more flexible vocabulary than the others. On the only occasion of his using the verb KaTaKslaffai (Lk 5^^ [D has here dvaKeL/jLevuv]) for sitting at meals, he seems to employ it because he has already, in the immediately preceding context, made use of the same word to express a different idea (cf. o^^). The same might, of course, be said of St. Mark, who has this word in the same two senses in the parallel narrative. It is not probable, however, that St. Luke sacrificed his customary literary independence by a verbal copying of St. Mark, who, moreover, uses the same word for Jesus' re dining at Supper in Bethany (Mk 14^).
Of the 5 different words employed by the four Evanfrelists when speaking of sitting down to meals, St. Luke uses all (oivx-y-'Aiviiv twice, anKT/TTEjK 4 times, a.vKxtnr6eti with its com- pound o-t/»- 5 times, zxTccxitrUcn once, xaTaxXimv 5 times) ; St. Matthew uses three (a.itit.xAiviiv twice, a-iaTtTTm onoe, a.y«.xCt(Tha,i and its compound aut- 7 times) ; St. Mark uses four («va«A/vE/» once, avaTiTTsiv twice, a,ya.y.u<rii«.t and its compound o-i^v- 5 times, yM.tra.y.ii(rVa.i twice) : St. John is characteristically limited in his use, and employs only two of these words (iv5cT/TTE;» 5 times, i.yaxii<r8cci i times without any employment of its compound).
In the narrative of the conversion and call of Levi (Matthew), which is common to the three Synoptiists, St. Luke is the only one who expressly states that Jesus was the guest of the new dis- ciple (Lk 5^^), the latter having made a feast in honour of his recently discovered Master. St. Matthew uses the vague expression ev ttj otKia (Mt 9'"), which may mean 'inside' as contrasted with ' outside ' (eVt to TeXdii>iov, 9"), where lay the scene of Levi's call (cf. Plummer, ad loc.). St. iSIark, on the other hand, seems to have under- stood that Jesus was the host and not the guest (cf. KaraKeladai avTbv iv ttj oIkIo. avrov, Mk 2'^, where his use of the same pronoun in the same sentence would point to this interpretation ; .see also crvv- ap^KeLVTO Tu> iTjaov, 2^'' ; tQv (TwavaKeifxevuv aoc, Lk 14^" ; Tois ffwavaKeifxevois [sc. Tip 'HpojSr)], Mk 6--). On the other hand, it does not seem at all certain that either of these two writers connected the conversion of Levi with the entertainment (cf. /cat iyeveTo, Mt 9^° ; /cai ylveTat, Mk 2'', which marks tlie commencement of a fresh narrative). It is improbable that St. Luke acted merely the part of interpreter by introducing his categorical assertion as a gloss (/cat iTroiricev Soxv" /J-eydXrjP Aeveii avT(^ K.T.X., Lk 5'^^), thus doing away with a previous ambiguity. It is more likely that he had sufficient oral, if not documentary , authority to justify his statement (the word Soxv is peculiar to St. Luke, and is used by him only once afterwards as a general equivalent for HpidTov rj deZirvov, 14i-'-) ; and we have St. Mark's authority for connecting the conversion of Simon and Andrew with hospitality to their newly-found Master and His other dis- ciples (Mk Ii6ff.29ff.) Whether, however, this partaking by Jesus of a Sabbath-meal in the house of Simon Peter was secondary to the purpose of healing the fever - stricken wevdepd tov "Zlnwyos, would be difficult to determine. Nor must we forget the possibility that St. Luke's authority for the statement that Jesus was the guest of Hif, latest convert Levi may have been influenced by the parallel case we are here noticing — the con- version of the brothers Simon and Andrew and the subsequent entertainment in their own house of the newly discovered Messiah (cf. Jn 1^').
Literature. — See for discussions of the last-mentioned ques- tions, Wright, Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek, pp. 16 f., 23, etc.; Plummer, ' St. Luke ' in Internal. Crit. Com. p. 159 f. ; Gould, ' St. Mark,' ib. p. 41 ; O. Holtzmann, Leben Jesu, Eng. tr. p. 206 ; cf. art. ' Matthew ' in Eneyc. Bibl. col. 2986 f. ; B. Weiss, The Life of Christ (T. &. T. Clark), vol. ii. p. 125 n. 2 ; Bengel, Gnomon of the NT on Mt 9io ; and, for the problem as to the identification of Matthew and Levi, which is germane to that we are discussing, see Zahn's Einleit. in das NT, ii. p. 264.
J. R. Willis. MEASURES.— See Weights and Measures.
MEDIATOR
MEDIATOR
153
MEDIATOR.— /??//-orfMf^or//.— The title ' Medi- ator ' is api)lied to our Lord in the NT only by St. Paul (1 Ti 25) and the author of Hebrews (8« 9'» l^--'). In Gal IV- -" St. Paul's argument implies that there is an important sense in which Christ cannot be iitly called a mediator. Here Moses is described by this title, and the mcdintur (generic) is sharply dis- tinguished from God. Moses was a person coming between two contracting parties, God and Israel, with the consequence that the law administered by Moses is apparently in opposition to tiie pro- mises of God which depentl upon God only. Ob- viously Christ is not such a mediator as Moses. He does not come between two contracting parties, for He Himself is the representative human re- ceiver of God's promise, and the Divine Son through whom we receive that promise. He in- cludes both parties in His own Person, instead of coming between them. He is not the instrument of a contract, but the embodiment of a Divine gift. This passage implies that Christ united God and man, two parties previously at variance, in a wholly unique manner. And the same truth is asserted in the verse which calls Him ' the one mediator between God and men' (1 Ti 2''). In what sense St. Paul calls Christ a mediator will be shown more fully in § 3.