Tuesday, May 30th, 2023
the Week of Proper 3 / Ordinary 8
the Week of Proper 3 / Ordinary 8
International Critical Commentary NT International Critical
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Driver, S.A., Plummer, A.A., Briggs, C.A. "Commentary on Luke 24". International Critical Commentary NT. https://studylight.org/
commentaries/ eng/ icc/ luke-24.html. 1896-1924.
Driver, S.A., Plummer, A.A., Briggs, C.A. "Commentary on Luke 24". International Critical Commentary NT. https://studylight.org/
- Henry's Complete
- Clarke Commentary
- Bridgeway Bible Commentary
- Coffman's Commentaries
- Carroll's Biblical Interpretation
- Barnes' Notes
- Bullinger's Companion Notes
- Bell's Commentary
- College Press
- Smith's Commentary
- Dummelow on the Bible
- Constable's Expository Notes
- Darby's Synopsis
- Ellicott's Commentary
- Expositor's Dictionary
- Hole's Commentary
- Meyer's Commentary
- Gaebelein's Annotated
- Morgan's Exposition
- Gill's Exposition
- Everett's Study Notes
- Geneva Study Bible
- Commentary Critical Unabridged
- Gray's Concise Commentary
- Parker's The People's Bible
- Sutcliffe's Commentary
- Trapp's Commentary
- Kretzmann's Commentary
- Lange's Commentary
- Grant's Commentary
- MacLaren's Expositions
- Henry's Complete
- Henry's Concise
- Poole's Annotations
- Pett's Commentary
- Peake's Commentary
- Preacher's Homiletical
- Poor Man's Commentary
- Benson's Commentary
- Scofield's Notes
- The Biblical Illustrator
- Coke's Commentary
- The Expositor's Bible Commentary
- The Pulpit Commentaries
- Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
- Wesley's Notes
- Whedon's Commentary
- Henry's Complete
- Abbott's NT
- Orchard's Catholic Commentary
- Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary
- Daily Study Bible
- Expositor's Greek Testament
- Family Bible NT
- Godbey's NT Commentary
- Alford's Greek Testament Commentary
- Meyer's Commentary
- Bible Study NT
- Bengel's Gnomon
- People's NT
- Robertson's Word Pictures
- Schaff's NT Commentary
- Vincent's Studies
- Burkitt's Expository Notes
- Daily Study Bible
- Golden Chain Commentary
- McGarvey'S Commentaries
- Ryle's Exposiory Thougths
- Fourfold Gospel
- Gospels Compared
- Lapide's Commentary
- Godet on Selected Books
- International Critical
- Ironside's Notes
- Layman's Bible Commentary
- Restoration Commentary
- Utley Commentary
- Kelly Commentary
- Zerr's N.T. Commentary
24. The Resurrection and the Ascension.
It is well known that the difficulty of harmonizing the different accounts of the Resurrection given by the Evangelists and by S. Paul is great; and this difficulty is perhaps at a maximum when the narrative of Lk, is compared with the others. Here, as so often in the Gospels, we have not sufficient knowledge to piece together the different fragments which have come down to us, and consequently the evidence for important facts is not what we might antecedently have expected or desired. But our expectations and wishes are not adequate criteria, and it is no paradox to say that the difficulty of harmonizing the various narratives is in itself a security for their general truthfulness. Dishonest witnesses would have made the evidence more harmonious. As it is, each witness fearlessly tells his own story according to the knowledge which he possesses, and is not careful as to whether it agrees with what may have been told elsewhere. Nevertheless there is agreement in the following important particular:—
1. Resurrection itself is not described. Like all beginnings, whether in nature or in history, it is hidden from view. (Contrast the attempt at description in the Gospel of Peter.)
2. The manifestations, while confined to disciples, were made to disciples who were wholly unexpectant of a Resurrection. The theory that they were visions or illusions, arising from intense and unreasoning expectation, is contrary to all the evidence that has come down to us. On the contrary,
3. They were received with doubt and hesitation at first, and mere reports on the subject were rejected.
4. The evidence begins with the visit of women to the tomb very early on the first day of the week, and the first sign was the removal of the stone from the door of the tomb.
5. Angels were seen before the Lord was seen.
6. He was seen on various occasions by various kinds of witnesses, male and female, both individuals and companies, both sceptical and trusting.
7. The result was a conviction, which nothing ever shook, that “the Lord own indeed” and present with them (see Wsctt. on John 20:1: he gives a tentative arrangement of the events of the first Easter Day, which at least shows that there is no serious discrepancy between the four narratives)
Sadler asserts, and Godet endeavours to show, that each narrative is determined by the purpose which each Evangelist had in view in writing; but in most cases the distinctions are not very convincing. Nearly the whole of Lk.’s narrative is peculiar to him, the partial exceptions being vv. 1-6 and 9, 10. The nucleus of the whole is the account of the walk to Emmaus (vv. 13-43); and the first part of the chapter is an introduction to this graphic account, with special reference to vv. 22, 23.See Loofs, Die Aufstehungsberichte.
An excellent opportunity of comparing six forms of the Old Latin (a b c d e f) with one another and with the Vulgate is given in Scrivener’s edition of Codex Bezae in connexion with a large portion of this chapter. He prints the first twenty-four verses of this chapter as given in these authorities in seven parallel columns (pp. 36, 37). This passage is “rich in peculiar and idiomatic expressions, and little liable to be corrupted from the Synoptic Gospels.” The result, he thinks, is to show that the Latin of Codex Bezae was made “immediately from its Greek text,” which it generally servilely follows; but that occasionally the translator was led away by his recollection of the Old Latin, “sometimes for whole verses together,” even when the Old Latin differed from e Greek text which be was translating. Adhuc sub judice lis est.
1-11. The Visit of the Women to the Tomb and the Vision of Angels. Comp, Matthew 28:1-10; Mark 16:1-8; John 20:1-10. Lk. and Jn. mention two Angels; Mt. and Mk. mention only one: but we know too little about the manner of Angel appearances to be sure that Lk. and Jn. mention the same two Angels, or that Mt. and Mk. mention the same one. In the other two cases of similar difference (the Gerasene demoniacs and the blind men at Jericho) it is Mt. who mentions two, while Lk. gives only one. In all three cases Mk. mentions only one. Where, out of two or more, only one is spokesman, he is necessarily remembered. The other or others may easily be ignored or forgotten. It is an exaggeration to call such differences absolute discrepancies. Lk. records only those appearances of the risen Lord which took place in Judæa.
1. τῇ δὲ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων. “But on the first day of the week.” The δέ corresponds to the previous μέν: they rested on the sabbath, but the next day they did not. Jn. has the same expression (20:1), which literally means “but on day one of the week,” una antem sabbati (Vulg.). Cov. here translates “upon one of the Sabbathes,” and in Jn. “upon one daye of the Sabbath.” But here with Cran. he rightly has “But” (RV.) and not “And” (Rhem.) or “Now” (AV.).
Comp. Acts 20:7; Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; John 20:19; Revelation 9:12. This use of the cardinal for the ordinal is Hebraistic: Genesis 1:5; Esther 3:6; Psa_23. tit. In class. Grk. it occurs only in combination with an ordinal: τῷ ἐνὶ καὶ τριηκοστῷ (Hdt. v. 89, 2).
ὅρθρου βαθέως. It is doubtful whether βαθέως is the Attic form of the gen. of βαθύς (De W. Nösg. Alf.) or an adv. (Mey. Weiss). The former is probable; for ὅρθρος βαθύς occurs (Aristoph Vesp.216; Plat. Crit. 43 A; see esp. Prot. 310 A; Philo, De Vita Mosis, i. 32), and 2 Corinthians 11:23 does not favour the latter. For ὅρθρου comp. [Jn.] 8:2, Jeremiah 25:4, Jeremiah 26:5.
τὸ μνῆμα. With the exception of Mark 5:3, Mark 5:5, Mark 5:15:46; Revelation 11:9, the word is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (8:27, 23:53; Acts 2:29, Acts 7:16). The common word is μνημεῖον (11:44, 47, 23:55, 24:2, 9, 12, 22, 24, etc.); but Mt sometimes has τάφος (23:27, 29, 27:61, 64. 66, 28:1; comp. Romans 3:13). RV. “tomb” for μνῆμα and μνημεῖον and “sepulchre” for τάφος.
A C2 D X Λ etc. d f q Syrr. (Cur. Sin. Pesh. Harcl. Hier.) Sah. Arm. Aeth. (most MSS.) add καί τινες σὺν αὐταῖς, and D c d Sah. add from Mark 16:3 ἐλογίζοντο δὲ ἐν ἐανταῖς τίς ἅρα�Mark 16:1, Mark 16:3.
2. εὖρον δὲ τὸν λίθον. Lk. has not yet mentioned it, but he speaks of it as well known or as usual. All three use�Genesis 29:3, Genesis 29:8, Genesis 29:10; Judith 13:9.
3. τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ. The combination occurs nowhere else in the Gospels, although possibly right [Mk.] 16:19; but it is frequent in Acts (1:21, 4:33, 8:16, etc.) and Epistles. Here the words are possibly a very early insertion. See note on Western Noninterpolations at the end of this chapter.
4. καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῶ�
The Latin Versions differ greatly. dum aporiarentur (d), hæsitarent (f), stuperent (a c) ments contristarentur (ff2). mente consternatæ essent (Vulg,). The last is wrong both in verb and tense.Aporiari occurs in vulg. 2 Corinthians 4:8; Isaiah 59:16; Ecclus. 18:6, and in Irenæus, ii. 7. 1. 2.
ἄνδρες δύο. The plur. agrees with�Acts 1:10, Acts 1:10:30; for ἐπέστησαν see on 2:9; and for ἐσθής see on 23:11. Only here and 17:24 in N. T. does�
Instead of ἐσθῆτι�Acts 1:10 only. See Deissmann, Bible Studies. p. 263.
The contrast between the Gospel of Peter and the Canonical Gospels is still more marked in the account of the Resurrection than in that of the Passion. There the watchers see δύο ἄνδρας come down from heaven; and�
5. ἐφόβων δὲ γενομένων. In N. T. the use of ἔμφοβος (always with γίνεσθαι is almost confined to Lk. (ver. 37; Acts 10:4, Acts 10:24:25; Revelation 11:13): in LXX (without γίνεσθαι) Ecclus. 19:24. The detail κλινουσῶν τὰ πρόσωπα εἰς τ. γῆν is peculiar to Lk Note πρὸς αὐτάς: Mt. and Mk. have the dat.
Τί ζητεῖτε τὸν ζῶντα μετὰ τῶν νεκρῶν; A rebuke: comp. 2:49 There is possibly a reference to Isaiah 8:19, τί ἐκζητοῦσιν περὶ τῶν ζώντων τοὺς νεκρούς; They ought to have remembered His assurance that on the third day He would rise again.
6. οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε,�Mark 16:6 = Matthew 28:6 may be suspected: see now at the end of this chapter.
μνήσθητε. Angels “may be employed in endless ways of which we can form no idea, but we have Scripture warrant for supposing that they call things to remembrance, and it is not going much her to suppose that they put thoughts into people’s minds” (Latham, A Service of Angels; p, 162).
ὡς ἐλάλησεν ὑμῖν. The ὡς is not exactly ὅτι, but suggests the wording of the statement: in both 9:22 and 18:32, 33 the important “on the third day” is predicted. The whole of this to end of ver. 8 is peculiar to Lk. On the other hand Lk, who records no appearances in Galilee, omits προάγει ὑμᾶς εἰς τήν Γαλιλαίαν, which refers back to Mark 14:28; Matthew 26:32.
7. δεῖ. See on 4:43 and 9:22.
9. ὑποστρέψασαι. Lk.’s favourite word: Mt. has�
ἀπήγγειλαν. Mt. says the same (28:8), but Mk. says οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπαν, ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ. If we had the conclusion of Mk.’s Gospel we should know how this apparent contradiction is to be explained. Obviously they did not remain silent about it for the rest of their lives, but only so long as fear kept them silent. When the fear passed away, they told their tale to the disciples (not merely to the Apostles) in accordance with the angelic charge (Matthew 28:7). But it is perhaps simpler to suppose that Mt. and Lk. here give, as Mt. and Mk. do in the case of the crucified robbers, the tradition which was generally current, and which attributed to all the women what was true of only one, viz. Mary Magdalen. She on her return told the Apostles, while the others kept silence through fear. A little later no doubt all told to all. Note the characteristic πάντα and πᾶσιν. Mt. has neither, and he sums up “the Eleven and all the rest” in τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ.
10. The other Evangelists give the names of the women at the beginning of the narrative. All four place Mary Magdalen first, and Jn. mentions no one else; but οὐκ οἴδαμεν (20:2) implies that others were with her. “Mary the [mother] of James” or “the other Mary” is mentioned by all three; Joana by Lk. alone, and Salome by Mk. alone. For Joana see on 8:3: it is from her that Lk. may have got both these details, and also what he relates 23:8-12. Here only does the order ἡ Μαγδ. Μαρία occur: elsewhere Μαρία ἡ Μαγδ. (so D here).
All English Versions previous to RV. follow a false reading, and make one sentence of this verse. There are two sentences. “Now they were Mary Magdalen, and Joana, and Mary the mother of James”: these were the women specially referred to in ver. 9. “Also the other women with them told these things unto the Apostles.” The evidence against the second αί (before ἔλεγον) is overwhelming (א* A B C A L G H etc. b d e ff2 q Sah. Aeth.), and the reason for its insertion is obvious.
Syr-Cur. and Syr-Sin. interpret ἡ Ἰακώβου “the daughter of James.” There is little doubt that “mother” is meant, and that James is not the Lord’s brother, the first president of the Church of Jerusalem. She is called “the mother of James and Joses” (Mark 15:40), and “the mother of Joses” (Mark 15:47); and she is probably the same as “Mary the [wife] of Clopas” (John 19:25). See J.B. Mayor, Ep. of St. James, Macmillan, 1892, p. 15, perhaps the best discussion of the vexed question about the brethren of the Lord.
11. ἐνώπιον αὐτῶν . “In their sight,” in the judgment of the Apostles and others; apud illos (c), in conspeetu eorum (d), coram illis (f) apostolis (1). For ἐνώπιον see small print on 1:15, and for ὠσεί on 1:56.
λῆρος. “Nonsense”; the word “is applied in medical language to the wild talk of the sick in delirium” (Hobart): comp. 4 Mac. 5:11: here only in N.T. derisus (d), delira (a), deliramentum (f Vulg.). The incredulity with which mere reports were received is noted [Mk.] 16:11. Even S. John did not infer from the disappearance of the body that He had risen until he had examined the tomb himself (John 20:8). Apparently no one had understood Christ’s predictions of His rising again. They were interpreted of His return in glory, either with a new body or as an incorporeal being. No Apostle had grasped the fact that He would be killed, buried, and raised again to life. They had seen Him dead, and women’s talk about Angels who said that He was alive did not cancel that.
τὰ ρ̀ήματα ταῦτα. (א B D L, a b c d e l q Vulg. Sah. Boh. Syr-Cur. Aeth.) is certainly to be preferred to τὰ ῥήματα αὐτῶν (A I X Γ Δ etc. f Arm.). Syr-Sin. has “They appeared in their eyes as if they had spoken these words from their wonder.” For neut. plur.with plur. verb comp. John 19:31.
12. § The Visit of Peter to the Tomb.
The whole of this verse is of unknown and doubtful authority. It is absent from important Western documents, and has the look of an insertion. Its source is probably John 20:3-10, part of what is there said of “the other disciple” (ver. 5) being here transferred to S. Peter. The only words which are not found in John 20:3-10 are�Acts 7:31). Perhaps the hypothesis of an insertion made in a second edition is here admissible. See note on Western Noninterpolations at the end of this chapter.
The verse has probably no connexion with what precedes. Certainly it does not give the reason why the Apostles disbelieved, viz. because Peter had already been to the tomb and seen no Angels but only grave-cloths. That would require γάρ for δέ and the pluperf. The δέ would rather mark a contrast; although they disbelieved, yet Peter went to the grave to satisfy himself. Didon supposes two visits of Peter to the tomb, one with John when Mary Magdalen reported the tomb empty, and a second when she reported that she had seen Angels and the Lord Himself (J.C. ch. 12. p. 797). More probably this verse (whatever its source) is an imperfect account of the visit of Peter with John.
τὰ ὀθόνια μόνα. “The grave-cloths without the body.”
This is the reading of אc b B, Syr-Cur. Syr-Sin. Bob. Sah., omitting κείμενα, while א* A K Π omit μόνα. L, cf Arm. have μόνα κείμενα, I X Γ Δ etc. κείμενα μόνα. Cod. Am. has posita only, but many MSS. of Vulg. have sola posita.
πρὸς αὑτόν . So B L, the rest reading πρὸς ἐαυτόν. The words are amphibolous (comp. 23:35, 43, 50), and may be taken either with�Rev_1 Hahn), or with θαυμάζων, “wondering with himself” (Vulg. Luth. AV. Rev_2). But does αὑτόν for ἑαυτόν occur in N.T.?
13-32. The Manifestation to the Two Disciples at Emmaus. This narrative forms a counterpart to that of the manifestation to Mary Magdalen in Jn. There is a condensed allusion to the incident in the appendix to Mk. (16:12, 13); but the narrative is peculiar to Lk. and is among the most beautiful of the treasures which he alone has preserved for us. He almost certainly obtained his information from one of the two disciples, and probably in writing. The account has all the effect of personal experience. If this is accepted, then Cleopas may be regarded as the narrator; for Lk. would know and be likely to name the person from whom he received the account.
The fact that Lk. was almost certainly a Gentile (Colossians 4:10-14), and that in the preface to his Gospel he indicates that he was not an eye-witness, renders the conjecture of Theophylact. that Lk. was the unnamed disciple who went with Cleopas to Emmaus, very improbable. This disciple was evidently a Jew (vv. 20, 27, 32) or a proselyte. Lk. may have been a proselyte before he was a Christian, and his preface may mean no more than that he was not one of those “which from the beginning were eye-witnesses”: but nothing is gained by such conjectures. In the Acts he uses the first person plural, when he himself was present. Why does he not do the same here, if he was one of the two? It would have added greatly to “the certainty” which he wished to impart to Theophilus, if he had assured him that he himself had talked and eaten with Jesus on the very day of His Resurrection. But the hypothesis still finds sup porters, e.g. Lange, Godet, Bp. Alexander. Origen twice gives Simon as the name of the unnamed disciple (Cels. 2:62, 68). This may be an erroneous interpretation of ὥφθη Σίμωνι (ver. 34). Epiphanius conjectures Nathanaei, which could hardly be right, if Nathanael is Bartholomew (ver. 33). But all such conjectures are worthless. Probably Lk. himself did not know who the other was.
13. Καὶ ἰδού. As often, introduces something new and unexpected: 1:20, 31, 36, 2:25, 5:12, 18, 7:12, etc.
δύο ἐξ αὐτῶν. Not of the Apostles (ver. 10), as is shown by ver. 33, but of the disciples generally. A direct reference to πᾶσιν τοῖς λοιποῖς (ver. 9) is not manifest. For ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳsee sma1l print on 10:7, and contrast AV. and RV.
ἐξήκοντα. The reading ἕκατον ἐξήκοντα (א I K1N1Π and some other Gk. Lat. and Syr. authorities) is “an Alexandrian geographical correction, though not of the type of Γεργεσηνῶν or Βηθαβαρά; evidently arising from identification of this Emmaus with the better known Emmaus which was later called Nicopolis. The identification is distinctly laid down by Eus. Hier. Soz., though they do not refer to the distance” (WH. 2: App. p. 72). Syr-Sin. has “threescore.”
Ἐμμαούς. The fortified town afterwards called Nicopolis cannot be meant, although all Christian writers from Eusebius to the twelfth century assume that it is meant. It is 176 stadia, or 20 English miles, from Jerusalem; and it is absurd to suppose that these two walked about 20 miles out, took their evening meal, walked 20 miles back, and arrived in time to find the disciples still gathered together and conversing (ver. 33). Yet Robinson contends for it (Res in Psa_3. pp. 147-151). El Kubeibeh, Which Isa_63 stadia from Jerusalem, on the road to Lydda, is probably the place. It is about 7 miles N.W. of Jerusalem, in the beautiful Wady Beit Chanina, and the tradition in its favour dates from the crusades. Of other conjectures, Kulonieh and Beit Mizzeh are too near (36 to 40 stades), and Khamasa is not near enough (72 stades). But Caspari is very confident that Kulonieh is right (p. 242). See D.B.2 and Schaff’s Herzog, art. “Emmaus”; also Didon, J.C. App. U.
14. καὶ αὐτοὶ ὡμίλουν. If αὐτοί has any special force, it is “and they communed”—as well as those mentioned in ver. 10. Among the disciples this was the topic of conversation. The verb is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (ver. 15; Acts 20:11, Acts 24:26). The meaning of “converse, talk with” is classical, and survives in mod. Gk.
Vulg. leads the way in translating ὁμιλεῖν differently in ver. 14 (loque bantur, “talked” AV.) and ver. 15 (fabularentur, “communed” AV.). See footnote on 2:9.
15. καὶ αὐτὸς Ἰησοῦς. B omits καί, which makes no difference to the sense, but is the common constr. after ἐγένετο: see note at the end of ch.1 “It came to pass. that Jesus Himself” about whom they were talking.
ἐγγίσας. He overtook them, for they assume that He comes from Jerusalem (ver. 18), from which they are walking.
16. ἐκρατοῦντο. There is no need to assume a special act of will on the part of Christ, “who would no be seen by them till the time when He saw fit.” They were preoccupied and had no expectation of meeting Him, and there is good reason for believing that the risen Saviour had a glorified body which was not at once recognized. Comp. ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ in the appendix to Mk. (16:12), the terror of the disciples (ver. 37), the mistake of Mary Magdalen (John 20:14, John 20:15), and the ignorance of the Apostles on the lake (John 21:4). But it is quite possible that the Evangelist understands the non-recognition of Jesus here and the recognition of Him afterwards (ver. 31) to be the results of Divine volition. For κρατεῖσθαι comp. Acts 2:24. See on 18:34.
τοῦ μή. This may mean either “in order that they might not” or “so that they did not.” If the latter is adopted, the negative may be regarded as pleonastic. “Were holden from knowing” easily passes into “were holden so that they did not know,” or “were holden that they might not know.” Comp. κατέπαυσαν τοῦμὴ θύειν (Acts 14:18) ; κωλῦσαι τοῦ μὴ βαπτισθῆναι (Acts 10:47); οὐχ ὑτεστειλάμην τοῦ μὴ�Acts 20:27): see also Genesis 16:2; Psalms 34:14, etc. ; Win. 64:4. b, p. 409. For ἐπιγνῶναι comp. Acts 12:14, Acts 27:39.
καὶ ἐστάθησαν σκυθρωποί. This is the reading of א B, e Boh: Sah. It is supported by the ἔστησαν of L, and probably by the erasure in A. It is adopted by Tisch. Treg. WH. Weiss, RV., but contended against by Field, ot. Noiv.3. p. 6o. With this reading the question ends at περιπατοῦντες For σκυθρωποί comp. Matthew 6:16; Genesis 11:7; Ecclus. 25:23.
18. ὀνόματι κλεόπας . See on 5:27. The name is not to be identified with Κλωπᾶς (John 19:25), which is Aramaic, whereas Κλεόπας ( = Κλεόπατρος is Greek. The incorrect spelling Cleophas (AV.) comes from some Latin MSS. The mention of the name is a mark of reality.
Σὺ μόνος παροικεῖς Ἰερουσαλήμ. The pronoun is emphatic. The μόνος cannot mean “only a stranger” (AV.), but either “the only stranger” or “a lonely stranger,” i.e. either “Dost thou alone sojourn at J.,” or “Dost thou sojourn alone at J.” The former is more probable: see Wetst. and Field for examples. The verb occurs only here and Hebrews 11:9 in N.T., but is common in LXX of being a stranger or sojourner (Genesis 21:23, Genesis 21:34; Genesis 24:3, etc.). Comp. πάροικος (Acts 7:6, Acts 7:29) and παροικία (Acts 13:17). The usual construction would be ἐν Ἰερουσαλήμ: but we have γῆν ἥν παροικεῖς (Genesis 17:8; Exodus 4:4).
19. Ποῖα ; “What kind of things?” The question leads them on to open their hearts, and He is able to instruct them.
ὅς ἐγένετο�Acts 1:16, Acts 1:2:29, 37, Acts 1:7:2, etc.); or mere amplification, προφήτης being a kind of adjective.
δυνατὸς ἐν ἔργῳ. Comp. Acts 7:22, Acts 7:18:24; Ecclus. 21:8; Judith 11:8. In class. Grk. without ἐν. In Ps. Sol. 17:38, 42 we have both constructions, but in a sense different from this, With the order comp. 2 Thessalonians 2:17: usually λόγος καὶ ἔργον ἐναντίον. He proved Himself to be all this before God and man; but no more than this. In thinking Him to be more they had made a mistake.
20. It is not out of any favour to the Romans (Renan) that Lk. does not mention their share in the crime. Lk. alone tells us that Roman soldiers mocked Jesus on the cross (22:36). And here their share (which was notorious and irrelevant) is implied in παρέδωκαν and ἐσταύρωσαν.
21. ἡμεῖς δὲ ἠλπίζομεν. “But we were hoping,” until His death put an end to our expectation, “that precisely He,” and no other, “was the one who should redeem Israel.” Comp. the use of ὁ μέλλων in 22:23; Matthew 11:14; John 12:4.
λυτροῦσθαι. “To cause to be released to oneself, set free for oneself the slave of another, redeem, ransom.” Comp. Titus 2:4; Deuteronomy 13:5; 2 Samuel 7:23; Hosea 13:14.
The οἱ δὲ εἶπαν justifies us in concluding that vv. 19-24 were spoken partly by Cleopas and partly by his companion. But the attempt to assign definite portions to each (19, 20 to Cl., 21a to the other, 21b to Cl., and so on) is wasted ingenuity.
ἀλλά γε. The combination occurs elsewhere in N.T. 1 Corinthians 9:2. In class. Grk. another particle must immediately follow, and with this the γε coalesces, as�
σὺν πᾶσιν τούτοις. Super hæc omnia (Vulg.): rather a lax use of σύν, Comp. Neh. v. 18; 3 Mac. 1:22. Syr-Sin. omits.
τρίτην ταύτην ἡμέραν ἄγει. The verb is probably impersonal. “one is keeping the third day, we are at the third day” (Grot. Beng. De W. Nösg. Wordsw. Hahn). Perhaps we may understand ὁ Ἰησοῦς (Mey. Godet, Weiss, Alf): the speaker has an impression that there was a prediction about the third day. But it is not probable that either ὁ ἥλιος, or ὁ οὐρανός or χρόνος or Ἰσραήλ is to be supplied. Comp. περιέχει ἐν γραφῇ (1 Peter 2:6). The σήμερον after ἄγει (A P X Γ Δ etc. Syr-Pesh. Sah. Aeth. Vulg.) may be omitted (א B G, Boh. Syr-Cur. Syr-Sin. Arm.) with Tisch. WH. RV.
ἐξ ἡμῶν: and therefore not wanton deceivers. With ἐξέστησαν comp. ἐξιστάνων Acts 8:9: the trans. use is found nowhere else in N.T. There should perhaps be a colon at ἡμᾶς. To put a colon (AV.) or semicolon (RV.,) at μνηνεῖον implies that the being early at the tomb was the astonishing thing. Better “amazed us: having been early at the tomb and having failed to find His body, they came, saying,” etc. ὀρθρινός is a later form of ὄρθριος
23. ἦλθαν λέγουσαι …οἵ λέγουσιν. It is all hearsay evidence and unsatisfactory; but it is sufficiently disturbing. For the constr. see Burton., § 343.
25.�Galatians 3:1, Galatians 3:3; 1 Timothy 6:9; Titus 3:3), ἄσοφος (Ephesians 5:15), ἄφρων (11:40, 12:20; 1 Corinthians 15:36, etc.), μωρός Matthew 5:22, Matthew 5:23:17, (19); 1 Corinthians 3:18, 1 Corinthians 4:10). The latter two are much stronger in meaning than the former two. Here the Latin translations vary between insensati (a c d e) and stulti (f Vulg.), as in 11:40 between insipientes (c) and stulti (f Vulg.): 12:20 and Matthew 23:17 all have stultus, ML v. 22 all fatuus.
βραδεῖς…τοῦ πιστεύειν ἐπὶ πᾶσιν οἵς. The gen. is one of limitation depending upon βραδεῖς which occurs here and James 1:19 only. Comp. ἐτοιμοι τοῦ�Acts 23:15): ἐτοιμοι τοῦ ἐλθεῖν (1 Mac. 5:39). Elsewhere Lk. has the acc. after πιστεύειν ἐπί (Acts 9:42, Acts 11:17, Acts 16:31, Acts 22:19), in all which cases the object of the belief is a person. The difference is between faith resting upon, and faith directed towards, an object. Note the characteristic attraction: see small print on 3:19.
ἐπὶ πᾶσιν οἶς ἐλάλησαν οἱ προφῆται. There is special point in the πᾶσιν. Like most Jews. they remembered only the promises of the glories of the Messiah. and ignored the predictions of His sufferings. We cannot well separate ἐπὶ πᾶσιν from πιστεύειν and take ἐπί= “on the top of, after, in spite of”: “slow of heart to believe. in spite of all that the Prophets have spoken” (Hahn). Still more unnatural is Hofmann’s proposal to transfer these words to the next verse: “On the basis of all that the Prophets have spoken ought not Christ,” etc.
26. οὐχὶ ταῦτα ἔδει. “Behoved it not the Christ to suffer these very things and thus enter into His glory?” According to the Divine decree respecting the Messiah as expressed in prophecy, precisely the things which these two had allowed to destroy their hopes were a confirmation of them, The ταῦτα stands first with emphasis: for ἔδει comp. 9:22, 13:33, 17:25, etc. There is no need to understand δεῖ with εἰδελθεῖν in order to make it clear that He had not yet entered. Grammatically ἔδει belongs to both verbs, but it chiefly influences παθεῖν: the suffering comes first, and is the road to the glory. Comp. ver. 46. The same is said of Christ’s followers Acts 14:22.
27.�Genesis 3:15, Genesis 3:22:18; Numbers 24:17; Deuteronomy 18:15, and such types as the scape-goat, the manna, the brazen serpent, and the sacrifices, are specially meant. Comp. Acts 8:35.
διερμήνευσεν …τὰπερὶ ἐαυτοῦ. Comp. 1 Corinthians 12:30, 1 Corinthians 12:14. 1 Corinthians 12:5, 1 Corinthians 12:13, 1 Corinthians 12:27. In Acts 9:36 and 2 Mac. 1:36 the verb is used of interpreting a foreign language. Neither γεγραμμεινα (De W. Mey Weiss) nor anything else is to be understood with τὰ περὶ ἐαυτοῦ : see small print on 22:37.
28. προσεποιήσατο. No unreal acting a part is implied. He began to take leave of them, and would have departed, had they not prayed Him to remain. Comp. His treatment of the disciples on the lake (Mark 6:48), and of the Syrophenician woman (Mark 7:27). Prayers are part of the chain of causation.
The Latin Versions suggest pretending what was not meant: finxit se (b c f ff2), dixit se (1) fecit se (d). simulavit se (e), adfectabat se (a). But all of these. excepting the last, support προσεποιηοιήσατο (א A B D L) against προσεποιεῖτο (P Ξ Γ Δ Λ Π). The προσποιεῖθαι did not continue, The verb does not occur elsewhere in N.T. Comp. Job 19:14.
In this verse οὖ for οἶ or εἰς ἥν is a genuine; not in 22:1O.
29. παρεβιάσαντο. Moral pressure, especially by entreaty, is meant : Acts 16:15; Genesis 19:9; Gen_1 Sam, 28:23; 2 Kings 2:17, 2 Kings 5:16. In the last case the urgent entreaty is unsuccessful, and therefore the word does not imply compulsion. Comp.�
Μεῖνον μεθʼ ἡμῶν. Combined with what follows, this implies a dwelling. which may have been the home of one of the two. Their allowing Him to preside does not prove that it was an inn. In their enthusiasm they naturally left the chief place to Him. On the other hand, μεθʼ ἡμῶν is simply “in our company,” not necessarily “at our house” : comp.σὺν αὐτοῖς below.
πρὸς ἐσπέραν Comp. Genesis 8:11; Exodus 12:6; Numbers 9:11; Zechariah 14:7. The classical ἐσπέρα is very freq. in LXX, but in N.T. is peculiar to Lk. (Acts 4:3, Acts 28:23). So also κλίνω of the declining day (9:12): Comp. Jeremiah 6:4.
The ἥδη after κέκλικεν (א B L: 1 33, a b e f ff2, Vulg. Boh.) is doubtless genuine. Syr-Cur. and Syr-Sin. paraphrase the sentence: “And they began to entreat Him that He would be (abide) with them, because it was nearly dark”.
30. ἐν τῷ κατακλιθῆναι. “After He had sat down”; not “as sat, He sat” etc. (AV.), nor dum recumberet (Vulg.): see on 3:21. In N.T. in the verb is peculiar to Lk. (7:36, 9:14, 15, 14:8): see on 9:14.
λαβὼν τὸν ἄρτον. “He took the bread” that was usual, or “the loaf” that was there. That this was a celebration of the eucharist (Theophylact), and a eucharist sub unâspecie, is an improbable hypothesis, To support it Maldouatus makes ἐν τῷκατακλ mean `“after He had supped, ” as a parallel to μετὰ τὸ δειπῆσαι (22:20). But the imperf. ἐπεδίδου is against the theory of a eucharist. In the Last Supper there is no change from aor. to imperf such as we have here and in the Miracles of the Five Thousand (κατέκλασεν καὶ ἐδίδου, 9:16) and of the Four Thousand (ἔκλασεν καὶ ἐδιδου Mark 8:6). In none of the Gospels is the imperf used of the eucharist (22:19; Mark 14:22;Matthew 26:26) nor in 1 Cor in 11:23. Wordsworth, although he regards this as a eucharist, points out that “bread” was to the Jews a general name for food, including drink as well as meat; and that to “eat bread” and “break bread” are general terms for taking refreshment. That the bread was blessed in order that it might open the eyes of the disciples is also improbable: the εὐλόγησεν is the usual grace before meat. It was the breaking of the bread on the part of Jesus, rather than their own partaking of the bread, which d them to see who He was: see ver. 35.
31. διηνοίχθησαν οἱ ὀφθαλμοί. This must be explained in harmony with ver. 16. If the one implies Divine interposition, so also does the other. These two had not been present at the Last Supper, but they had probably often seen Jesus preside at meals; and something in His manner of taking and breaking the bread, and of uttering the benediction, may have been the means employed to restore their power of recognizing Him. Wright’s conjecture that the eucharist was instituted long before the Last Supper is unnecessary. Comp. Genesis 21:19; 2 Kings 6:20 ; Genesis 3:5, Genesis 3:7.
For the augment see WH. 2. App. p.161, All three forms, ἠνοίχθην ἐνεῴχθην and ἠνεῴχθην, are found well attested in N.T. Gregory, prolegom, p.121. Syr-Cur. and Syr-Sin. add “immediately” to “were opened.”
ἀφαντος ἐγένετο.“He vanished, became invisible”: comp. ver 37, 6:36, 12:40, 16:11, 12, 19:17. It is very unnatural to take ἐγέετο with�
32. καιομένη ἦν. The periphrastic tense emphasizes the continuance of the emotion. Common and natural as the metaphor is, it seems to have been misunderstood; and hence the reading κεκαλυμμένη (D). perhaps from 2 Corinthians 3:14-16; while exaæcatum (c). and optusum (1) seem to imply πεπηρωμένη as another correction. Other variations are exterminatum (e) and gravatum (Syr-Cur. Syr-Sin. Sah. Arm.). They regard the glow in their hearts as further proof that it was indeed Jesus who was with them as they walked.
ὡς ἐλάλει…ὡς διήνοιγεν “While He was speaking… while He was opening.” Note the asyndeton and the use of the same verb for be opening of their eyes and the opening of the Scriptures.
33-43. §The Manifestation to the Eleven and the other Disciples at Jerusalem. We cannot determine whether this is the same appearance as John 20:19. If it is. then τοὺς ἕνδεκα is not exact, for on that occasion Thomas was absent; and in any case it is improbable that he was present. If he was, why was the incident which convinced him delayed for a week? Can we suppose that he withdrew between vv. 35, 36? It is much simpler to suppose that“the Eleven” is used inaccurately.
33. αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ. “That very hour”: comp. 10:7. The lateness of the hour, which they had urged upon their guest (ver. 29), does not deter them. Note the characteristic�
ἠθροισμένους. This is the reading of א B L 33, adopted by all the best editors. The verb is not rare in LXX. but occurs here only in N.T. TR. has συνηθρ. with A L P X etc., a verb which is found in N,T. only in Acts 12:19:25.
τοὺς σὺν αὐτοῖς. Much the same as πάντες οἱ λοιποί (ver. 9). Comp Acts 1:14.
34. λέγοντας. This was the statement with which the assembled disciples greeted the two from Emmaus. The appendix to Mk. cannot be reconciled with this. There we are told that, so far from the two being met by news that the Lord was risen, their own story was not believed (16:13).
ὤφθη Σίμωνι. There is no other mention of this manifestation in the Gospels; but S. Paul quotes it in the first rank as evidence of the Resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:5): and this coincidence between the Evangelist and the Apostle cannot well be accidental. It conlirms the belief that this Gospel is the work of one who was intimate with S. Paul. For ὤφθη see on 22:43, This manifestation apparently took place after the two had started for Emmaus and before the disciples assembled at Jerusalem. The Apostle “most in need of comfort was the first to receive it.” But Lange is fanciful when he adds, “We here learn that after his fall Peter named himself, and was named in the Church, Simon, not Peter” (L. of C. iii. p. 387). See on 6:14.
35. καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐξηγοῦντο. “And they on their side rehearsed.” Excepting John 1:18, the verb occurs only here and Acts 10:8, Acts 10:15:12, Acts 10:14, Acts 10:21:19. Note that the Lord’s breaking of the bread, and not their partaking of it, is spoken of as the occasion of their recognizing Him. Syr-Sin. has “as He brake bread.”
36. ἔστη ἐν μέσῳ. A sudden appearance, analogous to the sudden appearance, analogous to the sudden disappearance (ver. 31), is intended. See on 8:7. On the words καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς Εἰρήνη ὑμιν, which look like a very early insertion from John 20:19, see note at the end of the chapter. They express what is true in fact, but is probably not part of the original text of Lk.
37. πτοηθέντες δέ. There is some confusion of text here. This is the reading of A L R C Γ Δ etc. supported by conturbatique (b ff2), turbati autem (c e), et conturbati (1), conturbati vero (f Vulg.). But D has αὐτοὶ δὲ πτοηθεχντες, ipsi autem paverunt (d), א φοβηθέντες δέ, exterriti autem (a), and B θροηθέντες. The last may possibly right. Syr-Sin. has “shaken” both here and for τεταραγμένοι in ver. 38.
πνεῦμα. “The disembodied spirit of a dead person, a ghost.” Comp. φάντασμα (Matthew 14:26), which D has here. Thomas would explain away their evidence by maintaining that this first impression respecting what they saw was the right one. For ἔμφοβοι γενὀμενοι see on ver. 5; and for this use of πνεῦμα comp. 1 Peter 3:19. To introduce the notion of an evil spirit is altogether out of place.
38. τί … καὶ διά τί. So in א A C Γ Δ Λ * Π, quid … et quare, a b c e f ff2l Syr-Cur. “Why … and wherefore” RV. But D L have τί … ἵνα τί, and B L2 τί, … τί, Syr-Sin. has Why … why, Tert. quid … quid. Vulg. inaccurately omits the second quid.
άαβαίνουσιν ἐν τῇ λαραδιάᾳ ὑμῶν. So A * (?) B D, in corde vestro (a b c e ff2 l. Sah. Aeth.); for which ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν (א A1 L C X Γ Δ etc.), in cordibus vestris (f Syr-Sin.), is an obvious correction. Vulg. is again the least accurate with in corda vertra. Nowhere else does,�Acts 7:23) or ἑπὶ καρδίαν (1 Corinthians 2:9; Jeremiah 3:16).
39. ἴδετε τὰς χεῖράς μου καὶ τοὺς πόδας. This seems to imply that His feet as well as His hands had been nailed. Jesus first convinces them of His identity,—that He is the Master whom they supposed that they had lost; and secondly of the reality of His body,—that it is not merely the spirit of a dead Master that they see.
Tyn. Cov. Cran. Gen. AV. all have “Behold … see” for ἴδετε … ἴδετε. Wic. Rhem. RV. follow videte … videte of Vulg. with “See … see.” The first refers to the test of identity, the sight of the wound-prints, the second to the test of reality, the sense of touch.
ψηλαφήσατέ με. 1 John 1:1 seems to be a direct reference to this passage: the same verb is used. The remarkable quotation in Igneous (Smyr. iii. 1) should be compared: ὅτε πρὸς τοὺς περὶ Πέτρου ἦλθεν, ἐφη αὐτοῖς· Λάβετε, ψηλαφήσατέ με, καὶ ἴδετε, ὅτι οὐκ εἰμὶ δαιμόνιον�
ὅτι πνεῦμα. Once more an ambiguous ὅτι: Comp. 19:31, 43, 22:70, etc. But “because” or “for” (AV. RV. Nösg. Godet, Weiss) is much more probable than “that” (Mey. Hahn). Comp οὐ γὰρ ἕτι σάρκας τε καὶ ὀστέα ἶνες ἔχυσιν (Hom. Od. xi. 219).
40. The evidence against this verse is exactly the same as against the doubtful words in ver. 36 with the addition of Syr-Cur. It may be regarded as an adaptation of John 20:20, καὶ τὴ́ πλευράν being changed into καὶ τοὺς πόδας to suit ver. 39. Apelles in Hipp. Ref. vii. 26 combines the two, δείξαντα τοὺς τύπους τῶν ἦλων καὶ τῆς πλευρᾶς. Tertullian uses ver. 40 to answer Marcion’s perversion of ver. 39 (4:43). See note p. 568.
41.�Acts 12:14; Matthew 13:44, Matthew 14:26, etc.
῎εχετέ τι βρώσιμον ἐνθάδε; The objection that, if Jesus took food in order to convince them that He was no mere spirit, when food was not necessary for the resurrection-body, He was acting deceitfully, does not hold. The alternatives—“either a ghost, or an ordinary body needing food”—is false. There is a third possibility: a glorified body, capable of receiving food. Is there any deceit in taking food, which one does not want, in order to place others, who are needing it, at their ease? With the double sign granted here, the handling and the seeing Him eat, comp. the double sign with Moses’ rod and hand (Exodus 4:1-8). and with Gideon’s fleece (Judges 6:36-40). For βρώσιμον comp. Leviticus 19:23; Ezekiel 47:12; Nehemiah 9:25: not elsewhere in N.T
ἐνθάδε: rare in LXX,and in N.T., excepting John 4:15, John 4:16 peculiar to Lk. (Acts 10:18, Acts 10:16:28, Acts 10:17:6, Acts 10:25:17, Acts 10:24).
43. ἐώπιον αὐῶν ἔφαγεν. Comp. οἵτινες συνεφάγομεν καὶ συνεπίομεν αὐτῷ μετὰ τὸ�Acts 10:41). Nothing is said here or in the meal at Emmaus about drinking, but are we to infer that nothing was drunk?
K Π and some cursives with many Versions (Syr-Cur. Syr-Hier. Boh. Aeth. Arm. c Vulg.) after ἔφαγεν add καὶ [λαβών] τὰ ἐπίλοιπα ἔδωκεν αύτοῖς, sumens reliquias dedit eis.
44-49. Christ’s Farewell Instructions. This section seems to be a condensation of what was said by Christ to the Apostles between the Resurrection and the Ascension, partly on Easter Day and partly on other occasions. But we have no sure data by which to determine what was said that same evening, and what was spoken later. Thus Lange assigns only ver. 44 to Easter Day, Godet at least vv. 44, 45, Euthymius vv. 44-49, while Meyer and others assign all the remaining verses also (44-53) to this same evening. On the other hand Didon would give the whole of this section to a later occasion, after the manifestations in Galilee. It is evident that the command to remain ἐν τῇ πόλει (ver. 49) cannot have been given until after those manifestations, and was almost certainly given in Jerusalem.
44. εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς αὐτούς. This new introduction points to a break of some kind between vv. 43 and 44; but whether of moments or of days we cannot be certain. It is probable that Lk. himself, when he wrote his Gospel, did not know what the interval was. This was one of several points about which he had obtained more exact information when he wrote the first chapter of the Acts.
οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι. “These are My words, which I spake unto you formerly (and repeat now), viz. that all things,” etc.
ἔτι ὢν σὺν ὑμῖν: refers to His intercourse with them before His death, a mode of intercourse which is entirely at an end: comp. Acts 9:39. Not that the new intercourse will be less close or continuous, but it will be of a different kind. His being visible is now the exception and not the rule, and He is ceasing to share in the externals of their lives. That the words refer to what He said during the walk to Emmaus (ver. 26) is most improbable. Christ is addressing all the disciples present, not merely those was walked with Him to Emmaus. Such passages as 18:31-33 and 9:22 are meant.
ἐν τῷ νόμῳ Μωυσέως καὶ [τοῖς] προφήταις καὶ ψαλμοῖς. This is the only place in N.T. in which the tripartite division of the Hebrew Canon of Scripture is clearly made. But it does not prove that the Canon was at this time fixed and closed; nor need we suppose that “Psalms” here means the whole of the Kethubim or Hagiographa. Of that division of the Jewish Scriptures the Psalter was the best known and most influential book; and, moreover, it contained, very much about the Messiah. Hence it is naturally singled out as representative of the group. In the prologue to Ecclesiasticus we have the tripartite division in three slightly different forms (1) “the Law and the Prophets and others that have followed their-steps” (2) “the Law and the Prophets and other our fathers” (3) “the Law and the Prophets and the rest of the books.” Elsewhere we have “the Law and the Prophets” (16:16; Matthew 7:12); “Moses and the Prophets” (16:29, 31, 24:27); and “the Law of Moses and the Prophets” (Acts 28:23); where the third division is not to be regarded as excluded because not specially mentioned. Ryle, Canon of the O.T. pp. 150, 191, 291.
Note that the prep. is not repeated with either προφήταις or ψαλμοῖς, and that the art. is not repeated with ψαλμοῖς and not quite certainly with προφήταις: the three divisions are regarded as one storehouse of Messianic prophecy. The evidence stands thus: καὶ προφήταις (A Δ N X Γ D Δ Π, et prophetis Latt.), καὶ τοῖς προφήταις (B, Boh.), ἐν τοῖς prof. (א), καὶ ἐν τοῖς προφ. (L).
45. This opening of their understanding is analogous to that in ver. 31. Comp. Acts 14:14, Acts 14:26:18; Act_2 Malachi 1:4. Godet regards this as parallel to “He breathed on them, and with unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost” (John 20:22). It was by the gift of the Spirit that their minds were open to understand. Contrast 18:34. D has διήνυξεν (sic) αὐτῶν τὸν νοῦν, but d has adaperti sunt eorum sensus.
46. Godet would put a full stop at γραφάζ and make καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς introduce a fresh summary of what was said, possibly on another occasion. It is very unnatural to make ὅτι mean “because” or “for,” and take it as the beginning of Christ’s words. “He opened their minds and (in explanation of this act) said to them, Because thus it is written,” etc. (Mey.). It is more doubtful whether ὅτι introduces the oratio recta (Weiss, Hahn), in which case it is left untranslated (AV. RV.), or the oratio obliqua (Rhem.).
οὕτως γέγραπται παθεῖν τὸν χριστόν. Thus א B C* L, Aeth. Syr. Harcl. So also D, a b c d e ff2 l r Boh,, but with τὸν Χριστόν before παθεῖν Syr-Sin. and Arm. substitute for γεγραπται the ἔδει of the similar ver. 26, while A C2 N X Γ D Δ Π, fq Vulg. insert καὶ οὕτως ἔδει after γέγραπται, and c e Cypr. omit οὕτως. All are attempts to get rid of abruptness, and perhaps the reading of A C2 etc. is a conflation of א B etc. with Syr-Sin. and Arm. D omits ἐκ νεκρῶν.
For the aor. infin. referring to what is future in reference to the main verb see Burton., § 114.
47. ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ. “On the basis of all that His name implies”: it is His Messiahship which makes repentance effectual, Comp. the use of ἐπὶ τῷ ὀν. 9:48, 21:8; Acts 4:17, Acts 4:18, Acts 4:5:28, 40, etc.
μετάνοιαν εἰς�Matthew 26:28; Mark 1:4: comp. τὴν μετάνοιαν εἰς ζωήν (Acts 11:18). Comp. also Matthew 23:19.
ἀρξάμενοι. It I difficult to decide between taking this as a rather violent inacoluthon, as if “that ye should preach” had preceded, and making it the beginning of a new sentence, “Beginning from Jerusalem ye are witnesses of these things.” The former is perhaps better. The correction�
48. ὑμεῖς μάρτυρες τούτων. The omission of ἐστέ is a against taking�Acts 1:8, Acts 1:22, Acts 1:2:32, Acts 1:3:15, Acts 1:5:32, Acts 1:10:39, 41, etc.
49. καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγώ. The ἐγώ balances the preceding ὑμεῖς. “I have told you your part: this is mine.” The ἰδού is wanting in א D L, Latt. Boh. Syr-Sin. The combination ἰδοὺ ἐγώ (23:14; Acts 10:21, Acts 20:22) is extraordinarily frequent in LXX.
ἐξαποστέλλω τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν. Present of what will come in the immediate and certain future. Here first in the Gospels have we ἐπαγγελία in the technical sense of the “promise of God to His people”: see on Romans 1:2. The gift of the Spirit is specially meant: comp. Isaiah 43:3; Ezekiel 36:27; Joel 2:28; Zechariah 12:10. “The promise” therefore means the thing promised. For ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐξαποστέλλω comp. Jeremiah 8:17; ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ�Matthew 10:16; Malachi 4:4 [3:23]: א* A C D N Γ Λ Π have�John 15:26 and 16:7, where, as here, Christ speaks of the Spirit as His gift, πέμψω is used: in John 14:16 the Father δώσει at the petition of Christ.
ὑμεῖς δὲ καθίσατε ἐν τῇ πόλει. Once more an emphatic contrast between ἐγώ and ὑμεῖς. For καθίζειν of spending some time in a place comp. Acts 18:11; Exodus 16:29; Judges 11:17, Judges 19:4, Ruth 3:1 [2:23]; 1 Samuel 1:23, etc. With the command here given comp. Acts 1:4. To suppose that it was spoken on Easter Day involves a contradiction with Matthew 28:7, Matthew 28:10, Matthew 28:16; Mark 16:7; John 21:1. It implies patient waiting.
ἐνδύσησθε … δύναμιν. The metaphor is common both in N.T. and LXX: Romans 13:14; 1 Corinthians 15:53; Galatians 3:27; Colossians 3:10; Ephesians 4:24; Job 8:22, 29:14, 39:19; Ps. 34:26, Psalms 92:1, etc. There is no need to discuss whether the Spirit is the δύναμις or confers it.
According to the best texts (א B C* L 33, Eus. Syr-Hier.) ἐξ ὔψους precedes δύναμιν and immediately follows ἐνδύσησθε, to which it belongs. Comp. Isaiah 32:15.
50-53. The Ascension and the Conclusion of the Gospel. It is not improbable that, at the time when he wrote his Gospel, Lk. did not know the exact amount of interval between the Resurrection and the Ascension. That was a piece of information which he may easily have gained between the publication of the Gospel and of the Acts. And while he does not state either here or ver. 44 that there was any interval at all, still less does he say that there was none: there is no ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ (ver. 13). Being without knowledge, or not considering the matter of importance, he says nothing about the interval. But it is incredible that he can mean that, late at night (vv. 24:29, 33), Jesus led them out to Bethany, and ascended in the dark. So remarkable a feature would hardly have escaped mention. Probably δέ both here and in ver. 44 introduces a new occasion.
50. ἕως πρὸς Βηθανίαν. It is doubtful whether this can mean “until they were over against Bethany.” Field regards πρός after ἕως as a mere expletive and compares καὶ�Genesis 38:1). In LXX ἕως εἰς is common, and many texts (A C3 X Γ Δ Λ Π) substitute ἕως εἰς here for ἕως πρός (א B C* L). D has πρός without ἕως. The ἔξω after αὐτούς (A C3 D X etc.) is omitted by א B C* L 33, a c Boh. Syr. Arm.
The well-known passage in the Epistle of Barnabas (15:9) is probably only a clumsily expressed explanation for keeping Sunday as a day of joy; viz. because Jesus on that day rose from the dead, and (not to die again, as Lazarus and others,—on the contrary) manifested Himself and ascended into heaven. Διὸ καὶ ἄγομεν τὴν ἡμέραν τὴν ὀγδόην εἰς εὐφροσύνην, ἐν ᾗ καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς�
51. διέστη�Acts 27:28). This refers to the Ascension, whatever view we take of the disputed words which follow. Weiss holds that, if the doubtful words are rejected, we must interpret διέστη of mere withdrawal, as after previous a appearances; and that Lk. purposely reserves the narrative of the Ascension for the Acts. But at least a final departure is meant. It is evident that ver. 50 is preparatory to a final withdrawal, and that vv. 52, 53 are subsequent to such an event. And was there ever a time when Lk. could have known of Christ’s final withdrawal without knowing of the Ascension? In the Acts (1:1, 2) he expressly states that ὁ πρῶτος λόγος contained an account of the work of Jesus ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας …�
προσκυνήσαντες αὐτόν. This again is either a very ancient gloss or an insertion made by the Evangelist in a second copy. See the note at the end of the chapter. Comp. Matthew 28:17.
ὑπέστρεψαν εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ: in obedience to καθίσατε ἐν τῇ πόλει (ver. 49).
μετὰ χαρᾶς μεγάλης. A writer of fiction would have made them lament the departure of their Master: comp, John 14:28, John 14:16:6, John 14:7, John 14:20, John 14:22, John 14:24.
Note how the marks of Lk.’s style continue to the end. In ver. 51 we have ἐγένετο, ἐν τῷ εὐλογεῖν, διέστη: in ver. 52 καὶ αὐτοί, ὑπέστρεψαν, and the addition of μέγας to an expression of emotion (2:9, 10, 8:37; Acts 5:11, Acts 15:3).
53. ἧσαν διὰ παντὸς ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ. These words are to be taken together: ἦσαν does not belong to the participle, and this is not an example of the periphrastic imperf. (Hahn). The continued attendance of the disciples in the temple is recorded in the Acts (2:44, 3:1, 5:21, 42). It savours of childish captiousness to find a contradiction between διὰ παντός here and Acts 1:13, where it is stated, and 2:44, where it is implied, that the Apostles were sometimes elsewhere than in the temple. No reasonable critic would suppose that διὰ παντός is meant with absolute strictness. It is a popular expression, implying great frequency in their attendance both at the services and at other times. Comp. what is said of Anna, 2:37, which is stronger in wording and may mean more.
Lachm. Treg. WH. Weiss write διὰ παντός, while Tisch. Wordsw. and the Revisers prefer διαπαντός. Comp. Acts 2:25, Acts 2:10:2, Acts 2:24:16; Matthew 18:10; Mark 5:5, etc.
εὐλογοῦντες. The reading is uncertain. There is little doubt that αἰνοῦντες καὶ εὐλογοῦντες (A C2 X Γ Δ Π, c f q Vulg. Syr-Pesh. Syr-Harcl. Arm.) and εὐλογοῦντες καὶ αἰνοῦντες (Aeth.) is a conflation. But is αἰνοῦντες (D, a b d ff2 I Boh. Aug. Tisch.) or εὐλογοῦντες (א B C* L, Syr-Sin. Syr-Hier. Weiss, WH. RV.) the original? The fact that αἰνοῦντες is a favourite word with Lk. does not turn the scale in its favour: εὐλογοῦντες might be corrected to αἰνοῦντες for this very reason. See WH. 2. p. 104, where the distribution of evidence in this and similar instances of conflation is tabulated. Comp. 9:10, 11:54, 3:18. See Introduction, p. 73.
The various conjectures as to why the disciples were so joyous and thankful may all be right: but they remain conjectures. Because of the promised gift of the Spirit (Euthym.); because of the Lord’s teaching and blessing (Mey. Weiss); because of His glorious return to the Father, which was a pledge of the victory of His cause (Godet); because His Ascension confirmed all their beliefs and hopes (Maldon.); because His presence with God was a guarantee for the fulfilment of His promises and an earnest of their own success (Hahn).
Ἀμήν: probably not genuine, but a liturgical addition. It is absent from א C* D L Π, several cursives, a b d e ff2l Syr-Sin. etc.
Unless Matthew 27:49 and Luke 12:11 (ἢ τί) are to be regarded as examples, all the instances of Western non-interpolations are found in the last chapters of S. Luke. In ch. 24. they are surprisingly frequent. The opposite phenomenon of interpolation is among the most marked characteristics of the Western texts. And although omissions also are not uncommon, yet Western omissions for the most part explain themselves as attempts to the sense more forcible.
But there are cases in which the absence of words or passages from Western authorities, and their presence in other texts, cannot be explained in this way. In these cases the more satisfatory explanation seems to be that it is the other texts which have been enlarged, while the Western documents, by escaping interpolation, have preserved the original reading in its simplicity.
It is evident that these insertions in the original text (if insertions they be) must have been made very early: otherwise they could not have become diffused in every text excepting the Western. Alexandrian corruptions which have spread widely are a common phenomenon. But these insertions have a different aspect; and neither internal nor external evidence favours such a thoery of their orgin. We must look elsewhere for an explanation. That the original readings should be preserved nowhere else but in a text which is wholly Western is so unusual a result that there is nothing extravangant in assuming an ususual cause for it.
It must somtimes have happened in acient times that authors, having published their Ms. and caused it to be mulitplied, afterwards issued revised copies with corrections and insertions. In the cases before us “the purely documentary phenomena are compatible with the supposition that the Western and the NonWestern texts started respectively from a first and a second edition of the Gospels, both conceivably apostolic (WH. ii. p. 177).” This conjectural source of variations, viz. changes made in later copies by the authors themselves, is accepted by Scrivener as a general possibility (Scriv-Miller, i. p. 18), and is suggested as specially applicable to the latter part of S. Luke’s Gospel (ii. pp. 298, 299 n.). Blass regards this as highly probable with regard to the Acts. Lk. made a rough copy first on cheap material, and then a better copy to give to Theophilus, who was a person of distinction. In this second copy he made alterations. But both remained in existence and became the parent of other copies, the Western text being derived from the rough draft, and the more widely diffused text from the presentation copy.1 Salmon thinks that something of the same kind “took place with St. Luke’s Gospel; and that in the case of the Gospel, as well as in that of the Acts, it was the first draft which went into circulation in the West.” He supposes that the second edition of the Gospel was about contemporary with the Acts, and that between the two writings Luke had conversed with a witness able to give him additional information about Lord’s sayings and the Ascension. Having just written the full account of the latter in the Acts, he added a word or two to Luke 24:51, Luke 24:52. “And since in Luke’s account of the dying words of Stephen (Acts 7:59, Acts 7:60) we find an echo of two of the utterances which the common text of St. Luke’s Gospel places in the mouth of the dying Saviour, I find it hard to regard the coincidence as fortuitous, and but the lucky hit of an unknown interpolator” (App. to Hist. Int. to N.T. 7th ed.p. 603). See also Rendel Harris, Four Lectures on the Western Text, camb. 1894, p. 62. A theory such as this certainly is very welcome as an explanation of Luke 22:43, Luke 22:44 and 23:34a, although neither of them can be called Western non-interpolations. But in other cases the apparent insertions are perhaps scarcely worthy of so high an origin: e.g. the non-Westem insertions in 24:3, 6, 9 seem to be about an a level with Western insertions. See WH. ii. pp. 175-177.
The question cannot be regarded as settled ; but, assuming that there are such textual phenomena as Western non-interpolations, the more manifest examples are Luke 22:19b, Luke 22:20, Luke 22:24:3, Luke 22:6, Luke 22:9, Luke 22:12, Luke 22:36, Luke 22:40, Luke 22:51, Luke 22:52. To which may be added as a possible instance in a secondary degree 22:62.
(I) 22:19b, 20. τὸ ὑπερ ὑμῶν διδόμενον … ἐκχυννόμενον.
Evidence for the passage:—
א A B C A F G H K L M (P R defective here) S F C X Γ Δ Λ Π and all cursives.
Almost all Versions.
Marcion or Tertull. Cyr-Alex.
Evidence against the passage:—
a d ff2 i l omit.
be Syr-Cur. omit and put vv. 17, 18 in the place of the omitted passage, so that the verses run—16, 19a [b], 17, 18, 21, 22, etc. Syr-Sin. has an elaborate transposition:—16, 19a, b, 20a, 17, 20b, 18, 21, 22, etc. It also exhibits considerable changes in the wording.
But in order to appreciate these various attempts to get rid of the difficulty involved in the ordinary text, owing to the mention of two cups, it is necessary to see them in full in a tabular form.
Cod. Veron. (b). Cod. Palat. (e).
19 et accepto pane gratias egit et fregit et dedit illis dicens hoc est corpus meum 17 et accepto calice gratias egit et dixit accipite hoc et dividite inter vos 18 dico enim vobis … … veniat. 21 veruntamen ecce, etc. 19 et accepit panem et gratias egit e fregit et dedit eis dicens hoc est corpus meum 17 et accepto calice gratias egit et dixit accipite vivite inter vos 18 dico enim vobis … … veniat. 21 veruntamen ecce, etc.
It is obvious that these two Latin texts represent one and the same Greek original. There is much more difference between the two Syriac Versions, of which Syr-Cur., agrees more with the Latin texts than with its fellow.
19 And He took bread and when He had even thanks, He brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is My body, which (is given) for you: this do in remembrance of Me. 17 And He received a cup, and when He had given thanks, He said, Take this and divide it among yourselves: 18 for I say to you. I will …come. 21 But behold, etc. 19 And He took bread and gave thanks over it, and brake, and gave unto them, saying, This is My body which I give for you: thus do in remembrance of Me. 20 And after they had supped, 17 He took the cup, and gave thanks over it, and said, Take this, share it among yourselves. 20 This is My blood, the new testament. 18 For I say unto you, that henceforth I will not drink of this fruit until the kingdom of God shall come. 21 But nevertheless behold, etc.
(2) 24:3. After σῶμα the words τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ.
Evidence for the words:—
Amost all Greek MSS.
Evidence against the words:—
D omits the whole, 42 omits κυρίου.
a b d e ff2 l r omit the whole. Syr-Cur. Syr-Sin. Sah. omit κυρίου.
Nowhere else in the true text of the Gospels does ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς occur but it may be right in the appendix to Mk. (16:19).
In the remaining instances only the evidence against the passage need be ated.
(3) 24:6. οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε,�
a b d e ff2 l r* omit the whole. C substitutes resurrexit a mortuis, which perhaps is an independent insertion. Syr-Pesh. g2 omit�Mark 16:6, which is the probable source of the insertion : comp. Matthew 28:6.
Marcion apud Epiph. seems to have omitted all but ἠγέρθη.
G P 88 127 130 after ὑμῖν add from John 6:20 ἐγώ εἰμι, μὴ φοβεῖσθε. cf Vulg. Syrr. (Pesch. Harcl. Hier.) Arm. and some MSS. of Boh. after vobis add ego sum nolite timere. Aeth, adds nolite timere, ego sum. Probably from John 20:19. Tisch. and Weiss omit. WH. place in double brackets.
(7) 24:40, καὶ τοῦτο εἰπὼν … καὶ τοὺς πόδας.
a b d e ff2 l r Syr-Cur. omit. Syr-Sin. is here defective, but apparently contained the verse.
Probably an adaptation of John 20:20. Tisch. and Weiss omit. WH. Place in double brackets.
(8) 24:51. καὶ�