CHAPTER 6

Luke 6:1. δευτεροπρώτῳ] is wanting in B L א and seven min. Syr. Arp. Perss. Copt. Aeth. codd. of It. Condemned by Schulz, bracketed by Lacbm and Tisch. Synops. See the exegetical remarks.

Luke 6:2. αὐτοῖς] bracketed by Lachm., is, with Tisch., to be struck out, as it is wanting in B C* L X א, min. Copt. Verc. Colb., while D, Cant. read αὐτῷ· ἴδε. An addition in accordance with the parallels. Of ποιεῖν ἐν, the ἐν alone is to be deleted, with Tisch., on decisive evidence, but not, with Lachm., the ποιεῖν also.

Luke 6:3. ὁπότε] Lachm. has ὅτε, in accordance, indeed, with B C D L X Δ א, min.; but taken from the parallels, from which, moreover, the omission of ὄντες (Lachm.) is to be explained, as well as in Luke 6:4 the reading πῶς (Lachm., following L R X א**, min.).

Luke 6:4. The omission of ὡς (B D, Cant. Marcion) is to be regarded as a transcriber’s error (occasioned by the subsequent ΕΙΣ). If nothing had originally been found there, only πῶς, not ὡς would have been added.

ἔλαβε καί] Lachm. has λαβών, following B C* L X 33, Syr. Copt. Theophyl. The Recepta is to be maintained. The words were left out,—an omission occasioned the more easily by the similar ἔφαγε καί which follows, as the parallels have not ἔλαβε καί. The omission occurs, moreover, in D K א, min. vss. Ir. Then λαβών was introduced as a restoration in better syntactical form.

καὶ τοῖς] B L 1, 112, Syr. Arr. Pers. Arm. Goth. Vulg. It. Theophyl. Ir. Ambr. have merely τοῖς. In view of these important authorities καί must be traced to Mark 2:26 (where the evidence against it is weaker), and should be deleted.

Luke 6:6. δὲ καί] Lachm. has δέ, in accordance with B L X א, min. vss. Cyr. But why should καί have been added? Rather the possibility of dispensing with it alongside of ἑτέρῳ gave rise to its omission.

Luke 6:7. With Lachm. and Tisch. read παρετηροῦντο (approved also by Griesb.), in accordance with preponderating evidence. See on Mark 3:2.

After δέ Elz. has αὐτόν on weighty evidence, indeed, but it is an addition. Comp. Luke 14:1; Mark 3:2.

θεραπεύσει] Lachm. and Tisch. have θεραπεύει; the future is taken from Mark.

κατηγορίαν] B S X א, min. and vss. Have κατηγορεῖν. So Tisch. D also vouches for the infinitive by reading κατηγορῆσαι, the infinitive being explained in the later reading by the use of the substantive.

Luke 6:8. ἀνθρώπῳ] B L א, min. Cyr. have ἀνδρί. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Tisch. Rightly; τῷ ἀνδρί was omitted by reason of the following τῷ (so still D, Cant.), and then τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ was inserted, in accordance with Luke 6:6 and Mark 3:3, instead of τῷ ἀνδρί.

ὁ δέ] Lachm. and Tisch. have καί, following B D L X א, 1, 33, Vulg. It. Copt. Cyr. The former suggested itself more readily to the transcribers. Comp. Luke 6:10.

Luke 6:9. οὖν] Lachm. and Tisch. have δέ, following B D L א, min. Vulg. It. Goth. Not to be decided; οὖν, it is true, is not frequently employed in the Gospel of Luke for continuing the narrative, and the reading wavers mostly between οὖν and δέ; yet it is established in Luke 3:7, Luke 19:12, Luke 22:36.

ἐπερωτήσω] Tisch. has ἐπερωτῶ, following B L א, 157, Copt. Vulg. Brix. For. Rd. The Recepta has resulted from a reminiscence of Luke 20:3; Mark 11:29. The present is extremely appropriate to the vivacity of the whole action.

τι or τί] Lachm. and Tisch. have εἰ, following B D L א 157, Copt. Vulg. It. Cyr. Aug. In view of these important authorities, and because εἰ fits in with the reading ἐπερωτῶ, which, according to the evidence, is to be approved (see above), εἰ is to be preferred.

ἀπολέσαι] also retained by Lachm. and Tisch., following B D L X א, vss. even Vulg. It. Griesb. and Scholz have ἀποκτεῖναι, which is introduced from Mark 3:4, whence also comes τοῖς σάββασιν, instead of which Lachm. and Tisch. have adopted τῷ σαββάτῳ, following B D L א, Cant. Rd. Colb. Corb. For. Aug.

Luke 6:10. Instead of αὐτῷ Elz. has τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ, in opposition to preponderating evidence.

After ἐποίησεν (instead of which D X א, min. and most of the vss. read ἐξέτεινεν, which is from Matthew 12:13; Mark 3:5) Elz. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. have οὕτως, which is wanting in important but still not preponderating authorities, and is deleted by Griesb., but defended by. Schulz, in accordance with Luke 9:15, Luke 12:43. It is to be adopted. The possibility of dispensing with it and the ancient gloss ἐξέτεινεν occasioned the dropping out of the word.

After αὐτοῦ Elz. has ὑγιής, in opposition to decisive evidence. It is from Matthew 12:13. Moreover, ὡς ἡ ἄλλη (condemned by Griesb., bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch.), which is wanting in B L א, min. Copt. Vulg. Sax. Verc. For. Corb. Rd., is from Matthew.

Luke 6:12. ἐξῆλθεν] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἐξελθεῖν αὐτόν; which, in accordance with the preponderance of the MSS., is to be preferred.

Luke 6:14-16. Before Ἰάκωβ., before Φίλιππ., before Ματθ., before Ἰάκωβ., and before Ἰούδ. Ἰακ., is to be inserted καί, on external evidence (Tisch.).

Luke 6:16. ὅς καί] Lachm. and Tisch. have only ὅς, following B L א, min. vss. even Vulg. It. Marcion. Rightly; καί is from the parallels.

Luke 6:18. ὀχλούμ.] Tisch. has ἐνοχλ., following very important MSS. The compound form was overlooked.

Instead of ἀπό Elz. has ὑπό, in opposition to decisive evidence. An alteration arising from misunderstanding, because ἀπὸ πν. ἀκαθ. was believed to be dependent upon the participle (comp. Acts 5:16), which error, moreover, gave rise to the καί before ἐθεραπ. Lachm. and Tisch. have rightly deleted this καί, in accordance with preponderating evidence.

Luke 6:23. Instead of χάρτηε Elz. has χαίρετε, in opposition to decisive evidence.

ταῦτα or ταὐτά] Lachm. and Tisch. have τὰ αὐτά, following B D Q X Ξ, min. Marcion. The Recepta is a transcriber’s error. The same reading is to be adopted in Luke 6:26 on nearly the same evidence; so also in Luke 17:30.

Luke 6:25. ὑμῖν before οἱ γελ. (suspected also by Griesb.) is, in accordance with B K L S X Ξ א, min. Or. Ir., with Tisch., to be struck out. An addition to conform with what precedes. Elz. has ὑμῖν also before ὅταν, Luke 6:26, in opposition to decisive evidence. But νῦν is, with Tisch., following very important evidence, to be inserted after ἐμπεπλ.

Luke 6:26. οἱ ἄνθρ.] Elz. Lachm. Tisch. have πάντες οἱ ἄνθρ. The preponderance of evidence is in favour of πάντες, and it is to be maintained in opposition to Griesb. The omission was occasioned by the apparently inappropriate relation to οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν.

Luke 6:28. ὑμῖν] Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. have ὑμᾶς. There are weighty authorities on both sides, although the evidence is stronger for ὑμᾶς; but ὑμῖν is the more unusual, and is attested even so early as by Justin (?) and Origen; ὑμᾶς is from Matthew 5:44.

Before προσεύχ. Elz. has καί, in opposition to decisive evidence.

Luke 6:34. The reading δανείζετε, although approved by Griesb., is a transcriber’s error. Comp. on Romans 14:8. Lachm. has δανείσητε (Tisch.: δανίσητε), following only B Ξ א, 157.

Before ἀμαρτωλοί Elz. has οἱ, in opposition to decisive evidence.

On evidence as decisive τοῦ (in Elz.) before ὑψ., Luke 6:35, is condemned. But μηδένα (Tisch.) instead of μηδέν is too weakly attested by Ξ א, Syr.utr, especially as it might easily result from a transcriber’s error.

Luke 6:36. οὖν] is wanting in B D L Ξ א, min. vss. and Fathers. Condemned by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. A connective particle, although not directly taken from Matthew 5:48.

Luke 6:39. δέ] Lachm. and Tisch. have δὲ καί, following preponderating evidence; the καί, which might be dispensed with, was passed over.

πεσοῦνται] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἐμπεσοῦνται. The Recepta is from Matthew 15:14.

Luke 6:43. οὐδέ] B L Ξ א, min. Copt. Arm. Verc. Germ. add πάλιν, which Lachm. has in brackets. With Tisch. to be adopted; the omission of the word that might be dispensed with resulted from Matthew 7:18.

Luke 6:45. Read the second half of the verse: κ. ὁ πονηρὸς ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ προφέρει τὸ πονηρόν (Tisch.). In view of B D L א, min. vss. the ἄνθρωπος and θησαυροῦ τῆς καρδίας αὐτοῦ of the Recepta (both condemned by Griesb., and bracketed by Lachm.) are to be regarded as supplementary additions, as also in the next clause τοῦ and τῆς (deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.).

Luke 6:48. τεθεμελ. γὰρ ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν] Tisch. has διὰ τὸ καλῶς οἰκοδομεῖσθαι [οἰκοδομῆσθαι in Tisch. 8] αὐτήν, following B L Ξ א, 33, 157, Syr.p (in the margin), Copt. The Recepta is a gloss from Matthew 7:25.

Luke 6:49. ἔπεσε] συνέπεσε, which Griesb. has recommended and Tisch. has adopted, is so strongly attested by B D L R Ξ א, that ἔπεσε is to be referred to Matthew.

Luke 6:1-5. See on Matthew 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-28, whom Luke, with some omission, however, follows (see especially Luke 6:5). Between the foregoing and the present narrative Matthew interposes a series of other incidents.

ἐν σαββ. δευτεροπρώτῳ] all explanations are destitute of proof, because δευτερόπρωτος never occurs elsewhere. According to the analogy of δευτερογάμος, δευτεροβόλος, δευτεροτόκος, etc., it might be: a Sabbath which for the second time is the first. Comp. δευτεροδεκάτη, the second tenth, in Jerome, ad Ezekiel 45. According to the analogy of δευτερέσχατος, penultimus, Heliodorus in Soran. Chirurg. vet. p. 94, it might—since from ἔσχατος the reckoning must be backwards, while from πρῶτος it must be forwards, in order to get a δεύτερος—be the second first, i.e. the second of two firsts. All accurate grammatical information is wanting. As, however, if any definite Sabbaths at all had borne the name of σάββατον δευτερόπωτον (and this must be assumed, as Luke took for granted that the expression was a familiar one), this name would doubtless occur elsewhere (in the Old Testament, in the LXX., in Philo, Josephus, in the Talmud, etc.); but this is not the case, as the whole Greek literature has not even one instance of the peculiar word in itself to show;[95] as among the Synoptics it was precisely Luke that could least of all impute to his reader a knowledge of the name; and as, finally, very ancient and important authorities have not got ΔΕΥΤΕΡΟΠΡΏΤῼ at all in the passage before us (see the critical remarks), just as even so early an authority as Syrp. remarks in the margin: “non est in omni exemplari,”

I regard ΔΕΥΤΕΡΟΠΡΏΤῼ as not being genuine, although, moreover, the suspicion suggests itself that it was omitted “ignoratione rei” (Bengel, Appar. Crit.), and because the parallel places have nothing similar to it. In consideration of ἐν ἑτέρῳ σαββ., Luke 6:6, probably the note ΠΡΏΤῼ was written at the side, but a comparison with Luke 4:31 occasioned the corrective note ΔΕΥΤΈΡῼ to be added, which found its way into the text, partly without (so still Arro. and Arer.), partly with ΠΡΏΤῼ (thus ΔΕΥΤΈΡῼ ΠΡΏΤῼ, so still R Γ, min.), so that in the next place, seeing that the two words in juxtaposition were meaningless, the one word ΔΕΥΤΕΡΟΠΡΏΤῼ was coined. Wilke also and Hofmann, according to Lichtenstein; and Lichtenstein himself, as well as Bleek and Holtzmann (comp. Schulz on Griesbach), reject the word; Hilgenfeld regards it as not being altogether certain.[96] Of the several attempts at explanation, I note historically only the following: (1) Chrysostom, Hom. 40 in Matth.: ὅταν διπλῆ ἡ ἀργία ᾖ καὶ τοῦ σαββάτου τοῦ κυρίου καὶ ἑτέρας ἑορτῆς διαδεχομένης, so that thus is understood a feast-day immediately following the Sabbath. Comp. Epiphanius, Haer. 30, 31. So also Beza, Paulus, and Olshausen. (2) Theophylact understands a Sabbath, the day before which (παρασκευή) had been a feast-day.[97] (3) Isidore of Pelusium, Ep. iii. 110 (comp. Euthymius Zigabenus, Calvin, Surenhusius, Wolf), thinks that the πρώτη τῶν ἀζύμων is meant, and was called ΔΕΥΤΕΡΟΠΡΏΤΗ: ἘΠΕΙΔῊ ΔΕΎΤΕΡΟΝ ΜῈΝ ἮΝ ΤΟῦ ΠΆΣΧΑ, ΠΡῶΤΟΝ ΔῈ ΤῶΝ ἈΖΎΜΩΝ· ἙΣΠΈΡΑς ΓᾺΡ ΘΎΟΝΤΕς ΤῸ ΠΆΣΧΑ Τῇ ἙΞῆς ΤῊΝ ΤῶΝ ἈΖΎΜΩΝ ἘΠΑΝΗΓΎΡΙΖΟΝ ἙΟΡΤῊΝ, ἫΝ ΚΑῚ ΔΕΥΤΕΡΌΠΡΩΤΟΝ ἘΚΆΛΟΥΝ,—that every festival was called a Sabbath. Comp. Saalschütz: “the second day of the first feast (Passover).” (4) Most prevalent has become the view of Scaliger (Emend. tempor. VI. p. 557) and Petavius, that it is the first Sabbath after the second day of the Passover.[98] Comp. already Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. 31. From the second Easter day (on which the first ripe ears of corn were offered on the altar, Leviticus 23:10 ff.; Lightfoot, p. 340) were numbered seven Sabbaths down to Pentecost, Leviticus 23:15. Comp. also Winer, Realwörterb. II. p. 348 ff.; Ewald, Jahrb. I. p. 72, and Gesch. Chr. p. 304. (5) According to the same reckoning, distinguishing the three first Sabbaths of the season between Easter and Pentecost from the rest, Redslob in the Intell. Bl. der allgem. Lit. Zeit., Dec. 1847, p. 570 f., says that it was the second Sabbath after the second Easter day, δευτερόπρωτος being equivalent to ΔΕΎΤΕΤΟς ΤῶΝ ΠΡΏΤΩΝ, therefore about fourteen days after Easter. Comp. Ewald, Jahrb. XI. p. 254: that it was the second of the two first Sabbaths of the Passover month. (6) Von Til and Wetstein: that it was the first Sabbath of the second month (Igar). So also Storr and others. (7) Credner, Beitr. I. p. 357, concludes that according to the κήρυγμα τοῦ Πέτρου (in Clem. Strom. vi. 5, p. 760, Pott) the Sabbath at the full moon was called πρῶτον (a mistaken explanation of the words, see Wieseler, p. 232 f.), and hence that a Sabbath at the new moon was to be understood. (8) Hitzig, Ostern und Pfingst. p. 19 ff. (agreeing with Theophylact as to the idea conveyed by the word), conceives that it was the fifteenth Nisan, which, according to Leviticus 23:11, had been called a Sabbath, and was named δευτερόπρ., because (but see, on the other hand, Wieseler, p. 353 ff.) the fourteenth Nisan always fell on a Saturday. (9) Wieseler, l.c. p. 231 ff.,[99] thinks that it was the second-first Sabbath of the year in a cycle of seven years, i.e. the first Sabbath of the second year in a week of years. Already L. Capellus, Rhenferd, and Lampe (ad Joh. II. p. 5) understood it to be the first month in the year (Nisan), but explained the name from the fact that the year had two first Sabbaths, namely, in Tisri, when the civil year began, and in Nisan, when the ecclesiastical year began. (10) Ebrard, p. 414 f., following Krafft (Chron. und Harm. d. vier Evang. p. 18 f.), regards it as the weekly Sabbath that occurs between the first and last Easter days (feast-Sabbaths). For yet other interpretations (Grotius and Valckenaer: that the Sabbath before Easter was called the first great one πρωτὸπρωτον, the Sabbath before Pentecost the second great one δευτερόπρωτον, the Sabbath before the feast of Tabernacles ΤΡΙΤΌΠΡΩΤΟΝ[100]), see in Calovius, Bibl. Ill., and Lübkert, l.c.

τοὺς στάχυας] the ears of corn that offered themselves on the way.

ἬΣΘΙΟΝ ΨΏΧΟΝΤΕς Κ.Τ.Λ.] they ate (the contents), rubbing them out. The two things happened at the same time, so that they continually conveyed to their mouths the grains set free by this rubbing.

Luke 6:3. οὐδὲ τοῦτο] have you never so much as read this? etc.

ὁπότε] quandoquidem, since, Plato, Legg. x. p. 895 B; Euthyd. p. 297 D; Xen. Anab. iii. 2. 2; not elsewhere in the New Testament. Comp. Hermann, ad Soph. O. C. 1696.

Luke 6:4. ἔξεστι] with an accusative and infinitive, occurring only here in the New Testament, frequently in the classical writers, Plat. Polit. p. 290 D; Xen. Mem. i. 1. 9, iii. 12. 8, and elsewhere; also after a preceding dative (Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. p. 57, ed. 2).

Luke 6:5. ἔλεγεν αὐτ.] as Mark, but without the auxiliary thought found in Mark which introduces the conclusion.

[95] In Eustathius in Vita Eutych. n. 95, the Sunday after Easter is called δευτεροπρώτη κυριακή; but this epithet manifestly originated from the passage before us.

[96] Tischendorf had deleted it in his edition of 1849, but in ed. 7 (1859) [also in ed. 8 (1869)] had restored and defended it; now [1867] (in the Synops. ed. 2) he has, with Lachmann, bracketed it.

[97] Comp. Luther’s obscure gloss: “the second day after the high Sabbath.” Schegg explains the expression even as a Christian designation, namely, of the Saturday after Good Friday. In opposition to Serno (Tag des letzt. Passahmahls, 1859, p. 48 ff.), who, according to his mistaken supposition of the doubling of the first and last feast-days, brings out the sixteenth Nissan, see Wieseler in Reuter’s Repert. 1860, p. 138.

[98] The explanation of Scaliger is followed by Casaubon, Drusius, Lightfoot, Schoettgen, Kuinoel, Neander, de Wette, and many more; and is defended, especially against Paulus, by Lübkert in the Stud. u. Krit. 1835, p. 671 ff. Opposed to Scaliger are Wieseler, Synopse, p. 230; Saalschütz, Mos. R. p. 394 f.; and aptly Grotius in loc. Lange, L. J. II. 2, p. 813, tries to improve the explanation of Scaliger by assuming that preceding the cycle between Easter and Pentecost there is a shorter cycle from 1 Nisan to Easter; that the first Sabbath of this first cycle is therefore the first-first, while the first Sabbath of that second cycle (from Easter to Pentecost) is the second-first.

[99] Tischendorf, Synopse, ed. 2, now opposes the explanation of Wieseler, with which in ed. 1 he agreed.

[100] V. Gumpach also (üb. d. altjüd. Kalend., Brüssel 1848) understands a Sabbath of the second rank. Very peculiarly Weizsäcker, p. 59, says: “that Luke 4:16; Luke 4:31 recounts two Sabbath narratives, and now Luke 6:1; Luke 6:6 recounts other two,” and that the Sabbath in the passage before us is therefore the first of this second series of narratives, consequently the second-first. But what reader would hare been able to discover this reference, especially as between Luke 4:31 and Luke 6:1 so many other narratives intervened? Weizsäcker, moreover, pertinently observes, in opposition to every hypothesis of an explanation in accordance with the calculation of the divine services, that our Gospel stands much too remote from things of this kind.

REMARK.

In D, which does not read Luke 6:5 till after Luke 6:10, the following passage occurs after Luke 6:4 : τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ θεασάμενός τινα ἐργαζόμενον τῷ σαββάτῳ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ἄνθρωπε, εἰ μὲν οἶδας τί ποιεῖς, μακάριος εἶ· εἰ δὲ μὴ οἶδας, ἐπικατάρατος καὶ παραβάτης εἶ τοῦ νόμου. In substance it certainly bears the stamp of genius, and is sufficiently liberal-minded to admit of its being original, even although it is not genuine. I regard it as an interpolated fragment of a true tradition.

Luke 6:6-11. See on Matthew 12:9-14; Mark 3:1-6, in comparison with which Luke’s narrative is somewhat weakened (see especially Luke 6:10-11).

δὲ καί] for that which now follows also took place on a Sabbath.

ἐν ἑτέρῳ σαββ.] inexact, and varying from Matthew. Whether this Sabbath was actually the next following (which Lange finds even in Matthew) is an open question.

Luke 6:9. According to the reading ἐπερωτῶ ὑμᾶς, εἰ (see the critical remarks): I ask you whether. With the Recepta, the MSS. according to the accentuation τι or τί favour one or other of the two different views: I will ask you something, is it lawful, etc.? or: I will ask you, what is lawful? The future would be in favour of the former. Comp. Matthew 21:24.

Luke 6:11. ἀνοίας] want of understanding, dementia (Vulg.: insipientia), 2 Timothy 3:9; Wis 19:3; Wis 15:18; Proverbs 22:15; Herod. vi. 69; Plat. Gorg. p. 514 E, and elsewhere. Also Thucyd. iii. 48. Usually: madness. Comp. Plat. Tim. p. 86 B: δύο … ἀνοίας γένη, τὸ μὲν μανίαν, τὸ δὲ ἀμαθίαν. As to the Æolic optative form ποιήσειαν (comp. Acts 17:27), see Winer, p. 71 [E. T. 91]. Ellendt, ad Arrian. Alex. I. p. 353. Lachmann and Tischendorf have ποιήσαιεν (a correction).

Luke 6:12-13. Comp. Mark 3:13-15.

τὸ ὄρος] as Matthew 5:1.

προσεύξασθαι κ.τ.λ.] comp. on Luke 5:16.

ἐν τῇ προσεὐχῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ] in prayer to God. Genitive of the object (see Winer, p. 167 [E. T. 231 f.]).

τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ] in the wider sense. Comp. Luke 6:17.

καὶ ἐκλεξάμ, κ.τ.λ.] The connection is: “And after He had chosen for Himself from them twelve … and (Luke 6:17) had come down with them, He took up His position on a plain, and (scil. ἔστη, there stood there) a crowd of His disciples, and a great multitude of people … who had come to hear Him and to be healed; and they that were tormented were healed of unclean spirits: and all the people sought,” etc. The discovery of Schleiermacher, that ἐκλεξάμ. denotes not the actual choice, but only a bringing them together, was a mistaken idea which the word itself ought to have guarded against. Comp. Acts 1:2.

οὓς καὶ ἀπ. ὠνόμ.] An action concurring towards the choice, and therefore, according to Luke, contemporaneous (in opposition to Schleiermacher). Comp. Mark 3:14, which is the source of this certainly anticipatory statement.

Luke 6:12-49. Luke inserts at this point the choice of the Twelve, and then a shorter and less original (see also Weiss in the Jahrb. f. d. Th. 1864, p. 52 ff.) edition of the Sermon on the Mount.[101] According to Matthew, the choice of the Twelve had not yet occurred before the Sermon on the Mount; nevertheless it is implied in Matthew, not, indeed, sooner than at Luke 10:1, but after the call of Matthew himself. Luke in substance follows Mark in what concerns the choice of the apostles. But he here assigns to the Sermon on the Mount—which Mark has not got at all—a position different from that in Matthew, following a tradition which attached itself to the locality of the choice of the apostles (τὸ ὄρος) as readily as to the description and the contents of the sermon. See, moreover, Commentary on Matthew. According to Baur, indeed, Luke purposely took from the discourse its place of distinction, and sought in the Pauline interest to weaken it as much as possible.

[101] That Matthew and Luke gave two distinct discourses, delivered in immediate succession (which Augustine supposed), that were related to one another as esoteric (given to the disciples exclusively) and exoteric (in the ears of the people), is neither to be established exegetically, nor is it reconcilable with the creative power of discourse manifested by Jesus at other times, in accordance with which He was certainly capable, at least, of extracting from the original discourse what would be suitable for the people (in opposition to Lange, L. J. II. 2, p. 566 ff.). And how much does the discourse in Matthew contain which there was no reason for Jesus keeping back from the people in Luke’s supposed exoteric discourse! Comp. also Matthew 7:28, from which passage it is clear that Matthew neither regarded the discourse as esoteric, nor knew anything of two discourses.

Luke 6:14-16. Comp. on Matthew 10:2-4; Mark 3:16-19.

ζηλωτήν] Comp. Acts 1:13. See on Matthew 10:4.

Ἰούδαν Ἰακώβου] Usually (including even Ebrard and Lange): Judas the brother of James, and therefore the son of Alphaeus; but without any foundation in exegesis. At least Judges 1:1 might be appealed to, where both Jude and James are natural brothers of the Lord. In opposition to supplying ἀδελφός, however, we have to point out in general, that to justify the supplying of the word a special reference must have preceded (as Alciphr. Ep. ii. 2), otherwise we must abide by the usual υἱός, as at Luke 6:15; further, that Matthew 10:2 mentions the pairs of brothers among the apostles most precisely as such, but not among them James and Lebbaeus (who is to be regarded as identical with our Judas; see on Matthew 10:2[102]). Hence (so also Ewald), here and at Acts 1:13, we must read Judas Song of Solomon of James, of which James nothing further is known.[103]

ΠΡΟΔΌΤΗς] Traitor (2Ma 5:15; 2Ma 10:13; 2Ma 10:22; 2 Timothy 3:4); only here in the New Testament is Judas thus designated. Matthew has παραδούς, comp. Mark. Yet comp. Acts 7:52.

Observe, moreover, that Luke here enumerates the four first-named apostles in pairs, as does Matthew; whereas in Acts 1:13 he places first the three most confidential ones, as does Mark. We see from this simply that in Acts 1:13 he followed a source containing the latter order, by which he held impartially and without any mechanical reconciliation with the order of the passage before us. The conclusion is much too hasty, which argues that Mark was not before him till Acts 1:13, and that when he wrote the Gospel he had not yet become acquainted with Mark’s work (Weizsäcker).

[102] Ewald takes a different view, that even during the lifetime of Jesus Ἰούδας Ἰακώβου had taken the place of the Thaddaeus (Lebbaeus), who had probably been cut off by death. See his Gesch. Chr. p. 323. In this way, indeed, the narrative of Luke in the passage before us, where the choice of the Twelve is related, would be incorrect. That hypothesis would only be capable of reconciliation with Acts 1:13. According to Schleiermacher also, L. J. p. 369, the persons of the apostolic band were not always the same, and the different catalogues belong to different periods. But when the evangelists wrote, the Twelve were too well known in Christendom, nay, too world-historical, to have allowed the enumeration of different individual members.

[103] Comp. Nonnus, Paraphrase of John 14:22 : Ἰσύδας υἱὸς Ἰακώβοιο.

Luke 6:17. Ἐπὶ τόπου πεδινοῦ] according to the connection of Luke (Luke 6:12, εἰς τὸ ὄρος; Luke 6:17, καταβάς), cannot be otherwise understood than: on a plain; not: over a plain (Michaelis and Paulus); nor: on a small overhanging place of the declivity (Tholuck); comp. Lange, who calls the discourse in Matthew the Summit-sermon, and that in Luke the Terrace-sermon. The divergence from Matthew 5:1 must be admitted, and remains still, even if a plateau is supposed on which jutted out a crest previously ascended by Jesus (Ebrard; comp. Grotius, Bengel, and others; a vacillating arbitrariness in Olshausen). Matthew’s narrative is original; Luke has a later tradition. As the crowd of hearers, according to this later tradition, came from greater distances, and were thus represented as more numerous, a plain was needed to accommodate them. According to Baur, Evang. p. 457, this divergence from Matthew is due also to the tendency of Luke to degrade the Sermon on the Mount, which would surely be a very petty sort of levelling.

καὶ ὄχλος κ.τ.λ.] scil. ἔστη. See on Luke 6:13. A similar structure in the narrative, Luke 8:1-3.

Luke 6:18-19. Ἀπὸ πνευμ. ἀκαθ.] belongs to ἐθεραπ. Comp. Luke 6:17, ἰαθῆναι ἀπό. The καί before ἐθεραπ. is not genuine. See the critical remarks. After ἐθεραπ. only a colon is to be placed; the description of the healings is continued.

καὶ ἰᾶτο πάντ.] not to be separated from what precedes by a comma, but δύναμις is the subject. See Luke 5:17.

ἐξήρχ.] Comp. Luke 8:46 : “Significatur non adventitia fuisse efficacia, sed Christo intrinseca ἐκ τῆς θείας φύσεως,” Grotius.

Luke 6:20-21. Καὶ αὐτός] And He, on His part, as contrasted with this multitude of people seeking His word and His healing power. Comp. Luke 5:1; Luke 5:16.

εἰς τοὺς μαθητ. αὐτοῦ] in the wider sense, quite as in Matthew 5:2; for see Luke 6:13; Luke 6:17. As in Matthew, so here also the discourse is delivered first of all for the circle of the disciples, but in presence of the people, and, moreover, for the people (Luke 7:1). The lifting up of His eyes on the disciples is the solemn opening movement, to which in Matthew corresponds the opening of His mouth.

μακάριοι κ.τ.λ.] Luke has only four beatitudes, and omits (just as Matthew does in the case of πενθοῦντες) all indication, not merely that κλαίοντες, but also that πτωχοί and πεινῶντες should be taken ethically, so that according to Luke Jesus has in view the poor and suffering earthly position of His disciples and followers, and promises to them compensation for it in the Messiah’s kingdom. The fourfold woe, then, in Luke 6:24 ff. has to do with those who are rich and prosperous on earth (analogous to the teaching in the narrative of the rich man and Lazarus); comp. Luke 1:53. Certainly Luke has the later form of the tradition, which of necessity took its rise in consequence of the affliction of the persecuted Christians as contrasted with the rich, satisfied, laughing, belauded υἱοῖς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου; comp. the analogous passages in the Epistle of Jam 2:5; Jam 5:1 ff; Jam 4:9. This also is especially true of the denunciations of woe, which were still unknown to the first evangelist. Comp. Weiss in the Jahrb. f. d. Theol. 1864, p. 58 f. (in opposition to Holtzmann). That they were omitted in Matthew from motives of forbearance (Schenkel) is an arbitrary assumption, quite opposed to the spirit of the apostolic church; just as much as the notion that the poverty, etc., pronounced blessed in Matthew, should be interpreted spiritually. The late date of Luke’s composition, and the greater originality in general which is to be attributed to the discourse in Matthew, taken as it is from the Logia,[104] which formed the basis in an especial manner of this latter Gospel, make the reverse view less probable, that (so also Ewald, p. 211; comp. Wittichen in the Jahrb. f. d. Theol. 1862, p. 323) the general expressions, as Luke has them, became more specific at a later date, as may be seen in Matthew, by reason of possible and partly of actually occurring misunderstanding. Moreover, the difference in itself is not to be got rid of (Tholuck says that the outer misery awakens the inner; Olshausen, that τ. πνεύματι, must in Luke be supplied!); probably, however, it is to be conceded that Jesus assumes as existing the ethical condition of the promise in the case of His afflicted people (according to Luke’s representation) as in His believing and future members of the kingdom; hence the variation is no contradiction. The Ebionitic spirit is foreign to the Pauline Luke (in opposition to Strauss, I. p. 603 f.; Schwegler, and others).

ὑμετέρα] “Applicatio solatii individualis; congruit attollens, nam radii oculorum indigitant,” Bengel.

χορτασθ. and ΓΕΛΆΣ.] corresponding representations of the Messianic blessedness.

[104] For the Logia, not a primitive Mark (Holtzmann), was the original source of the discourse. The form of it given by Luke is derived by Weizsäcker, p. 148, from the collection of discourses of the great intercalation (see on Luke 9:51), from which the evangelist transplanted it into the earlier period of the foundation of the church. But for the hypothesis of such a disruption of the great whole of the source of this intercalation, Luke 9:51 ff., there is no trace of proof elsewhere. Moreover, Weizsäcker aptly shows the secondary character of this discourse in Luke, both in itself and in comparison with Matthew.

Luke 6:22. Comp. Matthew 5:11 f.

ἀφορίσωσιν] from the congregation of the synagogue and the intercourse of common life. This is the excommunication נִדּוּי (Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. s.v.). Comp. John 9:22. But that at that time there were already beside this simple excommunication one (חֵרֶם) or two (חרם and שַׁלַּתָא) still higher degrees (see, in general, Grotius on this passage; Winer, Realw.) is improbable (Gildemeister, Blendwerke d. vulgär. Ration. p. 10 ff.), and, moreover, is not to be inferred from what follows, wherein is depicted the hostility which is associated with the excommunication.

καὶ ἐκβάλωσι τ. ὄν. ὑμ. ὡς πονηρ.] ἐκβάλλειν is just the German wegwerfen, in the sense of contemptuous rejection, Plato, Pol. ii. p. 377 C, Crit. p. 46 B; Soph. O. C. 637, 642; Ael. H. A. xi. 10; Kypke, I. p. 236; but τὸ ὄνομα is not auctoritas (Kypke), nor a designation of the character or the faith (de Wette), nor the name of Christian (Ewald), which idea (comp. Matthew 10:42; Mark 9:41) occurs in this place for the first time by means of the following ἕνεκα τοῦ υἱοῦ τ. ἀνθρ.; but the actual personal name, which designates the individual in question. Hence: when they shall have rejected your name (e.g. John, Peter, etc.) as evil, i.e. as being of evil meaning, because it represents an evil man in your person,—on account of the Son of man,—ye know yourselves as His disciples. The singular ὄνομα is distributive. Comp. Ael. H. A. 5. 4; Polyb. xviii. 28. 4; Krüger, § 44. 1. 7; Winer, p. 157 [E. T. 218], Others interpret wrongly: When they shall have exiled you (Kuinoel), to express which would have required ὑμᾶς ὡς πονηρούς; or: when they shall have struck out your names from the register of names (Beza and others quoted by Wolf, Michaelis also), which even in form would amount to an unusual tautology with ἀφορίσ.; or: when they shall have spread your name abroad as evil (defamed you) (Grotius, Bengel, Rosenmüller, Schegg), which is ungrammatical, and not to be established by Deuteronomy 22:19; or: when they declare it as evil (Bleek), which, nevertheless, would be very different from the classical ἔπη ἐκβάλλειν, to cast up words, verba proferre (Hom. Il. vi. 324; Pind. Pyth. ii. 148); and, withal, how feeble and inexpressive!

Luke 6:23. Ἐν ἐκείνῃ τ. ἡμερ.] in which they shall have thus dealt with you. σκιρτήσατε: leap for joy.

Moreover, see on Matthew 5:12; and as to the repeated γάρ, the second of which is explanatory, on Matthew 6:32; Matthew 18:11; Romans 8:6.

Luke 6:24-25. The woes of the later tradition closely corresponding to the beatitudes. Comp. on Luke 6:20.

πλήν] on the other hand, verumtamen, so that ἀλλά also might be used as at Luke 6:35; Luke 11:41, and elsewhere. See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 725.

ὑμῖν] Conceive Jesus here extending His glance beyond the disciples (Luke 6:20) to a wider circle.

ἀπέχετε] see on Matthew 6:2.

τὴν παράκλ. ὑμῶν] Instead of receiving the consolation which you would receive by possession of the Messiah’s kingdom (comp. Luke 2:25), if you belonged to the πτωχοί, you have by anticipation what is accounted to you instead of that consolation! Comp. the history of the rich man, ch. 16. Here the Messianic retributive punishment is described negatively, and by πεινάσετε, πενθ. κ. κλαύσ., positively.

ἐμπεπλησμένοι] ye now are filled up, satisfied, Herod. i. 112. Comp. on Colossians 2:23. For the contrast, Luke 1:53. On the nominative, Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 123 [E. T. 141].

Luke 6:26. This woe also, like the previous ones, and opposed to the fourth beatitude, Luke 6:22, must refer to the unbelievers, not to the disciples (so usually, see Kuinoel and de Wette), when perchance these latter should fall away, and thereby gather praise of men. This is not justified by the reference to the false prophets of earlier times, which rather shows that in this οὐαί Jesus has in His view, as opposed to His disciples, who had incurred hatred and persecution (Luke 6:23), the universally praised dignitaries of the Jewish theocracy and teachers of the people, whose business was ζητεῖν ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκειν (Galatians 1:10). Jesus does not address His discourse very definitely and expressly to His followers until Luke 6:27.

οἱ πατ. αὐτῶν] (τῶν ἀνθρώπων, those regarded as Jews) so that they all lavished praise upon the false prophets; comp. Jeremiah 5:31; Jeremiah 23:17; Micah 2:11.

Luke 6:27-28. Nevertheless, as far as concerns your conduct, those denunciations of woe are not to deter you, etc. Hence there is here no contrast destitute of point (Köstlin), although the sayings in Luke 6:27-36 are in Matthew more originally conceived and arranged (comp. Weiss in the Jahrb. f. d. Theol. 1864, p. 55 f.).

τοῖς ἀκούουσιν] to you who hear, i.e. who give heed, τοῖς πειθομένοις μου, Euthymius Zigabenus. This is required by the contrast. Moreover, comp. Matthew 5:44.

καταρώμ.] with a dative, Hom. Od. xix. 330; Herod. iv. 184; Dem. 270. 20, 381. 15; Xen. Anab. vii. 7. 48. Elsewhere in the New Testament, in accordance with later usage (Wis 12:11; Sir 4:5 f.), with an accusative.

ἐπηρεάζειν] to afflict, is connected by the classical writers with τινί, also with τινός.

Luke 6:29. See on Matthew 5:39 f.

ἀπὸ τοῦ κ.τ.λ.] κωλύειν ἀπό τινος, to keep back from any one; Xen. Cyrop. i. 3. 11 : ἀπὸ σοῦ κωλύων; iii. 3. 51: ἀπὸ τῶν αἰσχρῶν κωλῦσαι; Genesis 23:6. Erasmus says aptly: “Subito mutatus numerus facit ad inculcandum praeceptum, quod unusquisque sic audire debeat quasi sibi uni dicatur.”

Luke 6:30. Comp. Matthew 5:42. Exegetically, the unconditional submission here required cannot to any extent be toned down by means of limitations mentally supplied (in opposition to Michaelis, Storr, Kuinoel, and others). The ethical relations already subsisting in each particular case determine what limitations must actually be made. Comp. the remark after Matthew 5:41.

παντί] to every one. Exclude none, not even your enemy. But Augustine says appropriately: “Omni petenti te tribue, non omnia petenti; ut id des, quod dare honeste et juste potes.”

ἀπαίτει] demand back what he has taken from thee. Herod. i. 3 : ἀπαιτέειν Ἑλένην, καὶ δίκας τῆς ἁρπαγῆς αἰτέειν.

Luke 6:31. Comp. Matthew 7:12. To the injunction given and specialized at Luke 6:27 ff. of the love of one’s enemy, Jesus now adds the general moral rule (Theophylact: νόμον ἔμφυτον ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν ἐγγεγραμμένον), from which, moreover, results the duty of the love of one’s enemy. It is self-evident that while this general principle is completely applicable to the love of one’s enemy in itself and in general, it is applicable to the special precepts mentioned in Luke 6:29-30 only in accordance with the idea (of self-denial), whose concrete representation they contain: hence Luke 6:31 is not in this place inappropriate (in opposition to de Wette).

καὶ καθὼς κ.τ.λ.] a simple carrying forward of the discourse to the general principle: and, in general, as ye, etc.

ἵνα] Contents of the θέλετε under the notion of purpose—ye will, that they should, etc. Comp. Mark 6:25; Mark 9:30; Mark 10:35; John 17:24; 1 Corinthians 14:5. See also Nägelsbach, Anm. z. Ilias, ed. 3, p. 62 f.

Luke 6:32-34. Comp. Matthew 5:46 f.

καί] simply continuing: And, in order still more closely to lay to heart this general love—if ye, etc.

ποία ὑμῖν χάρις ἐστί;] what thanks have you? i.e. what kind of a recompense is there for you? The divine recompense is meant (Luke 6:35), which is represented as a return of beneficence under the idea of thanks (“ob benevolum dantis affectum,” Grotius); Matthew, μισθός.

οἱ ἁμαρτωλοί] Matthew, οἱ τελῶναι and οἱ ἐθνικοί. But Luke is speaking not from the national, but from the ethical point of view: the sinners (not to be interpreted: the heathen, the definite mention of whom the Pauline Luke would not have avoided). As my faithful followers, ye are to stand on a higher platform of morality than do such unconverted ones.

τὰ ἴσα] (to be accented thus, see on Mark 14:56) the return equivalent to the loan. Tischendorf has in Luke 6:34 the forms of δανίζειν (Anth. XI. 390).

Luke 6:35. Πλήν] but, verumtamen, as at Luke 6:24.

μηδὲν ἀπελπίζοντες] The usual view, “nihil inde sperantes” (Vulgate; so also Euthymius Zigabenus, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Castalio, Salmasius, Casaubon, Grotius, Wolf, Bengel, Krebs, Valckenaer, Rosenmüller, Kuinoel, de Wette, Ewald, Bleek, and others), is in keeping with the context, Luke 6:34, but is ungrammatical, and therefore decidedly to be given up. The meaning of ὀπελπίζειν is desperare; it belongs to later Greek, and frequently occurs in Diodorus and Polybius, which latter, moreover (xxxi. 8. 11), has ἀπελπισμός, desperatio. Comp. Wetstein. An erroneous use of the word, however, is the less to be attributed to Luke, that it was also familiar to him from the LXX. (Isaiah 29:19) and the Apocrypha (2Ma 9:18, where also the accusative stands with it, Sir 22:21; Sir 27:21; Jdt 9:11). Hence the true meaning is “nihil desperantes” (codd. of It.; so also Homberg, Elsner, Wetstein, Bretschneider, Schegg). It qualifies ἀγαθοποιεῖτε κ. δανείζετε, and μηδέν is the accusative of the object: inasmuch as ye consider nothing (nothing which ye give up by the ἀγαθοποιεῖν and δανείζειν) as lost (comp. ἀπελπίζειν τὸ ζῆν, Diod. xvii. 106), bring no offering hopelessly (namely, with respect to the recompense, which ye have not to expect from men),—and how will this hope be fulfilled! Your reward will be great, etc. Thus in μηδὲν ἀπελπίζοντες is involved the παρʼ ἐλπίδα ἐπʼ ἐλπίδι πιστεύειν (Romans 4:18) in reference to a higher reward, where the temporal recompense is not to be hoped for, the “qui nil potest sperare, desperet nihil” (Seneca, Med. 163), in reference to the everlasting recompense.

καὶ ἔσεσθε υἱοὶ ὑψ.] namely, in the Messiah’s kingdom. See Luke 20:36, and on Matthew 5:9; Matthew 5:45. In general, the designation of believers as sons of God in the temporal life is Pauline (in John: τέκνα Θεοῦ), but not often found in the synoptic Gospels. See Kaeuffer in the Sächs. Stud. 1843, p. 197 ff.

ὅτι αὐτὸς κ.τ.λ.] Since He, on His part, etc. The reason here given rests on the ethical presupposition that the divine Sonship in the Messiah’s kingdom is destined for those whose dealings with their fellow-men are similar to the dealings of the Father.

Luke 6:36-38. From this exemplar of the divine benignity in general Jesus now passes over (without οὖν, see the critical remarks) to the special duty of becoming compassionate (γίνεσθε) after God’s example (ἐστί), and connects therewith (Luke 6:37 f.) other duties of love with the corresponding Messianic promises. On Luke 6:37 f. comp. Matthew 7:1 f.

ἀπολύετε] set free, Luke 22:68, Luke 23:16. The opposite of what is previously forbidden.

μέτρον καλὸν κ.τ.λ.] a more explicit explanation of δοθήσεται, and a figurative description of the fulness of the Messianic blessedness, οὐ γὰρ φειδομένως ἀντιμετρεῖ ὁ κύριος, ἀλλὰ πλουσίως, Theophylact.

καλόν] a good, i.e. not scanty or insufficient, but a full measure; among the Rabbins, מדה טובה, see Schoettgen, I. p. 273. Observe the climax of the predicates, in respect of all of which, moreover, it is a measure of dry things that is conceived of even in the case of ὑπερεκχ., in connection wherewith Bengel incongruously conceives of fluidity. Instead of ὑπερεκχύνω, Greek writers (Diodorus, Aelian, etc.) have only the form ὑπερεκχέω. Instead of σαλεύω, of close packing by means of shaking, Greek writers use σαλάσσω. See Lobeck, Pathol. p. 87; Jacobs, ad Anthol. VII. p. 95, XI. p. 70.

δώσουσιν] τίνες; οἱ εὐεργετηθέντες πάντως· τοῦ Θεοῦ γὰρ ἀποδιδόντος ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν αὐτοὶ δοκοῦσιν ἀποδιδόναι, Euthymius Zigabenus. But the context offers no definite subject at all. Hence in general: the persons who give (Kühner, II. p. 35 f.). It is not doubtful who they are: the servants who execute the judgment, i.e. the angels, Matthew 24:31. Comp. on Luke 16:9.

κόλπος] the gathered fold of the wide upper garment bound together by the girdle, Jeremiah 32:18; Isaiah 65:6; Ruth 3:15; Wetstein and Kypke in loc.

τῷ γὰρ αὐτῷ μέτρῳ] The identity of the measure; e.g. if your measure is giving, beneficence, the same measure shall be applied in your recompense. The δοθήσ. ὑμῖν does not exclude the larger quantity of the contents at the judgment (see what precedes). Theophylact appropriately says: ἔστι γὰρ διδόναι τῷ αὐτῷ μέτρῳ, οὐ μὴν τοσούτῳ.

Luke 6:39 has no connection with what precedes; but, as; Luke himself indicates by εἶπε κ.τ.λ., begins a new, independent portion of the discourse.

The meaning of the parable: He to whom on his part the knowledge of the divine truth is wanting cannot lead others who have it not to the Messianic salvation; they will both fall into the Gehenna of moral error and confusion on the way. Comp. Matthew 15:14, where is the original place of the saying.

Luke 6:40. The rationale of the preceding statement: Both shall fall into a ditch,—therefore not merely the teacher, but the disciple also. Otherwise the disciple must surpass his teacher—a result which, even in the most fortunate circumstances, is not usually attained. This is thus expressed: A disciple is not above his teacher, but every one that is fully prepared shall be AS his teacher, i.e. when he has received the complete preparation in the school of his teacher he will be equal to his teacher. He will not surpass him. But the disciple must surpass his teacher (in knowledge, wisdom, disposition, etc.) if he were not to fall into perdition along with him. The view: he will be trained as his teacher (Kuinoel, de Wette, Bleek, and others), i.e. he will be like him in knowledge, disposition, etc., satisfies neither the idea of the specially chosen word κατηρτ., nor its emphatic position, nor the correlation of ὑπέρ and ὡς. As to κατηρτισμ., see on 1 Corinthians 1:10. The saying in Matthew 10:24 f. has a different significance and reference, and cannot be used to limit the meaning here (in opposition to Linder’s misinterpretation in the Stud. u. Krit. 1862, p. 562).

Luke 6:41-42. Luke is not, with confused reminiscence, turning back to Matthew 7:3 f. (in opposition to de Wette), but the train of thought is: “but in order not to be blind leaders of the blind ye must, before ye would judge (Luke 6:41) and improve (Luke 6:42) the moral condition of others, first seriously set about your own knowledge of yourself (Luke 6:41) and improvement of yourself (Luke 6:42).” Luke puts the two passages together, but he does it logically.

Luke 6:43-44. Comp. Matthew 7:16-18; Matthew 12:33 f. For[105] a man’s own moral disposition is related to his agency upon others, just as is the nature of the trees to their fruits (there is no good tree which produces corrupt fruit, etc.), for (Luke 6:44) in the case of every tree the peculiar fruit is that from which the tree is known.

οὐδὲ πάλιν δένδρον] (see the critical remarks) nor, on the other hand, vice versa, etc. Comp. Xen. Cyrop. ii. 1. 4; Plat. Gorg. p. 482 D, and elsewhere.

[105] Bengel aptly says on this γάρ: “Qui sua trabe laborans alienam festucam petit, est similis arbori malae bonum fructum affectanti.”

Luke 6:45. The application. Comp. Matthew 12:35.

προφέρει κ.τ.λ. refers here also to spoken words. See ἐκ γὰρ κ.τ.λ.

Luke 6:46. The verification, however, of the spoken word which actually goes forth out of the good treasure of the heart lies not in an abstract confessing of Me, but in joining therewith the doing of that which I say.

Luke 6:47-49. See on Matthew 7:24-27.

ἔσκαψε κ. ἐβάθυνε] not a Hebraism for: he dug deep (Grotius and many others), but a rhetorically emphatic description of the proceeding: he dug and deepened. See Winer, p. 416 [E. T. 588]. Even Beza aptly says: “Crescit oratio.”

ἐπὶ τ. πέτραν] down to which he had deepened (sunk his shaft). This is still done in Palestine in the case of solid buildings. See Robinson, Palestine, III. p. 428.

διὰ τὸ καλῶς οἰκοδομεῖσθαι αὐτήν] (see the critical remarks) because it (in respect of its foundation) was well built (namely, with foundation laid upon the rock).

ἀκούσας … ποιήσας] shall have heard … shall have done, namely, in view of the irruption of the last times, full of tribulation, before the Parousia.

καὶ ἐγένετο κ.τ.λ.] in close connection with ἔπεσε, and both with εὐθέως: and the ruin of that house was great; a figure of the ἀπώλεια in contrast with the everlasting ζωή, Luke 6:48, at the Messianic judgment.