CHAPTER 24

Luke 24:1. The reading βαθέως (Lachm. Tisch.), instead of the Recepta βαθέος, is so decisively attested by A B C D א, etc., that the adjective form βαθέος must appear as the alteration of ignorant transcribers.

καί τινες σὺν αὐταῖς] is wanting in B C* L א 33, Copt. Aeth. Vulg. It. (not Brix.) Dionys. Alex. Eus. Aug. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. A supplementary addition, in accordance with Luke 24:10, for which occasion seemed the rather to be given that Luke neither mentions Salome (Mark 16:1) in this place nor at Luke 24:10. D has further expanded the addition.

Luke 24:3. Instead of καὶ εἰσελθοῦσαι is to be read, with Lachm. and Tisch., on preponderating evidence, εἰσελθοῦσαι δέ. The former is from Mark.

Luke 24:4. ἐσθήσεσιν ἀστρ.] Lachm. Tisch. have ἐσθῆτι ἀστραπτούσῃ, in accordance with B D א, Syr. al. Vulg. It. Eus. But the accustomed singular expression easily forced itself in.

Luke 24:5. τὸ πρόσωπον] τὰ πρόσωπα is attested by a preponderance of authorities. So Tisch. It is the more to be preferred in proportion as the singular suggested itself the more readily to the transcribers.

Luke 24:10. Elz. Lachm. Tisch. have ἦσαν δέ; Griesb.: ἦν δέ, on too feeble evidence. The words are wanting altogether in A D Γ and a few vss. The connection has not been apprehended, and for the restoration thereof, sometimes ἦσαν δέ has been omitted (in order to connect it closely with what has preceded), sometimes al has been intercalated afterwards (before ἔλεγον), sometimes both have been done. This αἵ is, with Lachm. Tisch., on decisive evidence, to be deleted.

After the second Μαρία is to be inserted ἡ, with Lachm. and Tisch., on preponderating evidence.

Luke 24:12 is wanting in D, Syr.jer. Cant. 24 :Verc. Rd. Rejected by Schulz and Rinck. Bracketed by Lachm. and [deleted by] Tisch. [8]. But even if the great attestation is not in itself sufficient to justify a decision in favour of its genuineness (comp. on Luke 24:36; Luke 24:39; Luke 24:51 f.), still an interpolator from John 20:5 ff. would have mentioned not only Peter, but also the ἄλλος μαθητής (comp. Luke 24:24); and the words ὀθόνια, παρακύπτειν, and ἀπῆλθε πρὸς ἑαυτ. (John, loc. cit.) might, indeed, have been suggested to Luke from a source emanating from a Johannine tradition; on the other hand, it is just the incompleteness of the notice, as well as the want of agreement in the contents with Luke 24:24, that would furnish a very obvious occasion for objection and for deletion. Κείμενα is suspicious, as it is wanting in B א, min. Copt. Sahid. Syr.cu. Eus.; in other authorities it is placed after μόνα.

Luke 24:18. Elz. Lachm. have ἐν Ἱερουσ. But decisive authorities are in favour of Ἱερουσ. simply (Griesb. Matth. Scholz, Tisch.); ἐν is an exegetic insertion. The exceedingly weakly attested εἰς, which nevertheless Griesb. has commended, proceeds from the last syllable of παροικεῖς.

Luke 24:21. After ἀλλά γε read, with Lachm. and Tisch., καί (B D L א), which disappeared because it could be dispensed with.

Luke 24:28. προσεποιεῖτο] A B D L א, min. have προσεποιήσατο. Commended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Tisch. A correction, in accordance with the preceding and following aorists.

Luke 24:29. After κέκλικεν is to be adopted ἤδη. It is found in B L א, min. Arr. Copt. Syr. Slav. ms. Vulg. It., was easily passed over by occasion of the following Η Ημερα, and perhaps if it had been added, would rather have been annexed to the foregoing ὅτι πρὸς ἑσπ. ἐστί.

Luke 24:32. καὶ ὡς] Lachm. and Tisch. have merely ὡς, in accordance with B D L א 33, also codd. of It. Ambr. Aug. Or. (which, however, omit ὡς ἐλ. ἡμ.). Rightly; καί was inserted for the connection, and in several versions even supplanted the ὡς.

Luke 24:36. After εἰρήνη ὑμῖν Lachm. has in brackets ἐγώ εἰμι, μὴ φοβεῖσθε, following G Ρ, min. vss. Ambr. Aug. An addition from John 6:20. But, moreover, the preceding κ. λέγ. αὐτοῖς· εἰρ. ὑμῖν, although it is wanting only in D and codd. of It. (deleted by Tisch.), is extremely open to the suspicion of being added from John 20:19. See also Lachm. in the Stud. u. Krit. 1830, p. 843. A reason for its omission, if it had been original, would be hard to perceive.

Luke 24:38. Instead of ἐν ταῖς καρδ. B D, codd. of It. al. Lachm. and Tisch. have the singular; the plural is an amendment.

Luke 24:39. αὐτὸς ἐγώ εἰμι] Several different arrangements of the words occur in the MSS. and vss. Lachm. and Tisch. have ἐγώ εἰμι αὐτός, in accordance with B L א 33.

Luke 24:40 is wanting only in D, codd. of It. Syr.cu., but is deleted by Tisch., and comes under the same suspicion of being added from John (Luke 20:20) as the words κ. λέγ. αὐτ. εἰρ. ὑμ., Luke 24:36.

Luke 24:42. καὶ ἀπὸ μελισσ. κηρ.] suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. Tisch., in accordance with A B D L Π א, Cant. Clem. Or. Eus. Epiph. Ath. Cyr. An ancient omission on the part of a transcriber, probably only occasioned by καὶ … καὶ The peculiarity of the food betrays no interpolation; καὶ ἄρτου or καὶ ἄρτον (comp. John 21:9) would rather have been added.

Luke 24:46. καὶ οὕτως ἔδει] is wanting in B C* D L א, Copt. Aeth. Arr. codd. of It. Fathers. Suspected by Griesbach and Rinck, bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. An addition in the way of gloss.

Luke 24:47. ἀρξάμενον] The reading ἀρξάμενον in B C* L N X א 33, Copt. Aeth. Tisch. is to help out the construction, in connection with the omission of δέ, Luke 24:48 (which Tisch., following B C* L א, has deleted).

Luke 24:51 f. The omission of καὶ ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τ. οὐρανόν, and at the same time of προσκυνήσαντες αὐτόν in the same set of authorities (D, Cant. 24 :Verc. Corb. Rd. Aug.), throws on both (the former is wanting also in א*) the grave suspicion (comp. on Luke 24:36; Luke 24:39) of being added for the sake of completeness.

Luke 24:53. In a few authorities αἰνοῦντες καί is wanting (which Griesb., in accordance with B C* L א, Ar. p., regards as suspicious); in others καὶ εὐλογοῦντες (which Tisch., in accordance with D, codd. of It. Copt. Aug., has kept out). The Recepta is to be maintained, since αἰνεῖν τ. Θεόν is especially frequent in Luke, but neither αἰνοῦτες nor εὐλογοῦντες offered occasion for an addition by way of gloss. But κ. εὐλ. might easily drop out in consequence of the homoeoteleuton in αἰνοῦντες and εὐλογοῦντες.

Luke 24:1-12. Comp. on Matthew 28:1-8; Mark 16:1-8.

The question of the special sources from which Luke has taken the considerable portion that is peculiar to him in the account of the resurrection (Griesbach: from the mouth of the Joanna named by him alone, Luke 24:10), as well as in all that still follows that account, cannot be decided; but assuredly he did not as yet know the conclusion of Mark as it now stands.

βαθέως (see the critical remarks): the adverb[267] of degree is immediately annexed to a substantive. See on 2 Corinthians 11:23. Hence: deep in the morning, i.e. in the first morning twilight. Comp. Plat. Crit. p. 43 A, Prot. p. 310 A. The opposite is: ὁ ἔσχατος ὄρθρος, Theocr. xvi. 63.

Luke 24:2. ΕὖΡΟΝ ΔῈ Κ.Τ.Λ.] agrees as little as Mark 16:4 with the narrative of the rolling away of the stone in Matthew 28:2.

Luke 24:4. ἘΝ Τῷ ΔΙΑΠΟΡ. ΑὐΤ. ΠΕΡῚ ΤΟΎΤΟΥ] while they were in great perplexity concerning this. Comp. Plat. Phaedr. p. 237 A, Soph. p. 217 A, Tim. p. 49 B. In the New Testament only in Luke. Still Lachmann and Tischendorf have the simple form ἀπορεῖσθαι (B C D L א), but this easily crept in through neglect of the compound form. Also Luke 9:7, Acts 2:12, the reading ἨΠΟΡΕῖΤΟ occurs.

ἘΠΈΣΤ.] as Luke 2:9.

ἌΝΔΡΕς] The angels (Luke 24:23) are designated according to the form of the appearance which they had in the view of the women.[268] Comp. Acts 1:10; Mark 16:5. And their clothes had a flashing brightness (ἀστραπτ.).

Luke 24:5. τί ζητεῖτε κ.τ.λ.] indicating the groundlessness of their search.

τὸν ζῶντα] denotes Jesus not as Him who is Himself the life (Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, following John 1:4), nor yet the conquering life (de Wette), but, according to the context, quite simply Him who is alive, and no νεκρός. Comp. Luke 24:23.

μετὰ τῶν νεκρῶν] the grave is in general conceived of as the place where the dead are, where, therefore, he who is sought, is sought among the dead. Luke 24:6 f. ὡς ἐλάλ] Luke 9:22, Luke 18:32 f. The reference to Galilee (Matthew and Mark) Luke could not adopt; see Luke 24:49-50.

τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρ.] The designation of Himself previously used by Jesus. After the resurrection He no longer calls Himself by this name. Comp. Luke 24:26. ἀνθρώπ. ἁμαρτ.] heathens. Comp. Luke 18:32; Galatians 2:15. Otherwise Matthew 26:45.

Luke 24:8. It is psychologically improbable that the remembrance occurred to them now for the first time and at the prompting of the angel, if Jesus actually foretold His resurrection in terms so definite. But see on Matthew 16:21.

Luke 24:9. κ. πᾶσι τοῖς λοιποῖς] who adhered to the company of the disciples as followers of Jesus.

Luke 24:10 f. According to the corrected reading (see the critical remarks), ἦσαν δὲ … Ἰακώβου is a supplementary enumeration of the most eminent of the women who brought the tidings; after which by means of καὶ αἱ λοιπαὶ κ.τ.λ. the same bringing of the tidings is related also of their female companions, and then by καὶ ἐφάνησαν κ.τ.λ. the narration is further continued. There were, however (these women who returned and announced, etc.), Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James; moreover (καὶ), the rest of the women with them told this to the apostles, and their words appeared to them as a fable, and they believed them not. As to Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James, see on Matthew 27:55 f.; as to Joanna, on Luke 8:3.

ἐφάνησαν] the plural of the verb with the neuter plural (see, in general, Winer, p. 456 [E. T. 645]) denotes here the declarations of the several individual persons. See Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. iv. 3. 12.

λῆρος] a foolish rumour, trick. Plat. Protag. p. 347 D, Hipp. maj. p. 304 B: λήρους καὶ φλυαρίας; Xen. Hist. iv. 8. 15; Arist. Plut. 23, and elsewhere; Soph. Trach. 435: ληρεῖν ἀνδρὸς οὐχὶ σώφρονος.

Luke 24:12. The disciples did not believe the women, but Peter, hasty and impetuous as he was, desired to inform himself by his own sight about this enigmatical state of affairs. To take ἔδραμεν as a pluperfect (Paulus) is on account of βλέπει impossible; a perverted system of harmonizing, in which even Calvin led the way. Of the ἄλλος μαθητής of John 20:3, Luke says nothing, but, according to Luke 24:24, does not exclude him. The account is vague in the connection of its several parts,[269] as even Luke 24:34 presupposes something that is not related.

παρακύψ.] stooping down into the grave, John 20:5; John 20:11.

μόνα] so that thus the corpse was gone.[270]

πρὸς ἑαντ.] not: with Himself (as Mark 14:4; Luke 18:11), so that it would belong to θαυμάζων (Luther, Castalio, Grotius, Wolf, Schegg, and others, following the Vulgate), in which case, however, it would be superfluous, and its position before θαυμάζων would have no motive; but it belongs to ἀπῆλθε: to his home, i.e. πρὸς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ διαγωγήν, Euthymius Zigabenus. Comp. John 20:10. Examples in Kypke, I. p. 33 7.

θαυμάζ. τὸ γεγονός] συνῆκε γὰρ, ὅτι οὐ μετετέθη· ἦ γὰρ ἂν μετὰ τῶν ὀθονίων μετετέθη, Euthymius Zigabenus.[271] Comp. John 20:7 f.

[267] βαθέως might, it is true, be also the genitive of the adjective (see generally, Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 246 f.). Thus Bleek, Buttmann, and Schegg. Only no certain instance of such a genitive form occurs in the New Testament.

[268] Schleiermacher makes out of this, persons commissioned by Joseph of Arimathaea. By means of such, Joseph had had the body of Jesus brought away from the grave, in which it had been provisionally laid. See L. J. p. 471. At an earlier period Schleiermacher made another shift, but not a better. See Strauss in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1863, p. 386 ff.

[269] Since vv. 24 and 34 presuppose what nevertheless is not previously narrated, it is certainly to be assumed that vv. 1–12 and ver. 13 ff. have been taken from two distinct sources, which Luke in his working up has not sufficiently compared together. There has not been wanting here, moreover, the supposition of a tendency. According to Baur (Theol. Jahrb. 1853, p. 61), the scene at Emmaus is to put in the background the manifestation which was made only to Peter.

[270] That the grave was empty is so decidedly and clearly in the whole of the New Testament (in opposition to Weizsäcker, p. 572) the correlative of the resurrection of Jesus (see also Romans 6:4; Colossians 2:12), that it is not at all to the purpose when Keim (Geschichtl. Chr. p. 134) adds to the expression of his belief in an appearance of Jesus in glorified corporeality, “it makes no matter whether the grave was empty or not.” Keim, moreover, contends with force against the visionary view of the resurrection. See against this kind of view, also Gebhardt, D. Aufersteh. Christ. 1864, p. 18 ff.; Düsterdieck, Apol. Beitr. I. p. 8 ff.; Weiss in the Stud. u. Krit. 1866, p. 173 f.; Uhlhorn, D. modernen Darstell. d. Leb. Jesu, 1866, p. 115 ff.

[271] Even this simple observation of Euthymius Zigabenus is sufficient to show that every other cause by which the corpse may have disappeared from the grave, apart from His resurrection, is inconceivable. Schenkel, indeed (in his Zeitschr. 1865, 5), when he defines the resurrection as “the real mysterious self-revelation of the personality of Christ emerging living and imperishable from death,” uses for this purpose no grave, since he makes the personality of Christ emerge only from death, not from the grave. But the certainty that Christ came forth from the grave is at the foundation of every mention of the resurrection throughout the whole New Testament, in which reference, especially also the moral idea of συνθάπτεσθαι and συνεγείρεσθαι Χριστῷ (Romans 6:4; Colossians 2:12; Colossians 3:1; Ephesians 2:6) is of importance.

Luke 24:13-14. The journey to Emmaus, peculiar to Luke. Mark 16:12 is a meagre intimation of the same history from another source.

ἦσαν πορ.] were on the way.

ἐξ αὐτῶν] in general: of the followers of Jesus, ἐκ τῶν ὅλων μαθητῶν, Euthymius Zigabenus. They did not belong to the twelve (see Luke 24:33); whether they were of the seventy (Jerome, Euthymius Zigabenus, and others) cannot be determined. In other respects they are perfectly unknown. Luke. Luke 24:18, names only the one (Κλεόπας is the same as Κλεόπατρος, distinct from the Hebrew name Κλωπᾶς, John 19:25, or Alphaeus), and that, indeed, accidentally, because he introduces him actually speaking. In this way it is left in doubt whether he knew the name of the other or not (Ambrose calls him Ammaon). From the fact of his not being named, there is neither to be concluded a greater (Borneniann) nor a less (Kuinoel) degree of knowledge regarding him; and who he may have been is not at all to be conjectured, although Nathanael (so Epiphanius), Bartholomew, Peter, or another Simon (Origen, Cyril), nay, in spite of Luke 1:2, Luke himself (in Theophylact, so also Lange, I. p. 252), and even, conjecturally (Holtzmann), the younger James, as having made the journey with his father Alphaeus (but in 1 Corinthians 15:7 the Lord’s brother is meant)—have been guessed.

Ἐμμαούς] in Josephus, Bell. vii. 6. 6. Ἀμμαοῦς, a village, also according to Josephus 60 stadia (7½ geographical miles) in a north-western direction from Jerusalem—not to be confounded, as has often been done since Eusebius and Jerome (Robinson, Pal. III. p. 281 f.), with the town of Emmaus, 1Ma 3:40; 1Ma 9:50, in the plain of Judaea, which since the third century after Christ has been named Nicopolis, and is 176 stadia from Jerusalem.[272] See, in general, Ritter’s Palestine, XVI. pp. 512, 545; Arnold in Herzog’s Encykl. III. p. 778 f.; Thrupp in The Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology, 1860, p. 262 ff.; Zschokke, D. neutest. Emmaus, 1865, who, following tradition, is again in favour of the present village of Kubeibeh, and that on the ground of the more recent measurement of the distance from Jerusalem. Others: Culonieh; others: Kurjat et Enab.

Luke 24:14. Κ. ΑὐΤΟΊ] and they, on their part, said, in view of the appearance of Jesus to them, Luke 24:15 f.

περὶ πάντων τῶν συμβεβηκ. τούτων] Luke 24:1-12. In their subsequent discourse with the unknown one at Luke 24:18 ff. they are more prolix. On ὁμιλεῖν = διαλέγεσθαι, comp. Xen. Anab. iv. 3. 2.

[272] Hence we find, in some MSS. (including א) and vss., the reading ἑκατὸν ἑξήκοντα, which Tisch.synops. on insufficient evidence prefers [Tisch. 8 has returned to ἑξήκοντα]. Even Arnold expresses himself as not averse to identifying it with Nicopolis.

Luke 24:15-16. καὶ αὐτός] καί is the usual form after ἐγένετο (comp. Luke 24:4; see on v. 12), and αὐτός, He Himself, of whom they were speaking.

ἐγγίσας] probably overtaking them from behind.

ἐκρατοῦντο κ.τ.λ.] they were held so that they knew Him not. Examples of κρατεῖσθαι of organs of the body: impediri, quominus vim et actionem sibi propriam exserant, see in Kypke. The expression itself, which indicates a peculiar external influence, not to speak of its telic connection, as well as the correlative διηνοίχθησαν κ.τ.λ. in Luke 24:31, should have prevented their failure to recognise Him from being attributed to an unfamiliar dress of Jesus, and to an alteration of His countenance by the tortures of crucifixion; or, on the other hand, to the disciples’ own dejection (Paulus, Kuinoel, Lange, and others). The text represents only a wonderful divine effect. The matter is otherwise represented in Mark 16:12, where Jesus appears ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ.

Luke 24:17-18. What are these discourses that ye in turn throw out to one another as ye walk, and are of gloomy countenance? Instead of καὶ ὄντες σκυθρωποί, the address passes over into the finite verb, bringing out this characteristic more emphatically, Matthiae, § 632; Kühner, § 675. 4. After καί we are not to supply τί (Beza). The relative clause οὓς ἀντιβάλλ. πρ. ἀλλ. corresponds to the idea of συζητεῖν (disputare).

σὺ μόνος παροικεῖς κ.τ.λ.] Dost thou alone dwell as a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not learned, etc.? In respect of this question of surprise, it is to be considered—(1) that the destiny of Jesus is so entirely the only thought in the soul of the two disciples, and appears to them now so absolutely as the only possible subject of their conversation and their sadness, that from their standpoint they instantly conclude from the question of the unknown one that he cannot at all know what has come to pass, since otherwise he would not begin by asking of what they speak and why they look sad; (2) that μόνος belongs to παροικεῖς and καὶ οὐκ ἔγνως; so that thus παροικεῖς Ἱερ. καὶ οὐκ ἔγνως (there is no comma to be placed before καί), taken together, constitute the ground of their question, whether it is he alone in whose experience this is the case. Hence it is wrong to take καί in the place of a relative. Comp. John 7:4παροικεῖν Ἱερουσ. may either mean: dwell as a stranger in Jerusalem (thus often in the LXX.; usually with ἐν, but also with the accusative, Genesis 17:8; Exodus 6:4), or: dwell near, at Jerusalem (Grotius, Rosenmüller, and, with hesitation, Bleek; comp. Xen. De redit. i. 5; Isocr. Panegyr. 162; Thuc. iii. 93; Lucian, D. M. ii. 1); thus Ἱερουσ. would be in the dative. The former view is the usual and the correct one (comp. Hebrews 11:9; Acts 7:6; Acts 13:17; 1 Peter 1:17; 1 Peter 2:11), since the disciples might recognise the unknown, perchance, as a foreign pilgrim to the feast (even from his dialect), but not as a dweller in the vicinity of Jerusalem. Ungrammatically (not to be supported by passages such as Genesis 24:37; Numbers 20:15; Psalm 15:1; Psalm 120:6, where the LXX. have translated ישב and שכן by terms more specific than the original), Theophylact, also Zeger and others, have taken παροικεῖν as simply to dwell; and Castalio, Vatablus, Clarius, and Kuinoel have taken it in the figurative sense of ξένον εἶναι and hospitem esse: “de iis, qui quid agatur ignorant, art thou then alone so strange to Jerusalem?”

Luke 24:19-21. Ποῖα] scil. οὐκ ἔγνων γενόμενα κ.τ.λ. The qualitative word of interrogation presupposes things of a special kind which must have happened; προσποιεῖται ἄγνοιαν, Euthymius Zigabenus.

οἱ δὲ εἶπον] Probably here also Cleopas was the speaker, and the other added his own assent to what was said.

ὃς ἐγένετο] not: who was (thus usually), but: who became, whereby the idea se praestitit, se praebuit (see Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 7. 4), is expressed.

ἀνὴρ προφ.] an honourable expression, Bernhardy, p. 48.

δυνατὸς ἐν ἔργῳ κ. λόγῳ] Comp. Thuc. i. 139. 4, where Pericles is called λέγειν τε καὶ πράσσειν δυνατώτατος. ἐν marks the sphere wherein, etc. Comp. Acts 18:24; Acts 7:22; Jdt 11:8; Sir 21:8. In the classical writers the mere dative of the instrument is the usual form. See Bornemann, Schol. p. 159. See examples of both arrangements: ἔργῳ κ. λ. and λόγῳ κ. ἔ., in Lobeck, Paralip. p. 64 f.; Bornemann, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 3. 6; Pflugk, ad Eur. Hec. 373. In this place ἔργῳ is put first as containing the first ground of acknowledgment of the Messianic dignity. Comp. Acts 1:1; John 10:38; Acts 10:38ἐναντίον κ.τ.λ.] i.e. so that He represented Himself as such to God and the whole people.

Luke 24:20. ὅπως τε] et quomodo, still depending on the οὐκ ἔγνως of Luke 24:18, which is mentally supplied as governing τὰ περὶ Ἰησοῦ κ.τ.λ. On εἰς κρίμα θανάτου, to the condemnation of death, comp. Luke 23:24καὶ ἐσταύρωσαν] for it was their work that He was crucified by the governor. Comp. Acts 2:23Luke 24:21. ἡμεῖς δὲ ἠλπίζομεν] but we, on our part, were entertaining the hope (observe the imperfect), etc. This hope, demolished by the crucifixion, how soon was it again inflamed! Acts 1:6αὐτός] He, and no other

λυτροῦσθαι] according to the politico-theocratic idea of the national Messiah. Comp. Acts 1:6, and see Theophylact.

ἀλλά γε] but indeed, although we cherished this hope. See Hermann, ad Eur. Ion. 1345, Praef. p. xx.; Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 2. 12. On the immediate juxtaposition of the two particles, a usage foreign to the older Greek writers, see Bornemann, Schol. p. 160; Klotz, ad Devar. pp. 15 f., 25; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. I. p. 331 B.

καί] (see the critical remarks): besides.

σὺν πᾶσι τούτοις] σὺν denotes the accompanying circumstance: with all this, i.e. with the having undergone all this fate, namely, of being delivered up and crucified (Luke 24:20). Comp. Nehemiah 5:18; 3Ma 1:22; and see, generally, Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 763.

τρίτην ταύτην ἡμέραν ἄγει σήμερον] The subject is Jesus, who immediately before was the subject emphatically made prominent. Comp. Beza, Kypke. ἄγειν, of time: to spend; as e.g. δέκατον ἔτος ἄγειν, to be in the tenth year, and the like, does not belong merely to the later Greek.[273] Compare the passages in Kypke. τρίτην ταύτην ἡμέραν is equivalent to ταύτην τρίτην οὖσαν ἡμέραν, or ταύτην, ἣ τρίτη ἐστὶν ἡμέρα. See Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. iv. 7. 5. Comp. iii. 5. 9. Hence: But indeed, besides all this, He passes this present day as the third since, etc. In this case, it is true, σήμερον is superfluous, but it corresponds to the painful excitement of the words. Comp. Mark 14:29. ἄγει has been ungrammatically taken as impersonal: agitur (Grotius, Bengel, Rosenmüller, Kuinoel, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Buttmann, Bleek, and others); while others grasp at arbitrary modes of supplying the subject, as ὁ χρόνος (Camerarius), Θεός (Heinsius), ὁ ἥλιος (Er. Schmid, Heumann). Bornemann regards Ἰσραήλ as the subject: “Is dies, quem Israel hodie celebrat, tertius est, ex quo,” etc. But the context leads us neither to Israel nor to the mention of the celebration of the festival.

[273] Sophocles, El. 258, has: ἔπειτα ποίας ἡμέρας δοκεῖς μʼ ἄγειν: What kind of days thinkest thou I am spending?

Luke 24:22-23. Nevertheless on this frustration of our hopes the following also has occurred, which has again aroused them, and still (Luke 24:24) has left them till now unfulfilled.

ἐξ ἡμῶν] from our company, ὡς ἡμεῖς πισταί, Euthymius Zigabenus.

ὄρθριαι] an Attic form, instead of which, however, the later ὀρθριναί (see Sturz, Dial. Mac. p. 186; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 51) is preponderatingly attested, and is, with Lachmann and Tischendorf, to be preferred.

καὶ μὴ εὑρ.] καὶ … ἦλθον, instead of carrying on the participial expression in conformity with γενόμεναι, continues with greater emphasis in an independent sentence.

καὶ ὀπτασίαν κ.τ.λ.] καί: and moreover, besides the fact that they found not the body.

οἳ λέγουσιν] indicative, the direct vision mingling in a lively manner with the oratio obliqua, Bernhardy, p. 299; Reisig, Conject. p. 226 f.

Luke 24:24. Τινές] therefore not merely Peter, Luke 24:12. But did Luke conceive these several persons as having gone together? Probably, according to the analogy of Luke 24:22. Moreover, comp. on Luke 24:12.

οὕτω καθὼς κ.τ.λ.] namely, that the corpse was not in the grave.

αὐτὸν δὲ οὐκ εἶδον] but Him, Him who yet, according to that angelic assurance narrated by the women, was to live, Him they saw not; a tragical conclusion!

Luke 24:25-26. Αὐτός] He on His part, after the disciples had thus helplessly expressed themselves.

ἀνόητοι (Romans 1:14; Galatians 3:2 f.), without intelligence, refers to the understanding, and βραδεῖς τῇ καρδίᾳ to the whole internal living activity, in respect of which (dative) its dulness, i.e. its deficiency in the proper susceptibility and fixedness of purpose, is reproved. σκληροκαρδία, Mark 16:14, is stronger. On βραδύς as tardus in the spiritual sense, comp. Il. x. 226; Plat. Defin. p. 415 E: δυσμαθία βραδυτὴς ἐν μαθήσει. Theophr. Mor. not. 14 ἡ βραδύτης τῆς ψυχῆς. The opposite: ἀγχίνους, Plat. Phaedr. p. 239 A; Diog. Laert. vii. 93; also ὀξύς, Plat. Rep. vii. p. 526 B.

τοῦ πιστεύειν] a genitive of nearer definition dependent on βραδεῖς (see Winer, p. 290 [E. T. 407]); slow to believing confidence in.

On πιστεύειν ἐπί with a dative, comp. Matthew 27:42; Romans 9:33; Romans 10:11; 1 Timothy 1:16; 1 Peter 2:6πᾶσιν] not merely referring to a single thing. There was wanting to them the faith without exception, otherwise they would have recognised even the suffering and death of the Messiah as prophesied, and have rightly discerned them; ἔστι γὰρ πιστεύειν καὶ μερικῶς καὶ καθόλου, Theophylact.

Luke 24:26. Must not the Messiah, etc., namely, according to the prophetically announced divine decree. Comp. Luke 24:44 ff.

ταῦτα] with emphasis: this, which He, to wit, had in fact suffered, and which causes you to be so cast down.

καὶ εἰσελθ. εἰς τ. δόξαν αὐτοῦ] not as though He had already by the resurrection in itself, and before the ascension, attained to His δόξα (for His heavenly condition is not until His glory after death, see Luke 9:26, Luke 21:27; Php 2:9 f.; 1 Peter 1:21; 1 Timothy 3:16; John 20:17; John 17:5, and elsewhere), but out of the foregoing ἔδει, δεῖ is here to be supplied: and must He not attain unto His glory? Wherefore, on the one hand, those sufferings needed first to precede; and, on the other, He must be again alive. The definite εἰσελθ. εἰς τ. δόξ. is not to be evaporated into the general “attain His destination” (Schleiermacher). As to supplying the verb in another tense, see Bornemann on Luke 24:27, ad Xen. Apol. § 26; and, generally, Krüger, § 62. 4. 1; also Nagelsbach, Anm. z. Ilias, ed. 3, p. 76.

Luke 24:27. Καὶ ἀπὸ πάντων τ. προφ.] ἀρξάμενος is to be conceived of successively: He began from Moses, and when He had finished with him, from all the prophets, taking them one by one in succession, consequently making of each one of them a new commencement of His διερμήνευσις. Thus the reproach of a careless (Winer), inexact (Buttmann, Bleek), or defective (de Wette) mode of expression (Acts 3:24) becomes, to say the least, unnecessary. What special passages Jesus referred to, Luke unfortunately does not tell us. Theophylact adduces many, and specially Jacob Capellus, from Genesis 3:15 down to 2 Chron. Comp. also Erasmus, Paraphr.[274]

διερμήνευεν] He interpreted (Acts 9:36; 1 Corinthians 12:30; 2Ma 1:36; Polyb. iii. 22. 3), to wit, by explanation according to their destination referred to Him, i.e. having their fulfilment in Him.

τὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ] scil. γεγραμμένα, implied in γραφαῖς; otherwise, Luke 22:37.

[274] In respect of the prophecies bearing upon the sufferings of the Messiah, see, in general, Hengstenberg, Christol. III. 2, p. 8 ff.

Luke 24:28-29. Ἐσχηματίζετο ποῤῥωτέρω πορεύεσθαι ὡς ἁπλῶς συνοδοιπόρος, Euthymius Zigabenus. He desired to prompt the invitation, which was a matter of decorum, but knew that it would follow. Comp. Mark 6:48. The imperfect προσεποιεῖτο (He feigned, gave Himself the air) and then the aorist παρεβιάσαντο: a lively representation.

πορεύεσθαι] not: that He is constrained or wishes to go farther, but we must conceive that for appearance’ sake He actually began to move forward.

Luke 24:29. On παρεβιάσ., they constrained, to wit, by means of urgent entreaty, comp. Acts 16:15; Genesis 19:3; also ἀναγκάζειν, Luke 14:23; Matthew 14:22. They felt their holiest interests engaged to this stranger (Luke 24:32). That these two disciples dwelt in Emmaus is possible, but follows just as little from μεῖνον μεθʼ ἡμῶν (comp. τοῦ μεῖναι σὺν αὐτοῖς) as from εἰσῆλθε. For to the latter expression is not to be supplied εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν αὐτῶν, but from Luke 24:28 : εἰς τὴν κώμην; that invitation, however, does not of necessity mean: stay in our lodging, but may just as well signify: stay in our company, pass the night with us in the house of our host. Comp. John 1:39 f.

Luke 24:30. Jesus proceeds not as a guest, but as the master of the house, according to His accustomed manner in the circle of His disciples; thus, it is true, that does not appear by which they recognise Him, but probably it is the external situation, corresponding to the opening of their eyes that now follows, which enhances the certainty and the impression of the recognition. Comp. Luke 24:35.

εὐλόγησε] “Tres, qui simul comedunt, tenentur ad gratias indicendum,” Berac. f. 45, 1. It is the master of the house giving thanks before the meal. It is quite arbitrary for most of the church Fathers (Augustine, Chrysostom, Theophylact, and many others) and Catholics (so also Sepp, not Schegg, but Bisping) to decide that Jesus celebrated the Lord’s Supper,[275] from which even the ἐν τῷ κατακλιθ. ought to have guarded them, since this in fact points to the time before the proper beginning of the meal (as they reclined). Comp. on Luke 3:21.

[275] The Catholics make use of vv. 30 and 35 as a defence of their Eucharistia, sub una specie. See the Confut. Confess. Aug. II. 1. Even Melanchthon does not refuse to explain the passage before us of the Lord’s Supper, disapproving, nevertheless, of the conclusion drawn from it: unam partem tantum datam esse; “quia partis appellatione reliquum significatur communi consuetudine sermonis,” Apol. x. 7, p. 234.

Luke 24:31. Αὐτῶν δὲ διηνοίχθησαν οἱ ὀφθαλμοί] is the opposite of οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτῶν ἐκρατοῦντο, Luke 24:16. As the latter, so also the former, according to Luke, is to be referred to extraordinary divine causation. This is opposed to the view (Paulus, Kuinoel, and others) that the disciples, only by means of the accustomed breaking of bread and giving of thanks by Jesus, wherein they had more attentively considered Him and had seen His pierced hands, arrived at the recognition of Him who until then had been unknown to them. Comp. on Luke 24:30.

αὐτῶν] with lively emphasis placed first. What Jesus did is previously described.

ἀνοίγειν] (more strongly διανοίγειν) τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς, which is often used of the healing of blind people (Matthew 9:30; Matthew 20:33; John 9:10; John 9:14; John 9:17; John 10:21; John 11:37), describes in a picturesque manner the endowing with a capacity, bodily or spiritual, of recognising what before was unknown, Genesis 3:5; Genesis 3:7; Genesis 21:19; 2 Kings 6:17; 2 Kings 6:20; comp. Acts 26:8ἄφαντος ἐγένετο ἀπʼ αὐτῶν] He passed away from them invisibly. Comp. on γίνεσθαι ἀπό τινος, to withdraw from any one, Xen. Mem. i. 2. 25; Bar 3:21. Luke intends manifestly to narrate a sudden invisible withdrawal effected through divine agency; hence those do wrong to his intention and to the expression who, like Kuinoel, make out of it only a subito ah iis discessit, so that this departure would not have been observed till it occurred (Schleiermacher, L. J. p. 474). Beza well says that Luke has not said αὐτοῖς, but ἀπʼ αὐτῶν; “ne quis existimet praesentem quidem Christum cum ipsis mansisse, sed corpore, quod cerni non posset.” The Ubiquists supported the doctrine of the invisible presence of Christ’s body by the passage before us. Comp. Calovius.

On the word ἄφαντος—which is very frequent in the poets, but only rarely used in prose, and that of a late period, and, moreover, is not found in the LXX. and the Apocrypha—instead of the classical prose word ἀφανής, see Wesseling, ad Diod. iv. 65.

Luke 24:32-33. Οὐχὶ ἡ καρδία ἡμῶν καιομένη ἦν ἐν ἡμῖν;] Was not our heart on fire within us? The extraordinarily lively emotions are, as in all languages, represented under the image of burning, of heat, of being inflamed, and the like, Wetstein and Kypke in loc.; Musgrave, ad Soph. Aj. 473. Hence the meaning: Was not our heart in an extraordinarily fervent commotion? Comp. Psalm 39:4; Jeremiah 20:9. Quite naturally the two disciples abstain from explaining more fully the excitement of feeling that they had experienced, because such an excitement, comprehending several affections, rises into consciousness, as divided into its special elements, the less in proportion as its experiences are deep, urgent, and marvellous. The connection of the question with what precedes is: “Vere Christus est, nam non alia potuit esse causa, cur in via eo loquente tantopere animus noster inflammaretur,” Maldonatus.

ὡς διήνοιγεν κ.τ.λ.] without καί (see the critical remarks) adds the special to the general asyndetically, in which form that which is urgent and impressive of the recollection expresses itself.

Luke 24:33. αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ] Certainly after such an experience the meal of which they had intended to partake was immediately given up. They had now no more irresistible necessity than that of communicating with their fellow-disciples in Jerusalem, and “jam non timent iter nocturnum, quod antea dissuaserant ignoto comiti, Luke 24:29,” Bengel.

Luke 24:34-35. Λέγοντας] belongs to τοὺς ἕνδεκα καὶ τοὺς σὺν αὐτοῖς, who in a body met them as they arrived with the cry: ἠγέρθη ὁ κύριος κ.τ.λ. On the discrepancy with Mark 16:13, see on the passage.

ἠγέρθη and ὤφθη are placed first with triumphant emphasis, as contrasted with what is narrated at Luke 24:11-12. The appearance to Peter, which Luke has not related further (but see 1 Corinthians 15:5), took place in the interval, after what is contained in Luke 24:12. “Apparitiones utrimque factae, quibus se invicem confirmabant illi, quibus obtigerant,” Bengel.

Σίμωνι] at that time the name which was still the general favourite in the circle of the disciples. According to Lange’s fancy, the apostle after his fall laid aside his name of Peter, as a priest his consecrated robe, and an officer his sword. Jesus Himself named him, indeed, before and after his fall, almost exclusively Simon (Matthew 17:25; Mark 14:37; Luke 22:31; John 21:15). In Luke 22:34, Πέτρε has a special significance.

Moreover, Luke 24:34 ought to have forbidden the assumption that Luke distinguishes the two disciples who went to Emmaus above the apostles (Hilgenfeld).

Luke 24:35. καὶ αὐτοί] and they on their part, as contrasted with those who were assembled.

ἐν τῇ κλάσει] not: in the breaking, but at the time of the breaking. See on Luke 24:31.

Luke 24:36-37. Αὐτὸς ἔστη ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν] He Himself stood in the midst of them. These words point to the fact that Luke, who already at Luke 24:31 has related also a sudden disappearance and vanishing of Jesus, conceived of a marvellous, instantaneous appearance of the Risen One in the circle of His disciples, and this is confirmed by the narrative in John 20:19 of the appearance of Jesus within closed doors. The subsequently (Luke 24:37) related impression upon those who were assembled is, moreover, easily explained from this fact, although they had just before spoken as specified at Luke 24:34.

ἐν μέσῳ] “id significantius quam in medium,” Bengel.

εἰρήνη ὑμῖν] Peace to you! The usual Jewish greeting שָׁלוֹם לָכֶם, Luke 10:5.

Luke 24:37. πνεῦμα] a departed spirit, which, having come from Hades, appeared as an umbra in an apparent body; the same that Matthew 14:26, calls φάντασμα.

Luke 24:38. Wherefore arise thoughts in your heart? i.e., wherefore have ye not immediately and without any consideration (see on Php 2:14) recognised me as the person I am?

Luke 24:39. In the first half of the verse Jesus desires to remove from His disciples their consternation, and that by means of their being required to convince themselves that it is He Himself (no other); in the second half He desires to oppose the notion of a πνεῦμα, and that in such a way that they should be persuaded that it is He bodily. The two parts of Luke 24:39 correspond, that is to say, to the two parts of Luke 24:38.

τὰς χεῖράς μου κ. τ. πόδας μ.] These, pointed to as a proof that it is He Himself, must afford this proof by the traces of the crucifixion, namely, by the wounds of the nails in the hands and feet (as to the nailing of the feet, see on Matthew 27:35). Comp. John 20:20.[276] According to Paulus and de Wette, Jesus pointed to His hands and feet as the uncovered parts, in order to oppose the notion of a spirit. In this way αὐτὸς ἐγώ would have to be understood of the reality, not of the identity of His appearance. But the hands and the feet were seen even without special pointing to them; the latter presupposes a characteristic to be recognised by closer inspection. Even this characteristic, however, could not prove the reality (since it might appear as well in a φάντασμα or εἴδωλον), but probably the identity though apart from the reality, for which latter the conviction was to be added by means of touch.

ὅτι] is in both cases: that. On σάρκα κ. ὀστέα οὐκ ἔχει, comp. Hom. Od. xi. 219.

[276] Without reason Schleiermacher says of these wounds: “they may have been two or four” (p. 447). He has indeed taken up a position of great indifference about the question whether Jesus was actually or only apparently dead (in respect of which he sophistically misuses Acts 2:27); but still a merely apparent death does not come to the same thing, and it is only opposed to the (true) view of the resurrection that the disciples took internal for external phenomena. See especially p. 471.

Luke 24:41-43. Ἔτι] in the sense of still; see Schneider, ad Plat. Rep. p. 449 C.

ἀπὸ τῆς χαρᾶς] on account of the (presently experienced by them, comp. Luke 22:45; Acts 12:14; Matthew 13:44) joy. That a great and happy surprise keeps back and delays the full conviction of the truth of the happy event itself, is a matter of psychological experience; Liv. xxxix. 49: Vix sibimet ipsi prae nec opinato gaudio credentes.

εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· ἔχετε κ.τ.λ.] πρὸς πλείονα πίστιν καὶ βεβαιοτέραν ἀπόδειξιν τοῦ μὴ δοκεῖν φάσμ.], Euthymius Zigabenus.

καὶ ἀπὸ μελισσ. κηρίου] and (some) of a bee’s honeycomb (favus). μελισσίου is added as a distinction from any other kind of honey. The word, however, does not elsewhere occur, but μελισσαῖος (Nicander, Th. 611); 1 Samuel 14:27 : κηρίον τοῦ μέλιτος. On διδόναι ἀπό, comp. Luke 20:10.

Luke 24:43. ἔφαγεν] in respect of which what had already gone before (Luke 24:39-40) must keep at a distance the idea of a merely apparent eating, such as is attributed to angels, Tob 12:19 (comp. Genesis 18:8; Genesis 19:3). Comp. Acts 10:41.

Luke 24:44. Εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς] after the eating; a continuation of the same scene. According to the simple narrative, it is altogether unwarrantable to place an interval between these two passages.[277] No impartial reader could do this, and how easy would it have been for Luke to give a hint to that effect!

οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι κ.τ.λ.] these (namely, that I—as ye have now convinced yourselves—after my sufferings and death have actually arisen) are the words (in their realization, namely) which I spoke to you while I was yet with you, to wit, that all things must he fulfilled, etc. (the substance of the λόγοι). Jesus assuredly often actually said this to them, according to the substance generally. Comp. Luke 18:31 f., Luke 22:37; Matthew 26:56, and elsewhere.

ἔτι ὢν σὺν ὑμ.] for by death He was separated from them, and the earlier association with them was not, moreover, now again after the resurrection restored.[278]

ἘΝ Τῷ ΝΌΜῼ Μ. Κ. ΠΡΟΦ. Κ. ΨΑΛΜΟῖς] certainly contains in itself that which is essential of the Jewish tripartite division of the Canon into law (תוֹרָה), prophets (נְבִיאִים), and Hagiographa (כְּתוּבִים). Under the law was reckoned merely the Pentateuch; under the prophets, Joshua, Judges , 1 James , 2 d Samuel, 1James , 2 d Kings (נְבִיאִים רִאשׁוֹנִים), and the prophets properly so called, except Daniel (נְבִיאִים אַהֲרו̇נִים); under the Hagiographa, all the rest of the canonical Scriptures, including Daniel, Esther, Ezra and Nehemiah (the two reckoned together as one book), and Chronicles. See Bava Bathra f. xiv. 2; Lightfoot, p. 900. Yet, according to the use of προφητ. and ψαλμ. elsewhere (comp. Luke 20:42) from the mouth of Jesus, it is not to be assumed that He by these two designations intended to express that definite literary historical extent of the נביאים, and the whole of the Hagiographa. He means the prophets proper who have prophesied of Him (Luke 24:25), from whom He certainly, moreover, did not think Daniel excluded (Matthew 24:15); and by ΨΑΛΜ., the actual Psalms in the accustomed sense as that portion of the Scripture in which, besides the law and the prophets, the Messianic prophecy is chiefly deposited. Moreover, observe the non-repetition of the article before ΠΡΟΦ. and ΨΑΛΜ., whereby the three portions appear in their connection as constituting one whole of prophecy.

[277] But to say, with Ebrard, p. 596, that the passage vv. 44–49 depicts in general the whole of the teaching communicated to the disciples by Christ after His resurrection, is just as marvellous a despairing clutch of harmonistics. So also older harmonists, and even Grotius. Wieseler, in the Chronol. Synopse, p. 423 f., like Bengel and others, places between ver. 43 and ver. 44 the forty days, after the lapse of which ver. 44 ff. is spoken on the day of the ascension. But his proof depends on the presupposition that in the Gospel and in Acts 1. Luke must needs follow the same tradition in respect of the time of the ascension. The separation of ver. 44 from what precedes ought not only to have been prevented by the use of the δέ (comp. on ver. 50), but also by the use of the οὗτοι, referring as it does to what goes before. Lange, L. J. II. 3, p. 1679, represents ver. 45, beginning with τότε διὴνοιξεν κ.τ.λ., as denoting the forty days’ ministry of Jesus begun on that evening; for he maintains that the unfolding of the knowledge did not occur in a moment. But why not? At least there needed no longer time for that purpose than for the instructions of ver. 27. Rightly, Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 5, declares himself opposed to separations of that kind; nevertheless, he afterwards comes back to a similar arbitrary interpolation of the forty days in vv. 45–49. If the place for the forty days has first been found here, there is indeed sufficient room to place the direction of ver. 49, καθίσατε ἐν τῇ πόλει κ.τ.λ., first after the return of the disciples from Galilee, as Lange does; but Luke does not, since he here absolutely excludes a withdrawal on their part to Galilee. Ewald rightly recognises (Gesch. des Apost. Zeitalt. p. 93) that Luke limits all appearances of the Risen One to the resurrection Sunday. So also, impartially, Bleek, Holtzmann.

[278] Grotius well says: “nam tunc tantum κατʼ οἰκονομίαν illis aderat.”

Luke 24:46-47. Καὶ οὕτως ἔδει being deleted (see the critical remarks), the passage reads: for thus it is written that the Messiah should suffer and rise again, etc., and that there should be announced, etc. By means of ὅτι Jesus adds the circumstance in the way of motive, on account of which He opened their νοῦς, etc.; οὔτω, however, has its reference in these instructions just given: in the manner, in such a way as I have just introduced you into the understanding of the Scripture. What follows, being conceived under the form of doctrinal positions (“the Messiah suffers,” etc.) as far as the end of Luke 24:47, is then the Messianic summary of Old Testament prophecy.

ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόμ. αὐτοῦ] on the foundation of His name—on the confession of this name, to wit, by which the whole evangelic agency is supported—depends the announcement of repentance and forgiveness, as far as concerns their specific purpose and their characteristic nature. Comp. Acts 3:16; Acts 4:17 f., Acts 5:28; Acts 5:40.

ἀρξάμενον] for which Erasmus and Markland conjectured ἀρξαμένων,[279] is the impersonal accusative neuter: incipiendo (Herodotus, iii. 91, and thereon Schweighäuser), i.e. so that it (the office of the κηρυχθῆναι) begins, i.e. from Jerusalem (Ast, Lex. Plat. I. p. 288). See Winer, p. 550 [E. T. 779]; Bornemann, Schol. in loc. Comp. Buttmann, Neutest. Gr. p. 321 [E. T. 374 f.].

ἀπὸ Ἱερουσ.] as the metropolis of the whole theocracy. Comp. Isaiah 2:3; Isaiah 40:9, and elsewhere; Acts 1:8; Romans 15:19.

εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη] among all nations, Matthew 28:19.

[279] As D actually reads. Other attempts at improvement: ἀρξαμένην, ἀρξάμενος. In respect of ἀρξάμενοι, followed by Ewald, see the critical remarks.

Luke 24:48. Ἐστε] indicative.

τούτων] is arbitrarily referred only to the sufferings and the resurrection (so also Kuinoel and de Wette). It must belong to all the three points previously mentioned. Hence: “But it is your business to testify that according to the prophecies of Scripture the Messiah actually suffered, and is risen again, and repentance and forgiveness are announced on the ground of His name,” etc. Of the former two points the apostles were eye-witnesses; of the last, they were themselves the first executors, and could therefore in their office, testify of their experience that according to the prophecies of Scripture is announced, etc.

Luke 24:49. Encouragement to this calling of bearing witness by assurance of the sending of the Spirit, and they were not to leave Jerusalem until after they had received this mission. Comp. Acts 1:4. They were therefore soon to receive it, and not before their reception of it to enter upon their calling.

ἐγώ] it is I who send. The present of the near and certain future. Moreover, this assurance has as its presupposition the approaching ascension. Comp. John 7:39; John 16:7; John 16:13-15; Acts 2:33.

καθίσατε κ.τ.λ.] In respect of the difference of the evangelical traditions about the place of sojourn of the risen Lord and His disciples, see on Matthew 28:10. On καθίζειν, to remain, to abide in peace, comp. Acts 18:11.

Jesus characterizes the gifts of the Holy Ghost by the expression τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πατρός μου (Acts 1:4), so far as God promised the bestowal thereof by prophetic prediction.[280] Joel 3:1-2; Isaiah 44:1 ff.; Ezekiel 36:27; Ezekiel 39:29. Comp. Acts 2:16 ff.; and on Ephesians 1:13; Galatians 3:14. The pouring out of the Spirit is the realization of the promise of the Father.

ἕως οὖ ἐνδύσησθε δύναμιν ἐξ ὕψους] till ye have been endued with (definitely; hence without ἄν) power from on high (vim coelitus suppeditatam), to wit (comp. Acts 1:8), by the Holy Spirit. The power is distinct from the Spirit Himself, Luke 1:35. The metaphoric use of ἐνδύεσθαι and other verbs of clothing, to denote spiritual relations into which man is translated or translates himself (comp. also Romans 13:14; Galatians 3:27; Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:12), is not a Hebraism, but is also frequently found in the classical writers. See Kypke, I. p. 345. Comp. 1Ma 1:28; Sir 27:8; Test. XII. Patr. p. 587. So the Latin induere, Liv. iii. 33; Quint, Luke 1:1, and elsewhere; and the Hebrew לָבַשׁ, Jdg 6:34; 1 Chronicles 12:18.

ἘΞ ὝΨΟΥς] comp. Ephesians 4:8.

[280] The discrepancy, apparent indeed, though too much insisted on by Strauss, II. p. 645 ff., between the passage before us and John 20:22 f. is perfectly explained when it is observed that in this passage the communication of the Spirit κατʼ ἐξοχήν, which was the substance of the prophetic promise, is meant, and that this which was to follow at Pentecost does not exclude an earlier and preliminary communication.

Luke 24:50. Ἐξήγαγε κ.τ.λ.] namely, from Jerusalem (Luke 24:33; Luke 24:49), and that after the scene just related (Luke 24:36-49). Observe in respect of this—(1) that this ἐξήγ. κ.τ.λ. does not agree with Acts 10:40-41, because Jesus had openly showed Himself. (2) The immediate linking on by δέ, and therein the absence of any other specification of time, excludes (compare also the similar circumstance in Mark 16:19-20) decisively the forty days, and makes the ascension appear as if it had occurred on the day of the resurrection. Comp.Zeller, Apostelgesch. p. 77 f.; Schleiermacher, L. J. p. 463. The usual naive assumption is nothing else than an arbitrary attempt at harmonizing: οὐ τότ ἀλλʼ ἐν τῇ τεσσαρακοστῇ ἡμέρᾳ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν· τὰ γὰρ ἐν τῷ μέσῳ παρέδραμεν ὁ εὐαγγελιστής, Euthymius Zigabenus. Comp. Theophylact, Kuinoel, Ebrard, and many others, including Gebhardt, Auferst. Chr. p. 51 f. Luke himself could neither wish to leave the reader to guess this, nor could the reader guess it. That Luke also in other places goes on with δέ without any definite connection (in discourses: Luke 16:1, Luke 17:1, Luke 18:1, Luke 20:41; in events: Luke 20:27; Luke 20:41; Luke 20:45, Luke 21:1; de Wette, comp. Ebrard) in such an extension as this (according to de Wette, he forgot in Luke 24:50 to specify the late date), is an entirely erroneous supposition. There remains nothing else than the exegetic result—that a twofold tradition had grown up—to wit—(1) that Jesus, even on the day of the resurrection, ascended into heaven (Mark 16, Luke in the Gospel); and (2) that after His resurrection He abode still for a series of days (according to the Acts of the Apostles, forty days) upon the earth (Matthew, John). Luke in the Gospel followed the former tradition, but in the Acts the latter. Hence we may infer in regard to the latter account, either that he did not learn it until after the compiling of his Gospel, or, which is more probable, that he adopted it as the correct account. As to the variation in the traditions regarding the locality of the appearances of the risen Lord, see on Matthew 28:10.

ἔξω] with verbs compounded with ἐκ; see Lobeck, ad Aj. p. 334, ad Phryn. p. 10; Bornemann, Schol. p. 166.

ἕως εἰς Βηθ.] as far as to Bethany, not necessarily into the village itself, but (comp. Matthew 21:1) as far as to the part of the Mount of Olives where it enters into Bethany. Comp. Acts 1:12.

ἐπάρας τ. χεῖρας] the gesture of blessing, Leviticus 9:22.

Luke 24:51. Ἐν τῷ εὐλογ.] therefore still during the blessing,—not immediately after, but actually engaged in the discourse and attitude of blessing on parting from them. According to the usual reading: διέστη ἀπʼ αὐτῶν κ. ἀνεφέρ. εἰς τ. οὐραν., He separated Himself from them, and (more specific statement of this separation) was taken up into heaven. The passive voice does not require us to assume that there were any agents to carry Him up (according to de Wette, probably angels or a cloud). The imperfect is pictorial. Luke thinks of the ascension as a visible incident, which he has more fully represented at Acts 1. According to Paulus, indeed, κ. ἀνεφέρ. εἰς τ. οὐρ. is held to be only an inference! Moreover, if the words κ. ἀνεφέρ. εἰς τ. οὐρ. are not genuine (see the critical remarks), then the ascension is certainly meant even by the mere διέστη ἀπʼ αὐτῶν; but here it is not yet definitely indicated, which indication, together with the detailed description, Luke reserves for the beginning of his second book,—till then, that διέστη ἀπʼ αὐτῶν was sufficient,—the matter of fact of which was already incidentally mentioned at Luke 9:51, and was elsewhere familiar. On διέστη, secessit, comp. Hom. Il. xii. 86, xvi. 470; Valckenaer, Schol. in loc.

REMARK.

On the subject of the ascension[281] the following considerations are to be noted:—(1) Considered in general, it is incontestably established as an actual fact by means of the testimony of the New Testament.[282] For, besides that in the passage before us it is historically narrated (comp. with Acts 1 and Mark 16.), it is also expressly predicted by Jesus Himself, John 20:17 (comp. as early as the suggestion in John 6:62); it is expressly mentioned by the apostles as having happened (Acts 2:32-33; Acts 3:21; 1 Peter 3:22; Colossians 3:1 ff.; Ephesians 2:6; Ephesians 4:10. Comp. Acts 7:56; 1 Timothy 3:16; Hebrews 9:24); and it forms—and that, too, as a bodily exaltation into heaven to the throne of the glory of God—the necessary historical presupposition of the whole preaching of the Parousia (which is a real and bodily return) as of the resuscitation of the dead and transformation of the living (which changes have their necessary condition in the glorified body of Him who is to accomplish them, viz. Christ, 1 Corinthians 15:5 ff., 1 Corinthians 15:8; 1 Corinthians 15:16; 1 Corinthians 15:22-23; Php 3:20-21, and elsewhere). (2) But the idea of a visibly, yea, sensibly glorious event must the rather be considered as an addition of subsequent tradition which grew up as a reflection of the idea of the Parousia, Acts 1:11, since only Luke, and that certainly merely in the Acts (Mark not at all, Luke 16:18), expressly relates an event of that kind; but the first and fourth evangelists, although John had been an eye-witness, are wholly silent on the subject (including John 6:62), which they hardly either morally could have been or historically would have ventured to be, since such a highest and final external glorification would have incontrovertibly made good, even from a literary point of view, the forcible impression which that event would have necessarily produced upon the faithful, and would have just as naturally and incontrovertibly put forward this most splendid Messianic σημεῖον as the worthiest and most glorious copestone—the return to heaven corresponding to the heavenly origin. The reasons by which it has been sought to explain and justify their silence (see e.g. in Flatt’s Magaz. VIII. p. 67; Olshausen; Krabbe, p. 532 f.; Hug, Gutacht. II. p. 254 ff.; Ebrard, p. 602; Lange, II. p. 1762 ff.) are nothing more than forced, feeble, and even psychologically untenable evasions. Comp. Strauss, II. p. 657 f. (3) The body of the risen Lord was not yet in the state of glorification (it has flesh and bones, still bears the scars of the wounds, is touched, breathes, eats, speaks, walks, etc., in opposition to Theophylact, Augustine,[283] Krabbe, Ewald, Thomasius, Keim, and the old dogmatic writers); but, moreover, no longer of the same constitution as before the resurrection (Schleiermacher), but, as Origen already perceived, in a condition standing midway between[284] mundane corporeality and supra-mundane glorification—and immortal (Romans 6:9-10). Although, on account of the want of any analogy within our experience, such a condition of necessity does not admit of a more exact representation, yet still it explains in general the sort of estrangement between the risen Lord and His disciples,—the partial doubt of the latter as to His identity, His not being hindered by the crucifixion wounds, His marvellous appearance and disappearance, and the like; moreover, by the consideration that Jesus rose again in a changed bodily constitution, the physiological scruples which have been raised against His rising from not merely apparent death are removed. The actual glorification whereby His body became the σῶμα πνευματικόν (1 Corinthians 15:45-47), the σῶμα τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ (Php 3:21), first began in the moment of the ascension, when His body was transformed into the spiritual body, as they who are still living at the time of the Parousia shall be transformed (1 Corinthians 15:51-52), still with this difference, that the body of the latter up to that moment is still mortal (1 Corinthians 15:53), whereas the body of Christ, even from the time of the resurrection, was immortal; hence also an appeal to the marvellous healing power of Jesus, which was powerfully exercised on Himself (Hase, L. J. § 118), is here insufficient and inapplicable. The perfecting of this glorification of the body of Christ is not to be regarded as a matter to be perceived by the senses, since in general a glorified bodily organ does not fall into the category of things perceptible by human sense. The same is the case with the taking up of the glorified Christ into heaven, which, according to the analogy of Luke 24:31, is perhaps conceivable in the form of a vanishing. (4) Of the two traditions which had grown up in regard to the time of the ascension (see on Luke 24:50), in any case the one bearing that after His resurrection Jesus still abode on earth for a series of days, is decidedly to be preferred to the other, that even as early as the day of resurrection He also ascended. And this preference is to be given on the preponderating authority of John, with which is associated also Paul, by his account of the appearances of the risen Lord, 1 Corinthians 15:5-7,[285] and the notices of Acts 10:41; Acts 13:31.[286] Still there must remain a doubt therein whether the definite specification of forty days does not owe its origin to tradition, which fixed the approximate time (comp. Acts 13:31) at this sacred number. The remarkable testimony of Barnabas, Ep. 15 (ἄγομεν τὴν ἡμέραν τὴν ὀγδόην εἰς εὐφροσύνην, ἐν ᾗ καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν καὶ φανερωθεὶς ἀνέβη εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς), in no way agrees with the forty days.[287] (5) If the appearances of the risen Lord are transferred as products of the imaginative faculty into the subjective region (Strauss, Holsten, and others), or if, in spite of the unanimous attestation of the third day as being that on which they first began, they are viewed as spiritual visions of the glorified One in the deepest excitement of aspiration and prayer (Ewald, Gesch. d. Apost. Zeitalt. p. 68 ff.); then, on the one hand, instead of the resurrection, in the sense of the New Testament, as an historical starting-point, there remains only the personal continuance of the exalted One (Schenkel); and, on the other hand, the ascension does not appear as an objective fact, but just as nothing more than the end of that powerful excitement, and this must carry with it the conclusion that from him to whom He in such wise appeared, the glorified One vanished again tranquilly into His everlasting glorification with God (Ewald, l.c. p. 95 ff.). Every spiritualizing of those appearances into internal experiences, “into glorifications of the image of His character in the hearts of His faithful people” (Schenkel), and the like, must convert a strange, widespread fanaticism into the fruitful mother of the mighty apostolic work, and into the foundation of the ecclesiastical edifice, but must regard the Gospel narratives on the matter as products and representations of self-deceptions, or as a kind of ghost stories,—a view which the narratives of the Apostle John in reference thereto most decisively forbid. Comp. on Matt., Remark after Matthew 28:10. This, withal, is opposed to the generalization of the concrete appearances into continued influences of the Lord, who still lived, and of His Spirit (Weizsäcker), in which for the ascension, as such, there is left nothing historical. Weisse’s view, moreover, is absolutely irreconcileable with the New Testament narratives, identifying as it does the ascension with the resurrection, so that, according to apostolic view, the fact was no going forth of the body from the grave, but the taking up of the soul (with a spiritual corporeality) out of Hades into heaven, whence the exalted One announced Himself in visions (see also Weisse, Evangelienfrage, p. 272 ff.; Gebhardt, Auferst. Chr. p. 72). To make out of the ascension absolutely the actual death which Jesus, being awakened from apparent death, soon after died (Paulus), could only be attained at the height of naturalistic outrage on the New Testament, but is not avoided also by Schleiermacher in his wavering expressions. The mythical construction out of Old Testament recollections (Strauss), and the directly hostile crumbling and destruction of the Gospel narratives (Bruno Bauer), amount to subjective assumptions contradictory of history; whilst, on the other hand, the revival of the Socinian opinion of a repeated ascension (Kinkel in the Stud. u. Krit. 1841, p. 597 ff.[288]) depended on erroneous interpretations of single passages (especially John 20:17). Finally, the abandoning of all attempts historically to ascertain the fact (de Wette on Luke 24:53) does justice neither to the accounts and intimations of the New Testament itself, nor to the demands which science must make on the ground of those intimations.

[281] Heaven is not herein to be taken in the sense of the omnipresence of the courts of God, as the old Lutheran orthodoxy, in the interest of the doctrine of Christ’s ubiquity, would have it (thus also Thomasius, Christi Pers. u. Werk, II. p. 282 ff.), or of the unextended ground of life which bears the entire expanse of space (Schoeberlen, Grundl. d. Heils, p. 67), but locally, of the dwelling place of the glory of God; see on Matthew 6:9; Mark 16:18; Acts 3:21. Erroneously, likewise in the sense of ubiquity, says Gess, Pers. Chr. p. 265: “Where Jesus, according to His divinity, chooses to be essentially present, there He will also be according to His human corporeality.” No; according to the New Testament view, it must mean: He there effectuates this His presence by the Holy Spirit in whom He communicates Himself. See, especially, John 14-16.; Romans 8:9-10. A becoming bodily present is a marvellous exception, as in the case of Paul’s conversion, see on Acts 9:3. Calvin, Inst. II. 16, rightly designates the being of Christ in heaven as a corporalis absentia from the earth.

[282] Against the denial of the capability of historical testimony to prove the actuality of miracles in general, see, especially, Rothe, zur Dogmat. p. 84 ff.

[283] “Claritas in Christi corpore, cum resurrexit, ab oculis discipulorum potius abscondita fuisse, quam defuisse credenda est,” Augustine, De civ. Dei, xxii. 9.

[284] Comp. Martensen’s Dogmat. § 172; Schmid, Bibl. Theol. I. p. 118; Hasse, Leben d. verklärt. Erlös. p. 113, who, however, mingling truth and error, represents the resurrection body of Christ already as σῶμα πνευματικόν (“a confluence of spirit and body,” p. 123). More accurately, Taute, Religions-philosophie, 1852, II. 1, p. 340 ff.

[285] Although at 1 Corinthians 15. it is not possible definitely to recognise whether all the appearances, which are specified before ver. 8, occurred before or after the ascension. Very little to the point, moreover, does Strauss (Christus des Glaubens, p. 179) lay stress on the fact that Paul knows nothing of “touching and eating proofs.” These, indeed, did not at all belong to the purpose and connection of his representation, as little as in the Acts at the narrative of the conversion of Paul “broiled fish and honeycomb” could find a place.

[286] But to seek to make out an agreement between the narrative of Luke about the appearances of the risen Lord with that of Paul (see e.g. Holtzmann) can in no way be successful.

[287] It may be supposed, with Weisse, that the ascension was here placed on the resurrection Sunday, or, with Ebrard, Lange, and many others, that it was generally placed on a Sunday. In respect of the latter supposition, indeed, the number forty has been given up, and it has been taken as a round number and increased to forty-two. But if, with Dressel, Patr. Ap. p. 36, a point be put after νεκρῶν, and what follows be taken as an independent clause, this is a very unfortunate evasion, by means of which καὶ φανερωθεὶς κ.τ.λ. is withdrawn from all connection, and is placed in the air. Not better is Gebhardt’s notion, Auferst. Chr. p. 52, that Barnabas, in mentioning also the ascension, did not intend to make specification of date at all for it.

[288] Comp. moreover, Taute, Religionsphilosophie, II. 1, p. 380 ff., according to whom the resurrection of Christ is said to have been His first descent out of the intelligible region of the existence of all things, but the ascension His last resurrection appearance, so that resurrection and ascension are so related to one another as special epoch-making appearances of the Lord before the brethren after His death. With such extravagant imaginations of historical details of faith is the philosophy of Herbart, even against its will, driven forth far beyond the characteristic limits which by Herbart himself are clearly and definitely laid down.

Luke 24:52. Καὶ αὐτοί] and they on their part, after the Lord was separated from them (and was taken up into heaven). To the ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τ. οὐρ. corresponds in this place the equally suspicious προσκυν. αὐτόν (see the critical remarks on Luke 24:51 f.), which is referred to Him who was exalted to heavenly dominion.

μετὰ χαρᾶς μεγάλ.] at this final blessed perfecting of their Lord Himself (John 14:28), and at the blessing which they had just received from Him. “Praeludia Pentecostes,” Bengel. “Corpus suum intulit coelo, majestatem suam non abstulit mundo,” Augustine.

Luke 24:53. Καὶ ἦσαν διὰ παντὸς ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ] κατὰ τοὺς καιροὺς δηλονότι τῶν συνάξεων, ὅτε εἶναι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐξῆν, Euthymius Zigabenus. The popular expression διὰ παντός is not to be pressed (comp. Luke 2:37), hence it does not exclude the coming together in another locality (Acts 1:13; Acts 2:44) (in opposition to Strauss). Comp. Lechler, Apost. u. Nachapost. Zeitalt. p. 281. Moreover, after the pouring forth of the Spirit, they continued as pious Israelites daily in the temple, Acts 2:46; Acts 3:1.