聖經註釋書

Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Λουκᾶν

B F א have only κατὰ Λουκᾶν. Others: τὸ κατὰ Λουκᾶν ἅγιον εὐαγγ. Others: ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ Λ. Others: ἐκ τοῦ κ. Λ. (ἀγίου) εὐαγγελίου. See on Matthew.

CHAPTER 1

Luke 1:5. ἡ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ] B C* D L X א, min. codd. It. Jer. Aug. Beda have γυνὴ αὐτῷ. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. The Recepta is an exegetical alteration—which also holds true of the order of the words at Luke 1:10 in Elz. τοῦ λαοῦ ἦν, instead of which ἧν τοῦ λαοῦ is preponderatingly attested.

Luke 1:14. Instead of γενέσει, Elz. has γεννήσει, in opposition to decisive evidence. From γεννήσει, Luke 1:13. Comp. on Matthew 1:18.

Luke 1:20. πληρωθήσονται] D, Or. have πλησθήσονται. If it were more strongly attested, it would have to be adopted (comp. on Luke 21:22).

Luke 1:27. The form ἐμνηστευμ. (Lachm. Tisch.), instead of the reduplicated μεμνηστευμ., has in this place, and still more at Luke 2:5, such important codd. in its favour, that it is to be preferred, and μεμνηστευμ. must be attributed to the transcribers (Deuteronomy 22:23; Deuteronomy 20:7).

Luke 1:28. ὁ ἄγγελος] is wanting in B L, min. Copt. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Tisch.; the more rightly, that in F Δ א, 69, Syr. Arm. Brix. Rd. Corb. it is placed after αὐτήν, and was more easily supplied than omitted.

εὐλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυν.] is wanting in B L א, min. Copt. Sahid. Arm. Syr. hier. Damasc. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Tisch. An addition from Luke 1:42, whence, also, in some witnesses there has been added, καὶ εὐλογημένος ὁ καρπὸς τῆς κοιλίας σου.

Luke 1:29. Elz. Scholz, Lachm. have ἡ δὲ ἱδοῦσα διεταράχθη ἐπὶ τῷ λόγῳ αὐτοῦ. Griesb. and Tisch. have ἡ δὲ ἐπὶ τῷ λόγῳ διεταράχθη. So B D L X א, min. Arm. Cant. Damasc. (D: ἐταράχθη). This reading is to be preferred. From ΔΕ the transcriber passed immediately to ΔΙΕταράχθη (hence, also, in D, the mere simple form), by which means ἐπὶ τῷ λόγῳ dropped out, and this is still wanting in C* min. The bare ἡ δὲ διεταράχθη was then glossed by ἰδοῦσα (comp. Luke 1:12) (another gloss was: cum audisset, Vulg. al.), which, being adopted before διεταρ., was the cause of ἐπὶ τῷ λόγῳ being placed after διεταρ. when it was restored (in which case, for the most part, αὐτοῦ was inserted also).

Luke 1:35. After γεννώμ. C, min. and many vss. and Fathers (see especially, Athanasius), as also Valentinus in the Philos., have ἐκ σοῦ (yet with the variations de te and in te), and this Lachmann has adopted in brackets. A more precisely defining, and withal doctrinally suggested addition (comp. Matthew 1:16; Galatians 4:4).

Luke 1:36. The form συγγενίς is to be adopted, with Lachm. and Tisch., following A C*** D E G H L Δ א, min. συγγενής is a correction.

Instead of γήρει, Elz. has γήρᾳ, in opposition to decisive evidence.

Luke 1:37. παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ] Tisch. has παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ, following B D L א; the dative suggested itself as being closer to the prevailing conception (Genesis 18:14).

Luke 1:41. The verbal order: τὸν ἀσπασμὸν τῆς Μαρ. ἡ Ἐλισ. (Lachm. Tisch.), is attested with sufficient weight to induce us to recognise ἡ Ἐλισ. τ. ἀσπ. τ. Μαρ. (Elz.) as a transposition.

Luke 1:44. Following B C D* F L א, Vulg. It. Or., the verbal order of the Recepta ἐν ἀγαλλ. τὸ βρέφος is to be maintained (Griesb. Scholz have τὸ βρεφ. ἐν ἀγαλλ.).

Luke 1:49. μεγαλεῖα] Lachm. Tisch. read μεγάλα, in accordance with B D* L א 130. So also probably Vulg. It., magna (not magnalia, as at Acts 2:11). To be preferred, since μεγαλεῖα might easily have been introduced as a more exact definition by a recollection of Psalm 71:19.

Luke 1:50. εἰς γενεὰς γενεῶν] Very many variations, among which εἰς γενεὰς καὶ γενεάς (Tisch.) is the best attested, by B C* L Syr. Copt. codd. It. Vulg. ms. Aug.; next to this, but far more feebly, εἰς γενεὰν και γενεάν (commended by Griesb.). The former is to be preferred; the Recepta, although strongly attested, arose out of the current expression in saecula saeculorum.

Luke 1:55. The Codd. are divided between εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (Elz. Lachm. Tisch.) and ἕως αἰῶνος (Griesb. Scholz). The former has the stronger attestation, but is the expression so current in the N. T. that ἕως, etc., which does not occur elsewhere in the N. T., but is in keeping with the usage of the LXX. after τ. σπέρμ. αὐτοῦ (Genesis 13:15, etc.), here deserves the preference.

Luke 1:59. ὀγδόῃ ἡμέρᾳ] B C D L א, min. have ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ὀγδόῃ. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. Preponderantly attested, and therefore to be preferred.

Luke 1:61. ἐν τῇ συγγενείῳ σου] Lachm. and Tisch. read ἐκ τῆς συγγενείας σου, following A B C* L Δ Λ א, min. Copt. Chron. Pasch. The latter is to be preferred, in place of which the former more readily occurred to the pen of the copyists.

Luke 1:62. αὐτόν] B D F G א, min. have αὐτό. So Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly; the reference to τὸ παιδίον, Luke 1:59, was left unnoticed, and the masculine was mechanically put in κατὰ σύνεσιν.

Luke 1:66. καὶ χείρ] Lachm. Tisch. have καὶ γὰρ χείρ, following B C* D L א, Copt. Aeth. Vulg. It. Goth. Approved by Rinck also, who, however, rejects ἦν on too slight evidence. γάρ is the rather to be adopted, because of the facility with which it may have dropt out on occasion of the similarly sounding χείρ which follows, and of the difficulty with which another connective particle was inserted after the already connecting καί.

Luke 1:70. τῶν ἁγ. τῶν] the second τῶν, deleted by Tisch., is wanting in B L Δ א, min. Or. Eus. An omission by a clerical error.

Luke 1:75. After ἡμέρας Elz. has τῆς ζωῆς, in opposition to decisive evidence.

Luke 1:76. καὶ σύ] Tisch. has καὶ σὺ δέ (so also Scholz, following Bornem. in Rosenm. Repert. II. p. 259), on very considerable evidence; καὶ … δέ was often mutilated by copyists lacking discernment.

Luke 1:1.[13] Ἐπειδήπερ] Quoniam quidem, since indeed, not found elsewhere in the N. T., nor in the LXX., or the Apocrypha; frequent in classical writers, see Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 342 f. Observe that ἐπειδή denotes the fact, assumed as known, in such a way “ut quae inde evenerint et secuta sint, nunc adhuc durent,” Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 640.

πολλοί] Christian writers, whose works for the most part are not preserved.[14] The apocryphal Gospels still extant are of a later date; Mark, however, is in any case meant to be included. The Gospel of Matthew too, in its present form which was then already in existence, cannot have remained unknown to Luke; and in using the word πολλοί he must have thought of it with others (see Introd. § 2), although not as an apostolic writing, because the πολλοί are distinct from the eye-witnesses, Luke 1:2. The apostolic collection of Logia was no διήγησις περὶ τῶν κ.τ.λ., and its author, as an apostle, belonged not to the πολλοί, but to the ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται. But the Gospel to the Hebrews, if and so far as it had then already assumed shape, belonged to the attempts of the πολλοί.

ἐπεχείρησαν] have undertaken, said under a sense of the loftiness and difficulty of the task, Acts 19:13. In the N. T. only used in Luke; frequently in the classical writers. Comp. also Ulpian, p. 159 (in Valckenaer): ἐπειδήπερ περὶ τούτου πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν ἀπολογήσασθαι. Neither in the word in itself, nor by comparing it with what Luke, Luke 1:3, says of his own work, is there to be found, with Köstlin, Ebrard, Lekebusch, and older writers, any indication of insufficiency in those endeavours in general, which Origen,[15] Ambrosius, Theophylact, Calovius, and various others even referred to their contrast with the inspired Gospels. But for his special purpose he judged none of those preliminary works as sufficient.

διήγησιν] a narrative; see especially, Plato, Rep. iii. p. 392 D; Arist. Rhet. iii. 16; 2Ma 2:32. Observe the singular. Of the πολλοί each one attempted a narrative περὶ τῶν κ.τ.λ., thus comprising the evangelic whole. Loose leaves or detached essays (Ebrard) Luke does not mention.

ἀνατάξασθαι] to set up according to order, Plut. Moral. p. 968 C, εὐτρεπίσασθαι, Hesychius. Neither διήγησ. nor ἀνατάσσ. occurs elsewhere in the N. T.

περὶ τῶν πεπληροφορ. ἐν ἡμῖν πραγμ.] of the facts that have attained to full conviction among us (Christians). πληροφορεῖν, to bring to full conviction, may be associated also with an accusative of the thing, which is brought to full acknowledgment (2 Timothy 4:5); hence in a passive sense: πληροφορεῖταί τι, something attains to full belief (2 Timothy 4:17), it is brought to full conviction (πληροφορία πίστεως, Hebrews 10:22) among others. So here (it is otherwise where πληροφορεῖσθαι is said of a person, as Romans 4:21; Romans 14:5; Colossians 4:12; Ignat. ad Magnes. viii. 10; Ecclesiastes 8:11; Phot. Bibl. p. 41, 29). Rightly so taken by the Fathers (Theophylact: οὐ γὰρ ἁπλῶς κατὰ ψιλὴν παράδοσιν εἰσὶ τὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἀλλʼ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ καὶ πίστει βεβαίᾳ καὶ μετὰ πάσης πληροφορίας), Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Valckenaer, and many others, including Olshausen and Ewald. The explanation: “quae in nobis completae sunt” (Vulgate), which have fully happened, run their course among us (Luther, Hammond, Paulus, de Wette, Ebrard, Köstlin, Bleek, and others), is opposed to usage, as πληροφορεῖν is never, even in 2 Timothy 4:5, equivalent to πληροῦν, and therefore it cannot be conceived as applying, either, with Schneckenburger (comp. Lekebusch, p. 30), to the fulfilment of God’s counsel and promise through the life of the Messiah, which besides would be entirely imported; or, with Baur, to the idea of Christianity realized as regards its full contents, under which the Pauline Christianity was essentially included.

[13] According to Baur and others, this preface, vv. 1–4, was only added by the last hand that manipulated our Gospel, after the middle of the second century. Thus, the Gospel would bear on the face of it untruth in concreto. Ewald aptly observes, Jahrb. II. p. 182 f., of this preamble, that in its homely simplicity, modesty, and brevity, it may be called the model of a preface to an historical work. See on the prologue, Holtzmann, p. 243 ff. Aberle in the Tüb. Quartalschr. 1863, 1, p. 84 ff., in a peculiar but untenable way makes use of this prologue as proof for the allegation that our Gospel was occasioned by the accusation of Paul (and of the whole Christian body) in Rome; holding that the prologue must therefore have been composed with the intention of its being interpreted in more senses than one. See, on the other hand, Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1864, p. 443 ff. The whole hypothesis falls to the ground at once before the fact that Luke did not write till after the destruction of Jerusalem.

[14] There is not the remotest ground for thinking of non-Christian books written in hostility to Christianity (Aberle in the theol. Quart. 1855, p. 173 ff.).

[15] In Jerome: “Matthaeus quippe et Marcus et Johannes et Lucas non sunt conati scribere, sed scripserunt.” Comp. Euthymius Zigabenus.

Luke 1:2. Καθώς] neither quatenus, nor belonging to πεπληροφ. (in opposition, as respects both, to Kuinoel, as respects the latter also to Olshausen), but introducing the How, the modal definition of ἀνατάξ. διήγησιν.

παρέδοσαν] have delivered. It is equally erroneous to refer this merely to written (Königsm. de fontibus, etc., in Pott’s Sylloge, III. p. 231; Hug), or merely to oral communication, although in the historical circumstances the latter was by far the preponderating.[16] Holtzmann appropriately remarks: “The subjects of ΠΑΡΈΔΟΣΑΝ and the ΠΟΛΛΟΊ are not distinguished from one another as respects the categories of the oral and written, but as respects those of primary and secondary authority.” For the ΠΟΛΛΟΊ, as for Luke himself, who associates himself with them by ΚἈΜΟΊ, the ΠΑΡΆΔΟΣΙς of the ΑὐΤΌΠΤΑΙ was the proper source, in accordance with which therefore he must have critically sifted the attempts of those ΠΟΛΛΟΊ, so far as he knew them (Luke 1:3).

ἈΠʼ ἈΡΧῆς] namely, of those ΠΡΑΓΜΆΤΩΝ. But it is not the time of the birth of Jesus that is meant (so most commentators, including Kuinoel and Olshausen), but that of the entrance of Jesus on His ministry (Euthymius Zigabenus, de Wette); comp. John 15:27; Acts 1:21 f., which explanation is not “audacious” (Olshausen), but necessary, because the αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται τοῦ λόγου are the same persons, and therefore under the αὐτόπται there are not to be understood, in addition to the first disciples, Mary also and other members of the family. ἈΠʼ ἈΡΧῆς therefore is not to be taken absolutely, but relatively.

ὙΠΗΡΈΤΑΙ ΤΟῦ ΛΌΓΟΥ] ministri evangelii (the doctrine κατʼ ἐξοχήν, comp. Acts 8:7; Acts 14:25; Acts 16:6; Acts 17:11). These were the Twelve and other ΜΑΘΗΤΑΊ of Christ (as according to Luke also the Seventy), who were in the service of the gospel for the purpose of announcing it. Comp. Luke 3:7; Acts 6:4; Colossians 1:23; Acts 26:16; 1 Corinthians 4:1. Others (Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Grotius, Maldonatus, al., including Kuinoel) take τοῦ λόγου in the sense of the matter concerned, of the contents of the history spoken of (see on Acts 8:21); but it would be just as inappropriate to ὑπηρέται as it would be quite superfluous, since ΤΟῦ ΛΌΓΟΥ must by no means be attached to ΑὐΤΌΠΤΑΙ also. Finally, it is a mistake to refer it to Christ in accordance with John 1:1. So Origen, Athanasius, Euthymius Zigabenus, Valla, Calovius, and others, including Stein (Kommentar, Halle 1830). It is only John that names Christ ὁ λόγος.

Theophylact, moreover, aptly observes: ἘΚ ΤΟΎΤΟΥ (namely, from ΚΑΘῺς ΠΑΡΈΔΟΣΑΝ ἩΜῖΝ Κ.Τ.Λ.) ΔῆΛΟΝ, ὍΤΙ ΟὐΚ ἮΝ Ὁ ΛΟΥΚᾶς ἈΠʼ ἈΡΧῆς ΜΑΘΗΤῊς, ἈΛΛʼ ὙΣΤΕΡΌΧΡΟΝΟς· ἌΛΛΟΙ ΓᾺΡ ἮΣΑΝ ΟἹ ἈΠʼ ἈΡΧῆς ΜΑΘΗΤΕΥΘΕΝΤΕς … ΟἻ ΚΑῚ ΠΑΡΈΔΟΣΑΝ ΑὐΤῷ Κ.Τ.Λ. By ἩΜῖΝ the writer places himself in the second generation; the first were the immediate disciples of Christ, οἱ ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται. This ὙΠΗΡΈΤΑΙ, however, is not chosen for the sake of placing the Twelve on an equality with Paul (Acts 26:16). As though the word were so characteristic for Paul in particular! Comp. John 18:36; 1 Corinthians 4:1.

[16] Of the written materials of this παράδοσις of the αὐτόπται we know with certainty only the λόγια of Matthew according to Papias.

Luke 1:3. Apodosis, which did not begin already in Luke 1:2.

ἔδοξε κἀμοί] in itself neither excludes nor includes inspiration. Vss. add to it: et Spiritui sancto. By the use of κἀμοί Luke places himself in the same category with the πολλοί, in so far as he, too, had not been an eye-witness; “sic tamen ut etiamnum aliquid ad ἀσφάλειαν ac firmitudinem Theophilo conferat,” Bengel.—.παρηκολουθ.] after having from the outset followed everything with accuracy. Παρακολ., of the mental tracing, investigating, whereby one arrives at a knowledge of the matter. See the examples in Valckenaer, Schol. p. 12; Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 344 f. Comp., moreover, Thucyd. i. 22. 2 : ὅσον δυνατὸν ἀκριβείᾳ περὶ ἑκάστου ἐπεξελθών.

πᾶσιν] namely, those πράγμασι, not masculine (Syr.).

ἄνωθεν] not: radicitus, fundamentally (Grotius), which is comprised in ἀκριβ., but: from the first, see on John 3:3. From the beginning of the history it is seen that in his investigation he started from the birth of the Baptist, in doing which, doubtless, he could not but still lack the authentic tradition of Luke 1:2. Nevertheless the consciousness of an advantage over those πολλοί expresses itself in παρηκ. ἄνωθεν.

καθεξῆς] in orderly sequence, not out of the order of time, in which they occurred one after the other.[17] Only Luke has the word in the N. T. (Luke 8:1; Acts 3:24; Acts 11:4; Acts 18:23); it occurs also in Aelian, Plutarch, et al., but the older classical writers have ἐφεξῆς.

κράτιστε Θεόφιλε] See Introd. § 3. That in Acts 1:1 he is addressed merely Ὦ ΘΕΌΦΙΛΕ, proves nothing against the titular use of ΚΡΆΤΙΣΤΕ. See on the latter, Grotius.

[17] In the case of this καθεξῆς the Harmonists of course make the reservation, that it will be “conditioned at one time more by a chronological interest, at another time more by that of the subject-matter,” Lichtenstein, p. 73. Thus they keep their hand free to lay hold now of the one, now of the other, just as it is held to suit. The assertion, often repeated, in favour of the violences of harmonizers, that in Luke the arrangement by subject-matter even predominates (Ebrard, Lichtenstein), is absolutely incompatible with that καθεξῆς.

Luke 1:4. Ἵνα ἐπιγνῷς] ut accurate cognosceres; see on Matthew 11:27; 1 Corinthians 13:12.

περὶ ὧν κατηχήθης λόγων] The attraction is not, with the Vulgate and the majority of commentators, to be resolved into: τῶν λόγων, περὶ ὧν κατηχήθης, as the contents of the instruction is put with κατηχεῖσθαι in the accusative (Acts 18:25; Galatians 6:6), and only the more remote object to which the instruction relates is expressed by περί (Acts 21:21; Acts 21:24), but into: περὶ τῶν λόγων, οὓς κατηχήθης: that thou mightest know in respect of the doctrines, in which thou wast instructed, the unshaken certainty. Comp. Köstlin, p. 132, and Ewald. The λόγοι are not the πράγματα, res (comp. Luke 1:2), as is usually supposed; but it is just the specifically Christian doctrines, the individual parts of the λόγος, Luke 1:2 (τῶν λόγων τῆς πίστεως, Euthymius Zigabenus), that stand in the most essential connection with the history of Jesus and from it receive their ἀσφάλεια; in fact, they are in great part themselves essentially history.

κατηχήθης is to be understood of actual instruction (in Acts 21:21 also), not of hearsay, of which, moreover, the passages in Kypke are not to be explained. Who had instructed Theophilus—who, moreover, was assuredly already a Christian (not merely interested on behalf of Christianity, as Bleek supposes)—we know not, but certainly it was not Luke himself (in opposition to Theophylact).

τὴν ἀσφάλειαν] the unchangeable certainty, the character not to be shaken. Comp. τὴν ἀσφάλειαν εἶναι λόγου, Xen. Mem. iv. 6. 15. The position at the end is emphatic. According to Luke, therefore, by this historical work, which he purposes to write, the doctrines which Theophilus had received are to be set forth for him in their immoveable positive truth; according to Baur, on the other hand, the ἀσφάλεια which the writer had in view was to be this, that his entire representation of primitive Christianity sought to become conducive to the conciliatory interest (of the second century), and always kept this object in view. This is purely imported. Luke wrote from the dispassionate consciousness that Christianity, as it subsisted for him as the Pauline contents of faith, had its firm basis of truth in the evangelical history of salvation.

Luke 1:5. The periodic and Greek style of the preface gives place now to the simple Hebraizing mode of presentation in the preliminary history,—a circumstance explained by the nature of its Jewish-Christian sources, which withal were not made use of without being subjected to manipulation, since Luke’s peculiarities in expression pervade even this preliminary history. How far, however, the lofty, at times truly lyrical beauty and art of the descriptions are to be reckoned due to the sources themselves or to Luke as working them up, cannot be decided.

Observe, moreover, how the evangelical tradition gradually pushes back its beginnings from the emergence of the Baptist (Mark) to the γένεσις of Jesus (Matthew), and even to the conception of His forerunner (Luke).

ἐγένετο] extitit, emerged in history. Comp. on Mark 1:4.

ἱερεύς τις] therefore not high priest.

On the twenty-four classes of priests (מַחֲלֹקֶת, in the LXX. ἐφημερία, also διαίρεσις, in Josephus also ἐφημερίς), which, since the time of Solomon, had the temple-service for a week in turn, see Ewald, Alterth. p. 315; Keil, Archäol. I. p. 188 f.

Ἀβιά] 1 Chronicles 24:10. From this successor of Eleazar the eighth ἐφημερία had its name.

The chronological employment of this notice for the ascertaining of the date of the birth of Jesus would require that the historical character of the narratives, given at Luke 1:5 ff., Luke 1:26 ff., should be taken for granted; moreover, it would be necessary withal that the year and (as every class came in its turn twice in the year) the approximate time of the year of the birth of Jesus should already be otherwise ascertained. Then, in the computation we should have to reckon, not, with Scaliger (de emendat. tempor.), forward from the re-institution of the temple-service by Judas Maccabaeus, 1Ma 4:38 ff., because it is not known which class at that time began the service (see Paulus, exeg. Handb. I. p. 83; Wieseler, chronol. Synopse, p. 141), but, with Salomon van Til, Bengel, and Wieseler, backward from the destruction of the temple, because as to this the date (the 9 Abib) and the officiating class of priests (Jojarib) is known. Comp. also Lichtenstein, p. 76.

καὶ γυνὴ αὐτῷ] (see the critical remarks) scil. ἦν.

ἐκ τῶν θυγατ. Ἀαρ.] John’s descent on both sides was priestly. Comp. Josephus, Vit. v. 1. See Wetstein.

Ἐλισάβετ] Such was also the name of Aaron’s wife, Exodus 6:23 (אֶלִישֶׁבַע, Deus juramentum).

Luke 1:6 f. Δίκαιοι] upright, such as they ought to be according to God’s will.

ἐνώπιον τ. Θεοῦ] a familiar Hebraism: לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה, characterizing the ἀληθὴς δικαιοσύνη (Euthymius Zigabenus), which is so not perchance merely according to human judgment, but before the eyes of God, in God’s presence, Genesis 7:1; Acts 8:21; Jdt 13:20. Comp. Augustine, ad Marcell. ii. 13.

πορευόμενοι κ.τ.λ.] a more precise explanation of the foregoing, likewise in quite a Hebraizing form (1 Kings 8:62, al.), wherein δικαίωμα is legal ordinance (LXX. Deuteronomy 4:1; Deuteronomy 6:2; Deuteronomy 30:16; Psalm 119:93, al.; see on Romans 1:32; Romans 5:16), ἐντολή joined with δικ. (Genesis 26:5; Deuteronomy 4:40) is a more special idea. The distinction that ἐντολή applies to the moral, δικαιώμα to the ceremonial precepts, is arbitrary (Calvin, Bengel, and others). We may add that the popular testimony to such δικαιοσύνη does not exclude human imperfection and sinfulness, and hence is not opposed to the doctrine of justification.

ἄμεμπτοι] not equivalent to ἀμέμπτως, but proleptic: so that they were blameless. Comp. 1 Thessalonians 5:23; Winer, p. 549 f. [E. T. 778 f.].

The Attic καθότι, here as at Luke 19:9, Acts 2:24, Tob 1:12; Tob 13:4, corresponding to the argumentative καθώς: as then, according to the fact that, occurs in the N. T. only in Luke.

προβεβηκότες ἐν ταῖς ἡμ.] of advanced age, בָּאִים בַּיָּמִים, Genesis 18:11; Joshua 23:1; 1 Kings 1:1. The Greeks say προβεβηκὼς τῇ ἡλικίᾳ, Lys. p. 169, 37, τοῖς ἔτεσιν (Machon in Athen. xiii. p. 592 D), also τὴν ἡλικίαν, and the like (Herodian, ii. 7. 7; comp. 2Ma 4:40; Jdt 16:23), see Wetstein, and Pierson, ad Moer. p. 475. Observe that κ. ἀμφ. προβ. κ.τ.λ. is no longer connected with καθότι, but attached to οὐκ ἦν αὐτ. τέκν. by way of further preparation for the marvel which follows.

Luke 1:8 f. Ἐγένετο … ἔλαχε] thus without interposition of καί. Both modes of expression, with and without καί, are very frequent in Luke. See generally, Bornemann in loc.

κατὰ τὸ ἔθος τῆς ἱερατ.] according to the custom of the priesthood, does not belong to what precedes (Luther, Kuinoel, Bleek), to which ἔθος would be inappropriate, but to ἔλαχε τοῦ θυμιᾶσαι; the usual custom, namely, was, that the priest of the class on service for the week, who was to have the honourable office of burning incense, was fixed every day by lot, just as in general the several offices were assigned by lot. See Tr. Tamid, v. 2 ff.; Wetstein, and Paulus, exeget. Handb.; Lund, Jüd. Heiligth., ed. Wolf, p. 804 f. How the casting of lots took place, see Gloss. Joma, f. 22, 1, in Lightfoot, p. 714.

The genitive τοῦ θυμιᾶσαι (not to be accented θυμιάσαι[18]) is governed by ἔλαχε. See Matthiae, p. 800; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 2. On the mode of burning incense, see Lightfoot, p. 715; Lund, l.c. p. 618 ff.; Leyrer in Herzog’s Encykl. XII. p. 506 ff. With this office specially divine blessing was conceived to be associated (Deuteronomy 33:10 f.); and during it John Hyrcanus received a revelation, Josephus, Antt. xiii. 10. 3.

Whether, we may ask, are we to understand here the morning (Grotius) or the evening (Kuinoel) burning of incense? The former, as the casting lots has just preceded.

εἰσελθὼν κ.τ.λ.] can neither be something that follows after the ἔλαχε τ. θυμ. (so Luther and others, de Wette and Bleek), nor can it belong merely to θυμιᾶσαι (so Winer, p. 316 [E. T. 443], and Glöckler, following the Vulgate), in which case the words would be quite idle. Rather must they be, in the same relation as the following καὶ πᾶν τὸ πλῆθος … ἔξω τῇ ὥρᾳ τοῦ θυμιάματος, an essential portion of the description. It is, namely, the moment that preceded the ἔλαχε τοῦ θυμιᾶσαι: the duty of burning incense fell to him, after he had entered into the temple of the Lord. After his entrance into the temple he received this charge.

εἰς τὸν ναόν] not εἰς τὸ ἱερόν (see on Matthew 4:5), for the altar of incense, the θυσιαστήριον, Luke 1:11, stood in the sanctuary (between the table of shewbread and the golden candlestick).

[18] Comp. generally, Lipsius, Gramm. Unters. p. 38 ff.