CHAPTER 11

Luke 11:2-4. Elz. and Scholz have after πάτερ: ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, and after βασιλ. σου: γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ, καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. After πειρασμόν Elz. has ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ. Lachm. also (not Tisch.) reads all this; but he has ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς (without τῆς) in brackets. The important authorities both for and against these additions lead us to regard them as supplements taken from the usual form of the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6:6; Matthew 6:9 ff. According to Gregory of Nyssa (comp. Maxim.), instead of ἐλθέτω … σου Luke must have Written ἐλθέτω τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμά σου ἐφʼ ἡμᾶς καὶ καθαρισάτω ἡμᾶς. An ancient gloss.[140]

Luke 11:4. The form ἀφίομεν is, on decisive evidence, to be adopted, with Lachm. and Tisch.

Luke 11:9-10. The authorities for ἀνοιγήσεται and ἀνοιχθήσεται are about equally balanced. Tisch. has rightly adopted the latter. The Recepta is from Matthew 7:7 f.

Luke 11:11. Instead of ἐξ ὑμῶν ELz. has simply ὑμῶν, in opposition to decisive evidence. On similar evidence, moreover, ἤ is subsequently adopted instead of εἰ (Elz.), and at Luke 11:13 δόματα ἀγαθά (reversed in Elz.).

Luke 11:12. Instead of ἢ καὶ ἐάν Tisch. has merely ἢ καί, following B L א, min. But ἐάν was the more easily omitted, since it does not occur in the foregoing verse. On the other hand, αἰτήσει is so decisively attested that it is, with Tisch., to be adopted instead of the Recepta ΑἸΤΉΣῌ.

Luke 11:15. Τῷ before ἌΡΧΟΝΤΙ is wanting in Elz. Scholz, but is decisively attested; the omission is explained from Matthew 12:24.

Luke 11:19. ΚΡΙΤΑῚ ὙΜῶΝ ΑὐΤΟΊ] B D, Lachm. Tisch. have ΑὐΤΟῚ ὙΜῶΝ ΚΡΙΤΑΊ. A C K L M U, min. Vulg. It. have ΑὐΤΟῚ ΚΡΙΤΑῚ ὙΜῶΝ. So also has א, which, however, places ἜΣΟΝΤΑΙ before ὙΜ. [Tisch. 8 has adopted the reading of א]. Accordingly, the evidence is decisive against the Recepta. The omission of αὐτοί (it is wanting still in 113) occasioned its being very variously placed when it was reintroduced. The place assigned to it by Lachm. is the rather to be preferred, as B D, the authorities in its favour, have in Matthew 12:27 : αὐτοὶ κριταὶ ἔσοντ. ὑμῶν, and have not therefore borrowed their arrangement in this passage from Matthew. The Vulgate, on the other hand, has also in Matt. l.c.: ΑὐΤΟῚ ΚΡΙΤΑῚ ὙΜῶΝ ἜΣΟΝΤΑΙ; hence the reading of A C, etc., is probably due to a conformity with Matthew.

Luke 11:22. The article before ἸΣΧΥΡΌΤ. is wanting in B D L Γ א, and is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted. It was introduced in accordance with Ὁ ἸΣΧΥΡΌς, Luke 11:21.

Luke 11:25. Instead of ἘΛΘΌΝ, important authorities (but not A B L א) have ἘΛΘΏΝ. Rightly; see on Matthew 12:44.

Luke 11:29. After ἸΩΝᾶ Elz. Scholz have ΤΟῦ ΠΡΟΦΉΤΟΥ, in opposition to important evidence. It is from Matthew 12:39, whence, however, the Recepta ἐπιζητεῖ was also derived, instead of which ζητεῖ, with Tisch., is to be read. Moreover, in accordance with Lachm. and Tisch., γενεά is again to be inserted before πονηρά.

Luke 11:32. Νινευΐ] A B C E** G L M U X Γ Δ א, min. Syr. Vulg. It. have Νινευῖται. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Scholz, Lachm. [Tisch. 8 has Νινευεῖται]. Rightly; Luke has followed Matthew (Luke 12:41) verbatim.

Luke 11:34. After the first ὈΦΘΑΛΜΌς, Griesb. and the later editors have rightly added ΣΟΥ. The omission is explained from Matthew 6:22; its insertion, however, is decisively attested.

ΟὖΝ] after ὍΤΑΝ is wanting in preponderating authorities. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. It is an addition from Matthew 6:23.

Luke 11:42. After ΤΑῦΤΑ Griesb. has inserted ΔΈ, which Lachm. brackets, while Tisch. has deleted it; it is too weakly attested, and is from Matthew 23:23.

ἈΦΙΈΝΑΙ] Lachm. and Tisch. have ΠΑΡΕῖΝΑΙ, in accordance with B* L א** min. The Recepta is from Matthew. A has a fusion of the two: παραφιέναι; D, 11 :have not got the word at all.

Luke 11:44. After ὑμῖν Elz. (and Lachm. in brackets) has γραμματεῖς κ. Φαρισαῖοι, ὑποκριταί. So also Scholz, but in opposition to evidence so important, that it can only be regarded as an addition from Matthew 23:27.

οἱ before περιπ. is, on preponderating evidence, to be deleted. It arose from the preceding syllable. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. [retained by Tisch. 8].

Luke 11:48. μαρτυρεῖτε] Tisch. has μάρτυρές ἐστε, in accordance with B L א, Or. The Recepta is from Matthew 23:31.

ΑὐΤῶΝ ΤᾺ ΜΝΗΜΕῖΑ] is not found in B D L א, Cant. 11 :Verc. Rd. Vind. Condemned by Griesb., bracketed by Lachm. deleted by Tisch. The words, both read and arranged differently by different authorities, are a supplement, in accordance with Matthew.

Luke 11:51. The article before ΑἽΜΑΤΟς in both cases is, with Lachm. and Tisch., in accordance with important evidence, to be struck out as an addition.

Luke 11:53. ΛΈΓΟΝΤΟς ΔῈ ΑὐΤΟῦ ΤΑῦΤΑ ΠΡῸς ΑὐΤΟΎς] B C L א, 33, Copt. have ΚἈΚΕῖΘΕΝ ἘΞΕΛΘΌΝΤΟς ΑὐΤΟῦ. This is, with Tisch., to be adopted. The authorities in favour of the Recepta have variations and additions, which indicate that they have originated as glosses.

Luke 11:54. Many variations in the form of glosses. Lachm. follows the Recepta, only omitting ΚΑΊ before ΞΗΤ. Tisch. has simply ἘΝΕΔΡ., ΘΗΡΕῦΣΑΊ ΤΙ ἘΚ ΤΟῦ ΣΤΌΜΑΤΟς ΑὐΤΟῦ, founding it mainly on B L א. All the rest consists of additions for the sake of more explicit statement.

[140] Thus or similarly Marcion read the first petition, and Hilgenfeld, Kritik. Unters. p. 470, and Volkmar, p. 196, regard the petition in this place about the Holy Ghost as original (because specifically Pauline), and the canonical text as an alteration in accordance with Matthew; see also Hilgenfeld in the Theol. Jahrb. 1853, p. 222 f., and in his Evangel. p. 187 f.; Zeller, Apostelgesch. p. 14. But ver. 13 easily occasioned the alteration, welcome as it was to the one-sided Paulinism, seeing that by its means the Holy Spirit was represented as the chief of what was to be asked for from God. Comp. Tholuck, Bergpred. p. 347 f.

Luke 11:1-4. See on Matthew 6:9 ff. In Luke it is only apparent that the Lord’s Prayer is placed too late,[141] to the extent of his having passed it over in the Sermon on the Mount, and from another source related a later occasion for it (which, according to Baur, indeed, he only created from his own reflection). Hence its position in Luke is not to be described as historically more correct (Calvin, Schleiermacher, Olshausen, Neander, Ewald, Bleek, Weizsäcker, Schenkel, and others), but both the positions are to be regarded as correct.[142] Comp. on Matthew 6:9. So far as concerns the prayer itself, we have the full flow of its primitive fulness and excellence in Matthew. The peculiar and shorter form in Luke (see the critical remarks) is one of the proofs that the apostolic church did not use the Lord’s Prayer as a formula.

The matter of fact referred to in καθὼς καὶ Ἰωάννης κ.τ.λ. is altogether unknown. Probably, however, John’s disciples had a definitely formulated prayer given them by their teacher.

The τὶς τῶν μαθητῶν is to be regarded as belonging to the wider circle of disciples. After so long and confidential an intercourse of prayer with the Lord Himself, one of the Twelve would hardly have now made the request, or had need to do so. Probably it was a later disciple, perhaps formerly one of John’s disciples, who, at the time of the Sermon on the Mount, was not yet in the company of Jesus. The sight, possibly also the hearing of the Lord praying, had now deeply stirred in him the need which he expresses, and in answer he receives the same prayer in substance which was given at an earlier stage to the first disciples.

αὐτοῖς, Luke 11:2 : to the disciples who were present, one of whom had made the request, Luke 11:1. ἐπιούσιον] crastinum, see on Matthew 6:11.[143]

ΤῸ ΚΑΘʼ ἩΜΈΡΑΝ] needed day by day, daily. See Bernhardy, p. 329.

καὶ γὰρ αὐτοί] The special consideration placed before God for the exercise of His forgiveness, founded in the divine order of grace (Matthew 6:14; Mark 11:25), is here more directly and more strongly expressed than in Matthew.

ἈΦΊΟΜΕΝ] (see the critical remarks) from the form ἈΦΊΩ., Ecclesiastes 2:18; Mark 1:34; Mark 11:16. See generally, Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 174.

παντὶ ὀφείλοντι ἡμῖν] to every one, when he is indebted to us (in an ethical sense). Comp. Winer, p. 101 [E. T. 138]. The article before ὈΦΕΊΛΟΝΤΙ is too weakly attested, and is a grammatical addition.

[141] Schenkel, p. 391, transposes the circumstance of the giving of the prayer to the disciples even to the period after the arrival in Judaea, since, indeed, the scene at Bethany, Luke 10:38 f., was already related. But Luke did not think of Bethany at all as the locality of this scene.

[142] Without, however, by means of harmonistic violence, doing away with the historical difference of the two situations, as does Ebrard, p. 356 f. In Luke, time, place, and occasion are different from what they are in Matthew, comp. Luke 6:17 ff.

[143] The attempt of Hitzig (in the Theol. Jahrb. p. 1854, 131) to explain the enigmatical word, to wit, by ἐπὶ ἴσου, according to which it is made to mean, the nourishment equivalent to the hunger, is without any real etymological analogy, and probably was only a passing fancy. Weizsäcker, p. 407, is mistaken in finding as a parallel the word ὑπεξούσιος in respect of the idea panem necessarium. This, indeed, does not come from οὐσία, but from ἐξουσία, and this latter from ἔξεστι. Moreover, the מחר of the Gospel to the Hebrews cannot betray that the first understanding of the word had become lost at an early date, but, considering the high antiquity of this Gospel, it can only appear as a preservation of the first mode of understanding it, especially as the Logia was written in Hebrew. In order to express the idea: necessary (thus ἀναγκαῖος, ἐπιτήδειος), there assuredly was no need of any free and, for that purpose, faulty word-making.

Luke 11:5-8. After He had taught them to pray, He gives them the certainty that the prayer will be heard. The construction is interrogative down to παραθήσω αὐτῷ, Luke 11:6; at κἀκεῖνος, Luke 11:7, the interrogative construction is abandoned, and the sentence proceeds as if it were a conditional one (ἐάν), in accordance with which also the apodosis beginning at Luke 11:8 (λέγω ὑμῖν κ.τ.λ.) is turned. Comp. on Matthew 7:9. This anacoluthon is occasioned by the long dialogue in the oratio directa: φίλε κ.τ.λ., after which it is not observed that the first εἴπῃ (Luke 11:5) had no ἐάν to govern it, but was independent.[144]

ΤΊς ἘΞ ὙΜῶΝ ἝΞΕΙ Κ.Τ.Λ.] The sentence has become unmanageable; but its drift, as originally conceived, though not carried out, was probably: Which of you shall be so circumstanced as to have a friend, and to go to him, etc., and would not receive from him the answer, etc.? Nevertheless I say unto you, etc.

καὶ εἴπῃ αὐτῷ] The sentence passes over into the deliberative form. The converse case is found in Antiph. Or. i. 4 : πρὸς τίνας οὖν ἔλθῃ τις βοηθούς, ἢ ποῖ τὴν καταφυγὴν ποιήσεται …; See thereon, Maetzner, p. 130.

Luke 11:7. ΤᾺ ΠΑΙΔΊΑ ΜΟΥ] the father does not wish to disturb his little children in their sleep.

εἰς τ. κοίτην] they are into bed. See on Mark 2:1.

Luke 11:8. διά γε κ.τ.λ.] at least on account of his impudence. On the structure of the sentence, comp. Luke 18:4 f. On the position of γέ before the idea to which it gives emphasis, see Nägelsbach, Anm. z. Ilias, ed. 3, p. 118.

[144] Hence the less difficult reading of Lachmann, ἐρεῖ, ver. 5, following A D, etc., is a correct indication of the construction, namely, that not with εἴπῃ, ver. 5 (Bleek, Ewald), but, first of all, with κἀκεῖνος, ver. 7, does the sentence proceed as if what went before were conditionally stated. If, with Lachmann and Tischendorf, a point is placed before λέγω ὑμῖν, ver. 8, a complete break in the sentence needlessly arises.

Luke 11:9-10. Comp. Matthew 7:7 f. Practical application of the above, extending to Luke 11:13, in propositions which Christ may have repeatedly made use of in His exhortations to prayer.

κἀγὼ ὑμῖν λέγω] Comp. Luke 16:9. Also I say unto you. Observe (1) that κἀγώ places what Jesus is here saying in an incidental parallel with the δώσει αὐτῷ ὅσων χρήζει which immediately precedes: that according to the measure of this granting of prayer, to that extent goes also His precept to the disciples, etc.; (2) that next to κἀγώ the emphasis rests on ὑμῖν (in Luke 11:8 the emphasis rested upon λέγω), inasmuch as Jesus declares what He also, on His part, gives to the disciples to take to heart. Consequently κἀγώ corresponds to the subject of δώσει, and ὑμῖν to the αὐτῷ of Luke 11:8. The teaching itself, so far as Jesus deduces it from that παραβολή, depends on the argument a minori ad majus: If a friend in your usual relations of intercourse grants to his friend even a troublesome petition, although not from friendship, yet at least for the sake of getting quit of the petitioner’s importunity; how much more should you trust in God that He will give you what you pray for! The tendency of the παραβολή points therefore not, as it is usually understood, to perseverance in prayer, for of this, indeed, Jesus says nothing in His application, Luke 11:9-10, but to the certainty of prayer being heard.

Luke 11:11-13. Comp. on Matthew 7:9-11. Still on the hearing of prayer, but now in respect of the object petitioned for, which is introduced by the particle δέ expressing transition from one subject to another.

The construction here also is an instance of anacoluthon (comp. on Luke 11:5), so that the sentence is continued by μὴ λίθον κ.τ.λ., as if instead of the question a conditional protasis (as at Luke 11:12) had preceded.

τὸν πατέρα] Whom of you will his son ask as his father for a loaf?

ὁ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ δώσει] Attraction, instead of ὁ ἐν οὐρανῷ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ δώσει. See on Luke 9:61, and Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 323 [E. T. 377].

πνεῦμα ἅγιον] this highest and best gift; a more definite, but a later form of the tradition than that which is found in Matthew. Comp. the critical remarks on Luke 11:2.

Luke 11:14-22. See on Matthew 12:22-29; Mark 3:22 ff. Luke agrees with Matthew rather than with Mark.

ἦν ἐκβάλλ.] he was busied therein.

καὶ αὐτό] and he himself, the demon, by way of distinguishing him from the possessed person.

κωφόν] See on Mark 9:17.

Luke 11:16. A variation from Matthew in the connection of this (in Luke premature) demand for a sign (see on Matthew 12:38), and in its purport (ἑξ οὐρανοῦ).

Luke 11:17. καὶ οἶκος ἐπὶ οἶκον πίπτει] a graphic description of the desolation just indicated by ἐρημοῦται: and house falleth upon house. This is to be taken quite literally of the overthrow of towns, in which a building tumbling into ruins strikes on the one adjoining it, and falls upon it. Thus rightly Vulgate, Luther, Erasmus, and others, Bleek also. Comp. Thucyd. ii. 84. 2 : ναῦς τε νηῒ προσέπιπτε. This meaning, inasmuch as it is still more strongly descriptive, is to be preferred to the view of Buttmann, which in itself is equally correct (Neut. Gr. p. 291 [E. T. 338]): House after house. Many other commentators take οἶκος as meaning family, and explain either (Bornemann), “and one family falls away after another” (on ἐπί, comp. Php 2:27), or (so the greater number, Euthymius Zigabenus, Beza, Grotius, Valckenaer, Kuinoel, Paulus, de Wette) they supply διαμερισθείς after οἶκον, and take ἐπὶ οἶκον as equivalent to ἐφʼ ἑαυτόν: “et familia a se ipsa dissidens salva esse nequit” (Kuinoel). It may be argued against the latter view, that if the meaning expressed by ἐφʼ ἑαυτόν had been intended, the very parallelism of the passage would have required ἐφʼ ἑαυτόν to be inserted, and that οἶκος ἐπὶ οἶκον could not in any wise express this reflexive meaning, but could only signify: one house against the other. The whole explanation is the work of the Harmonists. It may be argued against Bornemann, that after ἐρημοῦται the thought which his interpretation brings out is much too weak, and consequently is not sufficiently in accordance with the context. We are to picture to ourselves a kingdom which is devastated by civil war.

Luke 11:18. καὶ ὁ Σαταν] Satan also, corresponding with the instance just referred to.

ὅτι λέγετε κ.τ.λ.] the reason of the question.

Luke 11:20. ἐν δακτύλῳ Θεοῦ] Matthew: ἐν πνεύματι Θεοῦ. Luke’s mode of expressing the divine agency (Exodus 8:19; Psalm 8:3; Philo, Vit. Mos. p. 619 C; Suicer, Thes. I. p. 820) appeals more to the senses, especially that of sight. It is a more concrete form of the later tradition.

Luke 11:21. ὁ ἰσχυρός] as τοῦ ἰσχυροῦ, Matthew 12:29.

καθωπλισμένος] not the subject (Luther), but: armed.

τὴν ἑαυτοῦ αὐλήν] not: his palace (see on Matthew 26:3), but: his own premises, at whose entrance he keeps watch.

ἐν εἰρήνῃ ἐστί κ.τ.λ.] This is the usual result of that watching. But the case is otherwise if a stronger than he, etc. See what follows. Thus in me has a stronger than Satan come upon him, and vanquished him!

τὰ σκῦλα αὐτοῦ] the spoils taken from him.

Luke 11:23. After Jesus has repelled the accusation: ἐν βεελζεβοὺλ κ.τ.λ., Luke 11:15, He pronounces upon the relation to Him of those men spoken of in Luke 11:15 (see on Matthew 12:30), and then adds—

Luke 11:24-26, a figurative discourse, in which He sets forth their incorrigibility. See on Matthew 12:43-45. Luke, indeed, gives the saying concerning the sin against the Holy Ghost (Mark 3:28 f.; Matthew 12:31 f.), but not until Luke 12:10; and therefore it is wrong to say that he omitted it in the interest of the Pauline doctrine of the forgiveness of sins (Baur).

Luke 11:27-28. A woman (assuredly a mother), following without restraint her true understanding and impulse, publicly and earnestly pays to Jesus her tribute of admiration. Luke alone has this feminine type of character also (comp. Luke 10:38 ff.), which bears the stamp of originality, on the one hand, in the genuine naîveté of the woman (“bene sentit, sed muliebriter loquitur,” Bengel); on the other, in the reply of Jesus forthwith turning to the highest practical interest. This answer contains so absolutely the highest truth that lay at the heart of Jesus in His ministry, that Strauss, I. p. 719 (comp. Weizsäcker, p. 169), concludes, very erroneously, from the resemblance of the passage to Luke 8:21, that there were two different frames or moulds of the tradition in which this saying of Christ was set. The incident is not parallel even with Mark 3:31 ff. (Holtzmann), even although in its idea it is similar.

ἐπάρασα] ὑψώσασα· σφόδρα γὰρ ἀποδεξαμένη τοὺς λόγους αὐτοῦ, μεγαλοφώνως ἐμακάρισε τὴν γεννήσασαν αὐτὸν ὡς τοιούτου μητέρα γενέσθαι ἀξιωθεῖσαν, Euthymius Zigabenus.

ἐκ τοῦ ὄχλου] out of the crowd she lifted up her voice.

μακαρία κ.τ.λ.] See analogous beatitudes from the Rabbins and classical writers in Wetstein, Schoettgen, and Elsner, Obss. p. 226.

Luke 11:28. μενοῦνγε] may serve as corrective (imo vero) as well as confirmatory (utique). See generally, Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 400; Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 3. 9, ii. 7. 5. In this passage it is the former, comp. Romans 9:20; Romans 10:18; Jesus does not deny His mother’s blessedness, but He defines the predicate μακάριος, not as the woman had done, as a special external relation, but as a general moral relation, which might be established in the case of every one, and under which even Mary was brought, so that thus the benediction upon the mother, merely considered as mother, is corrected. The position of μενοῦν and μενοῦνγε at the beginning of the sentence belongs to the later Greek usage. See examples in Wetstein, Sturz, Dial. Al. p. 203; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 342.

Luke 11:29-32. See on Matthew 12:39-42. Jesus now, down to Luke 11:36, turns His attention to the dismissal of those ἕτεροι who had craved from Him a σημεῖον ἐξ οὐρανοῦ (Luke 11:16).

ἤρξατο] He first began this portion of His address when the crowds were still assembling thither, i.e. were assembling in still greater numbers (ἐπαθροιζ.), comp. Plut. Anton. 44. But it is arbitrary to regard this introductory notice of the assembling of the people as deduced by Luke himself from the condemnation of the entire generation (Weizsäcker).

Luke 11:30. Comp. Matthew 16:4. Jonah was for the Ninevites a sign (divinely sent) by means of his personal destiny, ὅτι ὑ̔περφυῶς ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας τοῦ κήτους ἐῤῥύσθη τριήμερος. Jesus became for that generation a sign (divinely sent, and that as Messiah) likewise by His personal destiny, ὅτι ὑ̔περφυῶς ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας τῆς γῆς ἀνέστη τριήμερος, Euthymius Zigabenus. In opposition to those who interpret the sign of Jonah only of Christ’s word (as even Schenkel and Weizsäcker, p. 431), see on Matthew 12:40, Remark. The sign of Jonah belongs entirely to the future (δοθήσεται … ἔσται).

Luke 11:31 f. does not stand in a wrong order (de Wette), although the order in Matthew is probably the original, while that in Luke is arranged chronologically and by way of climax.

μετὰ τῶν ἀνδρῶν κ.τ.λ.] she will appear with the men, etc., brings into greater prominence the woman’s condemning example.

ἄνδρες Νινευῖται] without an article: Men of Nineveh.

Luke 11:33-36. Comp. Luke 8:16; Mark 4:21; and see on Matthew 5:15; Matthew 6:22 f.

No awkward (Baur), unconnected (Bleek, Ritschl) interpolation, but the introduction of the passage in this place depends on the connection of thought: “Here is more than Solomon, more than Jonah (Luke 11:31-32). But this knowledge (the exceeding knowledge of Christ, Php 3:8), once kindled at my word, ought not to be suppressed and made inoperative, but, like a light placed upon a candlestick, it ought to be allowed to operate unrestrainedly upon others also;[145] for the attainment of which result (Luke 11:34 ff.) it is indeed necessary to preserve clear and undimmed one’s own inner light, i.e. the power of perception that receives the divine truth.” Certainly the train of thought in Matthew is easier and clearer, but Luke found them in the source whence he obtained them in the connection in which he gives them.

εἰς κρυπτήν] not instead of the neuter, for which the feminine never stands in the New Testament (not even in Matthew 21:42), nor is it according to the analogy of εἰς μακράν, εἰς μίαν, and the like (see Bernhardy, p. 221) adverbial (see Bornemann), since no instance of such a use of ΚΡΥΠΤΉΝ can be produced, but the accent must be placed on the penult, ΕἸς ΚΡΎΠΤΗΝ: into a concealed passage, into a vault (cellar). Thus ἡ κρύπτη in Athen. iv. p. 205 A. Comp. the Latin crypta, Sueton. Calig. 58; Vitruv. vi. 8; Prudent. Hippol. 154: “Mersa latebrosis crypta patet foveis.” The certainty of the usus loquendi and the appropriateness of the meaning confirm this explanation, although it occurs in none of the versions, and among the MSS. only in Γ. Yet Euthymius Zigabenus seems to give it in ΤῊΝ ἈΠΌΚΡΥΦΟΝ ΟἸΚΊΑΝ: in recent times, Valckenaer, Matthaei (ed. min. I. p. 395), Kuinoel, Bretschneider, Bleek, Holtzmann, Winer, p. 213 [E. T. 298], have it. Comp. Beza.

[145] These words have nothing further to do with the refusal of the sign. This is in opposition to Hilgenfeld, who regards the connection as being: that there is no need at all of such a sign, since, indeed, Jesus does not conceal His light, etc. Comp. also Weizsäcker, p. 157. Besides, the discourse, ver. 33, manifestly does not describe a procedure that takes place, but a duty.

Luke 11:35. See therefore; take care, lest, etc. Beza well says: “Considera, num.” Comp. Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 209 [E. T. 243]. Galatians 6:1 is not quite similar, for there μή stands with the subjunctive, and means: that not.

τὸ φῶς τὸ ἐν σοί] ὁ νοῦς ὁ φωταγωγὸς τῆς ψυχῆς σου, Euthymius Zigabenus.

σκότος ἐστίν] ὑπὸ τῶν παθῶν, Euthymius Zigabenus.

Luke 11:36. Οὖν] taking up again the thought of Luke 11:34 : καὶ ὅλον τὸ σῶμά σου φωτεινόν ἐστιν.

In the protasis the emphasis lies on ὅλον, which therefore is more precisely explained by μὴ ἔχον τὶ μέρ. σκοτ.; but in the apodosis φωτεινόν has the emphasis, and the kind and degree of this light are illustrated (comp. Luke 11:34) by ὡς ὅταν κ.τ.λ.: “If therefore thy body is absolutely and entirely bright, without having any part dark, then bright shall it be absolutely and entirely, as when the light with its beam enlightens thee.” For then is the eye rightly constituted, fulfilling its purpose (see on Matthew 6:22); but the eye stands to the body in the relation of the light, Luke 11:34. It is complete enlightenment, therefore, not merely partial, of which this normal condition of light (ὡς ὅταν κ.τ.λ.) is affirmed. Ἀπὸ τοῦ κατὰ τὸ σῶμα παραδείγματος περὶ τῆς ψυχῆς δίδωσι νοεῖν … Ἐὰν αὕτη ὅλη φωτεινὴ εἴη, μὴ ἔχουσα μηδὲν μέρος ἐσκοτισμένον πάθει, μήτε τὸ λογιστικὸν, μήτε τὸ θυμικὸν, μήτε τὸ ἐπιθυμικὸν, ἔσται φωτεινὴ ὅλη οὕτως, ὡς ὅταν ὁ λύχνος τῇ ἀστραπῇ αὐτοῦ φωτίζῃ σε, Euthymius Zigabenus. The observation of the above diversity of emphasis in the protasis and apodosis, which is clearly indicated by the varied position of ὅλον with respect to φωτεινόν, removes the appearance of tautology in the two members, renders needless the awkward change of the punctuation advocated by Vogel (de conjecturae usu in crisi N. T. p. 37 f.) and Rinck: εἰ οὖν τὸ σῶμά σου ὅλον, φωτεινὸν μὴ ἔχον τι μέρος, σκοτεινὸν, ἔσται φωτεινὸν ὅλον κ.τ.λ., and sets aside the conjectures that have been broached, such as those of Michaelis (Einl. I. p. 739): ἔσται φωτ. τὸ ὅλον (body and soul), or ὁλοόν; of Bornemann: that the first ὅλον is a gloss; of Eichthal: that instead of “thy body” must be meant “thine eye” (comp. already Maldonatus).

ὁ λύχνος] the lamp of the room, Luke 11:33.

Luke 11:37. Ἐν δὲ τῷ λαλῆσαι] that is to say, what had preceded at Luke 11:29 ff.

ἀριστήσῃ] refers no more than ἄριστον at Matthew 22:4 to the principal meal, but to the breakfast (in opposition to Kuinoel, de Wette, and others). See Luke 14:12.

Ἤιδει μὲν τὴν τῶν Φαρισαίων σκαιότητα ὁ κύριος, ἀλλʼ ὅμως συνεστιᾶται αὐτοῖς διʼ αὐτὸ τοῦτο, ὅτι πονηροὶ ἦσαν καὶ διορθώσεως ἔχρηζον, Theophylact.

In the following discourse itself, Luke, under the guidance of the source he is using, gives a much more limited selection from the Logia, abbreviating and generalizing much of the contents.

Luke 11:37-54. See on Matthew 23:1.

Luke 11:38-39. Ἐβαπτ. πρὸ τ. ἀρίστ.] See on Mark 7:2.[146] Luke does not say that the Pharisee expressed his surprise; Jesus recognises his thoughts immediately. Comp. Augustine. Schleiermacher, p. 180 f., directly contradicts the narrative when he places these sayings of Jesus after the meal, saying that they were first spoken outside the house. See, on the other hand, Strauss, I. p. 654, who, however, likewise takes objection to their supposed awkwardness (comp. Gfrörer, Heil. Sage, I. p. 243, de Wette, Ritschl, Holtzmann, Eichthal). This judgment applies an inappropriate standard to the special relation in which Jesus stood to the Pharisees, seeing that when confronting them He felt a higher destiny than the maintenance of the respect due to a host moving Him (comp. Luke 7:39 ff.); and hence the perception of the fitness of things which guided the tradition to connecting these sayings with a meal was not in itself erroneous, although, if we follow Matthew 23, we must conclude that this connection was first made at a later date. Apart from this, however, the connection is quite capable of being explained, not, perhaps, from the mention of cups and platters, but from the circumstance that Jesus several times when occasion offered, and possibly about that period when He was a guest in the houses of Pharisees, gave vent to His righteous moral indignation in His anti-Pharisaic sayings. Comp. Luke 14:1 ff.

νῦν] a silent contrast with a better ΠΆΛΑΙ: as it now stands with you, as far as things have gone with you, etc. Comp. Grotius, who brings into comparison: ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη.

τὸ δὲ ἔσωθεν ὑμῶν] ὑμῶν does not belong to ἉΡΠ. Κ. ΠΟΝΗΡ. (Kypke, Kuinoel, Paulus, Bleek, and others, following Beza’s suggestion), so that what is inside, the contents of the cup and platter, τὰ ἐνόντα, Luke 11:41, would be meant, which would agree with Matthew 23:25, but is opposed to the order of the words here. On the contrary, the outside of the cup, etc., is contrasted with the inward nature of the persons. Ye cleanse the former, but the latter is full of robbery and corruption (comp. on Romans 1:29). The concrete expression ἁρπαγή, as the object of endeavour, corresponds to the disposition of ΠΛΕΟΝΕΞΊΑ, which in Mark 7:22, Romans 1:29, is associated with ΠΟΝΗΡΊΑ.

Matthew 23:25 has the saying in a more original form. The conception in Luke, although not in itself inappropriate (Weiss), shows traces of the influence of reflective interpretation, as is also evident from a comparison of Luke 11:40 with Matthew 23:26.

[146] Jesus had just come out of the crowd, nay, He had just expelled a demon, ver. 14. Hence they expected that He would first cleanse Himself by a bath before the morning meal (comp. on Mark 7:4).

Luke 11:40. Jesus now shows how irrational (ἄφρονες) this is from the religious point of view.

οὐχ ὁ ποιήσας κ.τ.λ.] did not He (God) who made that which is without (i.e. everything external in general, res externas) also make that which is within (res internas)? How absurd, therefore, for you to cleanse what belongs to the rebus externis, the outside of the cup, but allow that which belongs to the rebus internis, your inner life and effort, to be full of robbery, etc.; that ye do not devote to the one and to the other (therefore to both) the cleansing care that is due to God’s work! Consequently τὸ ἔξωθεν is the category to which belongs τὸ ἔξωθεν τ. ποτ. κ. τ. πίν., Luke 11:39, and τὸ ἔσωθεν the category to which belongs τὸ ἔσωθεν ὑμῶν, Luke 11:39. In opposition to the context, others limit the words to the relation of body and spirit (Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, and many others, Bornemann also), which is not permitted by τὸ ἔξωθεν τοῦ ποτηρίου, Luke 11:39, Others limit them to the materiale patinae et poculi and the cibum et potum, which τὸ ἔσωθεν ὑμῶν, Luke 11:39, does not allow (in opposition to Starck, Notae select. p. 91, and Wolf, Paulus also and Bleek). Kuinoel (following Elsner and Kypke) makes the sentence affirmative: “Non qui exterius purgavit, pocula patinasque, (eadem opera) etiam interius purgavit, cibos;” but this view, besides being open to the objection drawn from τὸ ἔσωθεν ὑμῶν, Luke 11:39, is opposed to the usus loquendi of the words ἐποίησε and ποιήσας.

Luke 11:41. A prescription how they are to effect the true purification. Πλήν is verumtamen (see on Luke 6:24): Still, in order to set aside this foolish incongruity, give that which is therein (the contents of your cups and platters) as alms, and behold everything is pure unto you … this loving activity will then make your entire ceremonial purifications superfluous for you. All that you now believe you are compelled to subordinate to your customs of washings (the context gives this as the reference of the πάντα) will stand to you (to your consciousness) in the relation of purity. On the idea, comp. Hosea 6:6 (Matthew 9:13; Matthew 12:7). τὰ ἐνόντα has the emphasis: yet what is in them, etc. Moreover, it is of itself obvious, according to the meaning of Jesus, that He sets this value not on the external work of love in itself, but on the disposition evinced thereby. Comp. Luke 16:9. The more unnecessary was the view which regarded the passage as ironical (Erasmus, Lightfoot, and others, including Kuinoel, Schleiermacher, Neander, Bornemann), and according to which Jesus repeats the peculiar maxim of the Pharisees for attaining righteousness by works: “Attamen date modo stipem pauperibus, tunc ex vestra opinione parum solliciti esse potestis de victu injuste comparato, tunc vobis omnia pura sunt,” Kuinoel. Irony would come in only if in the text were expressed, not date, but datis. Moreover, the Pharisees would not have said τὰ ἐνόντα, but ἐκ τῶν ἐνόντων. Besides, notwithstanding the Old Testament praise of this virtue (Proverbs 16:6; Daniel 4:24; Eccles. 3:30, 29:12; Tob 4:10; Tob 12:9, and elsewhere), and notwithstanding the Rabbinical “Eleemosyna aequipollet omnibus virtutibus” (Bava bathra, f. 9. 1), charitableness (apart from ostentatious almsgiving, Matthew 6:2) was so far from being the strong side of the Pharisees (Matthew 23:13-14; Mark 7:11) that Jesus had sufficient reason to inculcate on them that virtue instead of their worthless washings.

τὰ ἐνόντα] that which is therein. It might also mean, not: quod superest, i.e. τὸ λοιπόν (Vulgate), but perhaps: that which is at hand, that which ye have (Theophylact: τὰ ὑπάρχοντα ὑμῖν; Euthymius Zigabenus: τὰ ἐναποκείμενα; Luther: Of that which is there), or which is possible (Grotius, Morus), to justify which δοῦναι would have to be understood; but the connection requires the reference to the cups and platters.

Luke 11:42-43. See on Matthew 23:23; Matthew 23:6 f. But woe unto you, ye have quite different maxims!

παρέρχεσθε] ye leave out of consideration, as at Luke 15:29, and frequently in Greek writers, Jdt 11:10.

ἀγαπᾶτε] ye place a high value thereupon. Comp. John 12:43.

Luke 11:44. See on Matthew 23:27. Yet here the comparison is different.

τὰ ἄδηλα] the undiscernible, which are not noticeable as graves in consequence of whitewash (Matt. l.c.) or otherwise.

καί] simplicity of style; the periodic structure would have linked on the clause by means of a relative, but this loose construction adds the point more independently and more emphatically.

περιπατοῦντες] without an article (see the critical remarks): while they walk.

οὐκ οἴδασιν] know it not, that they are walking on graves.

Luke 11:45. This νομικός was no Sadducee (Paulus, yet see his Exeget. Handb.), because he otherwise would not have applied these reproaches to himself as well as to the Pharisees, and Jesus would not have continued to discourse so entirely in an anti-Pharisaic tone, but he likewise was a Pharisee, as in general were most of the νομικοί. That he only partially professed the principles of the Pharisees is assumed by de Wette on account of καὶ ἡμᾶς, in which, however, is implied “not merely the common Pharisees (the laity), but even us, the learned, thou art aspersing.” The scribe calls what was a righteous ὀνειδίζειν (Matthew 11:20; Mark 16:14) by the name of ὑβρίζειν (Luke 18:32; Acts 14:5; Matthew 22:6). Although this episode is not mentioned in Matthew, there is no sufficient ground to doubt its historical character. Comp. on Luke 12:41. Consequently, all that follows down to Luke 11:52 is addressed to the νομικοί, as they are once again addressed at the close by name, Luke 11:52. But it is not to be proved that Luke in his representation had in view the legalists of the apostolic time (Weizsäcker), although the words recorded must needs touch them, just as they were also concerned in the denunciations of Matthew 23.

Luke 11:46. See on Matthew 23:4.

Luke 11:47-48. See on Matthew 23:29-31. The sting of the discourse is in Matthew keener and sharper.

ὅτι οἰκοδομεῖτε … οἱ δὲ πατέρες κ.τ.λ.] because ye build … but your fathers slew them. By this building, which renews the remembrance of the murder of the prophets, ye actually give testimony and consent to the deeds of your fathers, Luke 11:48. Otherwise ye would leave to ruin and forgetfulness those graves which recall these deeds of shame! It is true the graves were built for the purpose of honouring the prophets, but the conduct of the builders was such that their way of regarding the prophets, as proved by this hostile behaviour, was reasonably and truly declared by Jesus to be a practical contradiction of that purpose. He declares how, in accordance with this behaviour, the matter objectively and actually stood. Consequently, there is neither any deeper meaning to be supposed as needing to be introduced, as Lange, L. J. II. 2, p. 840, has unhappily enough attempted; nor is ἄρα to be taken as interrogative (Schleiermacher). The second clause of the contrast, οἱ δὲ πατέρες κ.τ.λ., is introduced without any preparation (without a previous μέν; otherwise at Luke 11:48), but just with so much the greater force, and hence no μέν is to be supplied (Kuinoel; see, on the other hand, Klotz, ad Devar. p. 356 f.; Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 423).

In view of the reading ὑμεῖς δὲ οἰκοδομεῖτε, Luke 11:48 (without αὐτῶν τὰ μνημεῖα, see the critical remarks), we must translate: but ye build! ye carry on buildings. That this building had reference to the tombs of the prophets is self-evident. The brief expression is more passionate, pregnant, incisive.

Luke 11:49-51. See on Matthew 23:34-39.

διὰ τοῦτο] on account of this your agreement with your fathers as murderers of the prophets, which affinity the wisdom of God had in view when it gave its judgment. Under the guidance of the doctors of the law, the people among whom the gospel teachers were sent (εἰς αὐτούς) rejected these latter, etc. See Luke 11:52.

ἡ σοφία τ. Θεοῦ] Doubtless a quotation, as is proved by εἶπεν and αὐτούς, but not from the Old Testament, since no such passage occurs in it (Olshausen mentions 2 Chronicles 24:19 interrogatively, but what a difference!), and quotations from the Old Testament are never introduced by ἡ σοφία τ. Θεοῦ.[147] To suppose a lost Jewish writing, however, which either may have had this title (Ewald, Bleek, Baumgarten-Crusius, Weizsäcker) or may have introduced the חכמת יהוה as speaking (Paulus),[148] is contrary to the analogy of all the rest of the quotations made by Jesus, as well as to the evangelical tradition itself, which, according to Matthew 23:34, attributed these words to Jesus. Accordingly, it is to be supposed (Neander, L. J. p. 655; Gess, Person Chr. p. 29; comp. also Ritschl, Evang. Marcions, p. 89) that Jesus is here quoting one of His own earlier utterances (observe the past tense εἶπεν), so that He represents the wisdom, of God (Wis 7:27; Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:35) as having spoken through Him. Allied to this is the idea of the λόγος. According to this, however, the original form of the passage is not to be found in Luke (Olshausen, Bleek); for while Matthew gives this remarkable utterance in a directly present form, Luke’s method of recording it transfers to the mouth of Jesus what rather was a later mode of citing it, and gives it in the shape of a result of reflective theology akin to the doctrine of the Logos.[149]

ἐκδιώξ.] to drive out of the land.

ἽΝΑ ἘΚΖΗΤ. Κ.Τ.Λ.] an appointment in the divine decree. The expression corresponds to the Hebrew בִּקֵּשׁ דָּם, 2 Samuel 4:11; Ezekiel 3:18; Ezekiel 3:20, which sets forth the vengeance for blood.

The series of prophets in the more general sense begins with Abel as the first holy man.

[147] The passage is very inaccurately treated by Köstlin, p. 163, according to whom Luke has here heaped misunderstanding on misunderstanding. He is said to have referred the entire utterance to the Old Testament prophets, and on that account to have placed before it κ. ἡ σοφία τ. Θεοῦ εἶπεν, in order to give to it the character of an ancient prophecy, which, however, had no existence at all, etc.

[148] Strauss also, in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschrift, 1863, p. 87 ff., who is thinking entirely of a Christian document.

[149] The utterance in Matthew, ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω κ.τ.λ., was historically indicated in the Church by: ἡ σοφία τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶπεν· ἀποστελῶ κ.τ.λ. And Luke here makes Jesus Himself speak in this later mode of indicating it. It is a ὕστερον πρότερον in form. According to Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 101 (comp. also Schegg), Jesus announces God’s counsel in the form of a word of God. Comp. Grotius and van Hengel, Annot. p. 16 f. To this view εἰς αὐτούς (instead of εἰς ὑμᾶς) would certainly not be opposed, since those whom the speech concerned might be opposed as third persons to the wisdom of God which was speaking. But instead of εἶπεν might be expected λέγει; for now through Jesus the divine wisdom would declare its counsel (Hebrews 3:10, to which Hofmann refers, is different, because there εἶπον in connection with προσώχθισα actually relates to the past). Moreover, if by ἡ σοφία τοῦ Θεοῦ were not meant the personal wisdom of God that appeared in Christ, and emitted the utterance, it would not be conceivable why it should not simply have been said: διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ὁ Θεὸς λέγει. Nowhere else in the New Testament is a declaration of God called a declaration of the divine wisdom. Besides, according to Matthew 23:34, Jesus is the subject of ἀποστελῶ; and this is also the case in the passage before us, if ἡ σοφία τ. Θεοῦ is understood of the person of Christ as being the personal self-revelation of the divine wisdom. Christ sends to His Church the prophets and apostles (Luke 10:3), Ephesians 4:11. Riggenbach’s explanation (Stud. u. Krit. 1855, p. 599 f.) is similar to that of Hofmann,—though more correct in taking the σοφία τ. Θεοῦ in the Logos-sense, but interpreting the past tense εἶπεν by an “at all times” arbitrarily supplied.

Luke 11:52. See on Matthew 23:14. The genitive of the thing with τ. κλεῖδα denotes that which is opened by the key (Matthew 16:19; Revelation 1:18; Revelation 9:1; Revelation 20:1), since here we are not to supply τῆς βασιλείας with κλεῖδα, and take τ. γνώσεως as a genitive of apposition (Düsterdieck in the Stud. u. Krit. 1865, p. 750). Comp. Isaiah 22:22.

The γνῶσις, the knowledge κατʼ ἐξοχήν, i.e. the knowledge of the divine saving truth, as this was given in the manifestation and the preaching of Christ, is compared to a closed house, to get into which the key is needed. The νομικοί have taken away this key, i.e. they have by means of their teaching, opposed as it is to the saving truth (because only directed to traditional knowledge and fulfilling of the law), made the people incapable of recognising this truth.

ἤρατε] tulistis (Vulgate); the reading ἀπεκρύψατε found in D is a correct gloss. If they had recognised and taught, as Paul did subsequently, the law as παιδαγωγὸς εἰς Χριστόν (Galatians 3:24), they would have used the key for the true knowledge for themselves and others, but not taken it away,[150] and made it inaccessible for use. They have taken it away; so entirely in opposition to their theocratic position of being the κλειδοῦχοι have they acted.

On the figurative idea of the key of knowledge, comp. Luke 8:10 : ὑμῖν δέδοται γνῶναι τὰ μυστήρια τῆς βασιλείας τ. Θεοῦ. The aorists are altogether to be taken in the sense of the completed treatment; they indicate what the νομικοί have accomplished by their efforts: τοὺς εἰσερχομένους, however, are those who were intending to enter.

[150] Ahrens, Amt d. Schlüssel, p. 9 ff., takes ἤρατε as: ye bear (more strictly: ye have taken to you) the key of knowledge, to wit: as those who ought to be its οἰκονόμοι. Thus, however, the reason of the οὐαί would not yet appear in ὅτι ἤρατε κ.τ.λ., nor until the following αὐτοὶ οὐκ κ.τ.λ.; and hence the latter would have required to be linked on by ἀλλά, or at least by δέ; or else instead of ἤρατε the participle would have required to be used. Many of the older commentators, as Erasmus, Elsner, Wolf, Maldonatus, took ἤρατε as: ye have arrogated to yourselves, which, however, it does not mean.

Luke 11:53-54. Κἀκεῖθεν ἐξελθόντος αὐτοῦ] (see the critical remarks) and when He had gone forth thence (from the Pharisee’s house, Luke 11:37).

As to the distinction between γραμματεῖς and νομικοί, see on Matthew 22:35. The νομικοί are included in the γραμματ. κ. Φαρισ. Comp. on Luke 11:45.

ἐνέχειν] not: to be angry (as usually interpreted), which would require a qualifying addition such as χόλον (Herod. i. 118, vi. 119, viii. 27), but: they began terribly to give heed to Him, which in accordance with the context is to be understood of hostile attention (enmity). So also Mark 6:19; Genesis 49:23; Test. XII. Patr. p. 682; in the good sense: Jamblichus, Vit. Pyth. 6.

ἀποστοματίζειν[151]] means first of all: to recite away from the mouth, i.e. by heart (Plat. Euthyd. p. 276 C, 277 A; Wetstein in loc.); then transitively: to get out of one by questioning (Pollux, ii. 102; Suidas: ἀποστοματίζειν φασὶ τὸν διδάσκαλον, ὅταν κελεύει τὸν παῖδα λέγειν ἄττα ἀπὸ στόματος). See Ruhnken, Tim. p. 43 f. So here; it is the ἀπαιτεῖν αὐτοσχεδίους κ. ἀνεπισκέπτους ἀποκρίσεις ἐρωτημάτων δολερῶν, Euthymius Zigabenus.

Luke 11:54. According to the corrected reading (see the critical remarks): while they lay in wait for Him, in order to catch up (to get by hunting) something out of His mouth. See instances of θηρεῦσαι in this metaphorical sense, in Wetstein.

[151] The Vulgate has os ejus opprimere, whereby it expresses the reading ἐπιστομίζειν, which still occurs in a few cursives. Luther follows the Vulgate.