4:1-13. The Internal Preparation for the Ministry of the Christ: the Temptation in the Wilderness, Matthew 4:1-11; Mark 1:12, Mark 1:13.

R. C. Trench, Studies in the Gospels, pp. 1-65, Macmillan, 1867; B. Weiss, Leben Jesu, I. 2:10, Berlin, 1882; Eng. tr. 1. pp. 319-354; H. Lathamn, Pastor Pastorum, pp. 112-146, Bell, 1890; P. Schaff, Person of Christ, pp. 32, 153, Nisbet, 1880; A. M. Fairbairn, Expositor, first series, vol. iii. pp. 321-342, Hodder, 1876; P. Didon, Jésus Christ, ch. iii. pp. 208-226, Plon, 1891.

Many futile and irreverent questions have been raised respecting this mysterious subject; futile, because it is impossible to answer them, excepting by empty conjectures; and irreverent, because they are prompted by curiosity rather than by a desire for illumination. Had the answers to them been necessary for our spiritual welfare, the answers would have been placed within our reach. Among such questions are such as these: Did Satan assume a human form, and change his form with each change of temptation, or did he remain invisible? Did he know who Jews was, or was he trying to discover this? Did he know, until he was named, that Jesus knew who he was? Where was the spot from which he showed all the kingdoms of the world?

Three points are insisted upon in the Epistle to the Hebrews (2:18, 4:15), and beyond them we need not go. 1. The temptations were real. 2. Jesus remained absolutely unstained by them. 3. One purpose of the temptations was to assure us of His sympathy when we are tempted. The second point limits the first and intensifies the third. The sinlessness of Jesus excluded all those temptations which spring from previous sin; for there was no taint in Him to become the source of temptation. But the fact that the solicitations came wholly from without, and were not born from within, does not prevent that which was offered to Him being regarded as desirable. The force of a temptation depends, not upon the sin involved in what is proposed, but upon the advantage connected with it. And a righteous man, whose will never falters for a moment, may feel the attractiveness of the advantage more keenly than the weak man who succumbs; for the latter probably gave way before he recognized the whole of the attractiveness; or his nature may be less capable of such recognition. In this way the sinlessness of Jesus augments His capacity for sympathy: for in every case He felt the full force of temptation.1

It is obvious that the substance of the narrative could have had only one source. No one has succeeded in suggesting any probable alternative. There is no Old Testament parallel, of which this could be an adaptation. Nor is there any prophecy that the Messiah would have to endure temptation, of which this might be a fictitious fulfilment. And we may be sure that, if the whole had been baseless invention, the temptations would have been of a more commonplace, and probably of a grosser kind. No Jewish or Christian legend is at all like this. It is from Christ Himself that the narrative comes; and He probably gave it to the disciples in much the same form as that in which we have it here.

1. πλήρης πνεύματος ἁγίου. These words connect the Temptation closely with the Baptism.1 It was under the influence of the Spirit, which had just descended upon Him, that He went, in obedience to God’s will, into the wilderness. All three accounts mark this connexion.; and it explains the meaning of the narrative. Jesus had been endowed with supernatural power; and He was tempted to make use of it in furthering His own interests without regard to the Father’s will. And here ἀνήχθη … πειρασθῆναι. (Matthew 4:1) must not be understood as meaning that Christ went into the wilderness to court temptation. That would be too like yielding to the temptation which He resisted (vv. 9-12). He went into the desert in obedience to the Spirit’s promptings. That He should be tempted there was the Divine purpose respecting Him, to prepare Him for His work. D.C.G. ii. P. 714.

Neither Mt.nor Mk. has ἄγιον as an epithet of πνεῦμα here (see on 1:15); and neither of them has Lk.’s favourite ὑπέστρεψεν.

ἤγετο ἐν τῷ πνεύματι τῇ ἐρήμῳ. “He was led in (not into) the wilderness,” i.e. in His wanderings there, as in His progress thither, He was under Divine influence and guidance. The imperf. indicates continued action. Tradition, which is not likely to be of any value, places this wilderness close to Jericho. Some region farther north is more probable. The ἡμέρας τεσσεράκοντα may be taken either with ἤγετο (RV.) or with πειραζόμενος (AV.). As the temptation by Satan was simultaneous (pres. part.) with the leading by the Spirit, the sense will be the same, whichever arrangement be adopted. In Mk. also the words are amphibolous, and may be taken either with ἦν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ or with πειραζόμενος. If we had only the account in Mt. we might have supposed that the temptations did not begin until the close of the forty days. The three recorded may have come at the end of the time, as seems to be implied with regard to the first of them. Or they may be given as representative of the struggles which continued throughout the whole period.

2. πειραζόμενος. The word is here used in its commonest sense of “try or test,” with a sinister motive. In N.T. it has three uses: 1. “try or attempt” to do (Acts 9:26, Acts 14:7, Acts 24:6); 2. “try or test, ” with a good motive (John 6:6; 2 Corinthians 13:5; Revelation 2:2), especially of God’s sending trials (1 Corinthians 10:13; Hebrews 11:17; Revelation 3:10); 3. “try or test, ” with a bad motive, in order to produce perplexity or failure (11:16; Matthew 19:3; [Jn.] 8:6), especially of tempting to sin (1 Corinthians 7:5; 1 Thessalonians 3:5; Jam 1:13). It is thus of much wider meaning than δοκιμάζειν (12:56, 14:19), which has only the second of these meanings. Trench, Syn. lxxiv.; Cremer, Lex. p. 494.

ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου. All three use ὑπό of the agency of Satan. He is not a mere instrument. Comp. 2 Corinthians 2:11; Acts 10:38. In N.T. διάβολος with the art. always means Satan, “the calumniator,” κατʼ ἐξοχήν. In Mt., Jn., Acts, Eph., 1 and 2 Tim., Heb., James, Jude, 1 Pet., and Rev. this use is invariable. It is possible that ὁ διάβολος was originally a translation of Satan = “the adversary.” In LXX ἐνδιαβάλλειν sometimes means “meet, oppose” (Numbers 22:22, Numbers 22:32), and διάβολος means “adversary” (1 Mac. 1:36). In Job (1:6-12, 2:1-7) and Zech. (3:1-3) ὁ διάβολος is used as in N.T. for Satan, as the accuser or slanderer of God to man and of man to God. In this scene he endeavours to misrepresent God, and to induce Jesus to adopt a false view of His relation to God.

The existence of such a being is sometimes denied, but on purely à priori grounds. To science the question is an open one, and does not admit of demonstration either way. But the teaching of Christ and His Apostles is clear and explicit; and only three explanations are possible. Either (1) they accommodated their language to a gross superstition, knowing it to be such; or (2) they shared this superstition, not knowing it to be such; or (3) the doctrine is not a superstition, but they taught the actual truth. As keim rightly says, one cannot possibly regard all the sayings of Jesus on this subject as later interpolations, and “Jesus plainly designated His contention with the empire of Satan as a personal one” (Jes. of Naz., Eng. tr. ii. pp. 318, 325). See Gore, Dissertations on Subjects connected with the Incarnation, pp. 23-27.

οὐκ ἔφαγεν οὐδέν. This does not agree well with the supposition that Jesus partook of the scanty food which might be found in the wilderness. The νηστεύσας of Mt. seems to imply the deliberate fasting which was customary in times of solemn retirement for purposes of devotion. But this does not exclude the possility that the mental and spiritual strain was so great that for a time there was no craving for food. In any case the want of food would at last bring prostration of body and mind; and then the violence of temptation would be specially felt. Both Mt. and Lk. appear to mean that it was not until near the end of the forty days that the pangs of hunger were endured. For συντελεῖσθαι of days being completed comp. Acts 21:27; Job 1:5; Tobit 10:7.1

3. εἶπεν. Mt. adds προσελθών, which is a very favourite expression of his.It does not necessarily imply corporal presence, although Mt. himself may have understood it in that sense. Jesus says of the approaching struggle in Gethsemane, “The prince of the world cometh” (John 14:30). Nowhere in Scripture is Satan said to have appeared in a visible form: Zechariah 3:1 is a vision. And nothing in this narrative requires us to believe that Satan was visible on this occasion.

Εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Both Mt. and Lk. have υἱός τ. Θ. without the article, the reference being to the relationship to God, rather than to the office of the Messiah. The emphatic word is υἱός. The allusion to the voice from heaven (3:22) is manifest, but is not likely to have occurred to a writer of fiction, who would more probably have written, “If Thou art the Christ.” The “if” does not necessarily imply any doubt in Satan, although Augustine takes it so;1 but it is perhaps meant to inspire doubt in Jesus: “Hath God said, Thou art My beloved Son, and yet forbidden Thee to give Thyself bread?” Comp. “Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of any tree of the garden?” (Genesis 3:1). The suggestion seems to be that He is to work a miracle in order to prove the truth of God’s express declaration, and that He may doubt His relation to God, if God does not allow the miracle.

This seems better than to regard the first temptation as a temptation of the flesh. If the food had been there, would it have been sinful for Jesus to partake of it? Again, it is sometimes said that it was a temptation to use His supernatural power to supply His own necessities. Among “the Laws of the Working of Signs” we are told was one to the effect that “Our Lord will not use His special powers to provide for His personal wants or those of His immediate followers.”2 This law perhaps does not hold, except so far as it coincides with the principle that no miracle is wrought where the given end can be obtained without miracle. Some of Christ’s escapes from His enemies seem to have been miraculous. Was not that “providing for a personal want”? His rejoining His disciples by walking on the sea might be classed under the same head. The boat coming suddenly to land might be called “providing for the wants of His immediate followers.” Had He habitually supplied His personal wants by miracle, then He would have ceased to share the lot of mankind. But it would be rash to say that it would have been sinful for Him to supply Himself with food miraculously, when food was necessary for His work and could not be obtained by ordinary means. It is safer to regard this as a temptation to satisfy Himself of the truth of God’s word by a test of His own. The singular τῷ λιθῳ τούτῳ is more graphic than the of οἰ λίθοι οὖτοι of Mt. A single loaf is all that He need produce. The similarity between lumps of stone and loaves of bread perhaps explains why this material, so common in the wilderness, was selected for change into food.

For the use of ἵνα after εἰπέ (10:40, 14:15, etc.) see Win. lxiv. 8, pp. 420-424; B. Weiss on Matthew 4:3; Simcox, Lang. of N.T. p. 177; Green, Gr. of N. T. p. 170. It is a weakening of the talk force of ba rather than a mere substitute for the infinitive. See Blass, Gr. pp. 217 ff.

4. Christ does not reply to the “if” by affirming that He is the Son of God; nor does He explain why the Son of God does not accept the devil’s challenge. He gives an answer which holds good for any child of God in similar temptation.1 The reply is a pointed refutation, however, of the special suggestion to Himself, ὁ ἄνθρωπος having direct reference to υἱὸς τ. Θεοῦ. Satan suggests that Gods Son would surely be allowed to provide food for Himself. Jesus replies that God can sustain, not only His Son, but any human being, with or without food, and can make other things besides bread to be food. Comp. “My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me” (John 4:34). The reply is verbatim as LXX of Deuteronomy 8:3. As all His replies come from this book, we may conjecture that Jesus had recently been reading it or meditating on it. The repeated use of a book which is so full of the trials of Israel in the wilderness may suggest a parallel between the forty days and the forty years. The direct reference is to the manna.

The addition of the remainder of the quotation in A D and other authorities comes from Mt. It differs in wording in the texts which insert it. If it were genuine here, its absence from the best authorities would be most extra ordinary. The insertion of ὁ διάβολος and of εἰς ὄρος ὑψηλόν in ver. 5, and the substitution of τοῦ κόσμου for τῆς οἰκουμένης, are corruptions of the same kind.

5. Lk. places second the temptation which Mt. places last The reasons given for preferring one order to the other are subjective and unconvincing. Perhaps neither Evangelist professes to give any chronological order. Temptations may be intermingled. It is very doubtful whether the τότε with which Mt. introduces the temptation which he places second, and the πάλιν with which he introduces his third, are intended to specify sequence in time. Many Lat. MSS. (Gbcflqr) here place vv. 5-8 after vv. 9-11. Lk.omits the command to Satan to depart;2 and we have no means of knowing which temptation it immediately followed. Mt. naturally connects it with the one which he places last.

ἀναγαγών. See on 2:22. The word does not require us to believe that Satan had control of Christ’s person and transferred Him bodily from the desert to a mountain-top. From no mountain could “ll the kingdoms of the world” be visible, least of all “in a moment of time.” If Satan on the mountain could present to Christ’s mind kingdoms which were not visible to the eye, he could do so in the desert. We may suppose that he transferred Jesus in thought to a mountain-top, whence He could in thought see all. For “all the kingdoms of the world” comp. Ezra 1:2, where we have τῆς γῆς for “of the world” in Mt. τοῦ κόσμου, which D substitutes here.

τῆς οἰκουμένης. A favourite expression with Lk. (2:1, 21:26; Acts 11:28, Acts 11:17:6, 31, Acts 11:14:27, Acts 11:24:5): elsewhere only six times, of which one is a quotation (Romans 10:18 from Psalm 14:5). It describes the world as a place of settled government, “the civilized world.” To a Greek it might mean the Greek world as distinct from barbarian regions (Hdt. 4:110, 4; comp. Dem. De Cor. p. 242). Later it meant “the Roman Empire,” orbis terrarum, as in 2:1 (Philo, Leg. ad Cai. 25). In inscriptions the Roman Emperor is ὁ κύριος τῆς οἰκουμέης Finally, it meant “the whole inhabited earth,” as here and 21:26 (Revelation 16:14; Hebrews 1:6; Jos. Ant. viii. 13, 4: B. J. vii. 3, 3). In Hebrews 2:5 it is used of the world to come as an ordered system: see Wsctt. Lk. omits καὶ τὴν δόξαν αὐτῶν here, but adds it in Satan’s offer.

ἐν στιγμῇ χρόνου. Puncto temporis: comp. ἐν ῥιπῇ ὀφθαλμοῦ (1 Corinthians 15:52). Not in Mt. Comp. Isaiah 24:5; Isa_2 Mac. 9:11. It intimates that the kingdoms were represented, not in a series of giants, but simultaneously: acuta fentatio (Beng.). To take ἐνστιγμῇ χρ. with ἀναγαγών is not a probable arrangement. With στιγμή (στίζειν=“to prick”) comp. stimulus, “stick,” and “Sting.”

6. Σοὶ δώσω … ὅτι ἐμοι παραδέδοται. Both pronouns are emphatic: “To Thee I will give … because to me it hath been delivered.”

The αὐτῶν after τὴν δόξαν is a constructio ad sensum, referring to the kingdoms understood in τὴν ἐξουσίαν ταύτην “this authority and jurisdiction.” In παραδέδοται we have the common use of the perf, to express permanent and present result of past action; “it has been given over” and remains in my possession: comp. γέγραπται (4, 8. 10) and εἴρηται (12).

Satan does not say by whom it has been given over; and two answers an possible: 1. by God’s permission; 2. by man’s sin. But the latter does not exclude the former; and in any case confitetur tentator, se non ease conditor (Beng.). That it refers to a Divine gift previous to his revolt against God, is agiatuitous conjecture. Christ Himself speaks of Satan as “the ruler of this world” (John 12:31, John 14:30, John 16:11). In the Rabbinical writings “Lord of this world” A a common name for Satan, as ruler of the heathen, in opposition to God, the Head of the Jewish theocrazy. The devil is the ruler of the un believing and sinful; but he mixes truth with falsehood when he claims to have dominion over all the material glory of the world. Comp. Ephesians 2:2; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Revelation 13:2. In ᾦ ἅν θέλω the mixture of falsehood seems to be still greater. Even of those who are under the dominion of Satan it is only in a limited sense true that he can dispose of them as he pleases. But the subtlety of the temptation lies partly in the fact that it appeals to what is in a very real sense true. Satan intimates that the enormous influence which he possesses aver human affairs may be obtained for the promotion of the Messiah’s Kingdom. Thus all the pain and suffering, which otherwise lay before the Saviour of the world, might be evaded.1

7. ἐὰν προσκυνήσῃς. Mt. adds πεσών which, like προσελθών indicates that be may have believed that Satan was visible, although this is not certain. Even actual prostration is possible to an invisible being, and “fall down and worship” is a natural figure for entire submission or intense admiration. In the East, prostration is an acknowledgment of authority, not necessarily of personal merit. The temptation, therefore, seems to be that of admitting Satan’s authority and accepting promotion from him.

ἐώπιον ἐμοῦ. Lk.’s favourite expression (1:15, 17, 19, 75, etc.), The usual constr. after προσκύεῖν is the acc. (ver. 8; Matthew 4:10; Revelation 9:20, Revelation 9:13:12, Revelation 9:14:9, Revelation 9:2) or the dal. (Acts 7:43; John 4:21, John 4:23; Revelation 4:10, Revelation 7:11) 4: but Revelation 15:4 as here.

ἔσται σοῦ πᾶσα. “The ἐξουσία which has been delivered to me I am willing to delegate or transfer”: magna superbia (Beng.). The acceptance of it would be equivalent to προσκύνησις. Just as in the first case the lawful desire, for food was made an occasion of temptation, so here the lawful desire of power, a desire specially lawful in the Messiah. Everything depends upon why and how the food and the power are obtained. Christ was born to be a king; but His Kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36, John 18:37), and the prince of this world has nothing in Him (John 14:30). He rejects the Jewish idea of the Messiah as an earthly potentate, and thus condemns Himself to rejection by His own people. He rejects Satan as an ally, and thereby has him as an implacable enemy. The end does not sanctify the means.

8. προσκυνήσεις. Mt. also has this word in harmony with Satan’s προσκυνήσῃς; but in LXX of Deuteronomy 6:13 we have φοβηθήσῃ: see on 7:27.—λατρεύσεις. Lit. “serve for hire” (λάτρις = “hireling”). In class. Grk. it is used of the service of slaves and of freemen, whether rendered to men or to God: in N. T. always of religious service, but sometimes of the worship of idols (Acts 7:42; Ram. 1:25). Trench, Syn. xxxv. Propositum out Domino humilitate diabolum vincere, non potehtia (Jerome).

9. τὸ πτερύγιον τοῦ ἱεροῦ. It is impossible to determine what this means. The article points to its being something well known by this name. The three points conjectured are: 1. the top of the Royal Porch, whence one looked into an abyss (Jos. Ant. 15:11, 5); 2. the top of Solomon’s Porch; 3. the roof of the ναός. It was from τὸ πτερύγιον τοῦ ἱεροῦ that James the just was thrown, according to Hegesippus (Eus. H. E, 2:23, 11, 16). Had any part of the ναός been intended, we should perhaps have had τ. ναοῦ rather than Τ. ἱεροῦ.

Εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ Θεοῦ. The repetition of this preamble is evidence that this temptation is in part the same as the first (ver. 3). In both cases Jesus is to “tempt” (ver. 12) God, to challenge Him to prove His Fatherhood by a test of His Son’s own choosing. But, whereas in the first case Christ was to be rescued from an existing danger by a miracle, here He is to court needless danger in order to be rescued by a miracle. It may be that this is also a partial repetition of the second temptation. If the suggestion is that He should throw Himself down into the courts of the temple, so that the priests and the people might see His miraculous descent, and be convinced of His Messiahship, then this is once more a temptation to take a short cut to success, and, by doing violence to men’s wills, avoid all the pain and suffering involved in the work of redemption.1 If this is correct, then this temptation is a combination of the other two. It is difficult to see what point there is in mentioning the temple, if presumptuously seeking peril was the only element in the temptation. The precipices of the wilderness would have served for that. The βάλε σεαυτόν expresses more definitely than the mid. would have done that the act is to be entirely His own.Not “Fall,” nor “Spring,” but “Cast Thyself”; dejice teip̱sum. Comp. ἑαυτοὺς πλανῶμεν (1 John 1:8).

10. The fact that after Τ. διαφυλάξαι σε Satan omits ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ὁδοῖς σου is in favour of the view that presumptuous rushing into danger is part of the temptation. To fling oneself down from a height is not going “in one’s ways,” but out of them. The disobedient Prophet was slain by the lion, the obedient Daniel was preserved in the lions’ den. But we are not sure that the omission of the words has this significance.

11. ἐπὶ χειρῶν. “On their hands,” implying great carefulness. The πρὸς λίθον has no special reference either to the temple or the rocks below: stones abound in most places, and lie in the way of those who stumble.

12. Εἴρηται. In Mt. Πάλιν γέγραπται. Jesus had appealed to Scripture; Satan does the same; and then Jesus shows that isolated texts may be misleading. They may be understood in a sense plainly at variance with some other passage. Satan had suggested that it was impossible to put too much trust in God. Christ points out that testing God is not trusting Him.

The verb ἐκπειροιζειν is wholly biblical (10:25; Matthew 4:7; Psalm 77:18). In the Heb. it is “Ye shall not tempt”: but in LXX we have the sing. as here.

13. πάντα πειρασμόν. “Every kind of temptation”: a further indication that He was tempted throughout the forty days, and that what is recorded is merely an illustration of what took place. The enemy tried all his weapons, and was at all points defeated. Comp. πᾶσα ἁμαρτία καὶ βλασφημία, “all manner of sin and blasphemy” (Matthew 12:31); πᾶν δένδρον, “every kind of tree (Matthew 3:10); ὁ μὲν πάσης ἡδονῆς ἀπολαύων καὶ μηδεμιᾶς ἀπεχόμενος ἀκόλαστος, “he who enjoys every kind of pleasure,” etc. (Arist. Eth. Nic. ii. 2. 7)

ἄχρι καιροῦ. “Until a convenient season.” This rendering gives the proper meaning both of ἄχρι and of καιρός: comp. Acts 13:11, Acts 13:24:25; Luke 21:24. It is Satan’s expectation that on some future occasion he will have an opportunity of better success; and an opportunity came when Judas was allowed to deliver the Christ into the hands of His enemies. That this was such an occasion seems to be indicated by Christ’s own declarations “The prince of this world cometh; and he bath nothing in Me” (John 14:30); and “This is your hour and the power of darkness” (Luke 22:53). Satan was not visible in a bodily shape then, and probably not on this earlier occasion.It is Peter who on one occasion became a visible tempter (Matthew 16:23; Mark 8:33). Not that we are to suppose, however, that Satan entirely desisted from attacks between the beginning and end of Christ’s ministry: “Ye are they which have continued with Me in My temptations,” rather implies the contrary (22:28); but the evil one seems to have accumulated attacks at the beginning and the end. In the wilderness he employed the attractiveness of painless glory and success; in the garden he tried the dread of suffering and failure. All human temptation takes place through the instrumentality of pleasure or pain. Comp. 22:3.

Luke says nothing about the ministration of Angels which followed the temptation, as recorded by both Mt. and Mk., not because he doubts such facts, for he repeatedly records them (1:11, 26, 2:9, 22:43; Acts 5:19, Acts 8:26, Acts 7:7, Acts 23:23), but probably because his source said nothing about them. Mk. seems to mean that Angels were ministering to Jesus during the whole of the forty days: his three imperfects (ἦν … ἦν … διηκόνουν) are co-ordinate.

The Temptation is not a dream, nor a vision, nor a myth, nor a parable, translated into history by those who heard and misunderstood it but an historical fact. It was part of the Messiah’s preparation for His work. In His baptism He received strength. In His temptation He ractised the use of it. Moreover, He thus as man acquired experience (Heb. v. 8) of the possibilities of evil, and of the violent and subtle ways in which His work could be ruined.

Only from Himself could the disciples have learned the history of this struggle.Among other things it taught them the value of the Jewish Scriptures. With these for their guide they could overcome the evil one, as He had done: no special illumination was necessary (16:29, 31).

4:14-9:50. The Ministry in Galilee

Lk., like Mt. and Mk., omit the early ministry in Judæa; but we shall find that his narrative, like theirs, implies it. All three of them connect the beginning of the Galilean ministry with the Baptism and the Temptation; while Mt. and Mk. make the imprisonment of the Baptist to be the occasion of Christ’s departure from Judæa into Galilee (Matthew 4:12; Mark 1:14). But they neither assert nor imply that John was imprisoned soon after the Temptation; nor do they explain why the arrest of John by Herod Antipas should make Christ take refuge in this same Herod’s dominions. It is from the Fourth Gospel that we learn that there was a considerable interval between the Temptation and John’s imprisonment, and that during it Jesus went into Galilee and returned to Judaea again (2:13). From it also we learn that the occasion of the second departure into Galilee was the jealousy of the Pharisees, who had been told that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples even than the Baptist. Much as they disliked and feared the revolutionary influence of John, they feared that of Jesus still more. John declared that he was not the Christ, he “did no sign,” and he upheld the Law. Whereas Jesus had been pointed out as the Messiah; lie worked miracles, and He disregarded, not only traditions which were held to be equal to the Law (John 4:9), but even the Law itself in the matter of the Sabbath (John 5:9, John 5:10). Thus we see that it was not to escape the persecution of Herod, but to escape that of the Pharisees, who had delivered the Baptist into the hands of Herod, that Jesus retired a second time from Judaea into Galilee. It was “after that John was delivered up” (Mark 1:14),and “when He heard that John was delivered up” (Matthew 4:12), that Christ retired into Galilee. In neither case was it Herod’s action, but the action of those who delivered John into the hands of Herod, that led to Christ’s change of sphere. And in this way what is recorded in the Fourth Gospel explains the obscurities the other three.

There is a slight apparent difference between the first two Gospels and the third. The three Evangelists agree in noticing only one return from Judæa to Galilee, and possibly each knows of only one. But whereas Mt. and Mk. seem to point to the second return, for they connect it with the delivering up a the Baptist, Lk. seems rather to point to the first return, for he connects it with “the power of the Spirit,” an expression which Suggests a reference to that power which Jesus had received at the Baptism and exercised in the Temptation. It is quite possible, however, that the expression refers to the power with which He had worked miracles and taught in Galilee and Judaæ in which case all three Gospels treat of the second return to Galilee.

Not very much plan is discernible in this portion of the Gospel; and it may be doubted whether the divisions made by commentators correspond with any arrangement which the writer had in his mind. But even artificial schemes help to a clearer apprehension of the whole; and the arrangement suggested by Godet is, at any rate, useful for this purpose. He takes the Development in the Position of Christ’s Disciples as the principle of his divisions.

1. 4:14-44. To the Call of the first Disciples.

2. 5:1-6:11. To the Nomination of the Twelve.

3. 6:12-8:56. To the first Mission of the Twelve.

4. 9:1-50. To the Departure for Jerusalem.

These divisions are clearly marked out in the text of WH., a space being left at the end of each.

4:14-44. The Ministry in Galilee to the Call of the First Disciples. The Visits to Nazareth and Capernaum.

14, 15. Comp. Matthew 4:12; Mark 1:14. These two verses are introductory, and point out three characteristics of this period of Christ’s activity. 1. He worked in the power of the Spirit. 2. His fame spread far and wide. 3. The synagogues were the scenes of His preaching (comp. ver. 44).

14. ἐν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ πνεύματος. This is perhaps to remind us that since His first departure from Galilee He has been endowed with the Holy Spirit and has received new powers (3:22, 4:1, 18). Bengel’s post victoriam corroboratus connects it too exclusively with the Temptation. Unless, with De Wette, we take καὶ φήμη ἐξῆλθεν as anticipating what follows, the statement implies much preaching and perhaps some miracles, of which Lk. has said nothing; for Jesus is famous directly He returns. The power of the Spirit had already been exhibited in Him. Jn. says that “the Galileans received Him, having seen all the things that He did in Jerusalem at the feast” (4:45). But it is not likely that they had heard of the wonders which attended the Birth, or of those which attended the Baptism.

There are various marks of Lk.’s style. 1. ὑπέστρεψεν, for which Mt. has ἀνεχώρησεν and Mk, ἦλθεν Comp. ver. 1, where Lk. has ὑπέστρεψεν while Mt. has ἀνήχθη. 2. δύναμις of Divine power. Comp. 1:35, and see on 4:36. 3. καθʼ ὅλς in this sense. Comp. 23:5; Acts 9:31, Acts 9:42, Acts 9:10:37 it is peculiar to Lk. see Simcox, Lang. of N.T.p.148. 4. ἡ περίχωρος sc. γῆ, is an expression of which Lk. is fond (3:3, 4:37, 7:17, 8:37; Acts 14:6);not in Jn., and only twice in Mt.(3:5, 14:35) and once in Mk. (1:28; not 6:55).

15. καὶ αὐτὸς ἐδίδασκεν. Lk. is so fond of this mode of transition that αὐτός has no special significance; if it has, it is “He Himself,” as distinct from the rumour respecting Him. The imperf. points to His habitual practice at this time, and seems to deprive what follows of all chronological connexion. All the Gospels mention His teaching in synagogues, and give instances of His doing so during the early part of His ministry (Matthew 4:23, Matthew 4:9:35, Matthew 4:12:9, Matthew 4:13:54; Mark 1:21, Mark 1:39, Mark 1:3:1, Mark 1:6:2, Luke 4:44, Luke 6:6, John 6:59). Toward the close of it, when the hostility of the teachers became more pronounced, there is less mention of this practice: perhaps He then taught elsewhere, in order to avoid needless collision. It should be noticed that here, as elsewhere, it is the teaching rather than the worship in the synagogues that is prominent. Synagogues were primarily places of instruction (13:10; John 18:20; Acts 13:27, Acts 15:21, etc.), and it was as such that Augustus encourged them. Morality of a high kind was taught there, and morality is on the side of order.

ἐν Ταῖς συναγωγαῖς αὐΤῶν. This means in the synagogues of the Galileans. Galilee at this time was very populous. Josephus no doubt exaggerates when the say that the smallest villages had fifteen thousand inhabitants (B. J. iii. 3, 2), and that there were over two hundred towns and villages. But in any case there were many Galileans. Among them there was more freshness and less formalism than among the inhabitants of Judæ. Here the Pharisees and the hierarchy had less influence and therefore Galilee was a more hopeful field in which to seek the first elements of a Church. On the other hand, it was necessary to break down the prejudices of those Who had known Him in His Youth, and had seen in Him no signs of His Being the Messiah that they were expecting: andthe fame of the miracles which He had wrought in Judaæ was likely to contribute towards this. Thus the Judæan ministry prepared the way for the more promising ministry in Galilee. We have no means of estimating the number of Galilean synagogues; but the fact that such a place as Capernaum had either none,or only a poor one, until a Roman centurion was moved to provide one (“himself built us our synagogue,” 7:5), is some evidence that by no means every village or even every small town possessed one. The remains of ancient synagogues exist at several places in Galilee; Tell-Hum, Irbid (the Arbela of 1 Mac. 9:2), Jisch (Giscala), Meiron (Mero), Kasyoun, Nabartein, and Kefr-Bereim. But it is doubtful whether any of theses are older than the second or third century.

The origin of synagogues is to be sought in the Babylonish captivity; and they greatly increased in number after the destruction of the temple. The fact that Jewish legend derives the institution of synagogues from Moses, shows how essential the Jews considered it to be. The statement that there were at one time 480 synagogues in Jerusalem is also legendary; but 480 may be a symbolical number. One has only to remember the size of Jerusalem to see the absurdity of 480, places of public instruction in it. But large towns sometimes had several synagogues, either forerent natonates (Acts 6:9; see Lumby and Blass) or different handicrafts.1

δοξαζόμενος ὑπὸ πάντων. Because of the power of His preaching, especially when contrasted with the lifeless repetitions and senseless trivialities of ordinary teachers.

16-30. The Visit to Nazareth. Comp. Matthew 13:53-58; Mark 6:1-6. It remains doubtful whether Lk. here refers to the same visit as that recorded by Mt. and Mk. If it is the same, he perps has purposely transposed it to the opening of the ministry, as being typical of the issue of Christ’s ministry. He was rejected by His own people. Similarly the non-Galilean ministry opens with a rejection (9:51-56). In any case, the form of the narrative is peculiar to Lk., showing that he here has some special source. We we not to understand that the Galilean ministry began at Nazareth. More probably Christ waited until the reports of what He had said and done in other parts of Galilee prepared the way for His return to Nazareth as a teacher.

16. οὗ ἦν [ἀνα]τεθραμμένος. This tells us rather more than 2:51: it implies, moreover, that for some time past Nazareth had camed to be His home. But the addition of “where He had been brought up” explains what follows. It had been “His custom” during His early life at Nazareth to attend the synagogue every sabbath. It is best to confine κατὰ τὸ εἰωθός to the clause in which it is embedded, and not carry it on to ἀνέστη ἀναγνῶναι: it was possibly the first time that He had stood up to read at Nazareth. But the phrase may refer to what had been His custom elsewhere since He began His ministry; or it may be written from the Evangelist’s point of view of what was afterwards His custom. We may therefore choose between these explanations. 1. He had previously been in the habit of attending the synagogue at Nazareth, and on this occasion stood up to read. 2. He had previously been in the habit of readiing at Nazareth 3. He had lately been in the habit of reading elsewhere, and now does so at Nazareth. 4. This was an early example of what became His custom. In no case must the sermon be included in the custom. That fais was His first sermon at Nazareth is implied by the whole context.

In D both τεθραμμένος and αὐτῷ after εἰωθός are omitted, and the text runs, ἑλθὼν δὲ εἶς Ναζαρὲδ ὄπου ἦν κατὰ τὸ εἰωθὸς ἐν τῇ ᾑμέρα̣ τῶν σαββάτων εἰς τὴν συναγωγήν; but in the Latin the former word is restored, veniens autem in Nazared ubi erat nutricates introibit secundum consuetudinem in sabbato in synagogam. The omissions are perhaps due to Marcionite influence. According to Marcion, Christ came direct from heaven into the synagogue, de calo in synagogam (see p. 131); and therefore all trace of His previous life in Nazareth must be obliterated. He was not reared there, and was not accustomed to visit the synagogue there. Only a custom of attending the synagogue existed. See Rendel Harris, Study of Codex Bexes, p. 232, in Texts and Studies, 2:1. Comp. the insertions 9:54, 55, which may be due to the same influence.

The phrase κατὰ τὸ εἰωθός occurs in LXX Numbers 24:1; Sus. 13. It is characteristic of Lk. See on κατὰ τὸ ἔθος, 1:8. With the dat. κατὰ τὸ εἰωθός occurs only here and Acts 17:2; and τῇ ήμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων occurs only here, Acts 13:14, and 16:13: but comp. Luke 12:14, Luke 12:16 and 14:5. It is a periphrasis for ἐν τοις σαβ., or ἐν τῷ σαβ or τοῖς σαβ or τῷ σαβ.

ἀνέστη ἀναγνῶναι. Standing to read was the usual practice, excepting when the Book of Esther was read at the Feast of Purim: then the reader might sit. Christ’s standing up indicated that He had been asked to read, or was ready to do so. This is the only occasion on which we are told that Jesus read.

The lectern was close to the front seats, where those who were most likely to be called upon read commonly sat. A lesson from the Thorah or Law was read first, and then one from the Prophets. After the lesson had been mad in Hebrew it was interpreted into Aramaic (Nehemiah 8:8), or into Greek in places where Greek was commonly spoken. This was done verse by verse in the Law; but in the Prophets three verses might be taken at once, and in this case Jesus seems to have taken two verses. Then followed the exposition or sermon. The reader, interpreter, and preacher might be one, two, or three persons. Here Christ was both reader and preacher; and Possibly He interpreted as well.1 Although there were officers with fixed duties attached to each synagogue, yet there was no one specially appointed either to read, or interpret,or preach, or pray. Any member of the congregation might discharge these duties; and probably those who were competent discharged them in turn at the invitation of the ἀρξισυνάγωγος (Acts 13:15. Comp. Philo in Eus. Præp Evang. viii. 7, p. 360 A, and Quod omnis probus liber 12.). Hence it was always easy for Jesus to address the congregation. When He became famous as a teacher He would often be invited to do so2 And during His early years He may have read without interpreting or expounding; for even those under age were sometimes allowed to read in the synagogues. We cannot infer from His being able to read that He Himself possessed the Scriptures. In N.T. ἀναγινώσκω is used in no other sense than that of reading; lit recognizing again the written characters; of reading aloud, Acts 13:27, Acts 13:15:21; 2 Corinthians 3:15; Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27.

17. ἐπεδόθη. “Was handed” to Him, “was given over by handing”: comp. ἐπεζήτουν (ver. 42). It does not mean “was handed to Him in addition, ” implying that something else had been handed to Him previously. This meaning is not common, and is not found elsewhere in N.T. The reading of the Parascha, or section from the Law, had probably preceded, and had been read possibly by someone else. This was the Haphthara, or prophetic section (Acts 13:15). That Isaiah 61:1, Isaiah 61:2 was the lesson appointed for the day is quite uncertain. We do not even know whether there was at that time any cycle of prophetical lessons, nor whether it would be strictly adhered to, if there was such. Apparently Isaiah was handed to Him without His asking for it; but that also is uncertain. The cycle of lessons now in use is of much later origin; and therefore to employ the Jewish lectionary in order to determine the day on which this took place is futile. On the other hand, there is no evidence that “Jesus takes the section which He lights upon as soon as it is unrolled”; for εὖρε quite as easily may mean the opposite;—that He intentionally found a passage which had been previously selected.

The more definite ἀναπτύξας (א D) is probably a correction of ἀνοίξαι (A B L and most versions). The former occurs nowhere in N.T., while the latter is very common: see esp. Revelation 5:2, Revelation 5:3, Revelation 5:4, Revelation 5:5, Revelation 5:10:2, Revelation 5:8, 20:12. Fond as Lk. is of analytical tenses, ἦν γεγραμμεινον occurs nowhere else in his writings: ἕστι γεγραμ. is common in Jn. (2:17, 6:31, 45, 10:34, 12:14, 16).

18. The quotation is given by the Evangelist somewhat freely from LXX, probably from memory and under the influence of other passages of Scripture. To argue that the Evangelist cannot be S. Luke, because S. Luke was a Gentile, and therefore would not know the LXX, is absurd. S. Luke was not only a constant companion of S. Paul, but a fellow-worker with him in dealing with both Jews and Gentiles. He could not have done this without becoming familiar with the LXX.

Down to ἀπέσταλκέν με inclusive the quotation agrees with LXX. After that the text of LXX runs thus: ἰάσασθαι τοὺς συντε τριμένους τὴν καρδίαν, κηρύξαι αἰχαλώτοις ἄφεσιν καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνά βλεψιν, καλέσαι ἐνιαυτὸν Κυρίου δεκτόν. In many authorities the clause ἰάσασθαι τοὺς συντετριμμένους τὴν καρδίαν has been, inserted into the test of Lk. in order to make the quotation morefull and more in harmony with O.T. We have similar insertion Matthew 15:8; Acts 7:37; Romans 8:9; Hebrews 12:20, and perhaps 2:71. In the original the Prophet puts into the mouth of Jehovah’s ideal Servant a gracious message to those in captivity, promising them release and a return to the restored Jerusalem, the joy of which is compared to the joy of the year of jubilee. It is obvious that both figures, the return from exile and the release at the jubilee, admirably express Christ’s work of redemption.

Πνεῦμα Κυρίου ἐπʼ ἐμέ. In applying these words to Himself the Christ looks back to His baptism. He is more than a Prophet; He is “the Son, the Beloved One,” of Jehovah (3:21, 22).

With ἐπʼ ἐμέ (ἐστι) comp ἦν ἐπʼ αὐτόν (2:25).—οὖ εἴνεκεν. Not “wherefore,” as in Acts 19:32, which here would spoil the sense, but “because,”a meaning which οὔνεκεν often has in class. Grk. Vulg. has propter quod.Comp. Genesis 18:5, Genesis 18:14:8, Genesis 18:22:16, 38:26; Numbers 10:31, Numbers 14:43, etc. The Ionic form εἴνεκεν is found 18:29; Acts 28:20; 2 Corinthians 3:10: but ἔνεκεν is the commonest form (2 Corinthians 7:12), and ἔνεκα also occurs before consonants (6:22; Acts 26:21).

ἔχρισέν με. The Christ was anointed with the Spirit, as Prophets and priests were anointed with oil (1 Kings 19:16; Exodus 28:41, Exodus 30:30). Unlike πέης (2 Corinthians 9:9), πτωχός “always had a bad meaning until it was ennobled by the Gospels” (6:20, 7:22; 2 Corinthians 6:10; Jam 2:5). It suggests abject poverty (πτώσσω = “I crouch”). See Hatch, Bibl. Grk. pp. 76, 77.

ἀπέσταλκέν με. Change from aor. to perf. “He anointed Me (once for all); He hath sent Me (and I am here)”: comp 1 Corinthians 15:4. We have had ἀποστέλλω of the mission of Gabriel (1:19, 26); here and ver. 43 we have it of the mission of the Christ; 7:27 of the Forerunner; 9:2 of the Twelve. Whereas πέμπω is quite general and implies no special relation between sender and sent, ἀποστέλλω adds the idea of a delegated authority making the person sent to be the envoy or representative of the sender. But πέμπω also is used of the mission of the Christ (20:13), of Prophets (Ver. 26, 20:11, 12), and of the Apostles (John 13:20, John 20:21). Strictly speaking, αἰχμαλώτοις means “prisoners of war” (αἰχμή and ἀλωτός) freq. in class. Grk. but here only in N.T The cognate αἰχμαλωτίζω occurs 21:24; 2 Corinthians 10:5; 2 Timothy 3:6; αἰχμαλωσία, Ephesians 4:8. Neither this metaphor nor that of τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν harmonizes very well with the year of jubilee, to which Godet would restrict the whole passage. Both might apply to captives in exile, some of whom had been blinded by their captors, or by long confinement in a dungeon.

ἀποστεῖλαι τεθραυσμένους ἐν ἀφέσει. These words come from another part of Isaiah (58:6), and are perhaps inserted through a slip of memory. Jesus was reading, not quoting without book; and therefore we cannot suppose that He inserted the clause Lightfoot says that it was lawful to skip from one passage to an.other in reading the Prophets, but not in reading the Law (Hor. Heb. on Luke 4:17). That might explain the omission of a few verses, but not the going back three chapters. The insertion comes from the Evangelist, who is probably quoting from memory, and perhaps regards the unconsciously combined passages as a sort of “programme of the ministry.” The strong expression τεθραυσμένους is here applied to those who are shattered in fortune and broken in spirit.

For the pregnant construction, “send so as to be in,” comp. 1:17. The asyndeton throughout, first between ἔχρισεν and ἀπέσταλκεν and then between the three infinitives which depend upon ἀπέσταλκεν is impressive.

19. ἐνιαυτὸν Κυρίου δεκτόν. The age of the Messiah, which is Jehovah’s time for bestowing great blessings on His people. Comp. καιρὸς δεκτός (2 Corinthians 6:2; Isaiah 49:8): δεκτός is not found in class. Grk. It is strange that Clement of Alexandria and Origen, who are commonly so ready to turn fact into figure, here turn an expression which is manifestly figurative into a literal statement of fact, and limit Christ’s ministry to a period of twelve months (comp. Clem. Hom. 17:19). Keim and other modern writers have made the same limit; but the three Passovers distinguished by S. John (2:13, 6:4, 11:55) are quite fatal to it.1 It is, however, an equally faulty exegesis to find the three years (i.e. two years and a fraction) of Christ’s ministry in the three years of Lk. 6-9 or the three days of 13:31-33. The first of these is obviously a parabolic saying not to be understood literally; and the other probably is such. The suggestion that the three servants sent to the wicked husbandmen mean the three years of the ministry is almost grotesque. See Nösgen, Gesch. Jesu Christi, Kap. 8., München, 1890.

20. The vivid description of what followed the reading of the lesson Points to an eye-witness as the source of the narrative. But the “closed” of AV., and RV. gives a wrong impression of the first incident: it leads one to think of a modern book with leaves. The Rhemish has “folded”; but “rolled up” would be a better rendering of πτύξας. The long strip of parchment, or less probably papyrus (2 John 1:12), would be wound upon a roller, or possibly upon two rollers, one at each end of the strip. Hence the name megillah (volumen),from gâlal, “to roll.” Such a book was in Greek sometimes called κεφαλὶς (Ezra 6:2; Ezekiel 3:1-3) or κεφαλὶς βιβλίου (Hebrews 10:7; Psalm 39:8; Ezekiel 2:9): and it I said that κεφαλίς originally meant the knob (cornu or umbilicus) at the end of the roller; but no instance of this use of κεφαλίς appears to be known (Wsctt. on Hebrews 10:7).

ἀποδοὺς τῷ ὑπηρέτῃ. The ἀπο- implies that it was the minister or chazzan who had handed Him the book who received it back again. The τῷ may have the same meaning, just as τὸ βιβλίον means the book which had been given to Him. But τῷ ὑπηρέτῃ more probably means the minister usually found in a synagogue. It was among the duties of the chazzan to take the Scriptures from the ark and put them away again (Surenhusius, Mishna, ii. 246, iii. 266). He taught the children to read, and inflicted the scourgings (Matthew 10:17). A Roman epitaph to a Jew who held is office is quoted by Schürer, II. ii. p. 66—

φλαβιος Ιουλιανος υπηρετης

φλαβια Ιουλιανη θυγατηρ πατρι

Εν ειρηνη η κοιμησις σου.

The chazzan of the synagogue became the deacon or sub-deacon the Christian Church.

A ὑπηρέτης is lit. “an under-rower” (ἐρέσσω). The word may be used of almost any kind of attendant or servant (Acts 5:22, Acts 5:26, Acts 5:13:5; Matthew 26:58; Mark 14:54, Mark 14:65; John 7:32, John 7:45; 1 Corinthians 4:1). For the two participles, πτύξας … ἀποδούς, without καί, comp. Acts 12:4, Acts 12:25.

ἐκάθισεν. This was the usual attitude for expounding or preaching, and in the synagogues there was commonly a raised seat for the purpose. On other occasions we find Christ sitting to teach (5:3; Matthew 5:1; Mark 4:1; [John 8:2]); and the disciples do the same (Acts 16:13).

ἦσαν ἀτενίζοντες. “Were fixed intently.” Their intense interest was caused by His reputation as a teacher and as a worker of miracles, as well as by His having been brought up amongst them; perhaps also by His look and manner of reading. That lie had selected an unexpected passage, or had omitted the usual lesson from the Law, and that this surprised them, is pure conjecture. Comp. Acts 6:15, where the same verb is used of the whole Sanhedrin riveting their eyes upon Stephen. It is a favourite word with Lk., who uses it a dozen times: elsewhere in N.T. only 2 Corinthians 3:7, 2 Corinthians 3:13. It occurs in LXX (1 Es. 6:28; Est_3 Mac. 2:26), in Aq. (Job 7:8), and in Jos. (B. J., v. 12, 3). The analytical tense marks the continuance of the action.

21. ἤρξατο δὲ λέγειν. The ἤρξατο is not pleonastic: it points to the solemnity of the moment when His words broke the silence of universal expectation: comp. 7:24, 11:29, 12:1, 14:18. What follows may be regarded as a summary of what was said. It gives us the main subject of His discourse. We are led to suppose that lie said much more; perhaps interpreting to them in detail the things concerning Himself (24:27). The conversation with Nicodemus is similarly condensed by S. John (3:1-21). Even without this narrative we should know from 7:22 and Matthew 11:5 that Christ interpreted Isaiah 61:1 ff. of Himself. The whole of the O.T. was to Him a prophecy respecting His life and work And this applies not only to prophetic utterances, but also to rites and institutions, as well as to historical events, which were so ordered as to be a forecast of the salvation and judgment which He was to bring.1 This verse sums up His sermon.

ἡ γραφὴ αὔτη. “This passage of Scripture” (Mark 12:10; John 7:42, etc.) : for Scripture as a whole the plural is used (24:27, 32, 45; Matthew 21:42, Matthew 21:22:29, Matthew 21:26:54, 56; Mark 12:24, etc.). His interpretation of the prophecy was at the same time a fulfilment of it; for the voice of Him of whom the Prophet wrote was sounding in their ears.Hence it is that he affirms πεπλήρωται ἐν τοῖς ὠσὶν ὑμῶν. As Renan says, Il ne prêchait passes opinions, il se prêchait luimême.

22. ἐμαρτύρουν αὐτῷ. “They bore witness to Him,” not that what He said about Himself, but that what rumour had said respecting His power as a teacher, was true. They praised Him in an empty-hearted way. What they remembered of Him led them to think that the reports about Him were exaggerations; but they were willing to admit that this was not the case. Comp. 11:48. This “bearing witness” almost of necessity implies that Jesus had said a great deal more than is recorded here. What follows shows that they did not believe the teaching which so startled and impressed them, any more than those whose attention was riveted on Stephen, before he began to address them, were disposed to accept his teaching. The cases are very similar. Hence ἐθαύμαζον expresses amazement rather than admiration. For θαυμαιζειν ἐπί see small print on 2:33.

τοῖς λόγοις τῆς χάριτος. Characterizing genitive or genitive of quality; freq. in writings influenced by Hebrew, “which employs this construction, not merely through poverty in adjectives, but also through the vividness of phraseology which belongs to Oriental languages” (Win. 34:3. b, p. 297).Comp. οἰκονὸμος τῆς ἀδικίας (16:8); κριτὴς τῆς ἀδικίας (18:6); ἀκροατὴς ἐπιλησμονῆς (Jam 1:25); κριταὶ διαλογισμῶν πονηρῶν (Jam 2:4); and perhaps the difficult τροπῆς ἀποσκίασμα (Jam 1:17). The meaning here is “winning words.” The very first meaning of χαίρω (χαίρω is “comeliness, winsomeness” (Hom. Obadiah 1:8:175; Ecclesiastes 10:12; Psalm 64:3; Ecclus. 21:16, 37:21; Colossians 4:6): and in all these passages it is the winsomeness of language that is specially signified. From this objective attractiveness it easily passes to subjective “favour, Kindness,goodwill,” esp. from a superior to an interior (Acts 2:47; Genesis 18:3, Genesis 32:5, Genesis 33:8, etc.); and hence, in particular, of finding “favour” with God (1:30; Acts 7:46; Exodus 33:12, Exodus 33:13, Exodus 33:16, etc).From the sense of God’s favour generally(2:30, 52; John 1:14, John 1:16) we come to the grace” (Acts 14:3, Acts 14:20:24, 32; and the pauline Epp. passim). Lastly, it sometimes means the “gratitude” which this favour produces in the recipient (6:32-34, 17:9; 1 Corinthians 10:30). The word does not occur in Mt. or Mk. See Sanday on Romans 1:5, and Blass on Acts 2:47 and 4:33.

Origen evidently has this passage in his mind when he wrote: “For a proof that grace was poured on His lips (Psalm 64:3, ἐξεχύθη ἡ χάρις ἐν χειλεσιν σου)is this, that although the period of His teaching was short,—for He taught somewhere about a year and a few months,—the world has been filled with His eaching” (De Prin. 4:1, 5). But the words so calculated to win did not win the congregation. They were “fulfilled in their ears,” but not in their hearts.1 A doubt at once acrose in their minds as to the congruity of such words with one whom they had known all His life as the “son of Joseph” the carpenter. Here οὖτος has a contemptuous turn, as often (5:21, 7:39, 49, 15:2, 22:56, 59, etc): yet the vulg. in none of these places has iste, but hic. “Is not this person Joseph’s son? What does he mean by using such language?” Just as a single sentence is given as a summary of His discourse, so a single question is given as a summary of their scepticism.

While the οὖτος and υἱός is in all three, the question as a whole differs. Mk. has Οὐχ οὖτός ἐστιν ὁ τέκτων, ὁ υἱὸς τῆς Μαρίας; (6:3). Mt. has Οὐχ οὖτός ἐστιν ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός; (13:55). Lk. Οὐχὶ υἱόσἐστιν Ἰωσὴφ οὖτος; And while the others mention Christ’s brothers and sisters in close connexion with His mother, Lk. mentions none of them. Lk. and Jn. seem to prefer the expression “son of Joseph” (Luke 3:23, Luke 3:4:22; John 1:45, John 6:42). Renan thinks that Marc ne connaît pas Joseph (V. de J. p.71). But it may be that, as he does not record the virgin birth of Christ, he avoids the expression “son of Joseph” or “the carpenter’s son,” which those who have recorded thre virgin birth could use without risk of being misunderstood.

23. Πάντως ἐρεῖτέ μοι τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην. “At all events, assuredly, ye will say,” etc: πάτως is used in strong affirmations (Acts 21:22, Acts 21:28:4, 1 Corinthians 9:10). Excepting Hebrews 9:9 and 11:19, παραβολή occurs only in the Synoptic Gospels: in John 10:6 and 16:25, 29 as in 2 Peter 2:22, the word used in παροιμία. It nedd not be doubted that the notion of placing beside for the sake of comparison, rather than that of merely putting forth, lied at the root of παραβολή. From the notion of (1) “throwing beside” come the further notions of (2) “exposing” and (3) “comparing,” all three of which are common meanings of παραβάλλειν. While the adj. παράβολος represents the derived notion on the one side, the subst. παραβολή represents that on the other side. A παραβολή therefore is “an utterance which invloves a comparison.” Hence varoius meanings: 1. a complete parable or allegory (8:4, 13:6, etc.); 2. a single figurative saying, proverb, or illustration (here; 5:36, 6:39); 3 a saying of deeper meaning, which becomes intelligible through comparison, in which sense it is sometimes joined with σκοτεινὸς λόγος (Proverbs 1:6), πρόβλημα (Psalm 59:5, Psalm 78:2), and the like. In the teaching of Christ παραβολή is commonly in the first sense, and is a means of making known the mysteries of the kingdom in a mixed audience; for it conceals from the unworthy what it reveals to the worthy (8:9, 10). See Crem. Lex. pp. 124, 657; Hatch, Bibl. Grk., p. 70; Hase, Gesch. Jesu, § 63, p. 535, ed. 1891; Didon, Jésus Christ, ch. vi. p. 391, ed. 1891; Latham, Pastor Pastorum, ch. x.

Ἰατρέ, θεράπευσον σεαυτόν. “Heal thine own lameness” is the Hebrew form of the proverb. Similar sayings exist in other literatures: eg. a fragment of Euripides, ἄλλων ἰατρός, αὐτὸς ἕλκεσι βρύων; Ser. Sulpicius to Cicero, Neque imitare males medicos, qui in alienis morhis pro, fitentur tenere se medicines sdendam, ipsi se curare non passunt (Cic, Epp. ad diversos, 4:5). Hobart quotes from Galen, ἐχρῆν οὖν αὐτὸν ἐαυτοῦ ἐαυτοῦ πρῶτον ἰᾶσθαι τὸ σύμπτωμα καὶ οὕτως ἐπιχειρεῖν ἑτέρους θεραπεύειν. Comp. Aesch. P. V. 469; Ov.Metam 7:561; and the other examples, Lightfoot and Wetst. It is remarkable that this saying of Christ is preserved only by the beloved physician. Its meaning is disputed. Some take the words which follow to be the explanation of it: “Heal the ills of thine own town.” Thus Cornà Lap., “Cure Thine own people and Thins own country, which should be as dear to Thee as Thyself.” Similarly Beng. Alf. Sadler and others. It is thus made to mean much the same as “Charity begins at home.” But ἰατρέ and σεαυτόν ought to be interpreted of the same person or group; not one of a person and the other of his neighbours. “Prophet, heal Thins own countrymen” is not parallel to “Physician, heal Thyself” The saying plainly refers to the passage just read from Isaiah; and although Lk. omits the words “to heal the brokenearted,” yet Christ must have read them, and He had probably explained them. He professed to be the fulfilment of them, and to be healing the miseries of mankind. The people are supposed to tell Him to better His own condition before bettering that of others. He must make His own position more secure, and give evidence of His high mission before asserting it. He must make His own position more secure and give evidence of His high mission before asserting it. He must work convincing miracles, such as He is said ot have worked elsewhere. Comp. σῶσον σεαυτὸν καὶ ἡμᾶς (23:39). Comp. also Logion 6:3

ὅσα ἠκούσαμεν. They do not say ὅσα ἐποίησας wishing to leave it open whether the report may not be untrue. We learn from John 2:12 that after the miracle at Cana, Jesus was at Capernaum for a short time; and we know also that there were many unrecorded miracles. It is probably to reports of some of these that reference is here made. For the constr. comp. Acts 7:12 and 24:10

εἰς τὴν καφαρναούμ. See on ver. 31.The readings vary between εἰς τὴν Καφ. (א B), εἰς Καφ. (D L), ἐν τῇ Καφ.(X), and ἐν καφ (AK), The substitution of ἐν for εἰς, and the omission of the article between a preposition and a proper name, are obvious corrections by a later hand. The εἰς is not “put for ἐν” It maybe doubted whether these two prepositions are ever interchanged. Rather εἰς is used because of the idea of motion contained in “come to pass.” It is scarcely possible that εἰς contains the notion of “to the advantage of,” and indicates the petty jealousy of the people of Nazareth. We have the same constr. 1:44; Acts 28:6 (comp. Luke 11:7); and in no case is there any idea of advantage. That the jealousy was a fact, and that the people of Nazareth were inclined to discount or discredit all that seemed to tell in favour of prosperous Capernaum, is probable; but there is no hint of this in the εἰς. What is said to have happened to Capernaum ought to happen here. Comp. the Cornish use of “to” for “at.” In N.T. ὦδε is never “thus,” but either “hither” (9:41, 14:21, 14:27) or “here” (9:33, 22:38). The ἐν τῇ πατρίδι σου is epexegetic of ὦδε, and means “Thy native town,” not the whole of Israel: comp. Mark 6:5; Matthew 13:58.

24. Εἶπεν δέ. When these words occur between two utterances of Christ, they seem to indicate that there is an interval between what precedes and what follows. The report of what was said on this occasion is evidently very condensed. Comp. 6:39, 12:16, 15:11, 17:1, 22, 18:9, and see on 1:8. The δέ is “but” (Cov.) rather than“and”(all other English Version); ait autem (Vulg.). “But, instead of gratifying them, Hesaid” There are various proverbial sayings which declare that those who are close to what is great do not appreciate the greatness. Jesus declares that He is no exception to this rule, and implies that He will work no miracles to free Himself from its operation. In the wilderness He had resisted a similar suggestion that He should work a miracle of display, a mere τέρας (vv. 9-11). In this matter Nazareth is a type of the whole nation, which rejected Him because He did not conform to their own ideas of the Messiah. Their test resembles that of the hierarchy, “He is the King of Israel; let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe on Him” (Matthew 27:42). For εἶπεν δέ see p. 68.

25. “But I am like the Prophets, not only in the treatment which I receive from My own people, but also in My principles of action. For they also bestowed their miraculous benefits upon outsiders, although there were many of their own people who would have been very glad of such blessings.” Christ is here appealing to their knowledge of Scripture, not to any facts outside the O.T. Testatur hoc Dominus ex luce omniscientiæ suæ is not a legitimate inference. Arguments drawn from what was Known to Him, but not known to them, would not be likely to influence His audience, Note ὡς= “when.”

ἐπʼ ἀληθείας. “On a basis of truth”: comp. Mark 12:14. We have similar adverbial expressions in ἐπʼ ίσης (sc. μοίρας), ἐπὶ σχολῆς, ἐπὶ ἐπʼ ἀδείας.

ἐπὶ ἔτη τρία καὶ μῆνας ἕξ. Jesus, like His brother James (Jam 5:17), follows Jewish tradition as to the duration of the famine. In 1 Kings 18:1 we are told that the rain came in the third year, which would make the drought about two years and a half But ever since the persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes, three and a half (=42 months =1260 days) had become the duration of times of great calamity (Daniel 7:25, Daniel 7:7:7; Revelation 11:2, Revelation 11:3, Revelation 11:12:6, Revelation 11:14, Revelation 11:13:5). The Jews would regard “in the year” as covering three years, and would argue that the famine must have continued for some time after the rain came.

For ἐπί c.acc. of duration of time (“over,” i.e. “during”), comp. Acts 13:31, Acts 13:19:10; Hdt 3:59:2, 6:101:3; Thuc. 2:25, 4.Hebrews 11:30. is different. In accordance with common usage λιμβς is here masc; but in 15:14 and Acts 11:28 it is fem. acc. to what is called Doric usage, as in the Megarean of Aristoph. Acharn. 743. But this usage occurs elsewhere in late Greek. It perhaps passed from the Doric into the Κοινὴ Διάλεκτος: for examples see Wetst, and L. and S. Lex. In LXX perhaps only 1 Kings 18:2.

ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν. Here, as in Jam 5:17, only the land of Israel need be understood; but it is possible that in each case we have a popular hyperbole, and that the whole world is meant. Luke 21:23 and Romans 9:28 are not quite parallel, for there the context Plainly limits the meaning. Luke 23:44 is another doubtful case, and there AV. has “earth” and RV. “Land.” Both have “land” here.

26. The translation of εἰ μή in this and the following clauses by “but only”(RV.), sed (Beza), or sed tantum, is justifiable, because “save” (AV.) and nisi (Vulg.) seem to involve an absurdity which was not apparent to a Greek. It is not, however, correct to say that in such cases εἰ μή is put for ἀλλά, any more than in Matthew 20:23 or Mark 4:22 it would be correct to say that ἀλλά is put for εἰ μή. Here and in Matthew 12:4 (comp: Romans 14:14; 1 Corinthians 7:17, Galatians 1:7, Galatians 2:16) “the question is not whether εἰ μή retains exceptive force, for this it seems always to do, but whether the exception refers to be whole clause or to the verb alone” (Lft. on Galatians 1:19): comp. Revelation 21:27.—In εἰς Σάρεπτα, κ.τ.λ. we perhaps have a quotation from Lxx of 1 Kings 17:9. There, as here, the reading vary between Σιδῶνος and Σιδωνίας (sc. γῆς or χώρας). Here the latter is right, meaning the territory of in which Sarepta lay. Zarephath (in Syriac Tsarfah, in Greek Σάρεφθα, Σάρεπτα and Σέφθα) is probably represented by the modern Sŭrafend on the coast road between Tyre and Sidon.

27. ἐπὶ Ἐλισαίου. For this use of ἐπί with a proper name to give a date, “in the time of,” comp. 3:2; Acts 11:28; I Mac. 13:42, 14:27; 2 Mac. 15:22. The spelling Ἐλισσαῖος is not well attested (WH. 2. App. P.159). For same of the “many lepers” comp. 2 Kings 7:3, where we have four at the gate of Samaria. In N.T. Σύρος is the only form of the adj. that is found, Viz. here and perpaps Mark 7:26; but Σύρος, Σύριος and Συριακός occurs elsewhere (Hdt. ii. 104. 6; AeSch. Pers. 83; Theophr. C. P. ii. 17. 3).

28. ἐπλήσθησαν πάντες θυμοῦ. See on 1:66. They see the point of His illustrations; He has been comparing them to those aws who were judged less worthy of Divine Benefits than the heathen. It is this that infuriates them, just as it infuriated the Jews at Jerusalem to be told by S. Paul that the heathen would receive the blessings which they despised (Acts 13:46, Acts 13:50, Acts 13:22:21, Acts 13:22). Yet to this day the position remains the same; and Gentiles enjoy the Divine privileges of which the Jews have deprived themselves. His comparing Himself to such Prophets as Elijah and Elisha would add to the wrath of the Nazarenes. On the other hand, these early instances of God’s special blessings being conferred upon heathen would have peculiar interest for Lk.

29. ἔως ὀφρύος τοῦ ὄρους. Tradition makes the scene of this attempt to be a precipice, varying from 80 to 300 feet in height, which exists some distance off to the S.E. of the town; and we read that “they cast Him out of the town and led Him as far as the brow,” etc. But modern writers think that a much smaller precipice close at hand is the spot. Van der Velde conjectures that it has crumbled away; Conder, that it is hidden under some of the houses. Stanley says that Nazareth “is built ‘upon,’ that is, on the side of, ‘a mountain’; but the ‘brow’ is not beneath, but over the town, and such a cliff as is here implied is to be found, as all modern travellers describe, in the abrupt face of the limestone rock, about 30 or 40 feet high, overhanging the Maronite Convent at the S.W. corner of the town” (Sin. & Pal. p. 367). So also Robinson (Res. in Psa_2. PP. 325, 330), Hacket (D.B. ii. P. 470), and Schulz in Herzog Proverbs 2:10. P. 447). The ἐφʼ οὖ, of course, refers to τοῦ ὄρους not to ὀφρύος Both AV. and RV., have “the brow of the hill whereon,” which might easily be misunderstood. The town is on the hill, but not on the brow of it: the brow is above the modern village. Nowhere else in N.T. does ὀφρύς occur. Comp. Hom. il xx. 151; and ὀφρυόεις, Il. xxii. 411, and Hdt. v. 92. 10, with other instances in Wetst. Supercilium is similarly used: Virg. Georg. i. 108; Liv. xxvii. 18, xxxiv. 29.

ὤστε κατακρημνίσαι. The ὤστε is not needed (1:22; Matthew 2:2, Matthew 2:22:28; Acts 5:31); but it expresses more clearly the result which was intended. Comp. 20:20, where, as here, ὤστε has been altered in some texts into the simpler εἰς τό, a Constr. which Lk. does not employ elsewhere. In 9:52 the true reading is perhaps ὡς; but in Matthew 10:1, Matthew 23:24, Matthew 27:1 there is no doubt about the ὥστε. For κατακρημνίζω (here only in N.T.) comp. 2 Chronicles 25:12; 2Ch_2 Mac. 12:15, 14:43; 4 Mac. 4:25; Jos. Ant. vi. 6, 2, ix. 9, 1.

The whole attempt to put Jesus to death was perhaps an instance of the form of punishment which the Jews called the “rebel’s beating,” which was somewhat analogous to Lynch Law. The “rebel’s beating” was administered by the people, without trial and on the spot, when anyone was caught in what seemed to be a flagrant violation of some law or tradition. Comp. the attempts to stone Jesus (John 8:59, John 10:31). We have a similar attempt upon S. Paul’s life (Acts 21:31, Acts 21:32). In S. Stephen’s case a formal trial seems to have ended in the “rebel’s beating” (Edersh. The Temple, p. 43).

30. αὐτὸς δὲ διελθὼν διὰ μέσου αὐτῶν ἐπορεύετο. “But He (in contrast to this attempt), after passing through the midst of them, went His way.” The addition of διὰ μέσου is for emphasis, and seems to imply that there was something miraculous in His passing through the very midst of those who were intending to slay Him, and seemed to have Him entirely in their power. They had asked for a miracle, and this was the miracle granted to them. Those who think that it was His determined look or personal majesty which saved Him, have to explain why this did not prevent them from casting Him out of the synagogue.1 It seems better with Mever and ancient commentators to understand a miracle dependent on the will of Jesus: comp. John 18:6; Daniel 6:22; In. John 8:59 is different: then Jesus hid Himself before escaping. For διελθών see on 2:15.

ἐπορεύετο. Here used in its common signification of going on towards a goal: “He went His way” to Capernaum. And, so far as we know, He did not return to Nazareth. It had become a typical example of “His own people receiving Him not” (John 1:11); and apparently it had no other opportunity (but see Edersh. L. & T. 1. ch. xxvii.). If Mark 6:1-6 and Matthew 13:53-58 refer to a different occasion, it probably preceded this. After the attempt on His life He would not be likely to return; and, if He did return, they could hardly, after this experience of Him, ask, “Whence has this man this wisdom?” or be astonished at His teaching.

Meyer (on Matthew 13:53), Wieseler (Chron. Syn, iii. 2, Eng. tr. p. 258), Godet (l.c., Eng. tr. i. p. 240), Tischendorf (Synop. Evan. §§29, 54), and others distinguish the two occasions. If with Caspari (Chron. Int. § 100) we identify them, then Lk. is the more full and vivid, for the others omit the text of the discourse and the attempt to kill Him. In this case Strauss maybe right mi sup)sing that Lk. has placed the incident at the beginning of the ministry, although it took place later, because he saw how typical it was of the ministry as a whole (Leben Jesu, p. 121, 1864). That it was this attempt on His life which made Christ change His abode from Nazareth to Capernaurm is contradicted by ver. 16. “Where He had been brought up” implies that He had ceased to reside there: and from ver. 23 we infer that Capernaurn had already become His headquarters. Thither His Mother and brethren had also moved, while His sisters remained at Nazareth (Matthew 13:56; Mark 6:3), very probably because they had married there.

31-44. The Stay at Capernaum: chiefly a Record of Miracles of Healing. See Wsctt. Characteristics of the Gospel Miracles, Macmillan, 1859; Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, App. E: “A Classification of the Gospel Miracles,” Macmillan, 1888.

31-37. The Healing of a Demoniac in the Synagogue at Capernaum. Mark 1:21-28. Both Lk. and Mk. place this first among Christ’s miracles; whereas Mt. puts the healing of a leper first (8:2-4). Marcion began his mutilated edition of Lk. at this point with the words Ὁ ΘΕΌΣ κατῆλθεν εἰς Καφαρναούμ. The earlier portion, which teaches the humanity of Christ, he omitted, excepting the first clause of 3:1 (Tert. Adv. Marc. iv. 7. 1).

31. κατῆλθεν. Nazareth is on higher ground than Capernaum, which was on the shore of the lake; and therefore “went down” or “came down” is the probable meaning. But it is possible that here and Acts 18:5 it means “returned,” as often in class. Grk. (Hdt. iv. 4. 2, v. 30. 4; Thuc. viii. 68, 3). Excepting Jam 3:15, the verb occurs in N.T. only in Lk. (9:37 and twelve times in Acts).

Καφαρναούμ. This is the correct spelling, Caphar-Nahum, of which Καπερναούμ is a Syrian corruption (WH. ii. App. p. 160). It was the chief Jewish town, as Tiberias was the chief Roman town, of the neighbourhood. It was therefore a good centre, especially as traders from all parts frequently met there (Mark 2:15, Mark 2:3:20, 32, etc.). It is not mentioned in O.T., and perhaps was not founded till after the Exile. Josephus mentions it only once, viz. in his description of the lake (B. J. iii. 10. 7, 8), and then not as a town but as a πηγὴ γονιμωτάτη which irrigates the neighbourhood: but there is no doubt that the Κεφαρνώμη to which Josesphus was carried, when he was thrown from his horse in a skirmish with Roman troops, is Capernaurn (Vita, 72). The identification with the modem Tell Hûm (Nau, Pococke, Burckhardt, Renan,1 Ritter, Rödiger, Ewald) is possible, but not certain. Many advocate the claims of Khan Minyeh, which is three miles to the south (Quaresmius, Keim, Robinson,Sepp, Stanley, Strauss, Wilson). For the chief arguments see Wilson in D. B.2 i. p. 530, and in Picturesque Palestine, ii. p. 81; Schulz in Herzog, Rev_2 vii. p. 501; Keim,jes,of Naz., Eng. tr. ii. p. 369; Andrews, Life of our Lord, pp. 221-239, ed. 1892. The doubts about the site show how completely the woes pronounced upon the place (Matthew 11:23) have been fulfilled. But in any case left the seclusion of the mountains for a busy mercantile centre by the lake.

πόλιν τῆς Γαλιλαίας. Lk. adds this, because this is the first time that he mentions Capernaum in his narrative. The explanation could not be made ver. 23. It is another small indication that he is writing for those who are not familiar with the geography of Palestine: comp. 1:26, 2:4, 8:26.

ἦν διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν. Some make vv. 31, 32 a general introduction, stating the habitual practice, of which vv. 33-37 gave a particular instance. In support of this they urge the analytical tense, ἦν διδάσκων, and the plur. τοῖς σάββασιν: “He used to teach them on the sabbath days.” But in the parallel passage ἐδίδασκεν and ἦν διδάσκων are equivalent, and apparently refer to one occasion only (note the εὐθύς, Mark 1:22, Mark 1:23): and τὰ σάββατα is often sing. in meaning (Matthew 28:1; Colossians 2:16; Exodus 20:10; Leviticus 22:32; Jos. Ant. i. 1, 1, iii. 6, 6, x. 1, Hor. Sat. i. 9. 69). Acts 17:2 is the only place in N.T. in which σάββατα is plur. in meaning, and there a numeral necessitates it, ἐπὶ σάββατα τρία which, however, may mean “for three weeks, ” and not “for three Sabbaths.” Syr-Sin. here has “the sabbath days.”

The Aramaic form of the word ends in a, the transliteration of which into Greek looked like a neut.plur. This idea was confirmed by the fact that Greek festivals am commonly neut. plur.: τὰ γενέσια, ἐγκαίνια, παναθήναια, κ.τ.λ. Hence σάββατα may either mean “a sabbath” or “Sabbaths” or “aweek.” Here it is better to retain the sing. meaning, and refer the whole of 32-37 to One occasion. In N.T, σάββασιν is the usual form of the dat. plot., with σαββάτοις as v:l. in some authorities (in B twice, Matthew 12:1, Matthew 12:12), In LXX σαββάτοις prevails. Josephus uses both.

32. ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ ἦν ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ. This does not refer to the power which His words had over the demoniac, but to the authority with which they came home to the consciences of His hearers. The healing of the demoniac was not so much an example of this ἐξουσία as evidence that He had a Divine commission to exercise it Lk. omits the comparison with the formal and ineffectual teaching of the scribes (Mark 1:22, Mark 1:22; Mark 7:29).

The ἐν means “clothed in, invested with” (1:17, 4:36, 11:15, 18, 19, 20, 22:2, 8; 1 Corinthians 2:4; Ephesians 6:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:9). This use of ἐν is freq. in late Grk. Green, Gram. of N.T. p. 206.

33. ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ. “In the synagogue” in which He was teaching on that sabbath; which confirms the view that ver. 31 refers to a particular occasion. We have already been told that it was His practice to teach in the synagogues. But “in the synagogue” may mean in the only one which Capernaum. possessed (7:5).

ἔχων πνεῦμα δαιμονίου ἀκαθάρτου. The phrase is unique, and the exact analysis of it is uncertain. The gen. may be of apposition (2:41, 22:1; John 2:21, John 11:13, John 13:1), or of quality (see on ver. 22), or of possession, i.e. an influence which belonged to an unclean demon (Revelation 16:14). As to the Evangelists’ use of the epithet ἀκάθαρτον, strange mistakes have been made. Wordsworth inaccurately says, “Both St. Mark and St. Luke, writing for Gentiles, add the word ἀκάθαρτον to δαιμόνιον, which St Matthew, writing to Jews (for whom it was not necessary), never does.” Alford in correcting him is himself inaccurate. He says, “The real fact is, that St. Mark uses the word δαιμόνιον thirteen times, and never adds the epithet ἀκάθαρτον to it (his word here is πνεῦμα only); St. Luke, eighteen times, and only adds it this once. So much for the accuracy of the data on which inferences of this kind are founded.” Edersheirn is still more inaccurate in his statement of the facts (L. & T. 1. p. 479 n). Farrar has the strange misstatement that “the word ‘unclean’ is peculiar to St. Luke, who writes fur Gentiles.” It occurs in Mt., Paul, and Apoc., as well as Mk. The facts are these. Mt. uses δαιμόνιον ten times, and has ἀκάθαρτον twice as an epithet of πνεῦμα. Mk. has δαιμόνιον thirteen times, ἀκάθαρτον eleven times as an epithet of πνεῦμα. Lk. in the Gospel has δαιμόνιον twenty-three times, with ἀκάθαρτον as an epithet, once of δαιμόνιον, and five times of πνεῦμα; and with πονηρόν twice as an epithet of πνεῦμα. In the Acts he has δαιμόνιον once; and uses ἀκάθαρτον twice, and πονηρόν four times, as an epithet of πνεῦμα. The fact, therefore, remains, that the two Evangelists who wrote for Gentiles (to whom demons or spirits were indifferent) add a distinctive epithet much more often than the one Who wrote for Jews (who distinguished evil spirits from good). Moreover, both Mk. and Lk. add this epithet the very first time that they mention these beings (Mark 1:23; Luke 4:33); whereas Mt. mentions them several times (7:22, 8:16, 9:33, 34) before he adds the ἀκάθαρτον (10:1). In this passage Lk. and Mk. describe the fact of possession in opposite ways. Here the man has the unclean spirit. There he is in the unclean spirit’s power, ἐν πνεύματι ἀκαθάρτῳ: with which we may compare the expression of Josephus, τοὺς ὑπὸ τῶν δαιμονίων λαμβανομένους (Ant. viii. 2. 5). Similarly, we say of a man that “he is out of his mind,” or that “his mind is gone” out of him. That a man thus afflicted should be in the synagogue is surprising. He may have come in unobserved; or his malady may have been dormant so long as to have seemed to be cured. The presence of “the Holy One of God” provokes a crisis. For ἀνεκραξεν comp. Joshua 6:5; 1 Samuel 4:5; and for φωνῇ μεγάλῃ see on 1:42. D.C.G. art.“Demon.”.

34. Ἔα. Probably not the imperative of ἐάω, “Let alone, leave me in peace,” but an interjection of anger or dismay; common in Attic poetry, but rare in prose (Aesch. P. V. 298, 688; Eur. Hec. 501; P1ato, prot. 314 D). Here only in N.T. Comp. Job 4:19?, 15:16, 19:5, 25:6. Fritzsche on Mark 1:24 (where the word is an interpolation) and L. and S. Lex. regard the imperative as the origin of the interjection, which does not seem probable,

τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί; Not “What have we to contend about?” a meaning which the phrase has nowhere in N.T. and perhaps only once, if at all, in O.T. (2 Chronicles 35:21), but “What have we in common?” Comp. 8:28; Matthew 8:29. Matthew 8:29; Mark 1:24; John 2:4; Jdg 11:12; 1 Kings 17:18; 2 Kings 3:13; 2 Samuel 16:10; 2Sa_1 Esdr. 1:26; Epict. Diss. i. 1. 16, i. 27, 13, ii. 9. 16.

Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ. This form of the adjective is found 24:19; Mark 1:24, Mark 1:10:47, Mark 1:14:67, Mark 1:16:6; but not in Mt. or Jn. or Acts. Its appearance here is no proof that Lk. is borrowing from Mk. Ναζωραῖος occurs Luke 18:37. Matthew 2:23, 26:71; John 18:5, John 18:7, John 18:19:19; Acts 2:22, Acts 2:3:6, Acts 2:4:10, Acts 2:6:14, Acts 2:22:8, Acts 2:26:9; but not in Mk. The adjective, esp. Ναζωραῖος which is used in the title on the cross, sometimes his a tinge of contempt and with the article it may be rendered “the Nazarene.” Hence the early Christians were contemptuously called “the Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5). Contrast ὁ ἀπὸ Ναζαρέτ (Matthew 21:11; Mark 1:9; John 1:46; Acts 10:38). which is a mere statement of fact. It is worth noting that this demoniac, who is a Jew, addresses Jews as “of Nazareth,” which the Gerasene, who was possibly a heathen, does not do (8:28).

ἦλθες ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶς; The ἡμᾶς and the preceding ἡμῖν probably do not include the man, but rather other evil spirits. Communem inter se causam habent dæmonia. (Beng.). It seems to be e to speculate as to the meaning of ἀπολέσαι: apparently it is the same as εἰς τὴν ἄβυσσον ἀπελθεῖν (8:31).

οἶδά σε τίς εἶ, ὁ ἄγιος τοῦ Θεοῦ. In Mk. οἴδαμεν(?), which is more in harmony with ἡμῖν and ἡμᾶς. Godet remarks that ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ Θεοῦ explains the knowledge It was instinctive, and therefore οἶδα is more suitable than γινώσκω. L’antipathie n’est pas moinsclairvoyante que la sympathie. In the unique holiness of Jesus the evil spirit felt an essentially hostile power. The expression ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ Θεοῦ occurs in the parallel in Mk. and John 6:69; but nowhere else: comp. Acts 4:27; 1 John 2:20; Revelation 3:7. It may mean either “consecrated to God” or “consecrated by God.” In a lower sense priests and Prophets are called ἅγιοι τοῦ Θεοῦ or Κυρίου (Psalm 106:16). It was not in flattery (male adulans, as Tertullian says) that the evil spirit thus addressed Him, but in horror. From the Holy One he could expect nothing but destruction (Jam 2:19; comp. Matthew 8:29).

35. ἐπετίμησεν αὐτῷ. “He rebuked the demon” who had used the man as his mouth-piece. The verb is often used of rebuking violence (ver. 41, 8:24, 9:42; Matthew 8:26, Matthew 8:17:18; Mark 4:39; Judges 1:9); yet must not on that account be rendered “restrain”(Fritzsche on Matthew 8:26, p. 325).

In N.T. ἐπιτιμάω has no other meaning than “rebuke”; but in class. Grk. it means—1. “lay a value on, rate”; 2. “lay a penalty on, sentence”; 3. “chide, rate, rebuke.” But while there is a real connexion between the first and third meanings of the Greek verb, in English we have a mere accident oflanguage:“rate” = “value” is a different word from “rate” = “scold.” Note that Christ required no faith from demoniacs.

φιμώθητι. Lit. “Stop thy mouth with a φιμός be muzzled”: used literally 1 Corinthians 9:9; 1 Timothy 5:18; and as here, Matthew 22:12; Mark 1:25, Mark 1:4:39; Jos. B. J. i, 22. 3. The peculiar infin. φιμοῖν occurs 1 Peter 2:15. Comp. ἀποδεκατοῖν (Hebrews 7:5); κατασκηνοῖν (Matthew 13:32; Mark 4:32). The verb is probably a vernacular word: it is not found between Aristoph. (Nub. 592) and LXX (Kennedy, Sources of N.T. Grk. p. 41).

καὶ ἔξελθε ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ. This is the true reading. Other writers commonly have ἐξέρχομαι ἐκ; but Lk. prefers ἐξέρχομαι ἀπό (ver. 41, 5:8, 8:2, 29, 33, 35, 38, 9:5, 11:24, etc.).

ῥίψαν αὐτὸν … μηδὲν βλάψαν αὐτόν. “Having thrown him” down in convulsions (σπαράξαν Mk.) … without (as one might have expected) having injured him at all.” With οὐδὲν βλάψαν we should have had a mere statement of fact. But in N.T. we commonly have μή with participles: comp. 11:24, 12:47, and see Win. Lev_5. β, p. 607. For μηδὲν βλάψαν Mk. has φωνῆσαν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ. It was the convulsions and the loud cry which made the spectators suppose that the man had been injured. The malice of the demon made the healing of the man as painful as possible. Hobart Classes both ῥίπτειν and βλάπτειν as medical words, the one being used of convulsions, the latter of injury to the system (Med. Lang. of Lk. p. 2).

36. ἐγένετο θάμβος. Mk. has ἐθαμβήθησαν; but Lk. is fond of these periphrases with γίνομαι (1:65, 6:49, 8:17, 12:40, 13:2, 4, 18:23, etc.): see on 3:22. The word exrresses amazement akin to terror, and the subst. is peculiar to Lk (5:9; Acts 3:10). Just as Christ’s doctrine amazed them in comparison with the formalism of the scribes, so His authority over demons in comparison with the attempts of the exorcists: all the more so, because a single word sufficed for Him, whereas the exorcists used incantations, charms, and much superstitious ceremonial (Tob. 8:1-3; Jos. Ant. viii. 2. 5; Justin, Apol. ii. 6; Try. lxxxv.)

τὶς ὁ λόγος οὖτος. Not, Quid hoc rei est? “What manner a thinge is this?” (Beza, Luth. Tyn. Cran. Grotius), but Quod est hoc verbum ? “What is this word?” (Vulg. Wic Rhem. RV.). It is doubtful whether in N.T. λόγος has the meaning of “event, occurrence, dead”: but comp. 1:4 and Mark 1:45. Whether λόγος is here to be confined to the command given to the demon, or includes the previous teaching (ver, 32), is uncertain. Mark 1:27 is in favour of the latter. In this case we have an ambiguous ὅτι to deal with; and once more “because” or “for” is more probable than “that” (see on 1:45). But if “that” be adopted, ὁ λόγος has the more limited meaning: “What is this word that with authority?” etc.

ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ καὶ δυνάμει. ἐξουσίᾳ, cui non potest contradici; δυνάμει, cui non potest resisti (Beng.). Mk. has κατʼ ἐξουσίαν only. The beloved physician is fond of δύναμις esp. in the sense of “inherent power of healing” (5:17, 16:19, 8:46, 9:1; Acts 3:12, Acts 4:7, Acts 6:8). Mk. has it only once in this sense (5:30), and Mt. not at all. The plural in the sense of “manifestations of power, miracles”(10:13, 19:37),is freq. in Mt. and Mk. See on Romans 1:16.

37. ἐξεπορεύετο ἦχος περὶ αὐτοῦ. In these sections attention is often directed to the impression which Jesus made on His audiences (vv. 20, 22, 32, 36) 26), and to the fame which spread abroad respecting Him (vv. 14, 15, 37, 40, 5:15, 17). Η῏χος (ὁ) occurs only here, Acts 2:2, and Hebrews 12:19. In 21:25, ἦχους may be gen. of either ἡ ἠχώ or τὸ ἦχος. But the existence of τὸἦχος is doubtful. The more classical word is “ἡ ἠχή of which ὁ ἦχος is a later form. Hobart classes it as a medical word, esp. for noises in the ears or the head (p. 64).

As already stated, this healing of a demoniac is recorded by Mk., but not by Mt. Ebrard and Holtzmann would have us believe that it is to compensate for this omission that Mt. gives two demoniacs among the Gadarenes, where Mk. and Lk. have only one.

In considering the question of demoniacal possession we must never lose sight of the indisputable fact, that our sources of information clearly, consistently, and repeatedly represent Christ as healing demoniacs by commanding demons to depart out of the afflicted persons. The Synoptic Gospels uniformly state that Jesus went through the form of casting out demons.

If the demons were there, and Christ expelled them and set their victims free, there is nothing to explain: the narrative is in harmony with the facts.

If the demons were not there, and demoniacal possession is a superstition, we must choose between three hypotheses.

1. Jesus did not employ this method of healing those who were believed to be possessed, but the Evangelists have erroneously attributed it to Him.

2. Jesus did employ this method and went through the form of casting out demons, although He knew that there were no demons there to be cast out.

3. Jesus did employ this method and went through me form of casting out demons, because in this matter He shared the erroneous belief of His contemporaries.

On the whole subject consult articles in D. B.2, Schaff-Herzog, Ency. Brit. on “Demoniacs,” “Demons,” “Demonology”; Trench, Miracles, No. 5; Caldwell, Contemp. Rev. Feb. 1876, vol. 28. PP. 369 ff. No explanation is satisfactory which does not account for the uniform and repeated testimony of the Evangelists.

38, 39. The Healing of Peter’s Mother-in-law. Mark 1:30.

It is quite beyond doubt that the relationship expressed bye πενθερά is either “wife’s mother” or “husband’s mother” (12:53; Matthew 8:14, Matthew 8:10:35; Mark 1:30; Ruth 1:14, Ruth 1:2:11, Ruth 1:18, Ruth 1:19, 23; Micah 7:6; Dem. Plut. Lucian). so also πενθερός is either “wife’s father” or “husband’s father” (John 18:13; Genesis 38:13, Genesis 38:25; Jdg 1:16; 1 Samuel 4:19, 1 Samuel 4:21). But for “wife’s father” the more indefinite γαμβρός (“a relation by marriage”) is freq. in LXX (Exodus 3:1, Exodus 3:4:18; Numbers 10:29; Jdg 4:11, Jdg 4:19:4, Jdg 4:7, Jdg 4:9). In Greek there is a distinct term for “stepmother,” viz. the very common word μητρυιά (Ham. Hes. Hdt. AEæsch. Plat. Plut.); and if Lk. had intended to designate the second wife of Peter’s father, he would have used this term. That he should have ignored a word in common use which would express his meaning, and employ another word which has quite a different meaning, is incredible. That peter was married is clear from 1 Corinthians 9:5. Clement of Alexandria says that Peter’s wife helped him in ministering to women,—an apostolic anticipation of Zenana missions (Strom. iii. 6, p. 536, ed. Potter). He also states that Peter and Philip had children, and that Philip gave his daughters in marriage (ibid. p. 535, ed Potter, quoted Eus. H. E. iii. 30. 1); but he gives no names. It is remarkable that nothing is known of any children of any one Apostle. This is the first mention of Peter by Lk., who treats him as a person too well known to need introduction. For other miracles of mercy on the sabbath see on 14:1.

38. Ἀναστὰς δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς συναγωγῆς. This may refer to Christ’s rising from His seat; but it is more natural to understand it of His leaving the synagogue. The verb is used where no sitting of lying is presupposed, and means no more than preparation for departure (1:39, 15:18, 20, 23:1; Acts 10:20, Acts 22:10): see on 1:39. Mk. has ἐξελθόντες, the plur. including Simon and Andrew, James and John. Neither Lk. nor Mt. mention the presence of disciples, but Peter, and perhaps Andrew, may be understood among those who ἠρώτησαν αὐτὸν περὶ αὐτῆς.

συνεχομένη πυρετῷ μεγάλῳ. Perhaps all three words are medical, and certainly συνέχομαι occurs three times as often in Lk. as in the rest of N.T. Galen states that fevers were distinguished as “great” and “slight,” μεγάλοι and σμικροί (Hobart, p. 3). Comp. Plat. Gorg. 512 A. Note the analytical tense.

39. ἐπιστὰς ἐπάνω αὐτῆς ἐπετίμησεν. Instead of this both Mt. and Mk. state that lie touched her hand. proximus accessus ostendebat, virtuti Jesu cedere morbum, neque ullum corpori ejus a murbo imminere periculum (Beng.). The ἐπετίμησεν of ver. 35 does not show that the use of the same word here is meant to imply than the fever is regarded as a personal agent. But comp. 13:11, 10; Mark 9:17, Mark 9:23. The ἀφῆκεν, which is in all three narratives, harmonizes with either view In any case this unusual mode of healing would interest and impress a physician; and Lk.alone notices the suddenness with which her strength returned. For παραχρῆ μα see on 5:25. Syr-Sin.omits the standing over her.

διηκόνει αὐτοῖς. Mt. has αὐτῷ: the αὐτοῖς includes the disciples and others present. Her being able to minister to them proves the completeness of the cure. Recovery from fever is commonly attended by great weakness. And this seems to be fatal to the view of B. Weiss, that Christ’s cures were “momentary effects produced by His touch, which, although the result was absolutely certain,, yet merely began a healing process that was completed in a perfectly natural way.” What is gained by such an hypothesis?

The Attic form of the imperf. of διᾱκονέω is ἐδιᾱκόνουν; but διηκόνουν is the reading of the MSS. in Eur. Cycl. 406 (Veitch, sv.). Comp. 8:3; Matthew 4:11, Matthew 4:8:15; Mark 1:13, Mark 1:31; John 12:2; 1 Peter 1:12.

40, 41. Numerous Healings in the Evening. Nous rencontrons ici Un de ces moments dans la vie du Seigneur où la puissance miraculeuse se déployait avec une richesse particulière: 6:19” (Godet, i. p. 339). Comp. Matthew 8:16, Matthew 8:17; Mark 1:32-34. The healing of the demoniac (ver. 35), and of Peter’s mother-in-law, had proved that He could heal diseases both of mind and body. All three note the two kinds of healing; but “the physician separates the two with special distinctness, and lends no support to the view that possession is merely a physical disorder.”

40. Δύνοντος δὲ τοῦ ἡλίου. Mt. has Ὀψίας δὲ γενομέης while Mk. has Ὁψίας δὲ γενομένης, ὅτε ἔδυσεν ὁ ἥλιος. We infer that here Mk. gives us the whole expression in the original tradition, of which all three make use; and that Mt. uses one half and Lk. the other half of it. See 5:13, 22:34, 23:38, for similar cases. Some infer that Mk. has combined the phrases used by the other two,and therefore must have written last of the three. But an analysis of the passages which all three have in common shows that this is incredible. The literary skill required for combining two narmtives, without adding much new material, would be immense; and Mk. does not possess it. It is much simpler to suppose that Mk. often gives the original tradition in full, and that the other two each give portions of it, and sometimes different portions. See E. A. Abbott, Ency. Brit. 9th ed. art. “Gospels,” and Abbott and Ushbrooke, The Common Tradition of the Syn. Gosp. p. x.

Δύνοντος. “When the sun was setting, ” or “ere the sun was set, ” as the hymn gives it.1 The eagerness of the people was such the very moment the Sabbath was over they began to move the sick: comp. John 5:10. Note Lk.’s. favourite ἅπαντες.

ἑνὶ ἑκάστῳ αὐτῶν τὰς χεῖρας ἐπιτιθείς. Lk. alone preserves this graphic detail, which emphasizes the laborious solicitude of the work. Sic singuli penitius commoti sunt ad fidem (Beng.). It does not apply to the demoniacs, who were healed λόγῳ, as Mt. states.

The action is a generally recognized symbol of trammission, especially in conferring a blessing (Genesis 48:14; Leviticus 9:22, Leviticus 9:23; Mark 10:16). It is also used to symbolize the transmission of guilt (Leviticus 1:4, Leviticus 1:3:2, Leviticus 1:8:14, Leviticus 1:16:21, 22). The statement that “our Lord healed at first by laying on of hands, but gradually passed over to the exclusive use of the word of power, in order that He might not encourage the popular idea that there was a necessary connexion between the laying on of hands and the cure,” is not confirmed by Scripture. The nobleman’s son and the man at Bethesda were healed by a word (John 4:50, John 5:8); Malchus, by a touch. There was no necessity to use either word or touch. He could heal by an act of will, and at a distance from His person (7:10, 12:14; John 4:50). But He more often used means, possibly to aid the faith of those who needed healing (13:13, 14:4, Matthew 8:3, Matthew 8:9:29; Mark 7:33, Mark 7:8:23, Mark 7:25; John 9:6, John 9:6: comp. Mark 5:23, Mark 5:28, Mark 5:41, Mark 5:7:32, Mark 5:8:22). The fact that Jesus commonly used some action in healing made the Jews the more irate at His healing on the Sabbath. Excepting Acts 17:25, θεραπεύω in N.T. is always “heal, cure,” not merely “serve, take care of.” Like colere, it is used of service both to God and to men; and like curare, it is both “to care for” and “to, cure.” The imperfects, ἐθεράπευεν and ἐξήρχετο, mark the continuarice and repetition of the actions.

41. ἐξήρχετο δὲ καὶ δαιμόνια ἀπὸ πολλῶν. “But demons also” (as well as diseases) “came out of many.” For δὲ καί see on 3:9, and for ἐξέρχεσθαι ἀπό see on ver. 35: both are characteristic of Lk. He alone mentions the κράζειν of the demons. There is not much difference between ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ here and ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ Θεοῦ in ver. 34. In both cases it is the presence of Divine holiness which is felt and proclaimed. Php 2:10 is here not to the point; for καταχθόνια there probably does not mean devils.

οὐκ εἴα αὐτὰ λαλεῖν, ὅτι. “He suffered them not to speak, because.” Not, “suffered them not to say that”; which would require λέγειν. In N.T. λαλεῖν and λέγειν are never confused; not even Romans 15:18; 2 Corinthians 11:17; 1 Thessalonians 1:8. Excepting Matthew 24:43 and 1 Corinthians 10:13, ἐάω is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (22:51, Acts 14:16, Acts 14:16:7, Acts 14:19:30, Acts 14:23:32, Acts 14:27:32, 40, Acts 14:28:4); and εἴων is the usual form of imperf.

Godet’s suggestion, that the demons wished to compromise Jesus by exciting a dangerous enthusiasm among the people, or to create a belief that there was a bond of connexion between their work and His, is gratuitous. Their cries are more like involuntary exclamations of dismay. That Jesus should not allow them to make Him known was natural, although Strauss condemns it as inconsistent. Nec tempus erat, nec hi pracones (Beng. on Mark 3:12). “It was not meet that unclean demons should usurp the glory of the apostolic office” (Cyril Alex.). Jesus had rejected the offered assistance of the evil one in the wilderness, and could not desire to be proclaimed as the Messiah by his ministers. Moreover, while the national ideas respecting the Messiah remained so erroneous, the time for such proclamation had not yet come. Comp. John 6:15.

42, 43. The Multitude’s Pursuit of Him. Comp. Mark 1:35-39. Although Lk. has some features which Mk. has not, the latter’s account is more like that of an eye-witness.

42. Γενομένης δὲ ἡμέρας. See on 6:13. Mk. has the strong expression πρωῒ ἔννυχα λίαν. It was so early that it was still like night. This shows His anxiety to escape the multitude and secure time for refreshment of His spiritual nature by converse with God: Mk. adds κἀκεῖ προσηύχετο. Jesus had probably passed the night in Simon’s house; and for οἱ ὄχλοι Mk has Σίμων καὶ οἱ μετʼ αὐτοῦ, for as yet Jesus had no fixed disciples. Peter in telling Mk. of the incident would say, “We went after Him.”

οἱ ὄχλοι ἐπεζήτουν αὐτόν. “The multitudes kept seeking for Him.” The ἐπι- marks the direction of the search: comp. ἐπέδοθη (ver. 17). They wanted more of His teaching and of His miraculous cures. See on 11:29. But neither this nor the πολλῶν in ver. 41 proves that there had not been time to heal all who came the previous evening. Would He have sent any empty away? Lk. is fond of recording the eagerness of the people to come to Christ (5:1, 19, 6:19, 8:19, 40, 12:1, 21:38 : Comp. 19:3 and 23:8).

ἧλθον ἕως αὐτοῦ, καὶ κατεῖχον αὐτὸν τοῦ μὴ πορεύεσθαι ἀπʼ αὐτῶν. They did not leave off seeking until they reached Him, and they tried to stay Him from going away from them.

This use of ἔως with a person is not classical: comp. ἔως ἡμῶν (Acts 9:38) and ἔως τοῦ βασιλέως (1 Mac. 3:26). Of place (4:29, 10:15) or of time (23:44) ἔως is common enough.

With κατεῖχον (imperf, of attempted or intended action) comp. ἐκάλουν (1:59). The τοῦ μὴ πορεύεσθαι is not Lk.’s favourite construction to express purposes or result (see on 1:74), but the gen. after a verb of detention or prevention: comp. Romans 15:22. For the apparently superfluous negative comp. 24:16; Acts 10:47, Acts 14:18, Acts 20:27. Win. 64:4. b, p. 409; 65:2. β, p. 755. Blass, Gr. p. 250.

43. καὶ ταῖς ἑτέραις πόλεσιν. Placed first for emphasis. “To the other cities also (as well as to Capernaum) I must preach the good tidings.” It is a rebuke to them for wishing to monopolize Him. It is not a rebuke for interrupting His preaching by requiring Him to work miracles. There is no evidence that He ever regarded these works of mercy as an interruption of His ministry, or as an unworthy lowering of it. On the contrary, they were an essential part of it; not as evidence of His Messiahship, but as the natural work of the great Healer of body and soul. They were, moreover, an important element in His teaching, for His miracles were parables. As evidence they did not prove His Messialiship, and He did not greatly value the faith which was produced by them (John 2:23, John 2:24). He Himself regarded them as merely auxiliary (John 14:11). He warned His disciples that false Christs and false prophets would work miracles (Mark 13:22), just as the O.T. had warned the Jews that a Prophet was not to be believed simply because he worked miracles (Deuteronomy 13:1-3). And, as a matter of fact, Christ’s miracles did not convince the Jews (John 12:37). Some thought that He was a Prophet (7:16, 9:8, 19; Matthew 21:11; John 9:17), a view taken even by His disciples after the crucifixion (24:19); while others attributed His miracles to Satanic agency (Matthew 12:24). On the other hand, the Baptist, although he wrought no miracles, was thought to be the Messiah (see on 3:15). The saying here recorded does not mean, there fore, “You are mistaking My work. I came to preach the good tidings, not to do works of healing”: but, “You are selfish in your desires. I came to preach the good tidings and to do works of healing to all, and not to a favoured few.” For εὐαγγελίσασθαι See on 2:10.

δεῖ. For the second time (2:49) Christ uses this word respecting. His own conduct. Comp. 9:22, 13:33, 17:25, 19:5, 22:37, 24:7, 26, 44. His work and His sufferings are ordered by Divine decree. The word is thus used of Christ throughout N.T. (Acts 3:21, Acts 3:17:3; 1 Corinthians 15:25).

τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ. This is Lk.’s first use of this frequent expression (6:20, 7:28, 8:1, 10, etc.), which Jn. employs twice (3:3, 5), Mt. four times (12:28, 19:24, 21:31, 43), Mk. often. For its import see Ewald, Hist. of Israel, vi., Eng. tr. pp. 201-210; Schaff’s Herzog, art. “Kingdom of God”; Edersh. L. & T. 1. pp. 265-270. The ἐπὶ τοῦτο refers to the whole of what precedes: “For this end,” viz. “to preach the good tidings everywhere in the land.” For this use of ἐπί comp. 23:48 and Matthew 26:50, It is quite classical (Xen. Anab. ii. 5, 22, 7:8, 4). For ἀπεστάλην see on ver. 18. The evidence for it (א B C D L X) as against ἀπέσταλμαι (A Q R) is overwhelming. Yet Godet says on peut hésiter. It refers to the mission from the Father, as does the ἐξῆλθον of Mk. But it is possible to give the latter the inadequate interpretation of leaving the house at Caperuaum.

44. Καὶ ἦν κηρύσσων εἰς τὰς συναγωγὰς τῆς Ἰουδαίας. This statement forms a conclusion to the section (14-44); and the analytical tense indicates that what is stated continued for some time.

Both Lk. and Mk. have εἰς τὰσσυναγωγάς, which in both cases has been altered into the easier ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς. The εἰς may be explained as a pregn. constr., “He went into the synagogues and preached there” or as expressing the motion or direction of the preaching (Mark 4:15; John 8:26).Comp. ἐς τὸν δῆμον ταῦτα λέγωσιν (Thuc. 5:45, 1). It seems probable that the reading Ἰουδαίας (א B C L Q R) is the original one, which has been corrected to Γαλιλαίας (A D X Γ Δ Λ Π) on account of its difficulty. But, as in 1:5 and 7:17, Judæa may here mean the whole country of the Jews, Palestine. Lk. often uses Ἱουδαία in this sense (23:5; Acts 2:9, Acts 2:10:37, Acts 2:11:1, Acts 2:29, Acts 2:26:20; comp. Galatians 1:22). Classic writers use the term in much the same manner. Strabo means by it all the region from Lebanon southwards. Syr-Sin. has “of Judæa.”.

1 “Sympathy with the sinner in his trial does not depend on the experience of sin, but on the experience of the strength of the temptation to sin, which only the sinless can know in its full intensity. He who falls yields before the last strain” (Wsctt. on Hebrews 2:18). See Neander, L. J. C. §§ 46, 47, PP. 77, 78.

1 Le baptême et la tentation se succèdent l’un à l’autre dans la réalité de l’histoire, comme dans le récit des Evangélistes. Ces deux faits inséparables, qui s’éciairent en s’opposant dans un contraste uigoreux, sont le urai prélude de la vie du Christ. L’un est la manifestation de l’ Esprit de Dieu, l’autre, celle de l’esprit du mal; l’un nous montre la filiation divine de Jésus, l’autre, sa nature humaine uouée à la lutte et à l’épreuve; l’un nous réuèle la force infinie avec laquelle il agira, l’autre, l’obstacle qu’il saura renverser; l’un nous enseigne sa intime, l’autre, la loi de son action (Didon, p. 225).

RV. Revised Version.

AV. Authorized Version.

Trench, Trench, New Testament Synonyms.

1 The fasts of Moses and Elijah were of similar duration (Deuteronomy 9:9; Deu_1 K. 19:8). The number forty in Scripture is connected with suffering. The Deluge lasted forty days and nights (Genesis 7:4, Genesis 7:12). The Israelites wandered for forty years (Numbers 14:33, Numbers 32:13). Egypt is to lie waste forty years (Ezekiel 29:11). Ezekiel is to bear the iniquity of the house of Judah (i.e. the penalty for that iniquity) forty days, each day representing a year (4:6). Offenders received forty stripes as a maximum (Deuteronomy 25:3). A mother was unclean for forty days after childbirth (Leviticus 12:1-4). Perhaps we are to understand that the fast of the Ninevites lasted forty days.

1 Dubitavit de illo demonum princeps, eumque tentavit, an Christus esset explorans (De civ. Del, 9:21)

2 Latham, Pastor Pastorum, p. 113.

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

1 Trench quotes from Ambrose: Non enim quasi Deus utitur potestare (quid enim mihi proderat), sed quasi homo commune sibi arcessit auxilium.

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

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

2 It is worth noting that A. V., which follows those texts that insert“Τπαγε ὀπίσω μου, Σατανᾶ in ver. 8, renders the words “Get rhee behind Me, Satan”. there, and “Get rhee hence, Satan” in Mt.

Jos. Josephus.

Wsctt. Westcott.

Beng. Bengel.

1 In this connexion a remark of Père Didon is worth quoting. Of the traditional scene of the Temptation he says that there Christ avait sous les yeux ce chemin de jèricho à Jèrusalem qüil devait suivre, un iour, avec ses discibles, pour alley àla mort (Jésus Christ Ch. iii. p. 209).

Eus. Eusebius of Cæsarea

1 See Edersh. L. & T. 1. p. 304; Latham, Pastor Pastorum, p.140.

WH. Westcott and Hort.

1 On synagogues see Edersh. L. & T. 1. pp. 430-450, Hist. of Jewish Nation, pp. 100-129, ed. 1896; Schürer, Jewish People in the T. of J.C. ii. 2, pp. 52-89; Hausrath, N. T. Times, 1. PP. 84-93; Plumptre in D.B.; Leyrer in Herzog, Pro_1; Strack in Herzog, Pro_2; and other authorities in Schürer.

1 We have no right to infer from this incident that the Hebrew Bible could still be understood by the people. Nothing is said about interpretation; but we cannot assume that it did not take place. Mark 15:34 is evidence of some knowledge of O.T. in Aramaic. See Classical Review, May 1894, p, 216,against Kautzsch, Grammatik des biblishen Aramaäischen, p. 19.

2 Comp. Ἀναστὰς δέ τις τῶν ἐπειροτάτων ὑφηγεῖται τἄριστα καὶ συνοίσοντα οἶς ἄπας ὁ βίος ἐπιδώσει πρὸς τὸ βέλτιον (Philo, De Septenario, 6, ). See also the fragments a Philo in Eus. Præp Evang. 8:7, 12, 13, and 8:12:10 ed.Gaisford. These three passages give us Philo’s account of the Synagogus services.

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

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

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

1 Scrivener, int. to Crit. of N.T. 1. pp. 12, 13, 4th ed. The evidence against the clause ἰάσααθαι … τὴν καρδίαν here (in א A Q of LXX τῇ καρδία̣) is decisive. Itisomitted by א B D L Ξ, 13-69, 33, most MSS. Of Lat. Vet. and best MSS, of Vulg., most MSS. of Bob. Aeth. Arm. Syr-Sin., Orig. Eus. etc., all the best editors and RV. See Sanday, App. ad N.T. p. 117.

Vulg. Vulgate.

1 On be uncertainty respecting the length of the ministry, and the contures respecting it made by early Christians, see Iren. Hær. 2:22; Eus. H.E. 1:10; Sanday in the Expositor, Ist series, 11. p. 16.

1 “Jesus acknowledged the Old Testament in its full extent and its perfect sacredness. The Scripture cannot be broken, He says (John 10:35), and forthwith draws His argument from the wording of it. Of course He can only have meant by this the Scripture in the form in which it was handed down, and He must have regarded it exactly as His age did (comp. 11:51). Any kind of superior knowledge in these matters would merely have made Him incapable of placing Himself on a level with His hearers respecting the use of Scripture, or would have compelled Him to employ a far-reaching accommodation, the very idea of which involves internal untruthfulness. All, therefore, that is narrated in Scripture He accepted absolutely as actual history, and He regarded the several books as composed by the men to whom they were ascribed by tradition (B. Weiss, Leben Jesu, 1:3, 5, En g. tr. 2. pp. 62, 63).

1 Comp. Augustine’s descreption of his indifference to the preaching of Amborse,although charmed with his winning style: Rerum incuriosus et contemptor adstabam et delectabar suavitate sermonis (In Ezekiel 33:32).

V. de J. Vie de Jésus.

Crem. Cremer, Lexicon of New Testament Greek.

Wetst. Wetstein.

Alf. Alford.

Cov. Coverdale.

L. and S. Liddell and Scott, Lexicon.

Sin. Sinaitic.

1 Even Godet is among these. La majestgé de sa personae et la farmeteé de sa personne et la fermetédeson regard imposeèrent à fes ses furieux. L’historieracante plusieurs traits semblables (i. p. 327, 3ème ed.). Better Didon : Une force divine le gardait (p. 312, ed. 1891).See Hase, Gesch. Jesu, p. 445, ed. 1891.

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

Tert. Tertullian.

1 Of the cinq petites villes dont l’ humanité parlera eternellementt autant que de Rome et d’ Athénes, Renan considers the identification of Magala (Medjdel) alone as certain. Of Caphamahum, Chorazin, Dalmanutha, and Bethsaida he says, Il est douteux qu’on arrive jamais sur ce sol profondement dévasté, à fixerles places où I’ humanité voudrait venir baiser l’ empreinte de ses pieds (Vie de Jésus, p.142,ed.1863).

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

Syr Syriac.

Luth. Luther.

Tyn. Tyndale.

Rhem. Rheims (or Douay).

1 The form δύνω to be Ionic, but occurs once or twice in Attic prose (Veitch, s.v.). Except ἔδυσεν or ἐδυ in Mark 1:32, the word does not occur again in N.T. It is freq. in LXX (Jdg 14:18; 2 Samuel 2:24; 1 Kings 22:36; 2 Chronicles 18:34, etc.). It means “sink into, enter,” πόντον or the like being expressed or understood. Lk, never uses the unclassical ὀψία (9:12, 22:14, 23:54, 24:29),which occurs often in Mt. and Mk. and twice in Jn.

C

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

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

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

R R. Cod. Nitriensis Rescriptus, sæc. 8. Brought from a convent in the Nitrian desert about 1847, and now in the British Museum. Contains 1:1-13, 1:69-2:4, 16-27, 4:38-5:5, 5:25-6:8, 18-36, 39, 6:49-7:22, 44, 46, 47, 8:5-15, 8:25-9:1, 12-43, 10:3-16, 11:5-27, 12:4-15, 40-52, 13:26-14:1, 14:12-15:1, 15:13-16:16, 17:21-18:10, 18:22-20:20, 20:33-47, 21:12-22:15, 42-56, 22:71-23:11, 38-51. By a second hand 15:19-21.

Δ̠Δ. Cod. Sangallensis, sæc. ix. In the monastery of St. Gall in Switzerland. Greek and Latin. Contains the whole Gospel.