακρόθεν] comp. Luke 23:49. The context gives as the meaning neither: the forecourt of the Gentiles (the publican was a Jew), nor: far from the sanctuary, but: far away from the Pharisee, of whom hitherto our Lord has been speaking. Behind this bold, self-righteous man the humble one in the diffidence of his consciousness of sin had remained at a distance, not venturing to advance further.

ἑστώς] “Nec σταθείς, nec in genua procumbens, ne spectetur orans,” Bengel.

οὐδὲ τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς] not even his eyes, to say nothing of his whole head and his hands (1 Timothy 2:8; and see, Grotius). Comp. Tacitus, Hist. iv. 72: “Stabant conscientia flagitii moestae fixis in terram oculis.”

The beating of the breast was the outward sign of mourning. See on Luke 8:52. If the Pharisee had only a proud thanksgiving, the publican has only a humble petition.

μοι τῷ ἁμαρτ.] Observe the article. Bengel rightly says: “de nemine alio homine cogitat.”

Luke 18:14. κατέβη κ.τ.λ.] a lively picture of the result, in which the emphasis rests on παρʼ ἐκεῖνον, as is shown by the following on ὅτι πᾶς κ.τ.λ.

δεδικ.] in the Pauline sense: justified, i.e. accepted by God as righteous. The Epistle to the Romans is the most complete commentary on the whole of this doctrinal history, without, however, it being necessary to take the publican as the representative of heathenism, (Schenkel).

The reading παρʼ ἐκεῖνον (see the critical remarks) is in the sense of the comparison (Luke 13:2; Luke 13:4; Bernhardy, p. 258 f.): prae illo, in respect of which the context decides whether what is declared is applicable to the other one in question, only in a lesser degree (as Luke 13:2; Luke 13:4), or not at all (as here; comp. Xen. Mem. i. 4. 14), whether, therefore, the expressed preference is relative or absolute.[228] Comp. Luther’s gloss: “The former went home, not justified, but condemned.” It is similar at Matthew 21:31; John 3:19; 1 Timothy 1:4. The reading: ἢ γὰρ ἐκεῖνος, would have to be explained interrogatively, and that not in the sense of the familiar interrogative form: ἦ γάρ, is it not true? (Klotz, ad Devar. p. 594), but, with Bornemann (and Glöckler): “or did the former one go justified to his house?” But how unsuitable in the connection (it is otherwise at Luke 20:4), since λέγω ὑμῖν leads one to expect, and actually supplies, only a categorical statement! And this use of γάρ after the interrogative ἤ is rationally conceivable, it is true, but no instance of it can be produced. The Recepta ἢ ἐκεῖνος, although critically objectionable, is founded on the correct feeling that ἤ in this place could only be the usual comparative, but γάρ alongside of it would be meaningless.

ὅτι πᾶς κ.τ.λ.] as Luke 14:11.

[228] See also van Hengel, ad Rom. I. p. 138 f.

Luke 18:15-17. See on Matthew 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16. The peculiar source of which Luke has hitherto availed himself, which supplied the material from Luke 9:51, now ends, or Luke leaves it, and becomes substantially synoptic again, following Mark especially, although, while he does so, he still has special passages of his own (see especially Luke 19:1-10). The place and time of what follows as far as Luke 18:31 are, according to Luke, still the same as of what has preceded (from Luke 17:11).

καὶ τὰ βρέφη] their children also, so that not merely the people themselves came to Him. The word itself marks out the children more specially (infants, Luke 2:12; Luke 2:16) than παιδία in Matthew and Mark, the latter of whom Luke follows, although omitting his conclusion, Luke 18:16, to which abbreviating treatment no special purpose (in opposition to Hofmann, II. 2, p. 194) is to be imputed.

ἅπτηται] the present tense, brings the situation before us.

Luke 18:16. προσκαλ. αὐτά] He directed His call to the infants themselves (probably: come to me, little ones!), and then spoke to those who carried them, etc.

Luke 18:18-27. See on Matthew 19:16-26; Mark 10:17-27.

ἄρχων] perhaps a ruler of the synagogue; comp. Matthew 9:18. Luke alone has this more precise designation of the man from tradition, and herein diverges from Matthew 19:20.

In the answer of Jesus, Luke 18:19, Luke simply follows Mark, abbreviating also at Luke 18:20. The Marcionite reading: ὁ γὰρ ἀγαθὸς εἷς ἐστὶν, ὁ θεὸς ὁ πατήρ, is nothing but an old gloss (in opposition to Volkmar, Hilgenfeld), not more Marcionite than the reading of the text, and this latter is no anti-Marcionite alteration. Both forms of the expression are already found in Justin, and our Gospel of Luke is to be regarded (Zeller, Apostelg. p. 32 f.) as his source for the form which agrees with the passage before us (c. Tryph. 101). Comp. on Mark 10:17.

Luke 18:22. ἔτι ἕν σοι λείπει] does not presuppose the truth, but only the case of what is affirmed by the ἄρχων. It does not, moreover, assert the necessity of selling one’s goods and distributing them to the poor, in order to be perfect in general, but only for the person in question, in accordance with his special circumstances, for the sake of special trial. See on Matthew 19:21. Hence there is not to be found, with de Wette, in the words an application of the saying of Jesus that gives any pretext for mistaken representations.

Luke 18:28-30. See on Matthew 19:27-29; Mark 10:28-30, the latter of whom Luke follows with abridgment.

ὃς οὐ μὴ κ.τ.λ.] Comp. Mark 13:2. In respect of no one who has forsaken, etc., will it be the case that he does not receive, etc. In the choice of ἀπολάβῃ there is implied the idea of what he receives being due. Comp. Luke 16:25, Luke 6:34, Luke 23:41; Dem. 78. 3 : ἄν τε λάβητε, ἄν τʼ ἀπολάβητε; 162. 17 : λαμβάνειν μὲν οὐκ εἴων, ἀπολαμβάνειν δὲ συνεβούλευον.

Luke 18:31-34. See on Matthew 20:17-19; Mark 10:32-34. Luke, it is true, abridges Mark’s narrative, yet he also expands it by the reference to the fulfilment of Scripture, Luke 18:31, and by the observation in Luke 18:34.

παραλαβὼν κ.τ.λ.] A continuation of the journey, on which at Luke 18:35 ff. the narrative then again lingers at Jericho.

τῷ υἱῷ τ. ἀνθρ.] belongs to τὰ γεγραμμ., next to which it stands: everything shall be completed, i.e. shall come to its complete actual fulfilment (comp. Luke 22:37), which is written by the prophets with reference to the Son of man (with the destination for Him, in order to become actual in Him). On the dative of reference with γράφειν, comp. 3Ma 6:41. The reading περὶ τοῦ υἱ. τ. ἀνθρ. (D, Vulg. al.) is an inaccurate gloss on the correct construction. Others (Castalio and many more, including Kuinoel, Bornemann, Schegg, comp. Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 154 [E. T. 178], who refers it to both τελεσθ. and γεγραμμ.) connect it with τελεσθ., and explain either: upon the Son of man, as Matthew 13:14 (so the majority), or of Him (Bornemann, following Beza). But even apart from the fact that the position of the words rather suggests the connection given above, the unlimited πάντα τὰ γεγρ. is opposed to the latter, since the prophets have written much, which was neither to be fulfilled upon nor of the Messiah. Besides, the following Luke 18:32 f. is opposed to Bornemann, seeing it is not there said what the Messiah should do, but what He should suffer.

Luke 18:34. An emphatic prolixity, even more than at Luke 9:45. The failure to understand has reference not to the meaning of the words, but to the fact as the Messianic destiny.

ἀπʼ αὐτῶν] comp. Luke 9:45, Luke 10:21, Luke 19:42, frequently in the LXX.

Luke 18:35-43. See on Matthew 20:29-34; Mark 10:46-52. Luke, reproducing Mark’s narrative in an abridged form, adds nevertheless independently the important conclusion (Luke 18:43), and follows a variation of the tradition in transposing the circumstance so as to make it precede the entry. But the purpose of annexing the history of Zaccheus was in no wise needed to occasion this departure from Mark (in opposition to Bleek and Holtzmann).

Luke 18:36. τί εἴη τοῦτο] without ἄν (see the critical remarks), asks, quite specifically, what this should be (not: what this might possibly be). See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 742. Comp. Stallbaum, ad Plat. Lach. p. 190 B; Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 130.

Luke 18:43. The poetic αἶνος (see Buttmann, Lexil. II. p. 112 ff.) appears only here and in Matthew 21:16 (a quotation from the LXX.) in the New Testament; more frequently in the LXX. and the Apocrypha.