성경 주석서

CHAPTER 12

Luke 12:4. Here also (comp. on Matthew 10:28; Mark 12:5) read, following A E K L U V Γ Δ א, min., with Lachm. and Tisch., ἀποκτεννόντων.

Luke 12:7. οὖν] is wanting in B L R 157, Copt. Sahid. codd. of It. Ambr. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. From Matthew 10:31.

Luke 12:11. προσφέρωσιν] B L X א, min. Vulg. codd. of It. have εἰσφέρωσιν. So Tisch. D, Clem. Or. Cyr. of Jerus. 12 :have φέρωσιν. The latter is to be preferred; the compound forms are attempts at more accurate definition; had either of them been original there was no occasion for substituting the simple form.

Luke 12:14. δικαστήν] Lachm. and Tisch. have κριτήν, in accordance with B L א, min. Sahid., as also D, 28, 33, Cant. Colb. Marcion, which have not ἢ μεριστ.

δικαστ. was introduced by way of gloss, through a comparison of Acts 7:27; Acts 7:35.

Luke 12:15. πάσης πλεονεξ. is to be adopted on decisive evidence (Elz. Scholz have τῆς πλ.).

Instead of the second αὐτοῦ, Lachm. and Tisch. have αὐτῷ, in favour of which is the evidence of B D F L R א** min. Bas. Titus of Bostra, Cyr. Rightly; αὐτοῦ is a mechanical repetition of what has gone before.

Luke 12:22. After ψυχῇ Elz. Scholz have ὑμῶν. Condemned by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. on decisive evidence. It is from Matthew 6:25; whence also in B, min. vss. ὑμῶν has also been interpolated after σώματι.

Luke 12:23. ἡ γὰρ ψυχή is indeed attested by authorities of importance (B D L M S V X א, min. vss. Clement); yet γάρ (bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch.) betrays itself as a connective addition, in opposition to which is the evidence also of οὐχὶ ἡ ψυχή in min. (following Matthew).

Luke 12:25. The omission of μεριμνῶν (Tisch.) is too weakly attested by D and two cursives for us to be able to regard the word as an addition from Matthew [Tisch. 8 has restored it]. The Homoioteleuton after ὑμῶν might easily cause its being dropped out.

Luke 12:26. οὔτε] Lachm. and Tisch. have οὐδέ. Necessary, and sufficiently attested by B L א, etc.

Luke 12:27. πῶς αὐξάνει· οὐ κοπ. οὐδὲ νήθει] D, Verc. Syr.cur. Marcion? Clem. have πῶς οὔτε νήθει οὔτε ὑφαίνει. So Tisch., and rightly; the Recepta is from Matthew 6:28.

Luke 12:28. τὸν χόρτον ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ σήμ. ὄντα] many variations. Both the word τῷ and the order of the Recepta are due to Matthew 6:30. Following B L א, etc., we must read with Tisch. ἐν ἀγρῷ τὸν χόρτον σήμερον ὄντα [Tisch. 8, following א, B L Λ, 262, Sah. Copt., has ὄντα σήμερον] (Lachm. has τ. χόρτον σήμ. ἐν ἀγρ. ὄντα).

Luke 12:31. Elz. Scholz have τοῦ Θεοῦ. But the well-attested αὐτοῦ was supplanted by τοῦ Θεοῦ, following Matthew 6:33, whence also was imported πάντα after ταῦτα (Elz. Scholz).

Luke 12:36. ἀναλύσει] ἀναλύσῃ is decisively attested, and is hence, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be preferred.

Luke 12:38. οἱ δοῦλοι] is wanting in B D L א, vss. Ir. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Tisch. An addition in accordance with Luke 12:37 [Tisch. 8 has also deleted ἐκεῖνοι, which is wanting in א*].

Luke 12:40. οὖν] is to be struck out with Lachm. and Tisch., as also is αὐτῷ [not omitted by Tisch. 8], Luke 12:41.

Luke 12:42. Instead of ὁ φρόν., Elz. Scholz have καὶ φρόν., in opposition to preponderating evidence. καί is from Matthew 24:45.

Luke 12:47. ἑαυτοῦ] Lachm. and Tisch. have αὐτοῦ on very weighty evidence. The Recepta is to be maintained. The significance of the reciprocal pronoun was very often not observed by the transcribers.

Luke 12:49. Instead of εἰς, Lachm. and Tisch. have ἐπί. The authorities are much divided, but ἐπί bears the suspicion of having come in through a reminiscence of Matthew 10:34.

Luke 12:53. διαμερισθήσεται] Lachm. and Tisch. (both of them joining it to what has gone before) have διαμερισθήσονται, in accordance with important uncials (including B D א) and a few cursives, Sahid. Vulg. codd. of It. Fathers. Rightly; it was attracted to what follows (so also most of the editions), which appeared to need a verb, and therefore was put in the singular. According to almost equally strong attestation we must read τὴν θυγατέρα and τὴν μητέρα instead of θυγατρί and μητρι (Lachm. and Tisch. omitting the unequally attested article). The Recepta resulted from involuntary conformity to what precedes.

Luke 12:54. τὴν νεφέλ.] The article is wanting in A B L X Δ א, min. Lachm. Tisch. But how easily was τήν, which in itself is superfluous, passed over between ἴδηΤΕ and Νεφέλ.!

Luke 12:58. παραδῷ] Lachm. and Tisch. have παραδώσει. Rightly; the transcribers carried on the construction, as in Matthew 5:25. So also subsequently, instead of βάλλῃ (Elz.) or βάλῃ (Griesb. Scholz) is to be read, with Lachm. and. Tisch., βαλεῖ.

Luke 12:1. During what was narrated in Luke 11:53-54 (ἐν οἷς), therefore while the scribes and Pharisees are pressing the Lord after He has left the house with captious questions, the crowd, without number, had gathered together (ἐπισυναχθ.), and now at various intervals He holds the following discourse, primarily indeed addressing His disciples (πρὸς τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ, Luke 12:22), yet turning at times expressly to the people (Luke 12:15 ff., Luke 12:54 ff.), and in general in such a manner (Luke 12:41) that the multitude also was intended to hear the whole, and in its more general reference to apply it to themselves. With the exception of the interlude, Luke 12:13-21, the discourse is original only in this way, that very diverse, certainly in themselves original, fragments of the Logia are put together; but when the result is compared with the analogous procedure of Matthew in the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew is found to be the more original of the two. Among the longer discourses in Luke none is so much of a mosaic as the present. Although the historical situation of Luke 12:1 is not invented, yet by the designed and plainly exaggerated bringing together of a great multitude of people it is confused. It would be too disproportioned an apparatus merely to illustrate the contents of Luke 12:2 f. (Weizsäcker).

τῶν μυριάδων] The article denotes the innumerable assembled mass of the people (very hyperbolically, comp. Acts 21:20).

ὥστε καταπατ. ἀλλήλ.] οὕτως ἐφιέμενοι ἕκαστος πλησιάζειν αὐτῷ, Theophylact.

ἤρξατο] He began, pictorial style.

πρῶτον] before all, is to be taken with προσέχετε, comp. Luke 9:61, Luke 10:5; Gersdorf, p. 107. It does not belong to what precedes (Luther, Bengel, Knapp, Schulz, Scholz, Paulus, Lachmann, Tischendorf), in connection with which it would be absolutely superfluous, although A C D א, etc., do take it thus. Ewald well says, “As a first duty.”

τῆς ζύμης] see on Matthew 16:6; Mark 8:15. Here also is not meant the vice of hypocrisy (the usual interpretation), because in that case the next clause would have ἡ ὑπόκρισις (with the article); but it glances back to the subject of the previous conversation at the table,[152] and means: the pernicious doctrines and principles. Of these He says: their nature is hypocrisy; therein lies what constitutes the reason of the warning (ἥτις, quippe quae).

[152] Therefore not to be interpreted of the Judaizers of the apostolic times (Weizsäcker, p. 364); just as little is Luke 16:14.

Luke 12:2-10. See on Matthew 10:26-33. The connection is indicated by means of the continuative δέ: “Ye must the more, however, be on your guard against this hypocritical ζύμη, since your teaching is destined to the greatest publicity for the future.” Comp. Mark 4:22. Publicity which lies open to the world’s judgment, and hypocritical character which must shun disclosure, are irreconcilable. If you would not dread the former, the latter must remain far from you. According to Weiss, Luke has given to the whole saying only the meaning, that everything concealed by hypocrisy nevertheless one day comes to light, and therefore, even every word, however secretly it is spoken, shall come one day to publicity. But this supposition, without any ground for it, attributes to Luke a complete misapprehension of the meaning.

Luke 12:3. ἀνθʼ ὧν] quare, wherefore. See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 710; Schaefer, Appar. Dem. I. p. 846.

ὅσα ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ κ.τ.λ.] Everything which (in dread of persecutions) ye shall have spoken in the darkness, i.e. shall have taught in secret, shall (in the triumph of my cause) be heard in the clear daylight, i.e. shall be known in full publicity by your preaching and the preaching of others. The expression ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ used of the apostolic agency is not inappropriate (de Wette), since it characterizes it not in general, but only under certain circumstances (Luke 12:4). But certainly the original form of the saying is found in Matthew 10:27, while in Luke it was altered to suit the apostolic experiences after these had often enough proved the necessity of teaching in secret what at a later period came to be publicly proclaimed before the whole world,[153] when the gospel, as in Luke’s time, was triumphantly spread abroad.

ἐν τῷ φωτί] in the clear day; Hom. Od. xxi. 429; Xen. Cyr. iv. 2. 26; Wis 18:4.

Luke 12:4. If Jesus reminded His disciples by ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ and πρὸς τὸ οὖς … ἐν τ. ταμείοις, Luke 12:3, of the impending pressure of persecutions, He now exhorts them to fearlessness in presence of their persecutors.

τοῖς φίλοις μου] for as such they were the object of persecution.

μετὰ ταῦτα] μετὰ τὸ ἀποκτεῖναι. The plural depends on the idea of being put to death, comprising all the modes of taking away life. See Kühner, II. p. 423.

Luke 12:5 f. Observe the marked emphasis on the φοβήθητε.

Luke 12:8-10. Not an admonition for the disciples to remain faithful, for Luke 12:10 would not be appropriate to that, inasmuch as there was no occasion to be anxious at all about their speaking against the Son of man, and it would have been even inappropriate to bid them beware of the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost;[154] but Jesus adds to the previous encouragements a new one (λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν, comp. Luke 12:4), saying to them how momentous for the eternal destiny of men is the apostolic work conducted by the Holy Spirit, how even the decision of the judgment on men would be given in accordance with the result of the work of the apostles among them. Hence, Luke 12:10 has been wrongly regarded as not pertinent to this (Kuinoel, de Wette); while, on the other hand, Schleiermacher considers the arrangement of Matthew 12 as less appropriate, in that he introduces a contrast of the present time (in which the Son is resisted) with the future (when the more rapid and mighty agency of the Spirit is blasphemed). In itself the saying is appropriate in both places, nay, it may have been uttered more than once; but in Matthew and Mark we have its closest historical connection and position.

As to the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, see on Matthew 12:31 f.

[153] According to Hilgenfeld, Evang. p. 192 (comp. his Zeitschrift, 1865, p. 192), and Köstlin, p. 147, this publicity is regarded as having been meant as a contrast to the ministry of the Twelve, because they had chiefly limited themselves to the circle of Judaism. It is not indeed in agreement with this that that which is secret should so purposely be made prominent. The Twelve neither limited their ministry merely to Judaism, nor did they minister among the Jews in quietness and secrecy like preachers in a corner.

[154] Hofmann, Sehriftbew. II. 2, p. 342, insists on regarding the blasphemy against the Spirit in this place as not distinct from the denial of Jesus. He says that this denial, in the case of those, namely, who had not only had the earthly human manifestation of Jesus before them, but had received the Holy Spirit, is blasphemy against the Spirit. But it is very arbitrary to assume, in contradiction to Matthew 12:31, Mark 3:29, that the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit presupposes that the Spirit has already been received. The blasphemers of the Spirit are malevolently conscious and hardened opposers of Christ. They may certainly have already had the Spirit and have apostatized and become such opposers (Hebrews 10:29); but if such people were to be understood in this passage, some clearer indication should have been given. Still, how far from the Lord must even the mere thought have been, that the disciples, His friends, ver. 4, could ever change into such malignant blasphemers!

Luke 12:11-12. But when they bring you—following out this denial of me and blasphemy against the Spirit—to the synagogues, etc.

πῶς ἢ τί] Care not about the kind and manner, or the substance of your defence. See also on Matthew 10:19; Mark 13:11. On ἀπολογ. τί, comp. Xen. Mem. iv. 8. 4; Dem. 227. 13; Plat. Gorg. p. 521 A, Phaed. p. 69 D, Polit. 4, p. 420 B; Acts 24:10.

Luke 12:13-21. Peculiar to Luke; from his source containing the account of the journey.

Luke 12:13 f. τὶς] certainly no attendant of Jesus (Lightfoot, Kuinoel, and others), as Luke himself points out by ἐκ τοῦ ὄχλου; besides, such a one would have known Jesus better than is betrayed by this uncongenial request. It was a Jew on whom the endowments and authority of Jesus produced such an impression that he thought he might be able to make use of Him in the matter of his inheritance. Whether he was a younger brother who grudged to the first-born his double share of the inheritance (Ewald), must be left in doubt.

ἐκ τ. ὄχλ.] belongs to εἶπε, as is shown by the order. The mode of address, ἄνθρωπε, has a tone of disapproval, Romans 2:1; Romans 9:20; Plat. Protag. p. 350 D; Soph. Aj. 778, 1132. Observe that Jesus instantly rejects the application that concerns a purely worldly matter; on the other hand, He elsewhere gives a decision on the question of divorce.[155]

[155] This is worthy of consideration also in respect of the question: whether matters of marriage belong to the competency of the spiritual or the temporal tribunal?

Luke 12:15. Jesus recognised πλεονεξία as that which had stirred up the quarrel between the brothers, and uses the occasion to utter a warning against it.

πρὸς αὐτούς] i.e. πρὸς τὸν ὄχλον, Luke 12:13.

ὅτι οὐκ ἐν τῷ περισσεύειν κ.τ.λ.] for not by the fact of a man’s possessing abundance does his life (the support of his life) consist in his possessions. This—the fact that one’s life consists in one’s possessions—is not dependent on the abundance of the possession, but—this, the contrast unexpressed, but resulting from Luke 12:30—on the will of God, who calls away the selfish collector of treasures from the midst of his abundance. The simple thought then is: It is not superfluity that avails to support a man’s life by what he possesses. “Vivitur parvo bene.” To this literal meaning, moreover, the following parable corresponds, since it does not authorize us to understand ζωή in its pregnant reference: true life, σωτηρία, or the like (Kuinoel, Bornemann, Olshausen, Ewald, and the older commentators); on the other hand, Kaeuffer, De ζωῆς αἰων. not. p. 12 f.[156] Observe, moreover, that οὐκ has been placed at the beginning, before ἐν τῷ περισσ., because of the contrast which is implied, and that τινί, according to the usual construction, that of the Vulgate, goes most readily with περισσευειν (Luke 21:4; Tob 4:16; Dion. Hal. iii. 11), and is not governed by what follows. An additional reason for this construction lies in the fact that thus the following αὐτοῦ is not superfluous. Finally, it is to be noted that εἶναι ἐκ is the frequent proficisci ex, prodire ex. De Wette is wrong in saying: “for though any one has superfluity, his life is not a part of his possessions, i.e. he retains it not because he has these possessions.” In this manner εἶναι ἐκ would mean, to which belong; but it is decisive against this view entirely that οὐκ ἐν τῷ περισσεύειν must be taken together, while in respect thereof, according to the former view, no contrast can be conceived; for the life is in no case a part of our possessions (in the above sense).

[156] Kuinoel: “Non si quis in abundantia divitiarum versatur, felicitas ejus a divitiis pendet.” Bornemann (Schol. p. 82, and in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 128 ff.): “Nemini propterea, quod abunde habet, felicitas paratur ex opibus, quas possidet (sed ex pietate et fiducia in Deo posita).” Olshausen says that there are two propositions blended together: “Life consists not in superfluity” (the true life), and “nothing spiritual can proceed from earthly possessions.” Ewald says: “If man has not from his external wealth in general what can be rightly called his life, he has it not, or rather he has it still less by the fact that this, his external wealth, increases by his appeasing his covetousness.”

Luke 12:16-19. On the idea of this parable, comp. Psalm 49:18; Sir 11:17 ff.

εὐφόρησεν] not in the sense of the pluperfect (Luther, Castalio, and others), but: bore well. Examples of this late and rare verb (Hipp. Ep. 1274, 20; Joseph. Bell. ii. 21. 2) may be found in Kypke. Comp. εὐφόρως φέρειν (Lobeck, Paralip. p. 533).

ἡ χώρα] the estate, Xen. Cyr. viii. 4. 28; Jerome, x. 5, and elsewhere.

Luke 12:17 ff. Observe the increasing vivacity of the description of the “animi sine requie quieti” (Bengel).

οὐκ ἔχω ποῦ] “quasi nusquam essent quibus pascendis possent impendi,” Grotius.

καθελῶ μου κ.τ.λ.] I will pull down my storehouses (Matthew 3:12).

τὰ γεννήματα] see on Matthew 26:29.

καὶ τ. ἀγ. μ.] and in general, my possessions.

τῇ ψυχῇ μου] not equivalent to mihi, but: to my soul, the seat of the affections; in this case, of the excessive longing for pleasure. Comp. on Luke 1:46, and see Jacobs, ad Del. Epigr. VII. 1. How frequently also in the Greek writers the actions of the Ego are predicated of the soul, may be seen in Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. II. p. 365 A.

ἀναπαύου κ.τ.λ.] An instance of “asyndeton,” expressing eager anticipation of the enjoyment longed for. On the thought, comp. Sir 11:19; Tob 7:9; Plaut. Mil. Glor. iii. 1. 83; Soph. Dan. VI. (181, Dind.): ζῆ, πῖνε, φέρβου.

Luke 12:20-21. Εἶπε κ.τ.λ.] is not to be converted into a decrevit (Kuinoel), etc. We have, indeed, no history; πλάττεται γὰρ ταῦτα ἡ παραβολή, Theophylact.

ταύτῃ] with emphasis.

ἀπαιτοῦσιν] the categoric plural (see on Matthew 2:20), which therefore does not prevent our regarding God Himself as the author of what was done, although the subject is left undetermined. The thought of a robber and murderer (Paulus, Bornemann) is not to be allowed on account of Luke 12:21.

τίνι ἔσται] not to thee will it belong, but to others!

Luke 12:21. So, having incurred the loss of his happiness by the unexpected appearance of death, is he who collects treasure for himself (for his own possession and enjoyment), and is not rich in reference to God; i.e. is not rich in such wise that his wealth passes over to God (Romans 10:12), by his possession, namely, of treasures in heaven, which God saves up in order to impart them to the man when Messiah’s kingdom shall be set up. See on Matthew 5:12; Matthew 6:20. Comp. 1 Timothy 6:19, and on Colossians 1:5. The πλουτεῖν εἰς θεόν (unless, however, εἰς is to be taken for ἐν, as Luther, Beza, Calovius, and others would have it) is substantially the same as ἔχειν θησαυροὺς ἐν οὐρανῷ (comp. Luke 12:33), and it is realized through δικαιοσύνη, and in the case of the rich man, especially through loving activity (Matthew 19:21; Luke 16:9), such as Christ desires, Matthew 6:2-4. It is not temporal possession of wealth which is applied in usum et honorem Dei (Majus, Elsner, Kypke, comp. Möller, Neue Ansichten, p. 201 ff.), but the higher ideal possession of wealth, the being rich in Messianic possessions laid up with God, and one day to be received from Him, which is wanting to the egoistic θησαυρίζων ἑαυτῷ. Against the former view, entertained by Majus and the rest, it is decisive that the negation of the being rich in relation to God (not of the becoming rich) is regarded as bound up with the selfish heaping up of treasure. This withal in opposition to Bornemann: “qui quod dives est prosperoque in augendis divitiis successu utitur, sibi tribuit, non Deo.”