Vi.
a Lk. xi. 34. ὀφθαλμός σου * ἁπλοῦς ᾖ,] ὅλον τὸ σῶμά σου » φωτεινὸν tora >a 3
b Ch. xvii. 5.
Lk ai. 34, ἐὰν δὲ ὁ ὀφθαλμός σου πονηρὸς ᾖ, ὅλον τὸ σῶμά σου "σκοτεινὸν
30. » c Lk. xi. 34, έσται.
εἰ οὖν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἐν Gol σκότος ἐστί, τὸ σκότος πόσον;
ο ὑΚ αν τα 24. Οὐδεὶς δύναται δυσὶ κυρίοις δουλεύειν: ἢ γὰρ τὸν ἕνα µισήσει, I
hess.
Vv. 14. Tit. i.
καὶ τὸν ἕτερον ἀγαπήσει: ἢ ἑνὸς 3 ἀνθέξεται, καὶ τοῦ ἑτέρου "κατα-
ε Ch, ανν, φρονήσει. οὐ δύνασθε Θεῷ δουλεύει καὶ ΄μαμμωνᾷ.' 25. διὰ 10.
xvi. 13. Rom. iigal. f Lk. xvi. 13.
1» before ο οφθαλμος σον am ous in HB.
? papwva in all uncials.
and the evangelic report apparently imperfect. The parallel passage in Luke (xi. 33-36) gives little help. The figure and its ethical meaning seem to be mixed up, moral attributes ascribed to the physical eye, which with these still gives light to the body. This con- fusion may be due to the fact that the eye, besides being the organ of vision, is the seat of expression, revealing inward dispositions. Physically the qualities on which vision depends are health and disease. The healthy eye gives light for all bodily functions, walking, working, etc. ; the diseased eye more or less fails in this service. If the moral is to be found only in last clause of ver. 23, all going before being parable, then ἁπλοῦς must mean sound and πονηρὸς diseased, meanings which, if not inadmissible, one yet does not expect to find expressed by these words. They seem to be chosen because of their applicability to the moral sphere, in which they might suit- ably to the connection mean “liberal” and “niggardly”. ἁπλότης occurs in this sense in Rom. xii. 8, and Hatch (Essays in Β. G., p. 80) has shown that πονηρός occurs several times in Sept. (Sirach) in the sense of niggardly, grudg- ing. He accordingly renders: “ The lamp of the body is the eye. If therefore thine eye be liberal thy whole body shall be full of light; but if thine eye be grudging, thy whole body shall be full of darkness.’ Of course this leaves the difficulty of the mixing of natural and moral untouched. he passage is elliptical, and might be paraphrased thus: The eye is the lamp of the body: when it is healthy we see to do our daily work, when diseased we are in darkness. So with the eye of the soul, the heart, seat of desire: when it is free from covetousness, not anxious to hoard, all goes well with our spiritual functions —we choose and act wisely. When sordid passions possess it there is dark-
ness within deeper than that which afflicts the blind man. We mistake the relative value of things, choose the worse, neglect the better, or flatter our- selves that we can have both.
Ver. 24. Parable of the two masters. Οὐδεὶς: In the natural sphere it is im- possible for a slave to serve two masters, for each claims him as his property, and the slave must respond to one or other of the claims with entire devotion, either from love or from interest.— yap... µισήσει... ἀγαπήσει: We may take this clause as referring to the case of honest preference. A slave has his likes and dislikes like other men. And he will not do things by halves. His preference will take the form of love, and his aversion that of hate.— ἑνὸς ἀνθέξεται, εἰς, : this clause may be taken as referring to the case of interest. The slave may not in his heart care for either of the rival masters. But he must seem to care, and the relative power or temper of one as compared to the other, may be the
ound of his decision. And having
ecided, he attaches himself, ἀνθέξεται, to the one, and ostentatiously disregards the other. In ordinary circumstances there would be no room for such a com- petition of masters. But a case might occur in time of war when the conquered were sold into slavery.—ob δύνασθε, etc. Application of the parable to God and earthly possessions.— ¢, wealth per- sonified = Plutus, a Chaldee, Syriac, and Punic word (‘*lucrum punice mammon dicitur,” Aug. de S. D.) derived from