CHAPTER 9

Luke 9:1. After δώδεκα, Elz. Scholz, Lachm. have μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ, which is not found in A B D K M S V Γ Δ, min. vss. Fathers. An addition, instead of which other authorities of importance have ἀποστόλους. Luke always writes οἱ δώδεκα absolutely. So also do Mark and John, but not Matthew.

Luke 9:2. τοὺς ἀσθενοῦντας] A D L Ξ א, min. have τ. ἀσθενεῖς. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. But since in B, Syr.cur Dial, the words are altogether wanting, and, moreover, in the variants occur τοὺς νοσοῦντας, πάντας τοὺς ἀσθενοῦντας, and omnes infirmitates (Brix.), the simple ἰᾶσθαι (as Tisch. also now has) is to be regarded as original.

Luke 9:3. ῥάβδους in Elz., instead of ῥάβδον in Lachm. and Tisch., has evidence of importance both for and against it. In accordance with A B [B has ῥάβδον] Δ, it is to be maintained, since the singular might be introduced from Matthew 10:10 (see on the passage), and mechanically also from Mark 6:8, just as easily as it could be retained by reason of the singulars alongside of it.

Luke 9:5. δέξωνται] in Elz., instead of δέχωνται (the latter is approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.), has against it authorities so important, that it must be referred to the parallels.

καὶ τ. κον.] This καί (bracketed by Lachm.) is wanting in B C* D L X Ξ א, 1, 124, Copt. Sahid. codd. of It. Omitted, in accordance with the parallels.

Luke 9:7. ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ] is wanting in B C* D L א, min. vss. Condemned by Griesb., bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. An addition for the purpose of more precise specification.

Luke 9:10. τόπον ἔρημ. πόλ. καλ. Βηθσ.] Many variants; the reading which is best attested is πόλιν καλουμένην Βηθσ., which Tisch., following B L X, 33, Copt. Sahid. Erp., has adopted. Rightly; εἰς πόλιν κ.τ.λ. would of necessity arouse objection, as what follows did not take place in a city, but in a desert (comp. Luke 9:12, and also Mark 6:31).

Luke 9:11. δεξάμ.] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἀποδεξάμ., in accordance with B D L X [also Ξ] א, min. Rightly; the Recepta is a neglect of the compound form, which form in the New Testament occurs only in Luke.

Luke 9:12. Instead of πορευθέντες, Elz. Scholz have ἀπελθόντες, in opposition to decisive evidence; it is from the parallels.

Luke 9:14. Before ἀνά, B C D L R Ξ א, 33, 157, Sahid. Cant. Or. have ὡσεί, which Tisch. synops. has adopted [ὡσεί is wanting in Tisch. 8]. Rightly; it was omitted, because even Mark has no indefinite qualifying word.

Luke 9:22. ἐγερθ] Lachm. has ἀναστῆναι. The authorities are greatly divided, but ἐγερθ. is from Matthew (τ. τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἐγερθ.).

Luke 9:23. Instead of ἔρχεσθαι, ἀρνησάσθω Elz. Scholz have ἐλθεῖν, ἀπαρνησάσθω, in opposition to preponderating MSS. and Or. From the parallels.

καθʼ ἡμέραν] condemned by Griesb., deleted by Scholz, Lachm. It has preponderating evidence in its favour; the omission is due to the words being omitted in the parallels.

Luke 9:27. ὧδε] B L Ξ א, 1, Cyr. have αὐτοῦ. Commended by Griesb., approved by Rinck, adopted by Tisch. Rightly; ὧδε is from the parallels.

The readings ἑστώτων and γεύσωνται (Elz.: ἑστηκότων and γεύσονται) have (the latter strongly) preponderating evidence in their favour.

Luke 9:35. ἀγαπητός] B L Ξ א, vss. have ἐκλελεγμένος. Commended by Griesb. and Schulz, adopted by Tisch. The Recepta is from the parallels.

Luke 9:37. ἐν τῇ ἑξῆς] ἐν, in accordance with B L S א, 1, 69, is to be deleted. See on Luke 7:11.

Luke 9:38. ἀνεβ.] Lachm. has ἐβόησεν, in accordance with B C D L א, min. A neglect of the compound form, which form occurs elsewhere in the New Testament only in Matthew 27:46, and even there is disregarded by several authorities.

Instead of ἐπιβλέψαι (to be accented thus) Elz. Lachm. have ἐπίβλεψον. Authorities of importance on both sides. The latter is an interpretation. The infinitive ΕΠΙΒΛΕΨΑΙ was taken for an imperative middle.

Luke 9:43. ἐποίησεν] Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. have ἐποίει; decisively attested.

Luke 9:48. Instead of ἐστί, which is approved by Griesb., and, moreover, adopted by Lachm. and Tisch., Elz. Scholz have ἔσται. But ἐστί is attested by B C L X Ξ א, min. vss. (also Vulg. It.) Or. (thrice); the future was introduced in reference to the future kingdom of heaven.

Luke 9:50. Instead of ὑμῶν Elz. has ἡμῶν both times, in opposition to preponderating evidence. See on Mark 9:40.

Luke 9:54. ὡς κ. Ἠλ. ἐπ.] is wanting in B L Ξ א, 71, 157, vss. (Vulg. also and codd. of It.) Jer. (?). Suspected by Griesb. (following Mill), deleted by Tisch. But how easily the indirect rebuke of Elias, contained in what follows, would make these words objectionable!

Luke 9:55. καὶ εἶπεν … ὑμεῖς] is wanting in A B C E, etc., also א, min. Copt. Aeth. Sax. Germ. 1, Gat. Fathers. Condemned by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. The words have such a weight of evidence against them that they would have to be rejected, if it could be explained how they got into the text. How easily, on the other hand, might an intentional omission, out of consideration for Elias, occur! Moreover, the simple, short, and pregnant word of rebuke is so unlike a transcriber’s addition, and so worthy of Jesus Himself, as, on the other hand, it is hardly to be conceived that Luke would have limited himself on an occasion of so unprecedented a kind only to the bare ἐπετίμησεν αὐτοῖς. But the additional clause which follows in Elz. is decidedly spurious: ὁ γὰρ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἦλθε ψυχὰς ἀνθρώπων ἀπολέσαι, ἀλλὰ σῶσαι.

Luke 9:57. ἐγένετο δέ] Lachm. Tisch. have καί, in accordance with B C L X Ξ א, min. Syr. Perss. Copt. Aeth. Arm. Rightly; a new section was here begun (a lection also), and attention was called to this by adding ἐγένετο to καί (so D, 346, Cant. Verc. Colb.), or by writing ἐγένετο δέ, in accordance with Luke 9:51.

κύριε] is wanting in B D L Ξ א, min. Copt. Arm. Vulg. codd. of It. Condemned by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. But since it stood at the end of the sentence, and since the parallel passage, Matthew 8:19, had no corresponding word at the end, κύριε would the more easily drop out.

Luke 9:62. εἰς τὴν βασιλ.] B L Ξ א, 1, 33, Vulg. It. Clem. Or. have τῇ βασιλείᾳ. So Lachm. and Tisch. The Recepta is explanatory.

Luke 9:1-6. See on Matthew 10:1; Matthew 10:7; Matthew 10:9-11; Matthew 10:14; Mark 6:7-13. Luke follows Mark, and to that circumstance, not to any depreciation of the Twelve by contrast with the Seventy (Baur), is due the shorter form of the succeeding discourse.

καὶ νόσους θεραπ.] depends on δύναμ. κ. ἐξουσ. (power and authority, Luke 4:36). The reference to ἔδωκεν (Bengel, Bornemann) is more remote, since the νόσους θεραπεύειν is actually a δύναμις κ. ἐξουσία.

Luke 9:3. μήτε ἀνὰ δύο χιτ. ἔχειν] nor even to have two under-garments (one in use and one to spare). A mingling of two constructions, as though μηδὲν αἴρειν had been previously said. See Ellendt, ad Arrian. Al. I. p. 167; Winer, p. 283 [E. T. 397]. For the explanation of the infinitive with εἶπε there is no need of supplying δεῖν (Lobeck, ad Phryn. pp. 753 f., 772); but this idea is implied in the infinitive itself. See Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. v. 7. 34. It would be possible to take the infinitive for the imperative (Kuinoel and many of the earlier critics, comp. also Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 233 [E. T. 271 f.], who understands λέγω) only if the connection brought out a precise injunction partaking of the nature of an express command (see generally, Winer, p. 282 [E. T. 397]; Bernhardy, p. 358; Pflugk, ad Eur. Heracl. 314), which, however, in this case, since the imperative precedes, and, moreover, immediately follows, is not applicable.

Luke 9:5. καὶ τ. κον.] Even the dust also; see Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 134.

ἐπʼ αὐτ.] against them, more definite than Mark: αὐτοῖς. Theophylact: εἰς ἔλεγχον αὐτῶν καὶ κατάκρισιν.

Luke 9:7-9. See on Matthew 14:1 f.; Mark 6:14-16.

To the ἤκουσεν of Mark 6:14, which Luke in this place evidently has before him, he adds a definite object, although taken very generally, by means of τὰ γινόμενα πάντα: everything which was done, whereby is meant, which was done by Jesus (Luke 9:9).

διηπόρει] he was in great perplexity, and could not in the least arrive at certainty as to what he should think of the person of Jesus. This was the uncertainty of an evil conscience. Only Luke has the word in the New Testament. It very often occurs in the classical writers. On the accentuation ὑπό τινων, see Lipsius, Gramm. Unters. p. 49.

Luke 9:8. ἐφάνη] “Nam Elias non erat mortuus,” Bengel.

Luke 9:9. What Matthew and Mark make Herod utter definitely, according to Luke he leaves uncertain; the account of Luke is hardly more original (de Wette, Bleek), but, on the contrary, follows a more faded tradition, for the character of the secondary writer is to be discerned in the entire narrative (in opposition to Weizsäcker). The twofold ἐγώ has the emphasis of the terrified heart.

ἐζήτει ἰδεῖν αὐτόν] he longed to see Him. Comp. Luke 23:8. He hoped, by means of a personal conference (Luke 8:20) with this marvellous man, to get quit of his distressing uncertainty. That Herod seemed disposed to greet Him as the risen John, and that accordingly Christ had the prospect of a glowing reception at court, Lange reads into the simple words just as arbitrarily as Eichthal reads into them a partiality for Herod on the part of Luke.

Luke 9:10-17. See on Matthew 14:13-21; Mark 6:30-44; John 6:1 ff. According to the reading εἰς πόλιν καλουμένην Βηθσ. (see the critical remarks), εἰς is to be understood of the direction whither (versus), and Luke 9:11 ff. is to be conceived as said of what happened on the way to Bethsaida. The Bethsaida meant at Mark 6:45, on the western shore of the lake (Βηθσ. τῆς Γαλιλ., John 12:21; Matthew 11:21), is not the one intended, but Bethsaida-Julias, on the eastern shore in lower Gaulonitis (see on Mark 8:22), as Michaelis, Fischer, Paulus, Robinson, Ebrard, Lange, Ewald, Schegg, and others suppose, on the ground of Mark 6:45, where from the place of the miraculous feeding the passage is made across to the western Bethsaida. For the denial of this assumption, and for the maintenance of the view that Luke, in variation from the parallel passages, transposed the miraculous feeding to the western shore (Winer, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Eichthal, and with some hesitation Bleek), there is no foundation at all in Luke’s text. For although Jesus had returned from Gadara to the western side of the lake (Luke 8:37; Luke 8:40), yet between this point of time and the miraculous feeding come the sending forth of the Twelve, and the period that elapsed until their return (Luke 9:1-10). Where they, on their return, met with Jesus, Luke does not say, and for this meeting the locality may be assumed to have been the eastern side of the lake where Bethsaida-Julias was situated. But if it is supposed, as is certainly more natural, that they met with Him again at the place whence they had been sent forth by Him on the western border of the lake, it is no contradiction of this that Jesus, according to Luke, wished to retire with His disciples by the country road to that Bethsaida which was situated at the north-eastern point of the lake (Bethsaida-Julias); and it is just this seeking for solitude which can alone be urged in favour of the more remote Bethsaida on the further side. The whole difference therefore comes to this, that, according to Luke, they went to the place of the miraculous feeding by land, but according to Mark (and Matthew), by ship.

Luke 9:11. ἀποδεξ.] He did not send them back, although He desired to be alone, but received them.

ἐπισιτισμόν] Provisions, a word which occurs only in this place in the New Testament, but is often found in the classical writers. Comp. Jdt 2:18; Jdt 4:5.

Luke 9:13. πλεῖον ἤ] These words do not fit into the construction. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 410; Krüger, ad Dion. p. 287; Schoemann, ad Is. p. 444.

εἰ μήτι κ.τ.λ.] unless, perchance, etc.; this is neither to be regarded as a direct question (Kypke, Rosenmüller), nor is the thought: “even therewith we cannot feed them,” to be previously supplied (Beza, Grotius, de Wette, and others). On the contrary, the two parts of the sentence are closely connected: We have not more than … unless, perchance, we shall have bought. The tone of the address is not one of irony (Camerarius, Homberg, Kuinoel), as is often expressed by εἰ μή (Kühner, II. p. 561; Maetzner, ad Lycurg. in Leocr. p. 317), but of embarrassment at the manifest impossibility of carrying the order into effect (ἡμεῖς … εἰς πάντα τὸν λαόν). On εἰ with a subjunctive, which is to be recognised even in the Attic writers, although rarely, but is of frequent use in the later Greek, see Winer, p. 263 [E. T. 368]; Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 12; Poppo, ad Cyrop. iii. 3. 50; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 500 ff.; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 491. Winer is mistaken in regarding the mood in this case as a deliberative subjunctive not dependent on εἰ, as Buttmann, p. 191 [E. T. 221], also takes it. See above for the connection; and on the difference of meaning between the subjunctive with and without ἄν (condition absolutely, without dependence upon circumstances that may or may not happen), see Hermann, De part. ἄν, ii. 7, p. 95; Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 301.

ἡμεῖς] with emphasis; for previously they had advised to leave the people themselves to procure food.

Luke 9:14. Observe the numerical relation, five loaves, five thousand, ranks of companies by fifty. To form such companies is, in Luke, said to have been commanded even by Jesus Himself. The tradition is gradually rounded into shape as we advance from Matthew (and John) to Luke.

Luke 9:16. εὐλόγ. αὐτούς] an intimation of the benediction uttered in prayer, which was effectual in causing the increase. Matthew and Mark have it otherwise.

Luke 9:17. κλασμάτων] is, in accordance with the opinion of Valckenaer, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, to be regarded as governed by κόφινοι δώδεκα. If, in accordance with the usual view, it had been construed with τὸ περισσ. αὐτ., it would have been τῶν κλασμ. (comp. Matthew 14:20; Soph. El. 1280: τὰ μὲν περισσεύοντα τῶν λόγων ἄφες; Plat. Legg. ix. p. 855 A) or τὰ περισσεύσαντα αὐτοῖς κλάσματα (John 6:12). Luke reproduces the κλασμάτων δώδεκα κοφίνους of Mark. Since, moreover, κλασμάτων contains a reference to κατέκλασε, Luke 9:16, it is manifest that the fanciful view of Lange, L. J. II. p. 309 f., is untenable: that Jesus, indeed, miraculously fed the thousands; but that the superfluity arose from the fact that the people, disposed by the love of Jesus to brotherly feeling, had immediately laid open their own stores. Thus the miraculous character of the transaction is combined with the natural explanation of Paulus and Ammon. With what a unanimous untruthfulness must in this case all the four reporters of the history have been silent about the people’s private stores. Just as persistent are they in their silence about the symbolic nature of the feeding behind which the marvellous How of the incident is put out of sight (Weizsäcker). Schenkel mingles together most discordant elements for explaining away the miracle, not rejecting even provisions brought with them, and in part procured in haste. But what is the meaning of Mark 8:18-20? And are all six narratives equally a misunderstanding?

Luke 9:18-20. See on Matthew 16:13-16; Mark 8:27-29. As to the second miraculous feeding Luke is silent; a silence which Schleiermacher and many others, even Weizsäcker, make use of in opposition to the reality of the second miracle (see in general on Matthew 15:33). But this silence is related to the enigmatical hiatus which Luke has left between Luke 9:17-18, entirely passing over everything that occurs in Mark 6:45 to Mark 8:27, and in the parallel passage of Matthew. No explanation is given of this omission, and it seems to have been occasioned by some casualty unknown to us. Possibly the only reason was that in this place he had before him another written source besides Mark, which did not comprise the fragments in question, and from which, moreover, he borrowed the peculiar situation with which Luke 9:18 begins. Special purposes for the omission (Hilgenfeld, Weiss, p. 699 f.) are arbitrarily assumed, as if in his idea the portion omitted were, on the one hand, not of sufficient importance, on the other, too detailed (as the history of the Canaanitish woman), and the like. Weizsäcker, p. 66 f., proceeds more critically, but still unsatisfactorily, when he relegates the events to Luke 9:51 ff., where occur several points of contact with the fragments here passed over.

Luke 9:19. ἄλλοι δέ] without a previous οἱ μέν. See on Matthew 28:17; Mark 10:32. The opinion: Ἰωάνν. τ. βαπτ., as that of the majority, is first of all declared without limitation.

Luke 9:20. ὁ Πέτρος] προπηδᾶ τῶν λοιπῶν καὶ στόμα πάντων γενόμενος, Theophylact.

τὸν Χριστὸν τ. Θεοῦ] See on Luke 2:26.

Luke 9:21-22. See on Matthew 16:20 f.; Mark 9:30 f. Neither the discourse of Jesus about the rock (Matthew 16:17-19), nor His reproof of Peter as Satan (Matthew 16:22 f.; Mark 8:32 f.), is found in the Pauline Luke, who did not find the former in Mark (see on Mark 8:29). If he had omitted the saying concerning the rock because of a tendency (Baur and others), he could not in the same interest have passed over the rebuke of Peter as Satan.

Luke 9:22. ὅτι] argumentative. Tell no one, etc., since it is the appointment of God (Luke 24:26) that the Messiah, after many sufferings, etc., should attain to His Messianic attestation by the resurrection (Romans 1:4). Thus, for the present, the Lord quenches the ardour of that confession, that it may not interfere with that onward movement of the divine appointment which is still first of all necessary.

ἀπό] on the part of. See Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 280 [E. T. 326].

Luke 9:23-27. See on Matthew 16:24-28; Mark 8:34 to Mark 9:1.

πρὸς πάντας] to all, is not to be taken as: in reference to all, nor is it said in contrast to Peter, so that what Matthew relates, Luke 16:22 f., may be unconsciously presupposed (de Wette leaves the choice between the two); but as αὐτοῖς, ver 21, refers to the apostles, πάντας must refer to a wider circle. Luke leaves it to the reader to conclude from πάντας that there were still others close by to whom, beside the disciples, that which follows was addressed. Comp. on Mark 8:34. Luke 9:18 does not exclude the approach of others which may have occurred meanwhile. But with Luke 9:22 closed the confidential discourse with the Twelve; what Jesus has now yet further to enter upon in continuation of the communication of Luke 9:22 is to be said not merely to them, but to all.

καθʼ ἡμέραν] involuntarily suggested by the experience of a later period; 1 Corinthians 15:31; Romans 8:36; 2 Corinthians 4:16 f.

Luke 9:25. ἑαυτὸν δὲ ἀπολ. ἢ ζημ.] if he … however, shall have lost himself, or have suffered damage (ἤ, not equivalent to καί, but introducing another word for the same idea). Himself, i.e. not “his better self” (de Wette), but, according to Luke 9:24, his own life. Excluded from the Messiah’s kingdom, the man is in the condition of θάνατος; not living (in the ζωὴ αἰώνιος), he is dead; he is dead as well as no more present (οὐκ εἰσί, Matthew 2:18), he has lost himself.

Luke 9:26. ἐν τῇ δόξῃ κ. τ. λ.] A threefold glory:—(1) His own, which He has absolutely as the exalted Messiah (comp. Luke 24:26); (2) The glory of God, which accompanies Him who comes down from the throne of God; (3) The glory of the angels, who surround with their brightness Him who comes down from God’s throne (comp. Matthew 28:3 and elsewhere; Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. § 116). The genitives have all the same reference, genitives of the subject.

Luke 9:27. ἀληθῶς] not belonging to λέγω (in that case it would be a translation of ἀμήν, and would come first, as in Luke 12:44, Luke 21:3), but to what follows

αὐτοῦ] (see the critical remarks) here, Acts 15:34; Matthew 26:36; Plato, Polit. i. p. 327 C, and elsewhere.

τὴν βασιλ. τ. Θεοῦ] the kingdom of the Messiah, not less definite, but simpler than Matthew and Mark.

Luke 9:28-36. See on Matthew 17:1-13; Mark 9:2-13.

ὡσεὶ ἡμέραι ὀκτώ] without construction (comp. Luke 9:13), see on Matthew 15:32; Winer, pp. 458, 497 [E. T. 648 f., 704]; Buttmann, Neutest. Gr. p. 122 [E. T. 139]. The ὡσεί protects Luke from the reproach of representing himself as paying more attention than Mark to chronology (Holtzmann).

προσεύξασθαι] See on v. 16.

Luke 9:29. τὸ εἶδος] the appearance of His countenance: “Transformatio splendorem addidit, faciem non subtraxit,” Jerome.

λευκός] not instead of an adverb, but ἐξαστρ. is a second predicate added on by way of climax without καί (Dissen, ad Pind. p. 304), white, glistening. On ἐξαστρ., comp. LXX. Ezekiel 1:4; Ezekiel 1:7; Nahum 3:3; Thryphiod. 103.

Luke 9:31. τὴν ἔξοδον αὐτοῦ] His departure, namely, from His life and work on earth: through His death, resurrection, and ascension (Joseph. Antt. iv. 8. 2). Comp. Wis 3:2; Wis 7:6; 2 Peter 1:15, and the passages in Suicer, Thes. I. p. 287, 1142; Elsner, Obss. p. 219. Corresponding to this is εἴσοδος, Acts 13:24. This subject of the συλλαλεῖν, of which neither Matthew nor Mark has any hint, first appeared in Luke from the later tradition which very naturally attained to this reflection, and, moreover, might gather it from Mark 9:9; Matthew 17:9.[118]

πληροῦν] The departure is conceived of as divinely foreordained, therefore as being fulfilled when it actually occurred. See Kypke, I. p. 253.

Luke 9:32. But Peter and his companions, while this was going on before them, were weighed down with sleep (drowsy); as they nevertheless remained awake, were not actually asleep, they saw, etc.

On βεβαρημ. ὕπνῳ, comp. Matthew 26:43; Jacobs, ad Anthol. VI. p. 77.

διαγρηγ.] is not to be explained as it usually is, postquam experrecti sunt (Castalio), but (so also Schegg), when, however, they had thoroughly awakened. Comp. Herodian, iii. 4. 8 : πάσης τῆς νυκτὸς … διαγρηγορήσαντες; Vulg. (Lachmann): vigilantes.

Luke 9:33. According to Luke, Peter desires by his proposal to prevent the departure of Moses and Elias.

μὴ εἰδὼς ὃ λέγει] He was not conscious to himself of what he said (so much had the marvellous appearance that had presented itself to him as he struggled with sleep confused him), otherwise he would not have proposed anything so improper. The whole feature of the drowsiness of the disciples belongs to a later form of the tradition, which, even as early as Mark, is no longer so primitive as in Matthew. Reflection sought to make the saying about the building of tabernacles intelligible; but the tendency-critics were the first to suggest that there was a design of throwing the primitive apostles, especially Peter, into the shade (Baur, Evang. p. 435, Markusevang. p. 68; Hilgenfeld, Evang. p. 179, 181; see, on the other hand, Köstlin, p. 200).

Luke 9:34 f. ἐπεσκίασεν αὐτούς] αὐτούς, as at Luke 9:33, refers to Moses and Elias, who are separating from Jesus, not to the disciples. (see on Matthew 17:5). It is otherwise in Matthew, who has not the detail ἐν τῷ διαχωρίζεσθαι αὐτοὺς ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ.

While Peter speaks with Jesus, the cloud appears which overshadows the departing Moses and Elias. These (continuing their departure) pass away into the cloud; the voice resounds and the entire appearance is past, Jesus is alone.

ἐκλελεγμ.] See the critical remarks; comp. Luke 23:35.

Of the conversation on the subject of Elias, Luke has nothing. It was remote from his Gentile-Christian interest. But all the less are we to impute an anti-Jewish purpose (such as that he would not have John regarded as Elias) to Luke, whose style, moreover, elsewhere tends to abbreviation (in opposition to Baur in the Theol. Jahrb. 1853, p. 80).

Luke 9:36. ἐσίγησαν] Of the command of Jesus, with a view to this result, the abbreviating Luke has nothing.

[118] Comp. Weizsäcker, Evang. Gesch. p. 481.

Luke 9:37-45. See on Matthew 17:14-23; Mark 9:14-32, the latter of which Luke follows on the whole, but abbreviating.

τῇ ἑξῆς ἡμέρᾳ] According to Luke, the transfiguration took place at night, Luke 9:32.

Luke 9:38. ἐπιβλέψαι] to look upon, with helpful pity to cast eyes upon. Comp. Luke 1:48; Sir 33:1; Tob 3:3; Tob 3:15; Jdt 13:4. See the critical remarks. The middle voice does not occur. μονογενής in this passage, as at Luke 8:42, is found only in Luke.

Luke 9:39. κράζει] does not refer to the demon (Bornemann), but to the son, since καὶ ἐξαίφνης introduces the result which is brought about in the possessed one by the πνεῦμα λαμβάνει αὐτόν. The sudden change of the subjects is the less surprising when we take into account the rapid impassioned delineation. See Winer, p. 556 [E. T. 787], and Schoemann, ad Is. p. 294 f.

μόγις] hardly, with trouble and danger; used only here in the New Testament.

συντρίβον αὐτόν] whilst he bruises him (even still—as he yields). Conceive of a paroxysm in which the demoniac ferociously beats and knocks and throws himself down. This literal meaning of συντρ. is, on account of the vivid description in the context, to be preferred to the figurative meaning—frets, wears away (Kypke, Kuinoel, Bornemann, Ewald), although Mark has ξηραίνεται, in another collocation, however.

Luke 9:42. ἔτι δὲ προσερχ. αὐτοῦ] but as he was still coming—not yet altogether fully come up.

ἔῤῥηξεν … συνεσπάραξεν] a climax describing the convulsive action, he tore him, and convulsed him (comp. σπαραγμός, cramp).

ἰάσατο τ. π.] namely, by the expulsion of the demon.

ἐπὶ τ. μεγαλειότ. τ. Θεοῦ] at the majesty (Josephus, Antt. Prooem. p. 5; Athen. iv. p. 130 F) of God. Ὤιοντο γὰρ, οὐκ ἐξ ἰδίας δυνάμεως, ἀλλʼ ἐκ Θεοῦ ταῦτα τερατουργεῖν αὐτόν, Euthymius Zigabenus.

ἐποίει] Imperfect (see the critical remarks). Their wonder was excited by the miracles of Jesus as a whole, among which was to be reckoned also that special case.

Luke 9:44. θέσθε ὑμεῖς κ.τ.λ.] Place ye, on your part, etc. The disciples were to continue mindful of this expression of amazement (τοὺς λόγους τούτους) on account of the contrast (ὁ γὰρ υἱὸς κ.τ.λ.) in which his own destiny would soon appear therewith. They were therefore to build no hopes thereupon, but only thence to recognise the mobile vulgus! Bornemann, de Wette, Schegg refer τ. λόγ. τούτ. to ὁ γὰρ υἱὸς κ.τ.λ., so that γάρ would be explanatory (to wit). So already Erasmus. But the above reference of the plural τοὺς λ. τούτ. most readily suggests itself according to the context; since, on the one hand, πάντων δὲ θαυμαζόντων preceded (comp. subsequently the singular τὸ ῥῆμα, Luke 9:45); and, on the other, the argumentative use of γάρ seems the most simple and natural.

εἰς χεῖρ. ἀνθρώπ.] into the, hands of men, He, who has just been marvelled at as the manifestation of the majesty of God.

Luke 9:45. ἵνα] purely a particle of purpose, expressing the object of the divine decree.

αἴσθωνται] that they should not become aware of it. The idea of the divine decree is that their spiritual perception through the internal αἰσθητήρια (Hebrews 5:14), their intellectual αἴσθησις (Php 1:9), was not to attain to the meaning of the saying. The verb occurs only here in the New Testament.

καὶ ἐφοβοῦντο κ.τ.λ. See on Mark 9:32.

The whole description of this failure to understand is only a superficial expansion of Mark 9:32, and not an intentional depreciation of the Twelve in the Pauline interest (Baur, Hilgenfeld).

Luke 9:46-50. See on Matthew 18:1-5; Mark 9:33-40.

εἰσῆλθε κ.τ.λ.] then came a thought in their hearts. A well-known pregnancy of expression in respect of ἐν, wherein the result of the εἰσέρχεσθαι—the being in them—is the predominant idea. See Bernhardy, p. 208. Another mode of regarding the rising of thoughts in the mind is expressed at Luke 24:38.

τίς ἂν κ.τ.λ.] who probably (possibly, see Kühner, II. p. 478) would be greater, i.e. more to be preferred among them.[119] Comp. on 1 Corinthians 13:13. This question of rank, which Mark introduces with greater historical detail, is not referred in Mark and Luke specially to the Messiah’s kingdom, as is the case in Matthew. See on Mark 9:33. The occasion of the question is not stated in Mark and Luke (otherwise in Matthew 18:1), and is by Theophylact quite arbitrarily sought in the cure of the demoniac, which the disciples had not been able to accomplish, and in view of the failure were throwing the blame upon one another.

παρʼ ἑαυτᾷ] close to Himself. In such a position opposite to the disciples, as clearly to make common cause with Jesus Himself (see Luke 9:48).

Luke 9:48. The meaning and train of thought in Luke are substantially the same as in Mark 9:36 f., as also in Matthew 18:2 ff.; the same principles are enunciated in the same sense. The child placed there is the living type of the humble disciple as he, in opposition to that arrogant disposition in Luke 9:46, ought to be. And this child standing there as such a moral type, i.e. every disciple of Christ like to him in unassuming humility, is so highly esteemed before God, that whosoever lovingly receives him, etc. For (γάρ, introducing a confirmatory explanation) he who is less (than the others) among you all (to wit, subjectively, according to his own estimation of himself) is great (objectively, in accordance with his real worth). Therefore the saying of Jesus in Luke ought not to have been explained as wanting in point (de Wette) or without connection (Strauss), nor should it have been maintained that the placing of the child before the disciples was originally without reference to the dispute about rank (Weisse).

Luke 9:49. As to the connection of thought with what precedes, see on Mark 9:38. Luke follows him with abbreviations. But any reference to an attack on the ministerial efficiency of the Apostle Paul (Köstlin, p. 201) is quite arbitrarily read into Luke 9:50.

ἐπὶ τ. ὀνόμ. σου] on the ground of Thy name, giving out Him as the authority which the demons had to obey. In this sense they used the name of Jesus in the expulsion of demons. Comp. Luke 21:8, Luke 24:47; Acts 4:17 f.; and for actual cases, Acts 3:6; Acts 3:16; Acts 16:18.

ἀκολ. μεθʼ ἡμῶν] a frequent construction in the classical writers also, Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 353 f. Comp. Revelation 6:8; Revelation 14:13.

[119] Not: greater than they, as Weiss in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. p. 96, supposes. That their question, according to Luke, was not so devoid of understanding is shown, moreover, by μικρότερος ἐν πᾶσιν ὑμῖν, ver. 48. Luke therefore had no wish to set aside the contest about rank.

Luke 9:51 ff. Luke now enters upon his narrative of the journey of Jesus to Jerusalem at the close of His earthly career, and transfers to this journey all that follows as far as Luke 18:30.[120] Not until Luke 18:15 does he again go parallel with Matthew and Mark. The journey is not direct, for in that case only three days would have been needed for it, but it is to be conceived of as a slow circuit whose final goal, however, is Jerusalem and the final development there. The direct journey towards Jerusalem does not begin till the departure from Jericho, Luke 18:35. Jesus, with His face towards Jerusalem, wishes to pass through Samaria (Luke 9:52-53); but being rejected, He turns again towards Galilee, and does not appear again on the borders of Samaria till Luke 17:11,[121] whence it is plain that Luke did not transfer the history of Martha and Mary (Luke 10:38) to Bethany, in which respect, according to John, he was assuredly in error. This being conceded, and in consideration of Luke in general having so much that is peculiar to himself,—since he, following his sources and investigations (Luke 1:3), so frequently varies from Matthew and Mark in the sequence of events and the combination of discourses,—the judgment of de Wette appears wrong: that the whole section, namely, is an unchronological and unhistorical collection, probably occasioned by the circumstance that Luke had met with much evangelical material which he did not know how to insert elsewhere, and therefore threw together in this place (comp. also Reuss, § 206; Hofmann, Schriftb. II. 2, p. 355). In that case the very opposite of Luke’s assurance (Luke 1:3) would be true, and Bruno Bauer’s sneer on the subject of the journey would not be without reason. He must actually have found the chronological arrangement of what is recorded in this large section as belonging to the end of the sojourn in Galilee, and this must have determined his special treatment, in respect of which he intersperses at Luke 13:22 and Luke 17:11 hints for enabling the reader to make out his whereabouts in the history (comp. Ewald). But Kuinoel (following Marsh and Eichhorn) quite arbitrarily deduces the section Luke 9:51 to Luke 18:14 from a gnomology bearing upon the last journey of Christ, on the margin of which also much belonging to an earlier time was written. The assumption of Schleiermacher, moreover, is incapable of proof (comp. Olshausen and Neander, Ebrard also, and Bleek): that there are here blended together the narratives of two journeys to Jerusalem—to the feast of the Dedication and to the Passover. So also Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erfüll. II. p. 113. Decidedly opposed to this, however, is the fact that the intercalation of other historical elements (Luke 10:25 to Luke 18:31) must again be assumed. Finally, the assertion of Wieseler (Chronol. Synopse, p. 319 ff.), that Luke 9:51 to Luke 13:21 is parallel with John 7:10 to John 10:42 (then Luke 13:22 to Luke 17:10 with John 11:1-54; and lastly, Luke 17:11 to Luke 19:28 with John 11:55 to John 12:11), so that thus Luke in Luke 9:51 is introducing, not the last journey to Jerusalem, but the last but two, is negatived on purely exegetical grounds by τῆς ἀναλήψεως (see subsequently). The older harmonistic schemes also placed the journey in question parallel with John 7:10, but got themselves, awkwardly enough, out of the difficulty of τῆς ἀναλήψεως by means of the evasion: “non enim Lucas dicit, dies illos jam impletos esse, sed factum hoc esse, dum complerentur,” Calovius. In various ways attempts have been made to solve the question, whence Luke derived his narrative (see especially Ewald, Jahrb. II. p. 222, and Evang. p. 282 ff.; Weizsäcker, p. 209 ff.). Yet, apart from his general sources, in regard to which, however, it is not needful, in view of the Logia, to presuppose a later treatment and transposition (Ewald), it can scarcely be inferred as to the general result that in this peculiar portion of his Gospel down to Luke 18:14 a special evangelical document, a special source containing a journey, must have been in Luke’s possession, and that this was rich in fragments of discourse, partly, indeed, in such as occur also in the Logia, although differently arranged, and in part differently put together, but pre-eminently rich in parabolic and narrative discourses, such as were in accordance with the Pauline views; for the entire omission of these discourses by Matthew and Mark sufficiently proves that (in opposition to Holtzmann) they did not as yet appear in the Logia, but formed an anthology of the Lord’s original sayings that grew up out of a later development. Weizsäcker, p. 141 ff., has ingeniously endeavoured to indicate the, relations of the several portions to the doctrinal necessities of the apostolic age, in regard to which, however, much remains problematical, and in much he takes for granted tendencies whose existence cannot be proved. It is totally unfounded to attribute to Luke any modification of his accounts brought about by motives of partisanship[122] (Baur, Köstlin, and others), in respect of which Köstlin, p. 236, supposes that he vaguely and contradictorily worked up an older narrative about the journey through Samaria and Peraea, because after he had once brought Jesus to Samaria he would not wish to mention expressly His leaving this region again immediately. (But see on Luke 9:56.)

[120] That there is actually before us in this place a narrative of a journey has indeed been denied, but only under the pressure of harmonistic criticism. Even Weiss rightly maintains its character as the narrative of a journey whose goal is Jerusalem. Still its contents are not to be limited to the ministry of Jesus outside of Galilee. See also Weizsäcker, p. 207.

[121] Therefore it is not to be said that Luke makes the chief part of the journey pass through Samaria, whereby, according to Baur (Evang. p. 433 f.), he wished to support the Pauline universalism by the authority of Jesus. In ver. 51 ff. Luke relates only an attempt to pass through Samaria, which, however (ver. 56), was abandoned. This, moreover, is opposed to Baur’s comparison of the Gospel of Luke with that of John (p. 488), and opposed to Köstlin, p. 189.

[122] That thus, for instance, by the narrative of the fiery zeal of the sons of Zebedee he just desired to prove how little they were capable of going beyond the limits of Judaism. Comp. Hilgenfeld, Evang. p. 182 f.

Luke 9:51. Ἐν τῷ συμπληροῦσθαι κ.τ.λ.] when the days of His taking up (i.e. the days when their consummation ordained by God, His assumption, was to occur) were entirely completed, i.e. when the period of His receiving up (assumptio, Vulg.) was very near. Euthymius Zigabenus aptly says: ἡμέρας τῆς ἀναλήψεως αὐτοῦ λέγει τὸν καιρὸν τὸν ἀφορισθέντα μέχρι τῆς ἀναλήψεως αὐτοῦ τῆς ἀπὸ γῆς εἰς οὐρανόν. In the New Testament ἀνάληψις occurs only in this place. But it appears in the same sense of the taking up into heaven, and that likewise of the Messiah, in the Test. XII. Patr. p. 585: καὶ μεγαλυνθήσεται ἐν τῇ οἰκουμένῃ ἕως ἀναλήψεως αὐτοῦ; and in the Fathers (see Suicer, Thes. I. p. 282); although in the New Testament the verb ἀναλαμβάνεσθαι is the customary word to express this heavenly reception, Mark 16:19; Acts 1:2; Acts 1:11; Acts 1:22; 1 Timothy 3:16. Comp. 1Ma 2:58; Sir 48:9; 2 Kings 2:11; Sir 49:14; Tob 3:6. The objections of Wieseler are unfounded: that the plural τὰς ἡμέρας, as well as the absence of any more precise limitation for ἀναλήψ. (εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν), is opposed to this view. The plural is as much in place here[123] as at Luke 2:6; Luke 2:22; Acts 9:23; and ἀνάληψις, without more precise limitation, in no way needed such a limitation, because by means of αὐτοῦ it leaves it absolutely without doubt that the current idea of Christ’s assumption is meant, as, moreover, ἀνελήφθη, Acts 1:2, and 1 Timothy 3:16, although without any local definition, presented no ambiguity to the Christian consciousness. Comp. the ecclesiastical usus loquendi of assumptio without qualification. Wieseler himself explains: “when the days drew to an end in which He found a reception (in Galilee, to wit), He journeyed towards Jerusalem in order to work there.” An erroneous device, the necessary result of harmonistic endeavours. Nobody could guess at the supplementary “in Galilee;” and what a singularly unsuitable representation, since, indeed, Jesus up to this time almost always, and even so late as at Luke 9:43, found appreciation and admiration in Galilee!

αὐτός] ipse, in view of the subsequent sending forward of His messengers.

τὸ πρόσωπ. αὐτοῦ ἐστήρ.] He settled (stedfastly directed) His countenance,—a Hebraism (הֵשִׂים פָּנִים), Jeremiah 21:10; Jeremiah 42:15; Jeremiah 44:12; Genesis 31:21; 2 Kings 12:18; Daniel 11:17, to be traced to the source that he made use of. Comp. Gesenius (who points out the existence of the same usage in Arabic and Syriac) in Rosenmüller, Rep. I. p. 136, and Thesaur. II. p. 1109. The meaning is: He adopted His settled purpose to journey to Jerusalem (τοῦ πορεύεσθαι, genitive of purpose); ἈΦΏΡΙΣΕΝ, ἘΚΎΡΩΣΕΝ, ἜΣΤΗΣΕ ΒΟΥΛΉΝ, Theophylact.

[123] If Luke had written τὴν ἡμέραν τ. ἀναλ. he would thereby have declared that what followed happened on the very day of the assumption. Comp. Acts 2:1. But Bengel well says: “unus erat dies assumtionis in coelum, sed quadraginta dies a resurrectione, imo etiam hi dies ante passionem erant instar parasceves. Instabat adhuc passio, crux, mors, sepulcrum, sed per haec omnia ad metam prospexit Jesus, cujus sensum imitatur stylus evangelistae.” Comp. John 12:23; John 13:3; John 13:31; John 13:17, and elsewhere.

Luke 9:52-53. Ἀγγέλους does not as yet mean the Seventy (Neander), and ὥστε is as at Luke 4:29.

ἑτοιμάσαι αὐτῷ] to make preparation for Him (comp. Mark 14:15), i.e. in this case: ἑτοιμάσαι ὑποδοχὴν πρὸς καταγωγὴν αὐτοῦ, Euthymius Zigabenus.

Luke 9:53. καὶ οὐκ ἐδέξαντο αὐτόν] which rejection was accomplished by the refusal given to the messengers that He had sent before, see Luke 9:52. That Jesus Himself followed them is not implied in the passage.

ὅτι τὸ πρόσωπον, not because generally He was journeying towards Jerusalem (ἐναντίως γὰρ οἱ Σαμαρεῖται πρὸς τοὺς Ἱεροσολυμίτας διέκειντο, Euthymius Zigabenus; so usually), for through Samaria passed the usual pilgrims’ road of the Galilaeans, Josephus, Antt. xx. 6. 1; Vit. 52; comp. John 4:4; nor yet because they were unwilling to lodge “so large a Jewish procession” as the train of disciples (Lange, of which, however, nothing appears),—but because they regarded an alleged. Messiah journeying towards Jerusalem as not being the actual Messiah. We must think of the messengers themselves announcing Jesus as the Messiah, although, besides, according to John 4, the knowledge of His Messianic call might have already penetrated from Galilee to the Samaritan villages; but the Samaritans did not expect of the Messiah (see the expositors on John 4:25) the observance of festivals in Jerusalem, but the restoration and glorification of the worship upon Gerizim. (Comp. Bertholdt, Christol. p. 21 f.) The expression τὸ πρόσωπ. αὐτοῦ ἦν πορευόμ. is a Hebraism, Exodus 33:14; 2 Samuel 17:11.

Luke 9:54-56. Ἰδόντες] they saw it in the return of the messengers, who would not otherwise have come back.

The two disciples are not to be identified with the messengers (Euthymius Zigabenus, Erasmus).

πῦρ] Fire, not: fulmen (Wetstein, Kuinoel), a modern mode of explaining away, of which, neither in 2 Kings 1:10-12 (when at the word of Elias fire from heaven devours the people of Ahaziah) nor on the part of the disciples is there any notion.

οὐκ οἴδατε κ.τ.λ.] As in respect of ὑμεῖς the emphatic contrast with Elias is not to be disregarded (“retunditur provocatio ad Eliam,” Bengel), so it is objectionable to explain, with Bornemann: “Nonne perpenditis, qualem vos … animum prodatis? Certe non humaniorem, quam modo vobis Samaritani praestiterunt.” The Samaritans had not, indeed, refused to receive Jesus from lack of humanity; see on Luke 9:53. Rightly the expositors have explained οἵου πνεύματος of a spirit which is differently disposed from that displayed by Elias. In that respect the form of the saying has been taken by some affirmatively (so Erasmus, Beza, Castalio, Calvin, Grotius, and others; latest of all, Ewald), some interrogatively (so Luther, Zeger, and most of the later critics); but the matter of it has been so understood that Jesus is made to say to the disciples either (a) that they knew not that they were allowing themselves to be guided by a wholly different spirit from that of Elias (see as early as Augustine, C. Adimant. 17, Calvin, Grotius: “Putatis vos agi Spiritu tali, quali olim Elias …; sed erratis. Habetis quidem ζῆλον, sed οὐ κατʼ ἐπίγνωσιν, et qui proinde humani est affectus, non divinae motionis”), so in substance Ch. F. Fritzsche also in his Nov. Opusc. p. 264; or (b) that they knew not that they as His disciples were to follow the guidance of a wholly different spirit from that of Elias,—the evangelical spirit of meekness, not the legal spirit of severity (so Theophylact, Erasmus, Zeger, Jansen, Bengel, and most of the later commentators). The view under (a) bears on the face of it the motives on which it depends, viz. to avoid making Jesus rebuke the spirit of Elias. The view under (b) is simply in accordance with the words, and is to be preferred in the interrogative form, as being more appropriate to the earnestness of the questioner; yet πνεύματος is not to be explained, as most of the later commentators explain it, of the human spirit (“affectus animi,” Grotius), but (rightly, even so early as Euthymius Zigabenus) of the Holy Spirit.[124] To this objective πνεῦμα the categorical ἐστέ points (which does not mean: ye ought to be). As to εἶναί τινος, whereby is expressed the relation of dependence, see on Mark 9:41, and Winer, p. 176 [E. T. 243 f.].

Luke 9:56. ἑτέραν] into a village which was not Samaritan. Theophylact: ὅτι οὐκ ἐδέξαντο αὐτὸν, οὐδὲ εἰσῆλθεν εἰς Σαμάρειαν. Thus the journey at its very commencement diverged from the direct course that had been decided on (in opposition to Wieseler, p. 326). To suppose the further progress of the journey through Samaria (in this place consequently Schenkel misplaces the incident in John 4) is altogether without authority in the text.

[124] Τοῦτο γὰρ ἀγαθόν ἐστι καὶ ἀνεξίκακον, Euthymius Zigabenus. But not as though Jesus indirectly denied to Elias the Holy Spirit (comp. already on Luke 1:17), but in His disciples the Holy Spirit is in His operations different from what He was in the old prophets, seeing that He was in them the instrument of the divine chastisement.

Luke 9:57-60. See on Matthew 8:19-22, who has placed the incidents earlier. These little narratives circulated probably in general without definite historical arrangement. Arbitrarily enough, Lange[125] finds the three unnamed ones that follow, Luke 9:57; Luke 9:59; Luke 9:61, in Judas Iscariot, Thomas, and Matthew. According to Luke, they were assuredly none of the twelve (Luke 6:13 ff.).

πορευομένων αὐτῶν] to wit, εἰς ἑτέραν κώμην, Luke 9:56.

ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ] is to be taken with what follows (Lachmann). If, as is usually the case, it were connected with πορ. αὐτ., it would simply be useless.

ἀπελθόντι] Case of attraction, Kühner, II. p. 344.

Luke 9:60. διάγγελλε κ.τ.λ.] announce everywhere (διά, comp. Romans 9:17) the kingdom of God, the imminent establishment of the Messiah’s kingdom.

[125] He—just as arbitrarily, since the brief narratives omit all such details—represents the first as being of a sanguine, the second of a melancholic, the third of a phlegmatic temperament. See L. J. III. p. 424.

Luke 9:61-62. Peculiar to Luke.

ἀποτάξασθαι κ.τ.λ.] to say farewell to my family. Comp. 2 Corinthians 2:13, and see on Mark 6:45; Vulg.: “renuntiare.” So also Augustine, Maldonatus, and others. Literally, and likewise rightly (see Luke 14:33; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 24). But the answer or Jesus, Luke 9:62, gives for ἀποτάξ. the idea of attachment, not of renunciation.

τοῖς εἰς κ.τ.λ., according to the above explanation of ἀποτάξ., must be masculine, not neuter. (Vulgate in Lachmann, Augustine, Maldonatus, Paulus.)

εἰς] not instead of ἐν (thus de Wette, however), but a case of attraction, such as we very frequently meet with in the classical writers. The two ideas, ἀπέρχεσθαι εἰς τὸν οἶκόν μου and ἀποτάξ. τοῖς ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ μου, are so blended together that the former is forced into the latter, and has driven out ἐν for εἰς. See in general, Kühner, II. p. 318 f., ad Xen. Anab. i. 1. 5. Comp. Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 286 [E. T. 332].

Luke 9:62. The meaning of the proverbial saying, in which, moreover, “cum proverbio significatur, cui rei aptetur proverbium” (Grotius) is, No one who has offered to labour in my service, and, withal, still attaches his interest to his earlier relations (βλέπων πάλιν ἐπὶ τὸν κόσμον, Theophylact), is well fitted (adapted, available) for the kingdom of the Messiah (to labour for it). Entire devotion, not divided service! On εἴς τι βλέπειν, oculos aliquo convertere, see Tittmann, Synon. p. 112.