Commentaires bibliques

In this chapter we have Christ's exposition of the moral law, which he came not to destroy, but to fulfil, and to fill up, by his gospel. I. Here is a proof of the lawfulness of works of necessity and mercy on the sabbath day, the former in vindication of his disciples' plucking the ears of corn, the latter in vindication of himself healing the withered hand on that day, Lu 6:1-11. II. His retirement for secret prayer, Lu 6:12. III. His calling his twelve apostles, Lu 6:13-16. IV. His curing the multitudes of those under various diseases who made their application to him, Lu 6:17-19. V. The sermon that he preached to his disciples and the multitude, instructing them in their duty both to God and man, Lu 6:20-49.

Luke 6:1-11. See this passage explained in the notes at Matthew 12:1-13.

The disciples pluck and eat the ears of corn on the Sabbath day, and the Pharisees find fault, Luke 6:1, Luke 6:2. Our Lord shows the true use of the Sabbath, Luke 6:3-5. He heals the man with the withered hand, Luke 6:6-11. He goes into a mountain to pray, and calls twelve disciples, Luke 6:12-16. Multitudes are instructed and healed, Luke 6:17-19. Pronounces four blessings, Luke 6:20-23, and four woes, Luke 6:24-26. Gives various instructions about loving our enemies, being patient, gentle, kind, grateful, and merciful, Luke 6:27-36. Harsh judgments censured, and charity recommended, Luke 6:37, Luke 6:38. The parable of the blind leading the blind, Luke 6:39. Of the mote in a brother's eye, Luke 6:40-42. Of the good and corrupt tree, Luke 6:43, Luke 6:44. The good and evil treasure of the heart, Luke 6:45. The parable of the two houses, one builded on the rock, and the other on the sand, Luke 6:46-49.

CHAPTER 6.

SABBATIC CONFLICTS. THE APOSTLES. THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT.

CHAPTER 6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lu 6:1-5.

PLUCKING CORN-EARS ON THE SABBATH.

(See on

Mt 12:1-8

and

Mr 2:23-28.)

1. second sabbath after the first--an obscure expression, occurring here only, generally understood to mean, the first sabbath after the second day of unleavened bread. The reasons cannot be stated here, nor is the opinion itself quite free from difficulty.

Second sabbath after the first - See the notes at Matthew 12:1. This phrase has given great perplexity to commentators. A "literal" translation would be, "on the Sabbath called "second first,"" or second first Sabbath. The word occurs nowhere else. It is therefore exceedingly difficult of interpretation. The most natural and easy explanation is that proposed by Scaliger. The "second day" of the Passover was a great festival, on which the wave-sheaf was offered, Leviticus 23:11. From "that day" they reckoned "seven weeks," or seven "Sabbaths," to the day of Pentecost. The "first" Sabbath after that "second day" was called the "second first," or the first from the second day of the feast. The "second" Sabbath was called the "second second," or the second Sabbath from the second day of the feast; the third the "third second," etc. This day, therefore, on which the Saviour went through the fields, was the first Sabbath that occurred after the second day of the feast.

Rubbing them in their hands - The word "corn" here means wheat or barley, and not maize, as in America. They rubbed it in their hands to separate the grain from the chaff. This was common and allowable. Dr. Thomson ("The Land and the Book," vol. ii. p. 510, 511) says: "I have often seen my muleteers, as we passed along the wheat fields, pluck off ears, rub them in their hands, and eat the grains, unroasted, just as the apostles are said to have done. This also is allowable. The Pharisees did not object to the thing itself, only to the time when it was done. They said it was not lawful to do this on the Sabbath-day. It was work forbidden by those who, through their traditions, had made man for the Sabbath, not the Sabbath for man." So Professor Hackett ("Illustrations of Scripture," p. 176, 177) says: "The incident of plucking the ears of wheat, rubbing out the kernels in their hands, and eating them Luke 6:1, is one which the traveler sees often at present who is in Palestine at the time of the gathering of the harvest. Dr. Robinson relates the following case: 'Our Arabs were an hungered, and, going into the fields, they plucked the ears of grain and did eat, rubbing them in their hands. On being questioned, they said this was an old custom, and no one would speak against it; they were supposed to be hungry, and it was allowed as a charity.' The Pharisees complained of the disciples for violating the Sabbath, and not any rights of property."