Comentarios bíblicos

In this chapter, we have an account of the birth and infancy of our Lord Jesus: having had notice of his conception, and of the birth and infancy of his forerunner, in the former chapter. The First-begotten is here brought into the world; let us go meet him with our hosannas, blessed is he that cometh. Here is, I. The place and other circumstances of his birth, which proved him to be the true Messiah, and such a one as we needed, but not such a one as the Jews expected, Lu 2:1-7. II. The notifying of his birth to the shepherds in that neighbourhood by an angel, the song of praise which the angels sung upon that occasion, and the spreading of the report of it by the shepherds, Lu 2:8-20. III. The circumcision of Christ, and the naming of him, Lu 2:21. IV. The presenting of him in the temple, Lu 2:22-24. V. The testimonies of Simeon, and Anna the prophetess, concerning him, Lu 2:25-39. VI. Christ's growth and capacity, Lu 2:40-52. VIII. His observing the passover at twelve years old, and his disputing with the doctors in the temple, Lu 2:41-51. And this, with what we have met with (Mt 1:1-2:23), is all we have concerning our Lord Jesus, till he entered upon his public work in the thirtieth year of his age.

The decree of Augustus to enroll all the Roman empire, Luke 2:1, Luke 2:2. Joseph and Mary go to their own city to be enrolled, Luke 2:3-5. Christ is born, Luke 2:6, Luke 2:7. His birth is announced to the shepherds, Luke 2:8-14. They go to Bethlehem, and find Joseph, Mary, and Christ, Luke 2:15-20. Christ is circumcised, Luke 2:21. His parents go to present him in the temple, Luke 2:22-24. Simeon receives him: his song, Luke 2:25-35. Anna the prophetess, Luke 2:36-38. The holy family return to Nazareth, Luke 2:39, Luke 2:40. They go to Jerusalem at the feast of the passover, and leave Jesus behind in Jerusalem, Luke 2:41-44. They return seeking him, and find him in the midst of the doctors, Luke 2:45-47. His mother chides him, Luke 2:48. His defense of his conduct, Luke 2:49, Luke 2:50. They all return to Nazareth, Luke 2:51, Luke 2:52.

CHAPTER 2.

THE BIRTH AND BOYHOOD OF JESUS.

CHAPTER 2

Luke 2:3. ἰδίαν] Lachm. Tisch. have ἑαυτοῦ, following B D L א** Eus. An interpretation, which is further found completely in D (ἑαυτοῦ πατρίδα). א* has ἑαυτῶν.

Luke 2:5. μεμνηστ. See on Luke 1:27.

γυναικί] is wanting in B C* (F) D L Ξ א, min. vss. Fathers. Deleted by Lachm., and now also again by Tisch. An addition; ἐμνηστευμένῃ was objectionable, hence γυναικί was added, and in part ἐμνηστευμ. was even deleted (Luke 2 :Verc. Colb.). There was less probability that offence might be taken after Matthew 1:24 at γυναικί. Cyril of Jerusalem expresses himself too obscurely in this respect.

Luke 2:7. τῇ φάτνῃ] τῇ is wanting in preponderating witnesses. It is deleted by Lachm. Tisch. The article was added here and at Luke 2:12, in order to designate the definite manger, i.e. the well-known manger of the Saviour.

Luke 2:12. κείμενον] B L P S Ξ א** min. Syr. utr. Vulg. codd. It. Eus. Arnob. and Tisch. have καὶ κείμ.; καί was easily inserted to connect the two participles.

Luke 2:14. εὐδοκία] A B* D א, Goth. Sax. Vulg. It., Fathers, have εὐδοκίας. So Lachm. and Tisch. Recommended by Beza, Mill, Bengel, and others. There is considerable evidence on both sides, but it preponderates in favour of the genitive. Now, as the unfamiliar expression ἄνθρωποι εὐδοκίας is not to be put down to the account of the transcribers, but, on the contrary, these, not apprehending the symmetry of the passage, had after the analogy of δόξα and εἰρήνη sufficient inducement to put instead of εὐδοκίας the nominative likewise, εὐδοκίας is to be preferred.

Luke 2:15. καί οἱ ἄνθρωποι] is wanting in B L Ξ א, min. Syr. Perss. Ar. p. Copt. Sahid. Arm. Vulg. It. Eus. Aug. Bracketed by Lachm. Deleted by Tisch. But the homoeoteleuton (ἄγγελοι … ἄνθρωποι) the more easily gave occasion to the omission, as the words are superfluous and there was no motive for their addition.

Luke 2:17. διεγνώρισαν] Lachm. Tisch. have ἑγνώρισαν, following B D L Ξ א, min. Eus. But the syllable ΔΙ after δέ was more easily passed over than added, especially as the simple form was present in Luke 2:15.

Luke 2:20. Instead of ὑπέστρεψαν, Elz. has ἐπέστρεψαν; and at Luke 2:21, instead of αὐτόν: τὸ παιδίον, in opposition to preponderant evidence.

Luke 2:33. Ἰωσὴφ καὶ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ] B D L א, min. vss. (also Vulg.) Or. and several Fathers have ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ κ. ἡ μήτηρ. So Griesbach and Tisch. (who after μήτηρ retains αὐτοῦ). The mention of the father gave offence, and in this place the name might be introduced instead of it, but not appropriately also at Luke 2:48.

Luke 2:37. ὡς] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἕως, in accordance with A B L Ξ א * min. Copt. Sahid. Ar. p. Vulg. codd. It. Aug. Rightly; the ὠς, frequently used in the case of numbers, intruded itself.

Luke 2:38. αὕτη] on preponderant evidence, and because καὶ αὕτη presented itself mechanically from Luke 2:37, is to be deleted, with Lachm. and Tisch.

ἐν Ἱερουσ.] ἐν is wanting in B Ξ Π א, min. vss. (including Vulg. ms. and codd. It.) and Fathers, and is condemned by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. An addition from misunderstanding.

Luke 2:39. τὴν πόλιν αὑτῶν] Lachm. and Tisch. have πόλιν ἑαυτῶν. In accordance with decisive evidence ἑαυτῶν is to be adopted; but the omission of τήν is only attested by B D *א 1.

Luke 2:40. πνεὑματι] has testimonies against it of such weight, and it can so little conceal its origin from Luke 1:80, that with reason it is condemned by Mill and Griesb., excluded by Lachm. and Tisch.

Luke 2:42. ἀναβάντων] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἀναβαινότων, in accordance with A B K L X Π א, min. Vulg. codd. It. A copyist’s error; the aorist is necessary.

εἰς Ἱεροσ.] is wanting in B D L א, min. vss. Tisch. It betrays itself by the form Ἱεροσόλυμα as an addition of another hand.

Luke 2:43. ἔγνω Ἰωσὴφ κ. ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ] B D L א, min. vss. (including Vulg. and codd. It.) Jerome have ἔγνωσαν οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. Comp. also Rinck on Matthew 24:36. I regard οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ as written in the margin from Luke 2:41. Comp. on Luke 2:33. Were it original, and had Ἰωσ. κ. ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ been subsequently put for it, why should not this alteration have been already undertaken before at Luke 2:41 (where only codd. It. have: Joseph et Maria)? and why should ἔγνωσαν (which would have stood originally) not have been left? This plural so naturally suggested itself, even with the words of the Recepta, that some witnesses for the Recepta (Δ, for instance) actually read it.

Luke 2:45. After εὑρόντες Elz. Scholz have αὐτόν (Lachm. in brackets), in opposition to B C* D L א, min. Arm. Aeth. Vulg. codd. It. A current addition.

ζητοῦντες] nearly the same witnesses have ἀναζητοῦντες. So Lachm. and Tisch. From Luke 2:44.

The genuineness of the portion from ch. Luke 1:5 to the end of ch. 2 has been contested by Evanson (The Dissonance of the four generally received Evangelists, etc., Ipswich 1792), J. E. Chr. Schmidt (in Henke’s Magaz. vol. III. p. 473 ff.), Horst (Henke’s Museum, I. 3, p. 446 ff.), C. C. L. Schmidt (in the Repert. f. d. Literat. d. Bibel, I. p. 58 ff.), Jones (Sequel to Ecclesiastical Researches, etc., London 1803), Eichhorn, Einl. I. p. 630 f. Baur reckons the section among the portions which have been introduced into our Gospel by the agency of a reviser (the author of the Acts of the Apostles). See his Markusevang. p. 218 ff. But the genuineness was defended by Ammon (Nova Opusc. p. 32 ff.), Süskind (Symbolae, II. p. 1 ff.), von Schubert (de infantiae J. Ch. historiae a Matth. et Luc. exhibitae authentia atque indole, Gripeswald. 1815), Reuterdahl (Obss. crit. in priora duo ev. Luc. capita, Lond. 1823), Bertholdt, Paulus, Schott, Feilmoser, Credner, Neudecker, Kuinoel, Volkmar, Guericke, and almost all the more recent writers. In opposition to Baur, see also Köstlin, p. 306 ff.

The genuineness is rendered certain by the external testimonies without exception. It is true that the section was wanting in the Gospel of Marcion (see Tertullian, c. Marc. iv. 7); but Marcion mutilated and falsified the Gospel of Luke in accordance with his dogmatic aims, and thus formed his Gospel, which, according to Tertullian, Epiphanius, Origen, and others, began: Ἐν ἔτει πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ τῆς ἡγεμονίας Τιβερίου Καίσαρος ὁ Θεὸς κατῆλθεν εἰς Καφαρναοῦμ, πόλιν τῆς Γαλιλαίας, καὶ ἦν διδάσκων ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν (Luke 3:1, Luke 4:31). And the internal character of the section, much as it differs from the preface by its Hebraic colouring in accordance with the sources made use of, contains the same peculiarities of Luke as are apparent in the other portions of the Gospel and in the Acts of the Apostles (see Gersdorff, p. 160 ff.; Credner, I. p. 132 ff.), and betrays in the whole peculiar character of the representation documental sources, whose characteristic and in part highly poetic stamp Luke with correct tact has known how to preserve in working them up. We may add, that a reason against the genuineness can as little be derived from Acts 1:1 as a conclusion in its favour can be gathered from Luke 1:3. For there mention of the Gospel is made only as regards its main contents; and the ἄνωθεν at Luke 1:3 would, even if Luke 1:5 to Luke 2:52 were not genuine, find warrant enough in the beginning of the history from the emergence of John and in the genealogy contained in the third chapter.

Lu 2:1-7.

BIRTH OF CHRIST.

1. Cæsar Augustus--the first of the Roman emperors.

all the world--so the vast Roman Empire was termed.

taxed--enrolled, or register themselves.

In those days - About the time of the birth of John and of Christ.

A decree - A law commanding a thing to be done.

Caesar Augustus - This was the Roman emperor. His first name was Octavianus. He was the nephew of Julius Caesar, and obtained the empire after his death. He took the name "Augustus - i. e., august," or honorable - as a compliment to his own greatness; and from him the month "August," which was before called "Sextilis," received its name.

That all the world - There has been much difficulty respecting this passage, from the fact that no such taxing of "all the world" is mentioned by ancient writers. It should have been rendered "the whole land" - that is, the whole land of Palestine. The "whole land" is mentioned to show that it was not "Judea" only, but that it included also "Galilee," the place where Joseph and Mary dwelt. That the passage refers only to the land of Palestine, and not to the whole world, or to all the Roman empire, is clear from the following considerations:

1. The fact that no such taxing is mentioned as pertaining to any other country.

2. The account of Luke demands only that it should be understood of Palestine, or the country where the Saviour was born.

3. The words "world" and "whole world" are not unfrequently used in this limited sense as confined to a single country.

See Matthew 4:8, where Satan is said to have shown to Christ all the kingdoms of "the world," that is, of the land of Judea. See also Joshua 2:3; Luke 4:25 (Greek); Luke 21:26; Acts 11:28.

Should be taxed - Our word "tax" means to levy and raise money for the use of the government. This is not the meaning of the original word here. It means rather to "enroll," or take a "list" of the citizens, with their employments, the amount of their property, etc., equivalent to what was meant by census. Judea was at that time tributary to Rome. It paid taxes to the Roman emperor; and, though Herod was "king," yet he held his appointment under the Roman emperor, and was subject in most matters to him. Farther, as this "enrollment" was merely to ascertain the numbers and property of the Jews, it is probable that they were very willing to be enrolled in this manner; and hence we hear that they went willingly, without tumult - contrary to the common way when they were "to be taxed."

Caesar Augustus - This was Caius Caesar Octavianus Augustus, who was proclaimed emperor of Rome in the 29th year before our Lord, and died a.d. 14.

That all the world should be taxed - Πασαν την οικουμενην, the whole of that empire. It is agreed, on all hands, that this cannot mean the whole world, as in the common translation; for this very sufficient reason, that the Romans had not the dominion of the whole earth, and therefore could have no right to raise levies or taxes in those places to which their dominion did not extend. Οικουμενη signifies properly the inhabited part of the earth, from οικεω, to dwell, or inhabit. Polybius makes use of the very words in this text to point out the extent of the Roman government, lib. vi. c. 48; and Plutarch uses the word in exactly the same sense, Pomp. p. 635. See the passages in Wetstein. Therefore the whole that could be meant here, can be no more than that a general Census of the inhabitants and their effects had been made in the reign of Augustus, through all the Roman dominions.

But as there is no general census mentioned in any historian as having taken place at this time, the meaning of οικουμενη must be farther restrained, and applied solely to the land of Judea. This signification it certainly has in this same evangelist, Luke 21:26. Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth, τῃ οικουμενῃ this land. The whole discourse relates to the calamities that were coming, not upon the whole world, nor the whole of the Roman empire, but on the land of Judea, see Luke 21:21. Then let them that are in Judea flee to the mountains. Out of Judea, therefore, there would be safety; and only those who should be with child, or giving suck, in those days, are considered as peculiarly unhappy, because they could not flee away from that land on which the scourge was to fall: for the wrath, or punishment, shall be, says our Lord, εν τῳ λαῳ τουτῳ, On This Very People, viz. the Jews, Luke 21:23. It appears that St. Luke used this word in this sense in conformity to the Septuagint, who have applied it in precisely the same way, Isaiah 13:11; Isaiah 14:26; Isaiah 24:1. And from this we may learn, that the word οικουμενη had been long used as a term by which the land of Judea was commonly expressed. Ἡ γη, which signifies the earth, or world in general, is frequently restrained to this sense, being often used by the evangelists and others for all the country of Judea. See Luke 4:25; Joshua 2:3.

It is probable that the reason why this enrolment, or census, is said to have been throughout the whole Jewish nation, was to distinguish it from that partial one, made ten years after, mentioned Acts 5:37, which does not appear to have extended beyond the estates of Archelaus, and which gave birth to the insurrection excited by Judas of Galilee. See Josephus, Ant. book xx. c. 3.