A critical and exegetical commentary on the Gospel according to St. Luke,
Plummer, Alfred, 1841-1926
23. Katavoyoas ... Tavoupylav. Mt. has yvots .. . movyptay, Mk. <idws . . . tadxpiow. See on xii. 27 for Lk.’s fondness for ckatavoéw, In N.T., as in class. Grk., ravovpyia always has a bad meaning (1 Cor. iii. 19; 2 Cor. iv. 2, xi. 3; Eph. iv. 14). In LXX it may mean “versatility, skill” (Prov. i. 4, viii. 5). 24, Aci~até pot Syvdpiov. Mk. has dépere, which implies that they had to fetch it. They would not have heathen money on their persons. Mt. has zpooyveyxay aro, which implies the same thing ; and he calls it 76 véutopa rod Kyvoov, because this poll-tax had to be paid in denarit. Tl pe wedgere (AC D P) is an insertion here from Mt. and Mk. NBL omit. See Wright, Syzopsis, § 80, p. 73. Kaigapos. Probably that of Tiberius. There was no royal effigy on Jewish coins : and Roman copper coins, if for circulation in 39° 466 fHE GOSPFT, ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [XX. 24, 26 Palestine, had no image on them. It was a base piece of flattery on the part of Herod Philip that he placed on his coins the head of the emperor, and the dezarivs used on this occasion may have been one of his. It is possible but not probable that it was a foreign coin, such as circulated outside Palestine! “Judas of Galilee” (Acts v. 37; Jos, Avz. xviii. 1. 6, xx. 5. 2) or the Gaulonite (Avs. xviii. 1. 1) had denounced the payment of tribute to Czesar as treason against Jehovah, the only Lord that Israel could acknowledge (A.D. 6): and probably the Galileans who were listening to Jesus on this occasion were thoroughly in sympathy. But His adversaries had conceded the whole point when they aamitted that the coinage was Ceesar’s: for even Judaism admitted that coinage implies the right of taxati., and is evidence of the government to which submission is due. Ubdicungue numisma alicujus regis obtinet, illic incole regem istum pro domino agnoscunt (Maimon.). See Edersh. Z. & 7° ii P- 3853 Fix. of J. NV. p: 257. Grotius quotes Tiva éxe xapaxrjpa tovro TO T Tpagcdptor ; Tpravod (Arrian. Zpice. iv. 5. 17). 25. Tolvuy aréSote. This s the right order (SBL, Boh. Goth. Arm.), contrary to the best usa,e; and hence the correction dmédore Tolvus (ACPAATI). D, Syr-Sin. und Lat. Vet. omit rolvuy. For rolvu first in the sentence comp. Heb. xiii. 13 ; Is. iii. 10, v. 13, and contrast 1 Cor. ix. 265 Wisd. i. 11, viii. 9, The rolvuy (Mk. ofv) marks the sayings as a conclusion drawn from the previous admission: ‘‘ Then render to Czesar,” etc. 74 Katcapos Kaicapt, This is the answer to the Pharisaic portion of His questioners, as ra tod Ocod TG Oecd to the Herodian. The error lay in supposing that Czsar and God were mutually exciusive alternatives. Duty to Cesar was part of their duty to God, because for purposes of order and government Czesar was God’s vicegerent. In Rom. xii. 1, 2 S. Paul insists on the second of these principles, in xiii. 1-7 on the first. See detached note at the end of Rom. xiiii As Judza was an imperial province, its taxes would go to the jiscws of the emperor, not to the evarium of the senate. +4 Tod @eod. No one duty is to be understood to the exclusion of others, whether offerings in the temple, or penitence, etc. All duties owed by man to God are included.? For dodidwyu of paying what is due comp. Vil. 42, X 35, xil. 59; and see Wsctt. on Heb. 1Some ‘‘heretic” sent R. Juda an imperial denarius, and he was deciding not to accept it, when another Rabbi advised him to accept it and throw it into a well before the donor’s feet (Avoda Sara f. 6 quoted by Wetst. on Mt. XAll, 21); 2It may be doubted whether the idea that man bears the image of God just as the coin bears the image of Czesar is to be supplied: ‘‘ Render then the coin to Czesar, and give the whole man up to God” (Latham, 4 Servece of Angels, D. 50). + XX. 25, 26.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 467 xii. rr. They had said ¢dpov Sodvaz, as if the tribute was a gift. By substituting azddore He indicates that it is a due. 26. otk icxuoav . . . évavtiov tod Aaod. Peculiar to Lk., who draws special attention to this further victory of Jesus. All three record the wonder of His adversaries. For the constr. of a’rof see on ver. 20. This use of évyayrloy is common in LXX, but in N.T, is found only here, xxiv. 19; Acts vii. 10, viii. 32: comp. évavrt i. 8; Acts viii. 21. For Oavpaflery ért see on ii. 33, and for ovygv see on xviii. 39. 27-38. The Question of the Sadducees respecting a Woman with Seven Husbands. Mt. xxii. 23-33; Mk. xii. 18-27. Mt. tells us expressly that this took place év éxeivy ri jyépa. Lk. mentions the Sadducees several times in the Acts (iv. 1, v. 17, - xxiii, 6-8) but here only in his Gospel. Mk. also here only. This question was less dangerous than the previous one. It con- cerned a matter of exegesis and speculation, not of politics, and was doctrinal rather than practical. Like the first two questions, it aimed at destroying Christ’s influence with the multitude. While the first aimed at inspiring them with distrust, and the second at rousing their indignation against Him, this one is calcul- ated to excite their ridicule. If Jesus failed to answer it, He and His supporters would be placed in a grotesque position. The Sadducees were not popular, for the doctrine of the resurrection is precious to the majority of mankind, and they would be glad of this opportunity of publicly exhibiting the popular doctrine as productive of ludicrous results. Josephus says that when Sad- ducees became magistrates, they conformed to the views of the Pharisees, for otherwise the people would not tolerate them (Azzé. xviii. 1. 4). But the doctrine of the resurrection and of invisible powers (Acts xxiii. 8; Jos. B. 7. ii. 8. 14) was not the main point in dispute between Sadducees and Pharisees, but a deduction from the main point. The crucial question was whether the oral tradition was binding (Av#. xiii. 10. 6). The Pharisees con- tended that it was equal in authority to the written Law, while the Sadducees maintained that everything not written was an open question and might be rejected. Apparently the Pharisees were willing to concede that the doctrine of the resurrection is not to be found in the written Law; and indeed outside the Book of Daniel it is not clearly taught in O.T. What is said in favour of it (Job xix. 26; Ps. xvi. 9, 11; Is. xxvi. 19) seems to be balanced by statements equally strong on the other side (Ps. vi. 5, Ixxxviii. 10, II, cxv. 17 ; Eccles. ix. 4-10; Is. xxxviii. 18, 19). Hence it followed, on Sadducean principles, that the doctrine was without authority, and was simply a pious opinion. That the Sad- ducees rejected the O.T., with the exception of the Pentateuch, is a mistake of Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus, Jerome, and others; and perhaps arises from confusion with the Samaritans. But no Jew regarded the other books as equal in authority to the Books of Moses; and hence Jesus, in answering the Sadducees, takes His argument from Exodus (Bleek, Jt. to O.7. § 305, Eng. tr. ii. p. 310), The name Zaddouxaios probably comes from Zadok, the best attested form of which in many passages of LXX is Zaddovn (2 Sam. viii. 173 468 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XX. 27-33 Neh. iii. 29, x. 21, xi. 11, xiii. 13; Ezek. xl. 46, xliii. 19, xliv. 15, xlvili, 11): but whzch Zadok gave the name to the sect, remains doubtful (Schiirer, Jewish People in the T. of J. C. Il. ii. pp. 29-43; Hausrath, 4.7. Temes, i. pp. 136-150; Pressensé, Le Szécle Apostolique, pp. 87, 88, ed. 1888. For minor points of difference between Sadducees and Pharisees, see Kuenen, Religion of Israel, iii. pp. 234-238 ; Derenbourg, pp. 132-144). 27. tiwes Tv LaS8ouxaiwy ot héyovres. The of Aey. may agree with tives, or be an irregular description of tév 2088. In the latter case comp. Mk. xii. 40; but the former is better. All Sadducees held that the resurrection was not an article of faith, but some may have believed that it was true. One might render ot Xéyorres “who were saying” at that moment. A€yorres is the reading of NBCDL 1 33 etc., de Syr-Sin. Syr-Cur. Aegypt. Goth. Aeth., which is not discredited because it is also in Mt. But Tisch. follows APT AATI etc. in reading dvridéyortes. "Edv tivos &SeAbds. The quotation gives the substance rather than the wording of Deut. xxv. 5; comp. Gen. xxxvili. 8. The levirate law is said still to prevail among the Kalmucks and other nations in the East. See Morison on Mk. xii. 19. 29. énta otv adeXpol. The ody appears to indicate that what is about to be narrated was a consequence of this levirate law. But the ovy may be a mere particle of transition. Mt. inserts map iv, as if they professed to describe what had actually taken place. It is said to have been a well-known problem, the recog- nized answer to which was, that at the resurrection the woman would he the wife of the first brother. This answer Christ might have given; but, while it would have avoided the ridicule to which the Sadducees wished to expose Him, it would not have refuted their doctrine. D, Syr-Sin. cd ff,1q ins. wap’ jpiv here. dtexvos. ‘“ Childless” asin ver. 28: comp. ver. 31. All three imply that there was neither son nor daughter. And this is laid down in the Talmud,—that the deceased brother must have no child at all, although Deut. xxv. 5 says simply “have no son” (RV.). Some maintained that the levirate law, which to a large extent had gone out of use, did not apply to a wedded wite, but.only to a betrothed woman. The Mishna recommends that the levirate law be not observed. 80. kal 6 SevTepos. This is the reading of NBDL 157, e, omitting AhaBev after cal and ri yuvaika cal obros dwé@avev drexvos after 6 detrepos. These insertions are found in APT A ATI, Syr-Sin. Syr-Cur. Vulg. 81. od katéAumoy Téxva Kal dméfavov. The main point is placed first, although their death logically precedes. 83. tivos adrav yiverot yuv; The question is a plausible appeal to the rough common sense of the multitude, and is based upon the coarse materialistic views of the resurrection which then prevailed. XX. 34-36.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 469 84. Jesus begins by removing this erroneous basis and shows that the question is futile. The words oi viot tod aidvos... tuxetv are peculiar to Lk., who omits “ Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.” Comp. Eph. i. 21. 85. of Sé Katagiwwévtes Tod aidvos exeivov. One might have expected simply oi viot +. aiévos éx. But the substitution of xaéiwévres corrects the assumption that all the sons of this world will enter the Kingdom which begins with the resurrection. Comp. Acts v. 41; 1 Thes. i. 5. Nowhere else does oi aiwv éxeivos occur in N.T. It means the age beyond the grave regarded as an age of bliss and glory. See on Rom. xii. 2. In itself it implies resurrection; but, inasmuch as this is the doctrine in dispute, the resurrection is specially mentioned. The word dvd- otacts occurs Zech. ili. 8; Lam. ill. 63; Dan. xi. 20; title of Ps. Ixv. But not until 2 Mac. vii. 14, xii. 43 is it used of resurrection after death. Tis ék vexpov. This must be distinguished {" i.. [}] avaoracts tov] vexpdv. The latter is the more compreh.ie:ve term and implies that a// the dead are raised (Mt. xxii. 31 ; Acts xvii. 32, Ski G, Xx, 20, XXvL. 23° hom, £43 % Cor. xy. 12, 13, 425 Heb. vi. 2). Whereas davaoracis éx vexpdv rather implies that some from among the dead are raised, while others as yet are not. Hence it is used of the resurrection of Christ and of the righteous, and is equivalent to the avdoraois fwys (Acts iv. 2; 1 Pet. i. 3: comp. Col. i. 18). The avdoracis vexpdv includes the avacracis xpicews as well as the av. fwys (Jn. v. 29). Comp. xiv. 14; 1 Thes. iv. 16; Rev. xx. 5,6; and see Lft. on Phil. iii. 11 and Mey. on Rom. i. 4. With the construction comp. rovrov tuxeiv ov 7E.WOnv adres (Aesch. P. V. 239). yopiLovrar, Identical in meaning with yapiéoxovrat (ver. 34). In both verses the simple verb is the right reading. In both places TR. follows inferior authorities in reading éxyap. 86. obdé yap dmofavetv. The ydp means that the abolition of death involves the abolition of marriage, the purpose of which is to preserve the human race from extinction. For oi (ABDLP 106 157) Tisch. has ooré (NQRIAAT). It looks like a correction, todyyehou ydp eiow. The adj. occurs here only in bibl. Grk. and was probably coined by Lk. on the analogy of isdorepos (4 Mac. xvii. 5), ioude\ghos, iodbeos, x.7.A. Mt. and Mk. have @s dyyeAo. Grotius quotes from Hierocles rots icodatpovas Kat ivayyedous Kai Tois dyavois Hpwow dpuofovs. “They do not marry, because they cannot die; and they cannot die, because they are like angels ; and they are sons of God, being sons of the resur- 470 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XX. 36-38 rection.” In correcting the error of the Sadducees about the resurrection Jesus incidentally corrects their scepticism respecting Angels (Acts xxii. 8). See Latham, 4 Service of Angels, pp. 52-60. The connexion of kal viol elo.y Qcod is uncertain. The repetition of elowy is rather against the clause being taken with lodyyehou ydp elow. More probably it is co-ordinate with ovdé daofavety divayra. It is worth noting that both in Job i. 6, ii. 1, and Gen. vi. 2 LXX has not viol but dyyedou Tod Geod. Comp. I Cor. xv. 52; Rev. xxi. 4. But in any case it is the émmortality of the Angels, not their sexlessness or immateriality, that is the point of the argument. For tijs av. viol dvtes see on xxiii. 8. 87. Having shown that their question ought not to have been asked, being based upon a gross misconception of the conditions of the future state, Jesus proceeds to answer the objection which their question implied, viz. that the doctrine of the resurrectioz is inconsistent with the Mosaic Law. On the contrary, Moses implies the doctrine. The levirate law is no argument against a resurrection ; and the passage here quoted is a strong argument in favour of it. kat Mwuoys. “Even Moses,” who was supposed to be against the doctrine (Mey. Weiss, Holtzm.). Less well, ettam Moses, non modo prophetez (Beng.). Jesus quotes Moses because they had done so (ver. 28), not because the Sadducees accepted only the Pentateuch (Tert. Orig. Hieron.), which was not the case. épnvucev. Not, “hinted,” but “disclosed, intimated, revealed.” Both in class. and bibl. Grk. pyvvw is specially used of making known what was secret (Acts xxiii. 30; 1 Cor. x. 28; Jn. xi. 57; Soph. O. #&. 102). éxt tis Bdétou. “In the Bush,” ze. in the portion of Scripture known as “the Bush.” In Mk. we have év r7 BiBAw Movoews ért tod Barov, where AV. violently transposes ézi 7. 6.,—“ how in the bush God spake unto him.” Comp. 2 Sam. i. 18 and Rom. xi. 2. The O.T. was divided into sections, which were named after something prominent in the contents. Examples are quoted from the Talmud. The rhapsodists divided Homer into sections and named them on a similar principle. In the Koran the chapters are named in this way. But the possibility of the simple local meaning here must not be excluded. The gender of Bdros varies. Here and Acts vii. 35 it is fem. In Mk. and in LXX it is masc. (Exod. iii. 2, 3, 4; Deut. xxxiii, 16). So also in Polyb. and Theophr. Several Old Latin texts here read szcut dixet vide in rubo (cfff,ilq), which seems to imply a Greek text ws Aéye eldop éy Tp B. 88. The Sadducees based their denial of the resurrection on the alleged silence of Scripture and on the incredibility of exist- ence after the death of the body (Jos. 2. /. ii. 8.14). Christ XX. 88-40.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 471 demolishes their premises by showing that Scripture is not silent, but teaches the reality of existence after death. His argument has less force against those who admit existence after death, but hold that this existence of the soul apart from the body will continue for ever. This, however, was not the error which He was combating, and perhaps was not a common view. Yet even against this error the argument has force, as Bengel points out. Deus non est non entis deus: tpse est deus vivens; ergo tt gut deum habent, vivese debent, et qua parte vivere intermiserant, reviviscere in perpetuum, But perhaps this is more than is in- tended. What is obvious is this:—Dead things may have a Creator, a Possessor, a Ruler: only living beings can have a God. If Abraham or any of the patriarchs had ceased to exist when he died, God would have ceased to be his God. “I am the God of Abraham” implies that Abraham still lives. Comp. oi da tov @cov axobavevres Ldcw 74 OG, dorep “ABpadp x. "Ioadx x. “TaxdB (4 Mac. xvi. 25).2 It is in reference to us that they seem to die- in reference to Him zavres ficou. The mdvtes need not be re- stricted to the three patriarchs: it includes all who are mentioned in vv. 35, 36. Mk. adds zoAd zAavaobe, but the condemnation of this doctrinal error is less severe than of the Pharisaic hypocrisy 89, 40. The Testimony of the Scribes. Some of the Pharisees could not refrain from expressing their admiration of the manner in which Jesus had vanquished their opponents. That proof of the doctrine of the resurrection, which Sadducees had defied the Pharisees to find in the Pentateuch, Jesus had produced, and in the most convincing manner. The scribes were now persuaded that it was useless to ply Jesus with hard questions. Such attempts merely gave Him the opportunity of winning victories But we learn from Mt. and Mk. that one of them came forward to try Him once more (zepdé{wv aizrév) with a question that was much debated, as to which commandment was chief. There is nothing to show, however, that there was any snare in the ques- tion: the scribe may have wished to try His sagacity on a point which was very interesting. That a similar inquiry has been narrated elsewhere (x. 25), may be Lk.’s reason for omitting the incident here. 40. ydp. The fact that this was not understood caused it to be altered if many texts into 6é. Godet maintains that it ‘‘ has absolutely no sense,” and 1 Gamaliel is said to have silenced Sadducees by quoting such promises as Deut. i. 8, xi. 9. God’s promises must be fulfilled, and these were not fulfilled to the patriarchs during their lifetime. Again, if God quickened buried seed, how much more His own people (Edersh. A7st. of J. N. p. 316). 2? The Fourth Book of Maccabees, although written before the destruction of Jerusalem, was probably written not verv long before Christian interpola- tions, or conscious imitations of Christian phraseology, are possible (Scbirer, Jewish People in the T. of J. C. Ul. iii. p. 244). 472 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XX. 40-42, erroneously states that WH. have abandoned it. It is attested by NBL, 33, Aegyptt., and gives excellent sense. Some of His opponents praised Him, Jor they saw that He was always victorious, and that they must risk no more defeats. 41-44 Jesus in turn asks a Question about David and the Messiah. Mt. xxii. 41-46; Mk. xii. 35-37, where see Gould. It is yet another opportunity of instructing them, not of vanquishing and humiliating them, that is sought. The approbation recorded in ver. 39 (comp. Mk. xii. 32) gave signs that some of His opponents were open to conviction, and might even now recognize the Christ. 41. mpds adtots. The scribes who had expressed admiration are perhaps chiefly meant. In any case, “unto them” and not “in reference to them” is the meaning. Nas Adyouow. Mt. gives of ypapparets as the subject of Aéyovow, which does not imply that the scribes had gone away. “‘ With what right do teachers say?” This is the usual doctrine; but do people consider what it involves in reference to other statements ? 42. airds ydp. This is the reading of §XBLR 1 33, 1, Aegyptt., and may be safely preferred to cal airés (A D P, Syrr. Vulg. Goth.). Q has xal autos yap. év BiBkw Yahav. See on iii. 4. Mt. has wvevyore and Mk. TO Tv. TO ayiw for BiBAw Vorpaov. The quotation is verbatim the same in all three, excepting that Mt. and Mk. have tzoxarw for the brorddiov of LXX. and Lk. All three omit the 6 before Kvptos. In the Hebrew we have different words for Lord: “ Jehovah saith to my Adonai.” Ps. cx. was always believed to be Messianic, and to have been written by David. ‘That it is Messianic is a matter of spiritual interpretation; and, as Jesus here gives this doctrine the sanction of His authority, no loyal Christian will consider that he is free to question it. The authorship of the Psalm is a question of ¢ritcism; and nothing in the method of Christ’s teaching, or in the contents of Scripture generally, warrants us in believing that He here frees us from the duty of investigating a problem which is capable of being solved by our own industry and acuteness. We have no right to expect that Scripture will save us from the discipline of patient research by supplying. us with infallible answers to questions of history, chronology, geology, and the like. _ The last word has not yet been spoken as to the authorship of Ps. cx.; but it is a mistake to maintain that Jesus has decided the question. There is nothing antecedently incredible in the hypothesis that in such matters, as in other details of human information, He condescended not to know more than His contemporaries, and that He therefore believed what He had been taught in the school and in the synagogue (see footnote, p. 124). Nor ought we XX. 42-44] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 473 summarily to dismiss the suggestion that, although He knew that the Psalm was sot written by David, He yet abstained from challenging beliefs respect- ing matters of fact, because the premature and violent correction of such beliefs would have been more harmful] to His work than their undisturbed continuance would be. In this, as in many things, the correction of erroneous opinion might well be left to time. But this suggestion is less satisfactory than the other hypothesis. It should be noticed that, while Jesus affirms both the inspiration (Mt. Mk.) and the Messianic character (Mt. Mk. Lk.) of Ps. cx., yet the argumentative question with which He concludes need not be under- stood as asserting that David is the author of it, although it seems to imply this. It may mean no more than that the scribes have not fairly faced what their own principles involve. x. 18). But it need mean no more than that the young man who addressed esus as ‘Good Master” ought to reflect as to the significance of such ge before making use of it.? 44, xal mas adroit vids éotww; De Wette and Strauss both point out that this question must imply either (1) that the Messiah is zo? the Son of David, or (2) that the inspired Psalmist teaches that the Messiah is no mere political deliverer. Strauss, with Schenkel and Volkmar, prefers the former alternative.* But it is incredible that, even if Jesus were a mere buman teacher, He would thus gratuit- ously have contradicted the express utterances of Scripture (2 Sam. vii. 8—29 ; Is. ix. 5-7, xi. I-10; Jer. xxili. 5-8; Mic. v. 2) and the popular belief which was built upon them ; especially as this belief was a valuable help to His own work (xviii. 38; Mt. xv. 22, xii. 23, xxi. 9). Whereas, those who believe in His Divinity need have no difficulty in admitting, that, on a point which was no part of His teaching, Jesus might go all His human life without even rais- ing the question as to the truth of what was authoritatively taught about the authorship of this or that portion of Scripture. 45-47. The Condemnation of the Scribes. Like Mk. xii. 38-40, this seems to be a summary of the terrible indictment of 1“ Tf I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them out?” (Lk. xi. 19) is possibly a similar case. It need not imply that Jewish exorcists had succeeded in casting out demons, but only that they were credited with no diabolical witchcraft in making the attempt. The question may mean no more than “ Judge Me on the same principles as you judge your own exorcists.” See Wright ad /oc. and xvi. 19. On Ps. cx. see Gore, Bampton Lectures, 1891, Lect. vii. sub fin. and note 55; Driver, Zut. to Lit. of O.T. p. 362 and note; Perowne, Psalms, ii. P 302, with the remarks of Thirlwall there quoted ; Meyer on Mt. xxii. 43; Weiss on Mt. xxii. 43 with note; Bishop Mylne, Jzdian Ch. Quar. Rev. Oct. 1892, p. 486; Schwartzkopff, Konnte Jesus trren? 1896, pp. 21-36. 2 Latham is of the same opinion from a different point of view. He thinks that Jesus repudiated the title ‘‘ Son of David,” as implying that the Redeemer of the world was a Jewzsh Messiah, with a title based on legitimacy and genealogy (Pastor Pastorum, p. 415). 474 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XX. 45-47, the hierarchy given at length in Mt. xxiii. Lk. perhaps did not know the longer report preserved by Mt. As he had already given an account of a similar discourse (xi. 39-52), there was the less need to give a full report here. 45. *Axovovtos 8€ travrés tod Aaod. It is in the hearing of the multitude who had just been witnesses of the contest, in which the scribes had been so signally defeated, that Jesus utters His final condemnation of them. Comp. the ‘similar condemnation xii iy where as here we have zpocéyere dé, and see notes there. Comp. also the somewhat parallel passage in Ezek. xxii. 25: apralovres dpmdypara, | Yoxas xatecOiovres ev Swacreig, Kal Tyas AapPavovres kal ai xnpai cov edn OivOnoay €v péow cov. 46. wepimatetv év otodais. Mk. also has this Hellenized ex- pression for tAarvvovow 7a puvdAaxTypia adrdv (Mt. xxiii. 5). The saying from déoracpors év Tats ayopais to Tots Seizvors is in all three accounts. Comp. xiv. 7, and see Wetst. on Mt. xxiii. 6, 7. Salmon quotes AV. of this and of Mk. xii. 38 in illustration of the variety which independent translation is sure to produce. Here, ‘‘ /ove to go in long clothing, and love sa/utatzons in the market places and the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts, which for a pretence make lo prayers.” In Mark, ‘‘desire, walk, robes, greetings, markets, highest, chief show” for the words in italics, the Greek in all cases being the same. tév Behévtwv Tepiwatetv. This constr. of 0é\w = ‘like, love” ¢, enfin. occurs only here and Mk. xii. 38. It is perhaps an extension of the ” Hebraistic 0éhw twa or 7s = “take delight in,” and in Mk. xii. 38 an acc. in coupled with the infin. Comp. Mt. xxvii. 43, ix. 13; xii. 7; Heb. x. 5, 8. But Lk. separates the acc. from @eAdvrwy by inserting the more usual grotvTwv, Win. liv. 4, p. 587. What follows is common to all three accounts, See on xi, 43 and xiv, 7. 47. ot KatecQiovci tas oikias tov xnpov. Comp. Mk. xii. 40; but this item in the condemnation is not found in the true text of Mt. xxiii. Probably wealthy widows are chiefly meant. They de- voured widows’ houses by accepting hospitality and rich presents from pious and weak women. Sexus muliebris ut ad superstitionem pronior ita magis patet ad eas fraudes (Grot.). They would find widows a specially easy prey, and their taking advantage of the defenceless aggravated their guilt. C’éfatent les Tartuffes de Pépoque (Godet). Josephus says of the Pharisees ofs trjxro 7 youaixuviris (Ant. xvii. 2. 4). Comp. the cases of Fulvia (xviii. 3. 5) and of Helene (xx. 2. 5) as instances of devout and benevolent women. ‘The wife of Pheroras, brother of Herod the Great, paid the fines of thousands of Pharisees who had been fined for refusing to swear loyalty to Cesar (xvii. 2. 4). The Talmud gives evidence of the plundering of widows. Jnter plagas que a Phariseis pro- veniunt hxc etiam est. Est gut consultat cum orphanis, ut alimenta viduex eripiat (Sota Hieros. f. 20. 1, Schoettg. i: 199) Ofa plundered widow R. Eleazar says, Plaga Phariseorum tetigit illam, XX. 47-XXI.8.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 475 Ajpipovrat wepicadtepov Kpipa. The “more abundant” may be understood in two ways: (1) in proportion to the high estimation in which they were held in this world; or (2) in proportion to the hypocrisy which makes a trade of religion (Gould). Qui male agit, gudicatur. Qui bono abutitur ad malum ornandum, magis judicatur (Beng.). For \jpyopor kpipa comp. Rom. xiii. 2; Jas. iii. 1 ; and for meptcodtepov see on vii. 26. XXI. 1-4. The Widow’s Mites. Mk. xii. 41-44. The incident is not recorded by Mt. The saying respecting “ widows’ houses” might lead to the preservation of this narrative. Mk. and Lk. give both, Mt. neither. 1. "AvaBdépas. Mk. has xaficas. The long discussions had wearied Him, and He had been sitting with downcast or closed eyes. ‘ eidey tods BddAovtas ... mAouclous. Either, “He saw the rich who were casting,” etc. Or, “ He saw those who were casting . . » Tich people.” The former is better. In either case the im- perf. part. expresses what was continually going on: vidit eos gui mittebant munera sua in gazophylacium divites (Vulg.). 76 yalopuddxiov. We are not sure that there was a separate building called the Treasury. But the thirteen trumpet-mouthed boxes which stood in the spacious Court of the Women appear to have been known as the Treasury. These Skhofaroth or “trumpets” were each of them inscribed with the purpose to which the money put into them was to be devoted. See Edersh. The Temple, p. 26. Besides these there was the strong-room whither their contents were taken from time to time. This, however, cannot be meant here. Comp. Jn. viii. 20. Both in LXX and in Josephus we find sometimes 7a yatoduvAdxia (Neh. x. 38, xiii. 9; B. J. v. 5. 2, vi. 5. 2), sometimes 7d yafopuAdkiov (2 Kings xxill. 11; 1 Mac. xiv. 29; Azé, xix. 6. 1): and we cannot say that there is any difference of meaning. 2. wevixpdvy. Exod. xxii. 25; Prov. xxviii. 15, xxix. 7; but nowhere else in N.T. Vulg. and 1 have pauperculam: see also Vulg. of Is. Ixvi. 2. Note the teva. hevrTé& So. See on xil. 59. The exact amount would not be visible from a distance. Jesus knew this, as He knew that it was all that she had, supernaturally. It was not lawful to offer less than two ferutahs or mites. This was therefore the smallest offering ever made by anyone; so that Bengel’s remark on the two mites is out of place: guorum unum vidua retinere potuit. She could have kept doth. 3. “Adn%as Adyw Syiv. Introduces something contrary to the usual view. Here, as in ix. 27 and xii. 44, Lk. has dA70Gs, where Mk. or Mt. has apyv. 476 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXL 3-5. mhetov mévtav. Von modo proportione geometrita, sed animo, quem spectabat Dominus (Beng.). For m)etov (AB T'A AIl), which is supported by Aeov (8), Tisch. prefers mAelw (DQ X), which is supported by w)clova (L). Orig. has aAciov several times. 4. mdvtes yap otro. Pointing to those of them who were still in sight. A eis Ta SGpa. “ Unto the gifts,” which were already in the oxes. €k Tod botepypatos. Comp. 2 Cor. viii. 14, xi. 9; Judg. xix. 20; Ps, xxxili. 10. Whereas they had more than they needed for their wants, she had less: they had a surplus, and she a defiait. Yet out of this deficient store she gave,—gave all she had. The Latin Versions vary much in rendering both expressions: de exuper- antia (s), de co quod superfuit zllis (e), de quo super zllis fuct (a), ex eo quod abundavit tllis (f), ex abundant (Vulg.): de exiguttate sua (a), de tnopia sua (er), de minimo suo (d), ex co guod deest zi (f Vulg.). mdvta tov Biov. All that she had to support her at that time: comp. Vili. 43, xv. 12, 30; Cant. viii. 7; Soph. Phil. 933, 1283. 5-36. The destruction of the Temple and of Jerusalem fore- told. Mt. xxiv. 1-36; Mk. xili. 1-32. The section falls into three divisions: the Occasion of the Prophecy (5-7), the Prophecy (8-28), the Exhortation to Vigilance based on the Parable of the Fig Tree (29-36). Edersheim has shown in detail how different contemporary Jewish opinion respecting the end of the world was from what is contained in this prediction, and therefore how unten- able is the hypothesis that we have here only a reflexion of ordinary Jewish tradition (Z. & TZ. ii. pp. 434-445). 5-7. Lk. gives no indication of time or place. Mk. and Mt. tell us that it was as Jesus was leaving the precincts that the remark of the disciples was made. The discourse as to the comparative merits of the offerings made in the Temple would easily lead on to thoughts respecting the magnificence of the temple itself and of the votive gifts which it received. 5. tiwwv Aeysvtav. Mt. and Mk. tell us that these were disciples. Here again Cod. Bezae has a reproduction of the gen. abs. in Latin, quorundam dicentium: comp. ver. 26. AiBorg Kadois. Some of the stones of the substructure were enormous. The colurns of the cloister or portico were monoliths _of marble over forty feet high. See Josephus, whose account should be read in full (2.7. v. 5), Tacitus (#s¢. v. 12), Milman (Hist. of the Jews, ii. bk. xvi. p. 332), Edersheim (Zempée, p. 21), Renan (V de/. p. 210). “It is almost impossible to realise the XXI. 5-7.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 477 effect which would be produced by a building longer and higher than York Cathedral, standing on a solid mass of masonry almost equal in height to the tallest of our church spires” (Wilson, Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 9). éva?jpacwv. Mt. and Mk. say nothing about the rich offerings, which were many and various, from princes and private individuals (2 Mac. iii. 2-7): e.g. the golden vine of Herod, with bunches as tall asa man (Jos. B. /. v. 5. 4; Ant. xv. 11. 3: comp. xvii. 6. 3; XViii. 3. 5, xix. 6. 1). Ji/ic immense opulentiz templum (Tact. Hist. v. 8.1). For dva$yya comp. 2 Mac. ix. 16; 3 Mac. ili. 17; Hat. i. 183. 6. Here only in N.T. On the relation between dvd@nua and dvd@eua see Ellicott and Lft. on Gal. i. 8; Trench, Syz. v. ; Cremer, Lex. p. 547. In MSS. the two words are often confounded. Here § AD X have dva@éuacw, which Tisch. adopts. 6. tatta & Gewpeite. Wom. pendens: comp. Mt. x. 14, xii. 36; Jn. vi. 39, Vii. 38, xv. 2, xvii. 2; Acts vil. 40. éXevoovtTat Hepat. ‘* Days will come”: no article. Comp. v. 35, XVii. 22, xix. 43, XXiii., 29. odk ddeOycerar AtOos eri A(Pw. A strange prediction to those who had been expecting that the Messianic Kingdom would imme- diately begin, and that Jerusalem would be the centre of it. Respecting the completeness of the fulfilment of this prediction see Stanley, Szm. & Pal. p. 183; Robinson, es. in Pal. i. p. 295. 7. Just as Lk. omits the fact that the remark about the glorious buildings was made as Jesus was leaving the temple (ver. 5), so he omits the fact that this question was asked while Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives. Mt. knows that it was “the disciples” who asked ; but the interpreter of Peter knows that Peter, James, John, and Andrew were the enquirers. Both state that the question was asked kar’ id/av. mote ovv tata éotat; They accept the prediction without question, and ask as to the date, respecting which Christ gives them no answer: comp. xiil. 23, 24, xvil. 20. Perhaps they con- sidered that this temple was to be destroyed to make room for one more worthy of the Kingdom. Their second question, ri 76 onpetov, shows that they expect to live to see the preparatory catastrophe. 8-28. The Prophecy. The Troubles which will follow the Departure of Christ—False Christs, Wars, Persecutions (8-19). The Destruction of Jerusalem (20-24). The Signs of the Return of the Son of Man (25-28). The record of the prediction in Mt. and Mk. is similarly arranged. But in all three records the out- lines of the two main events, with their signs, cannot always be disentangled. Some of the utterances clearly point to the Destruc- tion of Jerusalem; others equally clearly to the Return of the Christ. But there are some which might apply to either or both; 478 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXI. 8-11 and we, who stand between the two, cannot be sure which one, if only one, is intended. In its application to the lives of the hearers each event taught a similar truth, and conveyed a similar warning ; and therefore a clearly cut distinction between them was as little needed as an exact statement of date. Some of the early com- mentators held that the whole of the prophecy refers to the end of the world without including the fall of Jerusalem. 8. mAavnOyte. “Be led astray.” The verb is used nowhere else in Lk. It implies no mere mistake, but fundamental departure from the truth: Jn. vii. 47; 1 Jn. i. 8, ii. 26, iii. 7; Rev. ii. 20, xli. 9, XX. 3-10, etc. ‘“‘Deceive” (AV.) would rather be amardv (Jas. i. 26: comp. 1 Cor. ili. 18; Gal. vi. 3). émt 7@ dvdpatt pov. Christ’s name will be the dasés of their claim. We know of no false Messiahs between the Ascension and the fall of Jerusalem. Theudas (Acts v. 36), Simon Magus (Acts viii. 9), the Egyptian (Acts xxi. 38) do not seem to have come forward as Messiahs. Dositheus, Simon Magus, and Menander might be counted among the “ many antichrists” of 1 Jn. ii. 18, but not as false Christs. We seem, therefore, at the outset to have a sign which refers rather to Christ’s return than to the destruction of Jerusalem. 9. dxatactacias. Comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 33; 2 Cor. vi. 5, xii. 20; Jas. iii. 16; Prov. xxvi. 28; Tob. iv. 13. In Josephus we have abundant evidence of such things. ‘Tacitus says of this period— opimum casibus, atrox prelits, discors seditionibus, ipsd etiam pace sevum. Quatuor Principes ferro interemptt. Trina bella civilia, plura externa ac plerumque permixta (Hist. i. 2. 1).—wronOijrte. Only here and xxiv. 37: Mt. and Mk. have OpoetoGe. Set. It is so ordered by God: comp. xiii. 33, xvii. 25, xix. 5, xxiv. 7, 26, 44, 46. otk e0éws. First, with emphasis: “Not immediately is the end.” For “by-and-by” as a translation of ed#éws see on xvii. 7. By 18 7éAos is not meant 76 téAos ddivwv (comp. Mt. xxiv. 8), but mavtwv To TéAos (1 Pet. iv. 7), the end of the world and the coming of the Son of Man. 10. Téte édeyev adtots. A new introduction to mark a solemn utterance. The tore with é\eyey is unusual; but that does not make the combination of rére with éyepOyoerat (Beza, Casaubon, Hahn) probable. D, Syr-Cur. Syr-Sin. ade ff,ilr omit the words, éyepOyoetar €Ovos én €Ovos. Only here and in the parallels is this use of éyetpeo('o. eri twa found in N.T. Comp. éreyep6y- covrat Aiyvrruon er Aiyumrious . . . [ereyepOjoerac] woAus emt rod Kat vouos emt vopov (Is. xix. 2). 11. After describing the general political disturbances which XXI. 11-15.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 479 shall precede the end, Jesus mentions four disturbances of nature which shall also form a prelude: earthquakes, famines, pestilences, and terrible phenomena in the heaven. Lk. alone mentions the Aorpot (elsewhere in a metaphorical sense: Acts xxiv. 5; Prov. xxi. 24; Ps. i. 1; 1 Mac. xv. 21). Lk. alone also mentions the hoBnOpa te kat onpeia. On the prodigies which preceded the capture of Jerusalem see Jos. B. /. vi. 5. 3; Tac. Hist. v. 13. According to the better text (NBL, Aegyptt. Arm. Aeth.) card rézovus belongs to Aowwol kal Arwol, not (as in Mk.) to cecopol weyddot (A D, Latt.). Syr-Sin. has ‘‘in divers places” with both. Many authorities (§ ADL, de Boh.) have Awol x. Aomwol. For the paronomasta comp. fwhv kal mvojv (Acts xvii. 25); ywwones & dvaywdoxes (Acts viii. 30); uabev ad’ dv érabey (Heb. v. 8); évaluny in "Ovjomos (Philem. 20); rivés TSv KAddwy ébexAdo- @ycav (Rom. xi. 17). Some Latin, Syriac, and Aethiopic authorities here insert e¢ hzemes tempestates, ‘‘ probably from an extraneous source written or oral” (WH. ii. App. p. 63). Comp. the addition of kal rapaxal in Mt. xiii, 8. And as regards the terrors generally comp. 4 Esdr. v. 4-10. 12-19. Calamities specially affecting the Disciples; Persecu- tion and Treachery. While Lk. and Mk. emphasize the persecu- tion that will come from the Jews, Mt. seems almost to confine it to the Gentiles (but see Mt. x. 17-19). Jn. also records that Christ foretold persecution (xv. 18-21), and in particular from the Jews (xvi. 2, 3). The Acts may supply abundant illustrations. Note that Lk. has nothing about “the Gospel being preached ¢o all the nations” (Mk. xili. 10; Mt. xxiv. 14). Would he have omitted this, if either of those documents was before him? 12. mpd 8€ toUtwy. The prep. is certainly used of time, and not of superiority in magnitude. Persecutions are among the first things to be expected. The tendency of Mt. to slur the misdeeds of the Jews is conspicuous here. While Lk. mentions tas ovva- yoyds and Mk. adds cvvédpia, Mt. has the vague term @Aiuw. 13. dmoBycetar Gpiv cis paptipiov. “The result to you will be that your sufferings will be for a testimony.” A testimony to what? Not to the innocence of the persecuted, which is not the point: and they were commonly condemned as guilty. Possibly to their loyalty: comp. Phil. 1. 19. More probably to the truth of the Gospel, For the verb comp. Job xiii. 16; 2 Mac. ix, 24. 14, mpopederGv. The regular word for conning over a speech: here only in N.T. Mk. has the less classical rpoyepysvav. Comp. X. I9, 20, and see on xii. 11. Hahn would make the word mean anxiety about the resu/t of the defence. 15. éyo ydép. With emphasis: “all of that will be JZ care.” In the parallel assurances in Mt. x. 20 and Mk. xiii. 11 it is the help of the Holy Spirit that is promised. In form this verse is peculiar to Lk. By oroyva is meant the power of speech; by codia the choice of matter and form. Comp. eyo dvoifw 7d ordya cov 480 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXI. 15-19, (Exod. iv. 12), and dédwxa rods Adyous pou cis 7d oTdpa cov (Jer. i. 9). avtictyvat. This refers to copia (Acts vi. 10) as ayreurety to oropa. Their opponents will find no words in which to answer, and will be unable to refute what the disciples have advanced. Vos ad certamen acceditis, sed ego prelior. Vos verba editis, sed ego sum gui loguor (Bede). Quid: sapientius et tncontradicibilius confessione simplici et exserta in martyris nomine cum Deo invalescentis (Tert. Adv. Marc. iv. 39. 20). Holtzmann would have it that these verses (12-15) are the composition of the Evangelist with definite reference to the sufferings of S. Paul and S. Stephen. 16. kal bmd yovéwy. “ Hven by parents” (RV.) rather than “doth by parents” (AV.). Cov. also has “even.” Comp. xii. 52, 53; Mt. x. 35 for similar predictions of discord in families to be produced by the Gospel. Bavatdcouow. This verb is in all three accounts. It cannot be watered down to mean “put in danger of death” (Volkmar): ver. 18 does not require this evasion. Comp. é& atr&v amoxreveite <al oravpwoere (Mt. xxiii. 34) and é& airdy dzoxrevotow (Lk. xl. 49). Here é€ éuav naturally means “some of you Apostles.” Three of the four who heard these words—James, Peter, and Andrew—suffered a martyr’s death. 