Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - Luke 19:1 - 19:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
19:1-10. §The Visit to Zacchæ the Tax-collector of Jericho. The on other grounds improbable conjecture, that we have here a distorted variation of the Call of Matthew, the Tax collector of Capernaum, is excluded by the fact that Lk. has recorded that event (5:27-32). Even if the two narratives were far more similar than they are, there would be no good reason for doubting that two such incidents had taken place. The case of Zacchæ illustrates the special doctrine of this Gospel, that no one is excluded from the invitation to the Kingdom of God. The source from which Lk. obtained the narrative seems to have been Aramaic. In time it is closely connected with the preceding section.
1. δήχτ τνἸριώ “He was passing through Jericho,” and the meeting took place inside the city. For the verb see on 2:15, and for the constr. comp. 2:35; Act_12:10, Act_13:6, Act_14:24, etc. Apparently the meeting with Zacchæ was what detained Him in Jericho: otherwise He would have gone through without staying: comp. 24:28.
2. ὀόαικλύεο Ζκαο. For the dat. comp. 1:61. The name, which means “pure,” shows him to have been a Jew: Ezr_2:9; Neh_7:14. Tertullian says, Zacchæ etsi allophylus, fortasse tamen aliqua notitia scripturarum ex commercio Judaico afflatus (Adv. Marcion. 4:37, 1). But the Jews murmured because Jesus lodged with a man that was a sinner. They would have said a heathen, if it had been true. See below on ver. 9. The Clementines make Zacchæ a companion of Peter, who appoints him, much against his wish, to be bishop of Cæ (Hom. 3:63; Recog. 3:66); and be Apost. Const. say that he was succeeded by Cornelius (7:46). Clem. Alex. says he was identified with Matthias (Strom. 4:6. p. 579). The Talmud mentions a Zacchæ who lived at Jericho and was father of the celebrated Rabbi Jochanan. He might be of the same family as this Zacchæ The use of ἀή here (comp. 1:27, 8:41, 23:50) rather than ἄθωο (comp. 2:25, 6:6) perhaps is no mark of dignity: see ver. 7.
κὶατςἧ ἀχτλνςκὶατςποσο. Note the double κὶατς and see on 5:14 and 6:20.
The second κὶατς(B K U Π Vulg.) is doubtful: om. D, d e; κὶοτςἧ (A Q R); κὶἦ (אL, Boh. Goth.). The last may be right.
ἀχτλνς This is evidently an official title, and means more than that Zacchæ was a very rich tax-collector (Didon). Had that been the meaning, we should have ὅιor γρinstead of κί Perhaps we may render, “Commissioner of Taxes.” The word occurs nowhere else, and the precise nature of the office not be ascertained. Probably he was intermediate between the portitores and the publicani, and by the Romans would have been called magister. Jericho, as a large frontier city, through which much of the carrying trade passed, and which had a large local trade in costly balsams, would be a likely place for a commissioner of taxes. This is the sixth notice of the tax-collectors, all favourable, in this Gospel (3:12, 5:27, 7:29, 15:1, 18:10).
3. ἐήε ἰεν Not like Herod (23:8), but like the Greeks (Joh_12:21). He had heard of Him, and perhaps as mixing freely with publicans and sinners. Fama notum vultu noscere cupiebat (Grotius). For the indic. after τςdependent comp. Act_21:33.
οκἠύαοἀὸτῦὄλυ The multitude was the source of the hindrance. comp. 21:26, 24:41; Act_12:14, Act_12:22:11; Joh_21:6; Heb_5:7. His being unable to free himself from the throng is not the meaning of the ἀό In class. Grk. we should have δάwith acc. For ἡιί see on 2:52.
4. εςτ ἔποθν Strengthens the πορμν He ran on to that part of the city which was in front of Christ’s route. There is nothing to show that he wished to hide, and that Christ’s call to him was like His making the woman with the issue disclose her act (Trench). On the other hand, there is no evidence that he braved the derision of the crowd. We may say, however, that no thought of personal dignity or propriety deterred him from his purpose.
TR. omits εςτ, which is sufficiently attested by אB L, processit in priore et (e), antecedens ab ante (d), D having ποαώ for πορμν
σκμρα. “A fig-mulberry,” quite a different tree from the fig and the mulberry and the common sycamore: Its fruit is like the fig, and its leaf like the mulberry, and hence the name. The σκμνςof 17:6 is commonly held to be the mulberry, but may be another name for the fig-mulberry, as Groser thinks. The fig-mulberry “recalls the English oak, and its shade is most pleasing. It is consequently a favourite wayside tree. …It is very easy to climb, with its short trunk, and its wide lateral branches forking out in all directions” (Tristram, Nat. Hist. of B. P. 398).
The MSS. vary much, but all early uncials except A have -μραand not -μρί; and -μραis much better attested than -μραor -μρί. The common form is σκμρς
With ἐεη sc. ὁο comp. πίς5:19.
For the sudden change of subject, ἀέη…ἤελν comp. 14:5, 15:15, 17:2; and for the subjunctive after a past tense, ἀέη…ἴαἴῃ comp. 6:7, 18:15, 39; Joh_4:8, Joh_7:32.
5. ζκαε There is no need to assume that Jesus had supernatural knowledge of the name: Joh_4:17, Joh_4:18 is not parallel Jesus might hear the people calling to Zacchæ or might enquire. And He seems not to use His miraculous power of knowledge when He could obtain information in the usual way (Mar_8:5; Joh_11:34). The explanation that He thereby showed Zacchæ that He knew all about him, is not adequate. Would Zacchæ have inferred this from being addressed by name?
σεσςκτβθ. He had made to to see Christ: he must make haste to to receive Him. Accepit plus quam sperabat, qui, quod potuit, fecit (Maldon.). As in the case of Nathanael (Joh_1:47), Jesus knew the goodness of the man’s heart. Here supernatural knowledge, necessary for Christ’s work, is quite in place. For σεδι see on 2:16.
σμρνγρἐ τ οκ συ First, with emphasis. “This very day; in thy house.” For δῖof the Divine counsels see on 4:43. Taken in conjunction with κτλσι(ver. 7), μῖα possibly means “to pass the night.” But neither word necessarily means staying for more than a long rest.
7. πνε δεόγζν Note the characteristic πνε, and comp. 5:30, 15:2. It was not jealousy, but a sense of outraged propriety, which made them all murmur.
Πρ ἁατλ. First, with emphasis. They allude, not to the personal charact of Zacchæ but to his calling. For πρ unelided before a vowel see small pint on 18:27, and Gregory, Prolegom. p. 95.
κτλσι Only here and 9:12 in N.T. has κτλωthe classical meaning of “loosing one’s garments and resting from a journey”: comp. Gen_19:2, Gen_19:24:23, Gen_19:25; Ecclus. 14:25, 27, 36:31. Elsewhere in N.T. it means “throw down, destroy” (21:6; Act_5:38, Act_6:14, etc.).
8. σαες Perhaps indicates a set attitude: see on 18:11. It is a solemn act done with formality. The narrative represents this declaration as the immediate result of personal contact with the goodness of Christ. He is overwhelmed by Christ’s condescension in coming to him, and is eager to make a worthy acknowledgment. That he was stung by the reproach πρ ἁατλ ἀδί and wished to prove that he was not so great a sinner, is less probable. The δ does not show that Zacchæ is answering his accusers, but that Lk. contrasts with theirs. The solemn declaration is addressed τὸ τνκρο, not to them; and the Ἰο with which it begins indicates a sudden resolution rather than one which had been slowly reached.
τ ἡίι. “MSS. clearly certify to τ ἡίι (L alone has ἡίεα apparently from a form ἡίις against τ ἤιυand still more against τ ἡίη this peculiar form occurs in an inscription from Selinus in Cilicia (C.I.G. 4428).” WH. 2. App. p.158. But editors are much divided. Lach. ἡίε, Treg. Tisch. an Weiss ἡίεα TR. and RV. ἡίη WH. ἡίι. May not ἡίεαand ἡίι be mere mistakes for ἡίε, and ἡίηbe a supposed improvement? The neut. plur. depends upon the neut. plur. of τνὑαχνω. Comp. τννσντςἡίες(Hdt. 2:10, 4); ο ἡίεςτνἄτν(Xen. Cyr. 4:5, 4). For τ ὑάχναsee on 8:3.
τῖ πωοςδδμ. “I hereby give to the poor”: it is an act done there and then. The present tense might mean “I am in the habit of giving” (Godet); but this is not likely. For (1) this makes Zacchæ a boaster; (2) τνὑαχνω has to be interpreted “income,” whereas its natural meaning is “that which one has possessed all along, capital”; (3) ἀοίωιmust follow δδμ, and it is improbable that Zacchæ was in the habit of making fourfold restitution for inadvertent acts of injustice; and a man so scrupulous as to restore fourfold would not often commit acts of deliberate injustice. Standing in Christ’s presence, he solemnly makes over half his great wealth to the poor, and with the other if engages to make reparation to those whom he has defrauded. So Iren. Tertul. Ambr. Chrys. Euthym. Theoph. Maldon. etc. Aug. and Euthym. suggest that he kept one half, not to possess it, but to have the means of restitution. That he left all and became a follower of Christ (Ambr.) is not implied, but may eventually have taken place.
ε τνςτ ἐυοάτσ. The indic. shows that he is not in doubt about past malpractices: “if, as I know is the case, I have,” etc. Comp. Rom_5:17; Col_2:20, Col_3:1. For σκφνενsee on 3:14, the only other place in N.T. in which the verb occurs: in LXX it is not rare. The constr. τνςτ is on the analogy of ἀοτρῖ and similar verbs.
ἀοίωιτταλῦ. This was almost the extreme penalty imposed by the Law, when a man was compelled to make reparation for a deliberate act of destructive robbery (Exo_22:1; 2Sa_12:6). But sevenfold was sometimes exacted (Pro_6:31). If the stolen property had not been consumed, double was to be paid (Exo_22:4, Exo_22:7). When the defrauder confessed and made voluntary restitution, the whole amount stolen, with a fifth added was sufficient (Lev_6:5; Num_5:7). Samuel promises only simple restitution if anything is proved against him (1Sa_12:3). Zacchæ is willing to treat his exactions as if they had been destructive robberies. In thus stripping himself of the chief part even of his honestly gained riches he illustrates 18:27. Ecce enim camelus, deposita gibbi sarcina, per foramen acus transit, hot est dives et publicanus, relicto onere divitiarum, contempto sensu fraudium, angustam, portam arctamque viam quæad vitam ducit ascendit (Bede).
9. πὸ ατν Although Christ uses the third person, this probably means “unto him” (May. Hahn) rather than “in reference to him” (Grot. Nö Godet): see on 18:9. Ewald reads πὸ ατν like πὸ ἑυό, 18:11, as if Jesus were thinking aloud. It is doubtful whether ατνfor ἑυό occurs in N.T.
To avoid the difficulty some texts have the plur. πὸ ατύ (R), ad illos (a b c ff2 i l s), and some omit (d e, Cypr.). Some MSS of Vulg. have ad eos or ad illos for ad eum.
ὅιΣμρν The ὅιis merely recitative and is not to translated. The σμρνconfirms the view that δδμ and ἀοίωιrefer to a present resolve and not to a past practice.
στρα…ἐέεο A favourite constr. with Lk. See on it 6:36 “Only on this occasion did Jesus offer Himself as a guest, although He sometimes accepted invitations. Just as it was to a despised schismatic (Joh_4:26), and to a despised outcast from the synagogue (Joh_9:37), that He made a spontaneous revelation of His Messiahship, so it is a despised tax-collector that He selects for this spontaneous visit. In each case He knew that the recipient had a heart to welcome His gift: and it is in this welcome, and not in the mere visit, that the στραconsisted.1
That τ οκ τύῳis said rather than τ ἀδὶτύῳprobably means that the blessing extends to the whole household; rather than that Jesus is alluding to the hospitality which He has received under this roof. In any case it is to be noted that it is the house which has suddenly lost half its wealth, and not the poor who have the promise of abundant alms, that Jesus declares to have received a blessing. To this occasion we may apply, and possibly to this occasion belongs, the one saying of Christ which is not recorded in the Gospels, and which we yet know to have been His, “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Act_20:35).
κθτ κὶατςυὸ Ἀρά. This is conclusive as to Z being a Jew. The words cannot be understood exclusively in a spiritual sense, as Cyprian seems to take them (EP. 63:4, ed. Hartel). Chrysostom points out the moral sonship: Abraham offer his heir to the Lord, Zacchæ his inheritance. Comp. 13:16, and see Weiss, L. J. 2. p. 438, Eng. tr. 3. p. 221. For κθτ, which is peculiar to Lk., see small print on 1:7. The meaning is that he also, as much as any one else, is an Israelite. “His detested calling has not cancelled his birthright. My visit to him, and his receiving salvation, are entirely in harmony with the Divine Will” (ver. 5).
10. ἦθν First with emphasis: “He came for this very purpose.” The γρexplains στραἐέεο salvation to such as Z. is the object of His Epiphany. For the neut. of a collective whole, τ ἀοωό, comp. Joh_6:37, Joh_6:17:2, Joh_6:24; and for the thought, Luk_15:6, Luk_15:9, Luk_15:32; Eze_34:16. The expression is no evidence that Zacchæ was a heathen. Comp. τ ἀοωόαοκυἸρή (Mat_10:6, Mat_15:24).
11-28. §The Parable of the Pounds. It is probable that this is distinct from the Parable of the Talents (Mat_25:14-30; comp. Mar_13:34-36). It is more likely that Jesus should utter somewhat similar parables on different occasions than that Mt. or Lk. should have made very serious confusion as to the details of the parable as well as regards the time and place of its delivery.
Here Jesus is a approaching Jerusalem, but has not yet entered it in triumph: apparently He is still in Jericho. In Mt. He is on the Mount of Olives a day or two after the triumphal entry. Here He addresses a mixed company publicly. In Mt. He is speaking privately to His disciples (24:3). Besides the difference in detail where the two narratives are parallel, them is a great deal in Lk. which is not represented in Mt. at all. The principal items are: (1) the introduction, ver. 11; (2) the high birth of the chief agent and his going into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, ver. 12; (3) his citizens hating him and sending an ambassage after him to repudiate him, ver. 14; (4) the signal vengeance taken upon these enemies, ver. 27; (5) the conclusion, Ver. 28. Strauss supposes that Lk has mixed up two parables, the Parable of the Pounds, which is only another version of the Parable of the Talents in Mt., and another which might be called the Parable of the Rebellious Citizens, consisting of vv. 12, 14, 15, 27. Without denying the possibility of this hypothesis, one may assert that it is unnecessary. As regards the Talents and the Pounds, Chrysostom pronounces them to be distinct, while Augustine implies that they are so, for he makes no attempt to harmonize them in his De Consensu Evangelistarum. Even in the parts that are common to the two parables the differences are very considerable. (1) In the Talents we have a householder leaving home for a time, in the Pounds a nobleman going in quest of a crown; (2) the Talents are unequally distributed, the Pounds equally; (3) the sums entrusted differ enormously in amount; (4) in the Talents the rewards are the same, in the Pounds they differ and are proportionate to what has been gained; (5) in the Talents the unprofitable servant is severely punished, in the Pounds he is merely deprived of his pound. Out of about 302 words in Mt. and 286 in Lk., only about 66 words or parts of words are common to the two. An estimate of the probabilities on each side seems to be favourable to the view that we have accurate reports of two different parables, and not two reports of the same parable, one of which, if not both, must be very inaccurate. And, while both parables teach that we must make good use of the gifts entrusted to us, that in Mt. refers to those gifts which are unequally distributed, that in Lk. to those in which all share alike. See Wright, Synopsis, §138, p. 127.
The lesson of the parable before us, is twofold. To the disciples of all classes it teaches the necessity of patiently waiting and actively working for Christ until He comes again. To the Jews it gives a solemn warning respecting the deadly opposition which they are now exhibiting, and which will be continued even after His departure. There will be heavy retribution for those who persistently reject their lawfully appointed King. This portion of the parable is of special interest, because there is little doubt that it was suggested by contemporary history. Herod the Great, appointed procurator of Galilee by Julius Cæ b.c. 47 and tetrarch by Antony b.c. 41, went to Rome b.c. 40 to oppose the claims of Antigonus, and was made king of Judæ by the senate (Jos. Ant. 14:7, 3, 9:2, 13:1, 14:4; B. J. 1:14, 4). His son Archelaus in like manner went to Rome to obtain the kingdom which his father, by a change in his will, had left to him instead of to Antipas. The Jews revolted and sent an ambassage of fifty to oppose him at Rome. Augustus, after hearing them and the Jews on the spot, confirmed Herod’s will, but did not allow Archelaus the title of king until he had proved his worthiness. This he never did; but he got his “kingdom” with the title of ethnarch (Ant. 17:8, 1, 9:3, 11:4; B. J. 2:6, 1, 3). All this had taken place b.c. 4, in which year Antipas also went to Rome to urge his own claims against those of Archelaus. His more famous attempt to obtain the title of king did not take place until after this, and cannot be alluded to here. The remarkable feature of the opposing embassy makes the reference to Archelaus highly probable; and Jericho, which he had enriched with buildings, would suggest his case as an illustration. But the reference is by some held to be fictitious, by others is made a reason for suspecting that the author of this detail is not Christ but the Evangelist (Weiss).
11. Ἀοότνδ ατντῦα These words connect the parable closely with what precedes. The scene is still Jericho, in or near the house of Zacchæ and, as τῦαseems to refer to the saying about στρα(vv. 9, 10), ατνprobably refers to the disciples and those with Zacchæ The belief that the Kingdom was close at hand, and that Jesus was now going in triumph to Jerusalem, was probably general among those who accompanied Him, and the words just uttered night seem to confirm it. “But because the heard these things” (Mey.) is, however, not quite the meaning: rather, “And as they head” (AV. RV.); hæ illis audientibus (Vulg.).
Here Cod. Bezae has one of its attempts to reproduce the gen. abs. in Latin: audientium autem eorum; comp. 3:15, 9:43, 21:5, 26, etc.
ποθὶ επνπρβλν Not, “He spoke, and added a parable” to what He spoke; but, “He added and spoke a parable” in connexion with what had preceded. Moris est Domino, præ sermonem parabolis adfirmare subjectis (Bede). It is a Hebraistic construction: comp. Gen_38:5; Job_29:1; Gen_25:1. In Luk_20:11, Luk_20:12; Act_12:3; Gen_4:2, Gen_8:12 we have another form of the same idiom, ποέεοπμα, etc. See also on 6:39 for επνπρβλν
The Latin equivalents are interesting: addidit dicens (a), adjecit et dixit (e), addidit dicere (s), adjiciens dixit (Vulg.). See also 20:11.
δὰτ ἐγςενιἸ About six hours’ march; 150 stades (Jos. B. J. iv. 8. 3), or about 18 miles. The goal was almost in sight the arrival could not be much longer delayed.
πρχῆαμλε …ἀαανσα. It is against this that the parable is specially directed. The Messiah was there, Jerusalem was only a few hours distant; the inauguration of the Kingdom must be imminent: πρχῆαis placed first with emphasis. The μλε, “is sure to,” and ἀααεθι “come to view,” are both appropriate: they believed that they were certain of a glorious pageant. Comp. Act_1:6.
12. εγνς In a literal sense here and 1Co_1:26; comp Job_1:3: in a figurative sense Act_17:11; comp. 4 Mac. 6:5, 9:23, 27. The μκά, which is probably an adj. as in 15:3 has obvious reference to πρχῆα the distance would exclude an immediate return. Note the τς
λβῖ ἑυῷβσλίν If we had not the illustrations from contemporary history, this would be a surprising feature in the parable. He is a vassal of high rank going to a distant suzeraim to obtain royal authority over his fellow-vassals. For ὑοτέα see small print on 1:56; it tells us that the desired βσλί is at the starting point, not at a distance.
13. He plans that, during his absence, servants of his private household shall be tested, with a view to their promotion when he is, appointed to be king.
δκ δύοςἑυο. “Ten bond-servants of his own.” It does not follow, because we have not δκ τνδ ατῦ that he had only ten slaves. This would require τὺ δ δ and would be very improbable; for an Oriental noble would have scores of slaves. The point of ἑυο (? “his household slaves”) is, that among them, if anywhere, he would be likely to find fidelity to his interests. As he merely wishes to test them, the sum committed to each is small,—about £ In the Talents the householder divides the whole of his property (τ ὑάχναατῦ and hence the sums entrusted to each slave are very large.
παμτύαθ. “Carry on business,” especially as a banker or a trader: here only in N.T., and in LXX on Dan_8:27 and some texts of 1Ki_9:19. Vulg. has negotiamini (not occupate), which Wic. renders “chaffare.” The “occupy” of Rhem. and AV. comes from Cov. and Cran., while Tyn. has “buy and sell.” We have a similar use of “occupy” Eze_27:9, Eze_27:16, Eze_27:19, Eze_27:21, Eze_27:22, where Vulg. has negotiatio and negotiator: comp. “occupy their business in great waters” (Psa_107:23).
Latimer exhibits the same use of “occupy”; and in a letter of Thomas Cromwell to Michael Throgmorton, a.d. 1537, he calls Pole “a merchant and occupier of all deceits” (Froude, His. of Eng. ch. xiv.). “Occupy till I come” is now misunderstood to mean “keep possession till I come.”
WH. are alone in reading παμτύαθιhere. All other editors make the verb 2nd. pers. plur. imper. not infin. WH. regard the decision difficult both here and 14:17, but prefer the infin. here as “justified by St. Luke’s manner of passing from oratio obliqua to oratio recta” (2. p. 309).
ἐ ᾧἔχμι “During the time in which I am coming,” i.e. the time until the return. For ἔχμιin the sense of “come back” comp. Joh_4:16 and esp. 21:22, 23. The meaning “to be on the journey” (Oosterz. Godet) is impossible for ἔχσα. The reading ἕς(TR. with E etc.) is an obvious correction of ἐ ᾧ(אA B D K L R etc.).
14. While the δῦο represent the disciples, the πλτιrepresent the Jew. The Jews hated Jesus without cause, ἐίηά μδρά (Joh_15:25; Psa_68:5): but they had reason enough for hating Archelaus, who had massacred about 3000 of them at the first Passover after his accession (Ant. xvii. 9. 3; B. J. ii. 1. 3).
ο θλμντῦο. They state no reasons: stat pro ratione voluntas. The τῦο is contemptuous (istum), or at least expresses alienation: “he is no man of ours.” So the Jews, of Christ
15. For κὶἀέεο…κὶεπν see note p. 45, and for ἐ τςἐαεθῖ see on 3:21. The double compound occurs only here and 10:35 in N.T. comp. ἐαάεν(5:3, 4). Both verbs occur in LXX.
τὺ δύοςτύοςος This implies that he had other slaves to whom nothing had been entrusted.
ἵαγο. For this form comp. Mar_5:43 and 9:30. TR. with A etc. has γῷin all three places. The τςafter γο (A R, syrr. Arm. Goth. Vulg.) is not genuine: om. אB D L Boh. Aeth. d e.
τ δεργαεσνο “What business they had done”: here only in bibl. Grk. In Dion. Hal. iii. 72, it means “attempt to execute.” He wants to know the result of their trafficking. But the word does not assume that they have “gained by trading” (AV. RV.); and hence negotiatus esset (Vulg.) is better than lucratus esset (f).
16. ἡμᾶσυποηγστ. “Thy pound worked out in addition, won”: modeste lucrum acceptum fert herili pecuniæ non industriæsuæ(Grot). Comp. οκἐὼδ ἀλ ἡχρςτῦΘο [ἡ σνἐο (1Co_15:10): see also 1Co_4:7. The verb occurs here only in bibl. Grk. Comp. Mat_25:16
17. εγ. In replies approving what has been said this is classical; but the reading is doubtful: εγ (B D, Latt., Orig. Ambr.), ε, possibly from Mat_15:21 (אA R etc., Syrr.).
ἐ ἐαίτ πσὸ ἐέο. “Thou didst prove faithful in a very little”: comp. 16:10. The management of £ was a small matter.
ἴθ ἐοσα ἔω. The periphrastic pres. imper. is not common in N.T. Comp. Gen_1:6; Burton., §97. Lk. is probably translating: Mt. is much more classical: ἐὶπλῶ σ κτσήω(25:21). For ἐοσα ἔενcomp. Mat_7:29.
18. With ἐοηε πνεμᾶ comp. ε μ ε τςατνἀγρο πιἰ(plat Rep. ix. 581 C): pecuniam facere is fairly common.
19. ἐάωγνυ “Come to be over, be promoted over.” In both cases the efficient servants “receive as their reward,—not anything they can sit down to and enjoy,—but a wider sphere of activity” (Latham, Pastor pastorum, p. 320). Urbs pro minâ minâne tugurium quidem emeretur. Magna rerum amplitudo ac varietas in regno Dei, quamvis nondum cognita nobis (Beng.).
20. κὶὁἕεο. The omission of the article in A and inferior MSS. is a manifest correction to avoid a difficulty. As there were ten servants, the third cannot rightly be spoken of as ὁἕεο. Weiss takes this as evidence that in the original parable there were only three servants, as in me Talents; and therefore as evidence that the two narratives represent the same original. But it would have been tedious to have gone through all the ten, which is a round number, as in the Ten Virgins. The three mentioned are samples of the whole ten. Some gained immensely, some considerably, mad some not at all. The two first classes having been described, the representative of the remaining class may be spoken of as ὁἕεο, especially as he is of quite a different kind. They both belong to the profitable division, he to the unprofitable.
ἣ εχνἀοεμνν “Which I was keeping stored up.” He is not owning a fault, but professing a virtue: “I have not lost or spent any of it.” In Col_1:5; 2Ti_4:8; Heb_9:27 the verb is used of what is “stored up” and awaits us in the future: here only in a literal sense.
σιαί. A Latinism: sudarium (Act_19:12; Joh_11:44, Joh_20:7). Comp. ἀσρο (12:6), λγώ (8:30), δνρο (10:35), κνυίν(Mar_15:39), κδάτς(Mat_5:26), etc.
21. ασηό. Here only in N.T. comp. 2 Mac. 14:30, and see Trench, Syn. xiv. The word originally means “rough to the taste, stringent.” It is in this servant’s plea and in the reply to it that the resemblance between the two parables of the Pounds and of the Talents is closest.
αρι ὅοκἔηα. Perhaps a current proverbial expression for a grasping person. We need not decide whether he means, “If I had gained anything, you would have taken it,” or, “If I had lost it, you would have held me responsible.” The general sense is “You are a strict man; and I have taken care that you should get back the exact deposit, neither more nor less.”
22. κίωσ. “Do I judge thee”; te judico (f Vulg.), condemno (e). Most editors prefer κιῶ “will I judge” (AV. RV.); judicabo (a d). But Tyn. has “judge I thee” and Luth. richte ich dich. Hist. pres. (λγι 13:8, 16:7, 29) is very rare in Lk.
The Latin Versions vary greatly in rendering πνρ; inique (d), infidelis (e ff2 i r), crudelis (b), nequa et piger (f), infidelis et piger (q), infidelis et male (a)nequam (Vulg.). Comp. Mat_18:32. The piger comes from Mat_25:26, πνρ δῦακὶὀνρ.
23. ἐὶτάεα. “On a banker’s table.” Here the interrogation ends, and κγ begins a declaratory sentence. It would have been very little trouble to put it in a bank. There the money would have been as safe as in the napkin, and would have borne interest. See Hastings, D.B. i. p. 580.
The often quoted saying, “Show yourselves tried bankers,” Γνσεταεῖα δκμι may easily be a genuine utterance of Christ. But if it is a mere adaptation, it comes from Mat_25:27 rather than from Lk. See Resch, Agrapha, pp. 118, 234; Wsctt. Int. to Gosp. App. C.
τκ. In N.T. the word occurs only in these parables; but is freq. in LXX; Deu_23:19; Lev_25:36, Lev_25:37; Exo_22:25, etc. The notion that money, being a dead thing, ought not to breed (τκῖ, τκς augmented the prejudice of the ancients against interest Aristotle condemns it as πρ φσν(Pol. i. 10. 4; comp. Eth. Nic. iv. 1. 40). Cicero represents Cato as putting it on a level with murder (De Off. ii. 25. 89). “The breed of barren metal” (Shaks.).
ἂ ατ ἔρξ. The protasis is readily understood from the previous question: comp. Heb_10:2. For this use of πάσι see on 3:13.
24. τῖ πρσῶι. His attendants, or body-guard, or courtiers: comp. 1Ki_10:8; Est_4:5. The man who had proved most efficient in service is rewarded with an additional sum with which to traffick for his sovereign.
25. The subject of επνand the meaning of ατ are uncertain. The common interpretation is that the attendants who have this order here express their surprise to the master who gave it; i.e. the remonstrance is part of the parable. But it is possible that Lk. is here recording an interruption on the part of the audience, and thus lets us see with what keen interest they have listened to the narrative. It is the audience who remonstrate with Christ for giving the story such a turn. They think that He is spoiling the parable in assigning the unused pound to the servant who has most and therefore seems to need it least (see on 20:15). But in any case the remonstrance serves to give to the declaration which follows. Comp. Peter’s interruption and Christ’s apparent ignoring of it 12:41, 42; and again 18:28, 29. In all the cases there is an indirect answer. A general principle is stated which covers the point in question.
Bleek rejects ver. 25 as an interpolation: om. D 69, b d e ff2q2, Syr-Cur. Syr-Sin. The difficulty might cause the omission. The insertion of γρafter λγ in ver. 26 (A D R, Syrr. Goth.) is due to a similar cause. Both omission and insertion may he influenced by Mat_25:28, Mat_25:29.
26. λγ ὑῖ. Whose words are these? The answer will partly depend upon the view taken of ver. 25. If the interruption is made by the king’s attendants, then ver. 26, like ver. 24 and ver. 27, gives the words of the king. But if the interruption comes from Christ’s audience, then ver. 26 may be His reply to the audience; after which He finishes the parable with the king’s words in ver. 27. The λγ ὑῖ does not prove that Christ is giving these words as His own: comp. 14:24. But in any case, either in His own person or in that of the king in the parable, Jesus is stating a principle which answers the objection in ver. 25. In Mat_25:29 this principle is uttered by the householder in the parable without λγ ὑῖ.
ἀὸδ τῦμ ἔοτς With this apparent paradox comp. 8:18, when an unused gift is spoken of, not as ὃἔε, but as ὃδκῖἔεν He alone possesses, who uses and enjoys his possessions.
27. πὴ τὺ ἐθοςμυτύος The τύοςrepresents the enemies as present to the thoughts of the audience: comp. τύοςin ver. 15. It is possible to take the pronoun with what follows, as in Syr-Sin. “Bring hither mine enemies, those who would not,” etc. And this makes one more witness for the reading ἐενυ (A D R etc., Latt. Syrr. Goth.), which almost all editors reject as a correction of τύος(אB K L M R, Aegyptt.). For πή comp. 18:8.
κτσάαεατὺ ἔποθνμυ Comp. ἔφξνΣμυλτνἈὰ ἐώινΚρο (1Sa_15:33). The punishment of rebellious subjects and active opponents is far more severe than that of neglectful servants. The compound κτσάωoccurs nowhere else in N.T., but is not rare in LXX. It means “hew them down, slay them utterly.” The destruction of Jerusalem and the doom of all who deliberately rebel against Christ are here Foreshadowed. Augustine more than once points to this sentence in answer to the objection that the severe God of the O.T. cannot be identical with the God of Love in the N.T. In the Gospels, as in the Law, the severity of God’s judgments against wilful disobedience is plainly taught. Comp. Con. Faust. xii. 14. 19.
The nobleman, who goes on a long journey and returns a king, is christ. He leaves behind Him servants of various degrees of merit, and enemies. When the King returns, each of these is rewarded or punished according to his deserts; and the rewards are larger opportunities of service. There is no special meaning in ten, which is a round number; nor in three, which gives a sufficiently representative classification. And it may be doubted whether there is any special meaning in the transfer of the and from the unprofitable to the most profitable servant. The point is that to neglect opportunites is to lose them; and that to make the most of opportunities is to gain others. The main lesson of the parable is the long period of christ’s absence, during which there will be abundant time for both service and rebellion. There is not to be, as the disciples fancied, immediate triumph and joy for all; but, first a long time of probation, and then triumph and joy for those only who have earned them, and in exact proportion to their merits.
28. Historical conclusion, corresponding to the historical introduction in ver. 11.
ἐοεεοἔπσε. “He went on before.” Although the ατνis not expressed, this probably means “in front of the disciples”: comp. Mar_10:32. But ἔποθνmay = εςτ ἔποθν(ver. 4), as ὀίω= εςτ ὀίω(Mat_24:18): in which case the meaning would be, “He went forwards” from Jericho towards Jerusalem. With ἀααννComp. κτβιε (10:30) of the opposite route.
D omits ἔρσε and a d have simply ibat; c ff2 i l q r s abiit, while Vulg. has præ D inserts δ after ἀαανν Syr-Sin. reads, “And when He had said these things, they went out from there. And as He was going up to Jerusalem, and had reached Bethphage,” etc.
19:29-21:38. THE LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING
29-40. The Triumphal Procession to Jerusalem. Mat_21:1-11; Mar_11:1-11. Comp. Joh_12:1-19. “The Journeyings towards Jerusalem” are over, and Lk. now permanently rejoins the other Gospels in describing the concluding scenes. As compared with them, he has both additions and omissions. He omits the supper at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, which Mt. and Mk. place without date after the triumphal entry, but which Jn. states to have taken place before the entry. Lk. has already given a similar incident, a meal at which Jesus is a guest and a woman anoints Him (7:36-50), and perhaps for that reason omits the supper at Bethany. The chronology may be tentatively arranged thus. Jn. tells us that Jesus arrived at Bethany six days before the Passover, viz. Nisan 8, a day on which pilgrims often arrived at Jerusalem, as Josephus states. Assuming that the year is a.d. 30, Nisan 8 would be Friday, March 31. Jesus and His disciples reached Bethany that afternoon, either before the Sabbath began, or after having done no more than “a sabbath day’s journey” after it began. But the chronology of these last days, as of the whole of our Lord’s life, is uncertain. At Bethany He would part from the large caravan of pilgrims in whose company He had been travelling. Most of these would press on to Jerusalem. See Wieseler, Chron. Syn. v. 2, Eng. tr. p. 358, and comp. Caspari, Chron. Einl. §165, Eng. tr. p. 217.
29. βθαή Accent, derivation, and site are all doubtful. But Βθαή is preferable to Βθαῆ the meaning is probably “House of unripe figs,” and the situation must have been near Bethany. See Robinson, Res. in pal. i. 433; Stanley, Sin. & Pal. p. 422; D. B.2 s.v. Caspari, following Lightfoot, contends that Bethphage was not a village, but a whole district, including Bethany and all that lay between it and Jerusalem. The meaning in this case would be, that Jesus drew near to the district Bethphage and to the particular spot in it called Bethany (Chron. Einl. § 145, Eng. tr. pp. 189-191). The passage is worthy of study. In N.T. Bethphage is mentioned in these three narratives only; in O.T. not at all. The Talmud says that it was east of the walls of Jerusalem. Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome knew it, but do not describe its position. Its being placed first points to its being more important than Bethany.
The derivation of Bethany is still more uncertain, but its site is well ascertained. The conjecture “House of dates” is confirmed by the adjacent “House of figs” and “Mount of olives.” The names point to the ancient fertility of the neighbourhood.
τ κλύεο Ἐαῶ. Here also there is doubt about the accent, which in this case, as in κίω(ver. 22), affects the meaning. In Mt. and Mk. the article, τνἘαῶ, shows that the word is gen. plur.; but here, with Lach. Tisch. Treg. and others, we may write Ἐαώ, as nom. sing. In that awe the name is treated as a sound and not declined. In 21:37 the same doubt arises. Act_1:12 We have Ἐαῶο. as in Ant. vii. 9. 2, from Ἐαώ, Olivetum, “an olive-grove, Olivet.” But ver. 37 and the parallels in Mt. and Mk. render Ἐαῶ the more probable here (WH. 2. App. p. 158: so also Hahn, wittichen, and Wetzel). The fact that Ἐαῶ commonly has the article is not decisive (Field, otium Norvic. 3. p. 53), Jos. B. J. ii. 13. 5, v. 2. 3, vi. 2. 8 are all doubtful; but both Bekker and Dindorf edit Ἐαῶ in all three places. Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 208.
In ver. 29 note the characteristic ἐέεοand κλύεο: In the latter we have an indication that Lk. is writing for those not familiar with Palestine: comp. 21:37, 22:1. Neither occurs in the parallels in Mt.and Mk. Note also ὡ = “when” and ἤγσν
30. Ὑάεε So also Mk., while Mt. has his favourite πρύσε The details which Mk. alone records render the conjecture that Peter was one of the two who were sent reasonable.
τνκτννικμν Whether Bethany, or Bethphage, or an unnamed village, is quite uncertain. This compound preposition is not found in profane writers, but is common in bibl. Grk. (Mat_21:2; Mar_11:2; Rom_4:17; 2Co_12:19; Exo_19:2, Exo_32:5, etc). L & S Lex. quote C. I. 2905 D. 13.
ἐʼὂ οδὶ ππτ ἀθώω ἐάιε. This intimates to the disciples that it is no ordinary journey which He contemplates, but a royal progress: comp. Deu_21:3; Num_19:2; 1Sa_6:7. The birth of a virgin and the burial in a new tomb are facts of he same kind.
31. οτςἐετ ὅι Vulg. and AV. make ὅιthe answer to Δὰτ; So also Mey. and Hahn. But in Mat_21:3 we have ὅιand no δὰτ; In both places the ὅιis recitative. Comp. 7:16, 22:70.
Ὁκρο. This rather implies that the owner has some knowledge of Jesus. Lk. omits the assurance that the owner will send the colt. That the whole had been previously arranged by Jesus is Possible, for He gives no intimation that it was not so. But the impression produced by the narratives is that the knowledge is supernatural, which on so momentous an occasion would be in harmony with His purpose. Comp. Joh_14:29, Joh_16:32, Joh_21:8, and see on Luk_22:10, Luk_22:13, Luk_22:34. As Godet points out, this prophetic knowledge must not be confounded with omniscience.
32. κθςεπν “Exactly as He said.” This κθς in slightly different connexions, is in all three narratives. Mt. has “they did even as He appointed”; Mk., “they said to them even He said”; Lk., “they found even as He said.” They could not have done and said just what He had commanded, unless the facts had been such as He had foretold. Lk. and Mk., as writing for Gentiles, take no notice of the prophecy in Zec_9:9, which both Mt. and Jn. quote.
Justin, in order to make the incident a fulfilment of Gen_49:11, “Binding his foal unto the vine,” etc., says that