성경 주석서

CHAPTER 14

Luke 14:3. εἰ] is wanting in B D L א, min. Pers. Copt. Syr.jer. Cant. Brix. Condemned by Griesb. and Schulz, deleted by Tisch. It is from Matthew 12:10.

θεραπεύειν] B D L א, min. have θεραπεῦσαι, to which these authorities and vss. add ἢ οὔ. This θεραπεῦσαι ἢ οὔ is, with Lachm. (who, however, brackets ἢ οὔ) and Tisch., to be adopted. The Recepta is from Matthew 12:10.

Luke 14:5. Instead of ὄνος in Elz., υἱός is to be read, on preponderating evidence. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Matth. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch.; comp. also Rinck. The heterogeneous collocation υἱὸς ἢ βοῦς excited objection, so that υἱός was displaced in some authorities by ὄνος (following Luke 13:15), in others by πρόβατον (D, Cant., following Matthew 12:11).

Luke 14:10. Elz. has ἀνάπεσον, which on decisive evidence is to be rejected. The most important MSS. are divided between ἀνάπεσε (Matth. Scholz, Rinck, Lachm. Tisch.) and ἀνάπεσαι (Griesb. Schulz, Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 640). Although the attestation of ἀνάπεσε (A B* E H K S U V Γ א, min.) is still stronger than that of ἀνάπεσαι, yet the latter is to be preferred. The less familiar form gave place to one that was better known. To regard ἀνάπεσαι as a clerical error (so Tisch. and Winer, p. 69 [E. T. 87]) is the more precarious, as the same clerical error must be assumed also at Luke 17:7.

Luke 14:16. μέγα] B** D Λ, min. Clem, have μέγαν. So Lachm. Rightly; μέγα is an amendment [Tisch. 8 has μέγα].

Luke 14:18. The order πάντες παραιτ. is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be preferred on decisive evidence.

Luke 14:21. After δοῦλος Elz. has ἐχεῖνος, which is condemned by Griesb., and on decisive evidence struck out by Lachm. and Tisch. An exegetical addition.

χωλοὺς κ. τυφλούς] Lachm. and Tisch. have τυφλοὺς κ. χωλούς. Rightly; the evidence in favour thereof preponderates; the omission of καὶ χωλ. (A, min. Syr.jer.) occasioned the restoration in the order given at Luke 14:13.

Luke 14:27. τὸν σταυρ. ἑαυτοῦ is found in A B L** M Δ, min. Lachm. Tisch. The Recepta τ. στ. αὑτοῦ is from Matthew 10:38.

Luke 14:28. Elz. has τὰ πρὸς ἀπαρτ., in opposition to decisive evidence. With Griesb. Scholz, Tisch. merely εἰς ἀπαρτ. is to be read, in accordance with B D L R, min. τά was added as a completion (A E G H K M S U Γ Δ Λ א, min. Lachm. have τὰ εἰς), and εἰς was explained by πρός. Comp. Luke 14:32.

Luke 14:31. The arrangement ἐτέρῳ βασιλ. συμβ. (Lachm. Tisch.) is decisively attested, as well as also ὑπαντῆσαι.

Luke 14:34. Instead of καλόν read, with Tisch., following B L X א, min. vss., καλὸν οὖν. Being apparently inappropriate, οὖν dropped out the more easily after the syllable ON.

ἐὰν δέ] B D L X א, min. vss. Fathers have ἐὰν δὲ καί. So rightly, Lachm. and Tisch. καί was passed over in accordance with Matthew 5:13; Mark 9:50.

Luke 14:1-6 peculiar to Luke from his source of the narrative of the journey.

Ἐν τῷ ἐλθεῖν κ.τ.λ.] when He came, to wit, in the progress of the journey, Luke 13:33.

τῶν ἀρχόντων τ. Φαρισαίων] not: of the members of the Sanhedrim belonging to the Pharisees (Grotius, Kuinoel, and many others), such as Nicodemus therefore, John 3:1; for the incident is in Galilee (not Jerusalem, as Grotius; not Judea, as Schenkel will have it), and, literally, it means nothing more than: of the Pharisee leaders, i.e. of the chiefs of the Pharisees. It is not to be defined more precisely; but men such as Hillel, Schammai, Gamaliel, and others belong to this category.

σαββάτῳ] the holiness of which (the preparation occurred previously) was not opposed to it, nay, “lautiores erant isto die illis mensae … idque ipsis judicantibus ex pietate et religione,” Lightfoot. Comp. Nehemiah 8:10; Tob 2:1; also John 12:2; Wetstein in loc.; Spencer, de leg. rit. p. 87 ff.

φαγεῖν ἄρτον] comp. Matthew 15:2. Jesus was invited, Luke 14:12.

καὶ αὑτοί] This is the common use of καί after ἐγένετο; αὐτοί, they on their part, the Pharisees.

παρατηρούμ.] generally, whether He would give them occasion for charge or complaint. Otherwise, Luke 6:7.

Luke 14:2. And behold a dropsical man was there in His presence. This denotes the unexpected sight of the presence (not as a guest, see Luke 14:4) of the sick man, who ἦν ἱστάμενος, καὶ μὴ τολμῶν μὲν ζητῆσαι θεραπείαν διὰ τὸ σάββατον καὶ τοὺς Φαρισαίους· φαινόμενος δὲ μόνον, ἵνα ἰδὼν οἰκτειρήσῃ τοῦτον ἀφʼ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ ἀπαλλάξῃ τοῦ ὕδρωπος, Euthymius Zigabenus. The view of many (see also Wetstein, Kuinoel, Glöckler, Lange), that the sick man was intentionally brought in by the Pharisees, is the more arbitrary, as Luke 14:2 is not linked on by γάρ. Moreover, the cure occurred before the dinner, Luke 14:7.

Luke 14:3. ἀποκριθ.] at this appearance of the sick man.

Luke 14:4. ἑπιλαβόμενος] a taking hold which brought about the miraculous cure, stronger than ἁψάμενος.[172] Otherwise Mark 8:23. The accusative αὐτόν is not dependent on ἐπιλ. See Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 140 [E. T. 160].

Luke 14:5. Comp. on Matthew 12:11. The construction is such that the nominative of τίνος ὑμῶν is the subject in the second half of the sentence. Comp. generally, Bernhardy, p. 468; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 72 B.

In respect of the reading υἱός (see the critical remarks; Mill, Bornemann, and Lachmann, Praef. II. p. vii., unjustifiably conjecture ὄϊς), which is not inappropriate (de Wette), the conclusion of Jesus is not drawn, as Luke 13:15 f., a minori ad majus,[173] but from the ethical principle that the helpful compassion which we show in reference to that which is our own (be it son or beast) on the Sabbath, we are also bound to show to others (love thy neighbour as thyself).

[172] Paulus after his fashion makes use of the word for the naturalizing of the miracle: “Probably Jesus took him aside, and looked after the operation of the means previously employed.”

[173] This reading, moreover, sets aside the opinion of Schleiermacher, p. 196, that in respect of the quotation of this expression there is no reference back to Luke 13:10.

Luke 14:7-11. On the special propriety of this table conversation (in opposition to Gfrörer, Heil. Sage, I. p. 265, de Wette, Schenkel, Eichthal), comp. on Luke 11:38 f. Here, again, the circumstance especially which had just occurred with the dropsical man had prepared a point of view widely different from that of customary politeness.

παραβολήν] “sumtam a moribus externis, spectantem interna,” Bengel. The moral significance of this figurative apophthegm (משל) may be seen at Luke 14:11.

ἐπέχων] attendens, comp. on Acts 3:5, and see Valckenaer.

πρωτοκλισ.] See on Matthew 23:6; Lightfoot, p. 836.

Luke 14:8. εἰς γάμους] not generally: to an entertainment, but: to a wedding, in respect of which, however, a special purpose is not to be assumed (Bengel thinks that “civilitatis causa” Jesus did not name a feast in general); but the typical representation of the future establishment of the kingdom as a wedding celebration obviously suggested the expression (Matthew 22).

Luke 14:9. ὁ σὲ κ. αὐτὸν καλέσας] not: who invited thyself also (Bornemann), which would lay upon σέ an unfounded emphasis, so much as: qui te et ilium vocavit (Vulgate), the impartial host who must be just to both.

ἐρεῖ σοι] future, not dependent on μήποτε (comp. on Matthew 5:25), but an independent clause begins with καὶ ἐλθών

καὶ τότε ἄρξῃ] the shame of the initial movement of taking possession of the last place in which he now must acquiesce,[174] after his previously assumed πρωτοκλισία is here made prominent.

Luke 14:10. ἀνάπεσαι] 1 aor. imperative middle, which tense occurs also in Josephus, Bell. vii. 6. 4 (διεκπέσασθαι); Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 641, takes it as future, formed after the analogy of φάγεσαι and πίεσαι (Luke 17:8). But these forms come from the future forms φάγομαι and πίομαι, and hence are not analogous to the one before us.

ἵνα] corresponds to the μήποτε, Luke 14:8, and denotes the purpose of the ἀνάπεσαι εἰς τ. ἔσχ. τόπον. The result is then specified by τότε ἔσται.

προσανάβηθι] The host occupies the position where the higher place is (πρός=hither). Comp. moreover, Proverbs 25:7.

Luke 14:11. Comp. Matthew 23:12. A general law of retribution, but with an intentional application to the Messianic retribution. Comp. Erubin, f. xiii. 2 : “Qui semet ipsum deprimit; eum S. B. exaltat; et qui se ipsum exaltat, eum S. B. deprimit.”

[174] For the intervening places are already rightly arranged, and not to be changed. “Qui semel cedere jubetur, longe removetur,” Bengel.

Luke 14:12-14. Doubtless the collocation of the company at table suggested these words, which likewise are meant not probably as an actual table arrangement, but parabolically, as a foil to the customary teaching, that instead of arranging the manifestations of human friendliness with a view to receiving a return, we should make such manifestations just to those who cannot repay them again; then shall we receive requital in the kingdom of the Messiah. At the root of this lies the idea that the temporal requital striven after excludes the Messianic compensation, the idea of the ἀπέχειν τὸν μισθόν (Matthew 6:2; Matthew 5:16). There is no allusion in this place to the calling of the heathen (Schenkel).

μή] not: non tam or non tantum (Kuinoel, and many others), which here would be even logically wrong on account of μήποτε κ. αὐτοί σε ἀντικ. Jesus gives, indeed, only a figurative discourse.

φώνει] purposely chosen; the manifest, obvious element of the καλεῖν (Luke 14:13) is denoted.

πλουσίους] belongs only to γείτονας (in opposition to Grotius).

μήποτε κ.τ.λ.] “Hic metus mundo ignotus est, ut metus divitiarum,” Bengel.

ἀντικαλέσωσι] Comp. Xen. Symp. i. 15 : οὔτε μὴν ὡς ἀντικληθησόμενος, καλεῖ μέ τις, ἐπεὶ πάντες ἴσασιν, ὅτι ἀρχὴν οὐδὲ νομίζεται εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν οἰκίαν δεῖπνον εἰσφέρεσθαι.

In respect of καὶ αὐτοί the general idea of the invitation has presented itself.

Luke 14:13. ἀναπήρους] maimed; Plat. Crit. p. 53 A: χωλοὶ καὶ τυφλοὶ καὶ ἄλλοι ἀνάπηροι.

Luke 14:14. ἀνταποδοθήσεται] Thucyd. iii. 40; Plat. Phaedr. p. 236 C; Romans 11:35; 1 Thessalonians 3:9; placed first for emphasis.

ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει τῶν δικαίων] This is the ἀνάστασις ζωῆς, see on John 5:28. The Jewish doctrine of a double resurrection is confirmed not only by Paul (1 Corinthians 15:22 f.; 1 Thessalonians 4:16; comp. Acts 24:15), but also in this place by Christ (comp. also Matthew 24:31). Comp. Luke 20:34-36. Otherwise τῶν δικαίων would be a superfluous and unmeaning addition.[175] Moreover, it could not be taken by the pharisaic hearers in any other sense than in the particularistic one, but not in such a manner as that Jesus, because He had the δικαίους directly in view, only mentioned the resurrection of these, without thereby excluding that of the remaining people as contemporary (in opposition to Kaeufer, De ζωῆς αἰων. not. p. 52). The doctrine of the millennial kingdom between the first and second resurrection adopted in the Apocalypse (Bertholdt, Christol. § 38) is not, however, confirmed, nor are the Rabbinical traditions, partly varying very much among themselves on the several stages of the resurrection (Eisenmenger, Entdeckt. Judenth. II. p. 901 ff.); further, the assumption is not confirmed, according to which the Israelites in themselves were understood as the δικαίους who should first arise (Bertholdt, § 35; Eisenmenger, II. p. 902), or at least the righteous among the Israelites (Eisenmenger, l.c.). Jesus means the righteous in the moral sense, as the context shows (see Luke 14:13 f., 16 ff.), without limitation of race. The specific definition of the idea of those first to be awakened as οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ (1 Corinthians 15:23; comp. 1 Thessalonians 4:16) lay of necessity in the development of the Christian consciousness of the ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΎΝΗ only to be attained in Christ.

[175] It would be so also if it did not presuppose any ἀνάστασις τῶν ἀδίκων at all. This is against Georgii in Zeller’s Jahrb. 1845, I. p. 141., who finds in the Synoptic Gospels only a resurrection of the pious.

Luke 14:15. To the idea of the ἀνάστασις τῶν δικαίων is very naturally linked in the case of this fellow-guest the thought of the future eating (φάγεται, future) with the patriarchs of the nation (Matthew 8:11; Luke 13:28 f.; Bertholdt, Christol. § 39) in the (millennial) Messianic kingdom about to be set up. This transporting prospect, in which his mistaken security is manifested, compels his exclamation.

Luke 14:16-17. Jesus answers with a parable which comes from the source of the account of the journey (not identical, but similar is Matthew 22:1 ff., see in loc.), in which He keeps to the idea of a banquet, and thereby depicts the Messianic blessedness, but without reserve cuts off the prospect of that guest in reference to it and its like by teaching figuratively that they, the representatives of the theocracy, would deprive themselves of the Messianic salvation (Luke 14:24), because for the sake of their earthly objects of ambition they despised the repeated invitation to the Messianic kingdom (Luke 14:17-20). On the other hand, the poor and the unfortunate of the people (Luke 14:21), and even the heathen (Luke 14:23), are called, and being obedient to the call are adopted into the kingdom. “Progreditur vocatio ad remotiores, vi semper majore pensans moram,” Bengel.

μέγαν (see the critical remarks): the masculine form δεῖπνος is rare (Aesop. Fragm. 129) and late. See Bast, Ep. Cr. App. p. 22, 61.

ἐκάλεσε] refers in the interpretation to the call by the prophets.

Luke 14:17. τὸν δοῦλον αὐτοῦ] κατʼ ἐξοχήν. Grotius well says vocatorem, to be interpreted of the Messiah at whose advent ἤγγικε ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν, Matthew 4:17.

On the custom even now in use in the East of a repetition of the invitation when all is prepared, see Rosenmüller, Morgenl. V. p. 192 f.

Luke 14:18-20. Ἤρξαντο] brings into prominence the beginning as a striking contrast to what has gone before. Comp. Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 541.

ἀπὸ μιᾶς] “Utut enim diversas causas adferant, in eo tamen conveniunt, quod sua praetexant negotia,” Calovius. On the adverbial use of ἀπὸ μιᾶς, comp. ἀπὸ τῆς ἴσης (Thuc. i. 15. 3), ἀπʼ εὐθείας (Plut. Symp. i. 4. 8), ἐξ ὀρθῆς (Polyb. xv. 27), διὰ πάσης (Thucyd. i. 14. 3), and many others. It may be explained on the principle that the prepositions which originally express concrete local relations, come in time to denote the more abstract relations of mode; see especially, Lobeck, Paralip. p. 363.

παραιτεῖσθαι] to deprecate; praying to excuse, 2Ma 2:31; Acts 25:11, and elsewhere; and see Wetstein and Held, ad Plut. Timoleon, p. 496.

καὶ ἔχω ἀνάγκην κ.τ.λ.] not as though he had bought the estate without seeing it (Wetstein, de Wette, and others), which is unnatural, even if a recommendation of it on the part of others, and the like, is supposed; but because even after a completed purchase there is the natural necessity to make a proper inspection of one’s new possession in order to become acquainted with it, to make further arrangements, and the like. The excuses are therefore not in themselves absurd, which, according to Lange, L. J. II. 1, p. 376, must be the intention in order to represent the vehement confusedness.

ἔχε με παρῃτ.] have me as one who is begged off; not a Latinism (Kuinoel, Bleek, and many older commentators), nor to be interpreted: regard me as one, etc. (Kypke), but ἔχειν τινα, with an added accusative of a substantive, participle, or adjective, expresses the relation of possession according to a special quality. Comp. Xen. Cyrop. iii. 1. 35: οὐ θαῤῥοῦντά με ἕξεις; Ages. vi. 5 : τούς γε μὴν πολεμίους εἶχε ψέγειν μὲν οἰ δυναμένους, κ.τ.λ.; 2Ma 15:36; 3Ma 7:21. See also on Matthew 14:5. Hence: Place thyself in such wise to me that I am an excused person; let me be to thee an excused person, i.e. according to the meaning: accept my apology.

Luke 14:19. πορεύομαι] Already in idea he is just going forth.

Luke 14:20. “Hic excusator, quo speciosiorem et honestiorem videtur habere causam, eo est ceteris importunior,” Bengel. On the excuse itself, comp. Deuteronomy 24:5; Hom. Il. ii. 231; Herod. i. 36, where Croesus declines for his son the Mysian proposal for a hunting expedition: νεόγαμός τε γάρ ἐστι καὶ ταῦτά οἱ νῦν μέλει. 1 Corinthians 7:33 is to the point.

Luke 14:21-24. Εἰς τὰς πλατείας κ. ῥύμας] into the (broad) streets and (narrow) lanes. Comp. Isaiah 15:3. On ῥύμη = στενωπός, see Phrynichus, p. 404, and thereon Lobeck.

Luke 14:22. Here the narrative is supposed to be silent, leaving it to be understood that the servant went away again, and after fulfilment of the commission returned. But with what reason is this supposed in the narrative, otherwise so circumstantial? No; the servant, when repulsed by those who had been invited, did of his own accord what the master here directs him, so that he can say at once to this behest: it is done, etc. This point in the interpretation is, moreover, strikingly appropriate to Jesus, who, by the preaching of the gospel to the poor and miserable among the people, had already before His return to God fulfilled this divine counsel, in regard to which He did not need further instruction.

Luke 14:23. This commission to the servant is fulfilled by Him through the apostles, comp. Ephesians 2:17.

φραγμούς] not: places fenced in, which the word does not mean, but: go forth into the ways (highways and other roads outside the town) and hedges (beside which wanderers, beggars, houseless folk have camped). In the interpretation: αἱ κατοικίαι τῶν ἐθνῶν, Euthymius Zigabenus.

ἀνάγκασον] as Matthew 14:22. The time presses! A strikingly picturesque touch, which, moreover, found its corresponding history in the urgent holy zeal of the apostles (especially of Paul) for winning the heathen to the faith; but its pernicious abuse, in the case of Augustine and many others, in their approval of the coercion of heretics (see, on the other hand, Grotius and Calovius). Maldonatus well says: “adeo rogandos, adeo incitandos, ut quodammodo compelli videantur.”

γεμισθῇ] “Nec natura nee gratia patitur vacuum. Multitudo beatorum: extremis mundi temporibus maximam plenitudinis suae partem nanciscens,” Bengel.

Luke 14:24. Not an assertion of Jesus (Kuinoel, Paulus, and others), but of the master of the house, which is certain from μου τοῦ δείπνου (none shall taste of my supper), since Jesus in the parable appears as the servant.

γάρ] for the empty place is not to be occupied by you.

ὑμῖν] spoken to the servant, and to those who were supposed to be elsewhere than there present. Euthymius Zigabenus, moreover, says aptly: διὰ τοῦτον οὖν τὸν λόγον ἡ ὅλη παραβολὴ συντέθη. Comp. Luke 14:15, to the substance of which this conclusion reverts. Those who are excluded are thus those Jews who have despised the call of Christ, but who, as the representatives and chiefs of God’s people, were first of all by the gospel invited and laid under obligation to follow the invitation to the kingdom (κεκλημένοι and παραιτούμενοι, Luke 14:17 ff.); not the Jews in general, as Baur supposes, in accordance with his assumption of a Gentile-Christian tendency.