Comentários bíblicos

CHAPTER 4

Luke 4:1. εἰς τὴν ἔρημον] B D L א, Sahid. codd. of It. have ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. The Recepta is a mechanical alteration in accordance with the parallels.

Luke 4:2. Before ἐπείνασε Elz. Scholz have ὕστερον, in opposition to B D L א, vss. Cyr. Beda. From Matthew 4:2.

Luke 4:3. Following nearly the same evidence, read with Lachm. and Tisch. εἶπεν δέ instead of καὶ εἶπεν.

Luke 4:4. ἀλλʼ ἐπὶ παντὶ ῥήματι Θεοῦ] is wanting in B L א, Sahid. Left out by Tisch. But almost all the versions and Fathers vouch for these words; if they had been added, they would, especially in an expression so well known and frequently quoted, have been more closely and perfectly adapted to Matthew.

Luke 4:5. ὁ διάβολος] is wanting in B D L א, min. Copt. Sahid. Arm. Cant. Condemned by Griesb., deleted by Tisch. An addition from Matthew. There is almost quite as strong evidence against εἰς ὄρος ὑψ., which nevertheless is found in D, but with the addition of λίαν. Lachm. has bracketed εἰς ὄρος ὑψ. Tisch. has rightly deleted it. The expression ἀναγ. by itself seemed to be in need of the more exact definition, and so it was added from Matthew.

Luke 4:7. Instead of πᾶσα, Elz. has πάντα, in opposition to decisive evidence. From Matthew 4:9.

Luke 4:8. Instead of γέγραπται by itself, Elz. has: ὓπαγε ὀπίσω μου σατανᾶ· γέγραπται γάρ. So also has Scholz, but without γάρ; Lachm. has ὓπ. ὀπ. μ. σ. in brackets, and has deleted γάρ. Against ὓπ. ὀπ. μ. σ. are B D L Ξ א, min. and most of the vss. Or. Vigil. Ambr. Bede; against γάρ there is decisive evidence. Both the one and the other, deleted by Tisch., are interpolations; see on Matthew 4:10.

Luke 4:9. Instead of υἱός Elz. has ὁ υἱός, in opposition to evidence so decisive that υἱός without the article is not to be derived from Luke 4:3.

Luke 4:11. Instead of καί Elz. and the Edd. have καὶ ὅτι. As this ὅτι has by no means the preponderance of evidence against it, and as its omission here may be so easily accounted for by its omission in the parallel passage in Matthew, it ought not to have been condemned by Griesb.

Luke 4:17. ἀναπτύξας] A B L Ξ 33, Syr. Copt. Jer. have ἀνοίξας. So Lachm.; but it is an interpretation of the word ἀναπτ., which occurs in the New Testament only in this place.

Luke 4:18. The form εἵνεκεν (Elz. ἕνεκεν) is decisively attested. Not so decisively, but still with preponderating evidence, is εὐαγγελίσασθαι (Elz. εὐαγγελίζεσθαι) also attested.

After ἀπέσταλκέ με Elz. and Scholz (Lachm. in brackets) have ἰάσασθαι τοὺς συντετριμμένους τὴν καρδίαν, which is not found in B D L Ξ א, min. Copt. Aeth. Vulg. ms. It. Sax. Or. and many Fathers. An addition from the LXX.

Luke 4:23. Instead of εἰς Καπ. (Tisch. following B [and א]: εἰς τὴν Καπ.) Elz. Scholz have ἐν τῇ Καπ., in opposition. to B D L א, min. Marcion, the reading in these authorities being εἰς. An amendment. Comp. the following ἐν τῇ πατρ. σ.

Luke 4:25. ἐπὶ ἔτη] B D, min. vss. have merely ἔτη. So Lachm. But how easily ΕΠΙ would drop out as superfluous, and that too when standing before ETH, a word not unlike ΕΠΙ in form!

Luke 4:26. Σιδῶνος] A B C D L X Γ א, min. vss., including Vulg. It. Or., have Σιδωνίας. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. From the LXX. 1 Kings 17:9.

Luke 4:29. Before ὀφρύος Elz. and Lachm. (the latter by mistake) have τῆς, in opposition to decisive evidence.

Instead of ὥστε Elz. and Scholz have εἰς τό, in opposition to B D L א, min. Marcion, Or. An interpretation.

Luke 4:35. ἐξ] B D L V Ξ א, min. Vulg. It. Or. have ἀπʼ. Approved by Griesb. and Schulz. Adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly; Luke always expresses himself thus. See immediately afterwards the expression ἐξῆλθεν ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ, which is in correspondence with Christ’s command.

Luke 4:38. ἐκ] B C D L Q א, min. Or. Cant, have ἀπό. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Tisch. Rightly; ἐκ is from Mark 1:29.

The article before πενθερά (in Elz.) has decisive evidence against it.

Luke 4:40. ἐπιθείς] Lachm. and Tisch, have ἐπιτιθείς, following B D Q Ξ, min. Vulg. It. Or. ἐπιθείς was the form most familiar to the transcribers.

Luke 4:41. κράζοντα] Lachm. Tisch. have κραυγάζοντα, following A D E G H Q U V Γ Δ, min. Or. Rightly; the more current word was inserted. After σὺ εἶ Elz. Scholz have ὁ Χριστός, which has such weighty evidence against it that it must be regarded as a gloss.

Luke 4:42. Instead of ἐπεζήτουν Elz. has ἐζήτουν, in opposition to decisive evidence.

Luke 4:43. εἰς τοῦτο ἀπέσταλμαι] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἐπὶ τοῦτο ἀπεστάλην. Rightly; ἐπί is in B L א, min., and ἀπεστάλην in B D L X א, min. Both the εἰς and the perfect form are taken from Mark 1:38, Elz.

Luke 4:1-13. See on Matthew 4:1-11. Comp. Mark 1:13.

According to the reading ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ (see the critical remarks), Luke says: and He was led by the (Holy) Spirit in the wilderness, whilst He was for forty days tempted of the devil. Thus the Spirit had Him in His guidance as His ruling principle (Romans 8:14). Luke relates besides, varying from Matthew, that Jesus (1) during forty days (comp. Mark 1:13) was tempted of the devil (how? is not specified), and that then, (2) moreover, the three special temptations related in detail occurred.[81] This variation from Matthew remained also in the Recepta εἰς τὴν ἔρημον, in respect of which the translation would be: He was led of the Spirit into the wilderness in order to be tempted of the devil during the space of forty days (by reason of the present participle, see on Luke 2:45).

Luke 4:3. τῷ λίθῳ τούτῳ] more concrete than Matthew 4:4.

Luke 4:5. ἈΝΑΓΑΓΏΝ] (see the critical remarks) he led Him upwards from the wilderness to a more loftily situated place. The “very high mountain” (Matthew) is a more exact definition due to the further developed tradition. Luke has drawn from another source.

ἐν στιγμῇ χρ.] in a point of time, in a moment, a magically simultaneous glimpse; a peculiar feature of the representation.[82] On the expression, comp. Plut. Mor. p. 104 A; Jacobs, ad Anthol. VII. p. 126.

Luke 4:6. αὐτῶν] ΤῶΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙῶΝ.

Observe the emphasis of ΣΟῚ … ἘΜΟΊ … ΣΎ (Luke 4:7).

ΠΑΡΑΔΈΔΟΤΑΙ] by God, which the boastful devil cunningly intends to have taken for granted.

Luke 4:10 f. ὅτι] not recitative, but: that, and then καὶ ὅτι: and that. Comp. Luke 7:16. Otherwise in Matthew 4:6.

μήποτε] ne unquam, not necessarily to be written separately (Bornemann); see rather Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 107; Lipsius, Gramm. Unters. p. 129 f.

Luke 4:13. πάντα πειρασμ.] every temptation, so that he had no further temptation in readiness. “Omnia tela consumsit,” Bengel.

ἄχρι καιροῦ] until a fitting season, when he would appear anew against Him to tempt Him. It is to be taken subjectively of the purpose and idea of the devil; he thought at some later time, at some more fortunate hour, to be able with better success to approach Him. Historically he did not undertake this again directly, but indirectly, as it repeatedly occurred by means of the Pharisees, etc. (John 8:40 ff.), and at last by means of Judas, Luke 22:3[83]; but with what glorious result for the tempted! Comp. John 14:30. The difference of meaning which Tittmann, Synon. p. 37, has asserted (according to which ἄχρι καιροῦ is said to be equivalent to ἝΩς ΤΈΛΟΥς) is pure invention. See Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 308 f. Whether, moreover, the characteristic addition ἄχρι καιροῦ is a remnant of the primitive form of this narrative (Ewald) or is appended from later reflection, is an open question. But it is hardly an addition inserted by Luke himself (Bleek, Holtzmann, and others), since it is connected with the omission of the ministry of the angels. This omission is not to be attributed to a realistic effort on the part of Luke (Holtzmann, but see Luke 22:43), but must have been a feature of the source used by him, and hence the ἄχρι καιροῦ must also have already formed part of it.

[81] According to Hilgenfeld, Luke’s dependence on Matthew and Mark is said to be manifested with special clearness from his narrative of the temptation. But just in regard to this narrative he must have followed a distinct source, because otherwise his variation in the sequence of the temptations (see on Matthew 4:5, Rem.), and the omission of the angels’ ministry, would be incomprehensible (which Hilgenfeld therefore declares to be a pure invention), as, moreover, the ἄχρι καιροῦ (ver. 13) peculiar to Luke points to another source.

[82] The various attempts to make this ἐν στιγμῆ χρότου intelligible may be seen in Nebe, d. Versuch. d. Herrn, Wetzlar 1857, p. 109 ff. The author himself, regarding the temptation as an actual external history, avails himself of the analogy of the fatum morganum, but says that before the eye of the Lord the magical picture immediately dissolved. But according to the connection ἐν στιγμ. χρ. does not mean that the appearance lasted only a single moment, but that the whole of the kingdoms were brought within the view of Jesus, not as it were successively, but in one moment, notwithstanding their varied local situation upon the whole earth. Bengel says appropriately, “acuta tentatio.”

[83] According to Wieseler, Synopse, p. 201, the persecutions on the part of the Jews are meant, which had begun, John 5:15-18 ff.; there would therefore be a longer interval between vv. 13, 14. But a comparison of ver. 14 with ver. 1 shows that this interval is introduced in the harmonistic interest; moreover, Hofmann’s reference to the agony in Gethsemane (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 317) is introduced, since not this, but probably the whole opposition of the hierarchy (John 8:44), and finally the crime of Judas (John 13:2; John 13:27), appears as the work of the devil.

Luke 4:14. Comp. on Matthew 4:12; Mark 1:14. The public Galilaean ministry of Jesus begins, Luke 4:14 forming the introduction, after which, in Luke 4:15 ff., the detailed narrative follows. Schleiermacher, Schr. d. Luk. p. 50, arbitrarily, and contrary to the analogy of the parallels, says: that Luke 4:15 f. was the conclusion of a document which embraced the baptism, the genealogy, and the temptation.

ἐν τ. δυνάμ. τοῦ πν.] invested with the power of the Holy Spirit: “post victoriam corroboratus,” Bengel.

καὶ φήμη κ.τ.λ.] and rumour went forth, etc., not anticipating what follows in Luke 4:15 (de Wette); but it is the rumour of the return of the man who had been so distinguished at his baptism, and had then for upwards of forty days been concealed from view, that is meant.

καθʼ ὅλης κ.τ.λ.] round about the whole neighbourhood, Acts 8:31; Acts 8:40.

Luke 4:15. Αὐτός] He Himself, the person as opposed to their report.

Luke 4:16. As to the relation of the following incident to the similar one in Matthew 13:53 ff., Mark 6:1 ff., see on Matthew. No argument can be drawn from Luke 4:23 against the view that the incidents are different, for therein a ministry at Capernaum would already be presupposed (Schleiermacher, Kern, de Wette, Weiss, Bleek, Holtzmann, and others), as a previous ministry in that same place in the course of a journey (not while residing there) is fully established by Luke 4:14-15. According to Ewald (comp. also his Gesch. Chr. p. 345), who, moreover, rightly distinguishes the present from the subsequent appearance at Nazareth, there are incorporated together in Luke two distinct narratives about the discourses of Jesus in Nazareth. But with reference to the mention of Capernaum at Luke 4:23, see above; the connection, however, between Luke 4:22-23 is sufficiently effected by οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωσήφ. In Luke 4:31 ff. it is not the first appearance of Jesus at Capernaum in general that is related, but the first portion of His ministry after taking up His residence there (Luke 4:31), and a special fact which occurred during that ministry is brought into prominence (Luke 4:33 ff.). According to Köstlin, p. 205, Luke met with the narrative at a later place in the Gospel history, but placed it here earlier, and allowed the γενόμ. εἰς Καφαρν. inappropriately to remain because it might at a pinch be referred to Luke 4:15. Assuredly he did not proceed so frivolously and awkwardly, although Holtzmann also (comp. Weizsäcker, p. 398), following Schleiermacher, etc., accuses him of such an anticipation and self-contradiction, and, moreover, following Baur and Hilgenfeld, makes this anticipation find its motive withal in the supposed typical tendency of Luke 4:24.

οὗ ἦν τεθραμμ.] an observation inserted to account for the circumstances mentioned in Luke 4:22-23.

κατὰ τὸ εἰωθ. αὐτῷ] refers to His visiting the synagogue on the Sabbath, not also to the ἀνέστη. The Sabbath visit to the synagogue was certainly His custom from His youth up. Comp. Bengel and Lange, L. J. II. 2, p. 545.

ἀνέστη ἀναγνῶναι] for the Scripture was read standing (Vitringa, Synag. p. 135 f.; Lightfoot, p. 760 f.; Wetstein in loc.); so when Jesus stood up it was a sign that He wished to read. It is true, a superintendent of the synagogue was accustomed to summon to the reading the person whom he regarded as being fitted for it; but in the case of Jesus, His offering Himself is as much in keeping with His peculiar pre-eminence, as is the immediate acquiescence in His application.

Luke 4:17. Ἐπεδόθη] it was given up to Him—that is to say, by the officer of the synagogue, Lightfoot, p. 763.

Ἡσαΐου] the reading of the Parascha (section out of the law), which preceded that of the Haphthara (prophetic section), appears to have been already concluded, and perhaps there was actually in the course a Haphthara from Isaiah.[84] But in accordance with His special character (as κύριος τοῦ σαββάτου, Matthew 12:8), Jesus takes the section which He lights upon as soon as it is unrolled (ἈΝΑΠΤ., comp. Herod. i. 48, 125), and this was a very characteristic Messianic passage, describing by very definite marks the Messiah’s person and work. By ἈΝΑΠΤΎΞΑς ΤῸ ΒΙΒΛ. and ΕὟΡΕ the lighting exactly on this passage is represented as fortuitous, but just on that account as being divinely ordered (according to Theophylact: not κατὰ συντυχίαν, but ΑὐΤΟῦ ΘΕΛΉΣΑΝΤΟς).

[84] The arrangement of the present Haphtharas was not yet settled at the time of Jesus. See Zunz, Gottesd. Vorträge d. Juden, p. 6.

Luke 4:18-19. Isaiah 61:1-2, following the LXX. freely. The historical meaning is: that He, the prophet, is inspired and ordained by God to announce to the deeply unfortunate people in their banishment their liberation from captivity, and the blessed future of the restored and glorified theocracy that shall follow thereupon. The Messianic fulfilment of this announcement, i.e. the realization of their theocratic idea, came to pass in Christ and His ministry.[85]

οὗ εἵνεκεν] in the original text יַעַן: because, and to this corresponds οὗ εἵνεκεν: propterea quod, because, as ΟὝΝΕΚΕΝ is very frequently thus used by the classical writers. The expression of the LXX., which Luke preserves, is therefore not erroneous (de Wette and others), nor do the words ΟὟ ΕἽΝΕΚΕΝ introduce the protasis of a sentence whose apodosis is left out (Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erf. II. p. 96). The form εἵνεκεν (2 Corinthians 7:12) is, moreover, classical; it occurs in Pindar, Isthm. viii. 69, frequently in Herodotus (see Schweighaüser, Lex. sub. verb.), Dem. 45. 11. See generally, Krüger, II. § 68. 19. 1 f.

ἔχρισε] a concrete description, borrowed from the anointing of the prophets (1 Kings 19:16) and priests (Exodus 28:41; Exodus 30:30), of the consecration, which in this instance is to be conceived of as taking place by means of the spiritual investiture.[86]

ΠΤΩΧΟῖς] the poor עֲנָוִים. See on Matthew 5:3. They—in the original Hebrew the unhappy exiles—are more precisely designated by αἰχμαλώτ., as well as by the epithets, which are to be taken in their historical sense typically, τυφλοῖς and τεθραυσμένους (crushed to pieces), whereby the misery of the ΠΤΩΧΟΊ is represented as a blinding and a bruising. According to the typical reference to the Messiah, these predicates refer to the misery of the spiritual bondage, the cessation of which the Messiah was to announce and (ἀποστεῖλαι) to accomplish. Moreover, the LXX. varies considerably from the original Hebrew (doubtless the result of a various reading which mixed with this passage the parallel in Isaiah 42:7), and Luke again does not agree with the LXX., especially in ἀποστεῖλαι τεθραυσμ. ἐν ἀφέσει, which words are from Isaiah 58:6, whence Luke (not Jesus, who indeed read from the roll of the book) or his informant relating from memory having taken them erroneously, but by an association of ideas easily explained mixed them up in this place.

ἘΝΙΑΥΤῸΝ ΚΥΡΊΟΥ ΔΕΚΤΌΝ] an acceptable year of the Lord, i.e. a welcome, blessed year belonging to Jehovah, whereby is to be understood in the typical reference of the passage the Messianic period of blessing, while in the historical sense the blessed future of the theocracy after the exile is denoted by the words שְׁנַת־רָצוֹן לַיְהֹוָה, i.e. a year of satisfaction for Jehovah, which will be for Jehovah the time to show His satisfaction to His people (comp. Luke 2:14). The passage before us is strangely abused by the Valentinians, Clemens, Hom. xvii. 19, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, and many more, to limit the ministry of Jesus to the space of one year,[87] which even the connection, of the original text, in which a day of vengeance against the enemies of God’s people follows, ought to have prevented. Even Wieseler, p. 272, makes an extraordinary chronological use of ἐνιαυτός and of σήμερον, Luke 4:21, in support of his assumption of a parallel with John 6:1 ff. in regard to time, according to which the sojourn of Jesus in Nazareth is said to have fallen on the Sabbath after Purim 782. The year is an allusion to the year of jubilee (Leviticus 25:9), as an inferior prefigurative type of the Messianic redemption. The three infinitives are parallel and dependent on ἀπέσταλκέ με, whose purpose they specify.

ἐν ἀφέσει] a well-known constructio pregnans: so that they are now in the condition of deliverance (Polybius, i. 79. 12, xxii. 9. 17), comp. Luke 2:39.

[85] Comp. Schleiermacher, L. J. p. 270 f.

[86] Observe the difference of tense, ἔχρισε … ἀπέσταλκε: He anointed me, He hath sent me (and I am here!); also the lively asyndeton in the two verbs (ἀπέστ. without καί), as well as also in the three infinitives.

[87] Keim also, D. geschichtl. Chr. p. 140 ff., has very recently arrived at this conclusion in view of Origen’s statement, de princip. iv. 5 : “a year and a few months,” and that too on the ground of the calculation of the Baptist’s death, according to the account of Josephus, Antt. xviii. 5, concerning the war of Antipas against Aretas. The testing of this combination does not belong to this place. But the Gospel of John stands decidedly opposed to the one-year duration of Christ’s official teaching. See, besides, the discussions on the subject in Weizsäcker, p. 306 ff.

Luke 4:20-21. Τῷ ὑπηρέτῃ] הַחַזָן to the officer of the synagogue, who had to take the book-roll back to its place, after it had been folded up by Jesus (πτύξας corresponding to the ἀναπτύξας of Luke 4:17).

ἐκάθισε] in order now to teach upon the passage which had been read,—this was done sitting (Zunz, Gottesd. Vorträge d. Juden, p. 337).

ἤρξατο] He began. Bengel appropriately says: “Sollenne initium.”

ἐν τοῖς ὠσὶν ὑμῶν] in your ears is this Scripture (this which is written, see on Mark 12:10) fulfilled—to wit, by the fact that the voice of Him of whom the prophet prophesied has entered into your ears. A concrete individualizing mode of expression. Comp. Luke 1:44, Luke 9:44; Acts 11:22; Jam 5:4; Sir 25:9; 1Ma 10:7; Bar 1:3 f.; LXX. Isaiah 5:9. How decisively the passage before us testifies in favour of the fact that from the beginning of His ministry Jesus already had the clear and certain consciousness that He was the Messiah![88] Moreover, that nothing but the theme of the discourse delivered by Jesus is here given is manifest from the passage itself, as well as from Luke 4:22; but He has placed it remarkably close to the beginning of His discourse, and so led the hearer all at once in mediam rem (comp. Zunz, as above, p. 353). Grotius well says: “Hoc exordio usus Jesus explicavit prophetae locum et explicando implevit.”

[88] Comp. Beyschlag, Christ. d. N. T. p. 36 f.