42—50.
' xexoopnpevoy.
193
45. τότε πορεύεται καὶ ™ παραλαμβάνει pel ἑαυτοῦ 1 Lk. xi. 25.
h. αχ].
ἑπτὰ ἕτερα πνεύματα " πονηρότερα ἑαυτοῦ, καὶ εἰσελθόντα κατοικεῖ 29 (of
ἐκεῖ: καὶ γίνεται τὰ ἔσχατα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκείνου χείρονα τῶν το ~ ~ a 7?
οὕτως ἔσται καὶ τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτῃ τῇ πονηρᾷ. - A a ‘ A αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος τοῖς ὄχλοις, ἰδού, ἡ µήτηρ Kal οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ
πρώτων.
tombs). Ch. xvii.
τ. 46. Ἔτι δὲ1 n compar. here and in Lk. xi.
A a a 26. εἰστήκεισαν ἔξω, °Lntodvtes αὐτῷ λαλῆσαι. 47. εἶπε δέ τις αὐτῷ, ο Ch. xxi.
“Ιδού, ἡ µήτηρ σου καὶ ot ἀδελφοί σου ἔξω ἑστήκασι, ζητοῦντές
σοι λαλῆσαι.” 3
” ἐστιν ἡ µήτηρ µου; καὶ tives εἰσὶν οἱ ἀδελφοί µου; ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ ΄ ἐπὶ τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ εἶπεν, “Ιδού, ή
µήτηρ µου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί µου.
48. Ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπε τῷ εἰπόντι 3 αὐτῷ, “Τίς
46. Mk. xii. 12. Lk. v. 18. John v. 18 . (with inf. 49. Καὶ = toen- deavour).
50. ὅστις γὰρ ἂν ποιήσῃ τὸ θέλημα
τοῦ πατρός µου τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς, αὐτός µου ἀδελφὸς καὶ ἀδελφὴ καὶ
µήτηρ ἐστίν. 1 SSB omit δε (Tisch., W.H.).
2 The whole of ver. 47 is wanting in BL and is omitted by W.H. Tisch. puts
it within brackets. δλεγοντι in NBDZ. 4 ΓΣ omit αυτου (Tisch.).
what period was in His thoughts, unless we find one in the epithet μοιχαλὶς (ver. 39), which recalls prophetic charges of unfaithfulness to her Divine Husband against Israel, and points to the exile as the crisis at which she seriously re- pented of that sin. It is not at all likely that Christ’s view was limited to the period dating from John’s ministry. Moral laws need large spaces of time for adequate exemplification. The most in- structive exemplification of the degene- racy described is supplied by the period from Ezra till Christ’s time. With Ezra ended material idolatry. But from that period dates the reign of legalism, which issued in Rabbinism, a more subtle and pernicious idolatry of the letter, the more deadly that it wore the fair aspect of zeal for God and righteousness.
Vv. 46-50. The relatives of Fesus (Mk. iii. 31-35; Lk. viii. 19-21). Matthew and Mark place this incident in connection with the discourse occa- sioned by Pharisaic calumny. Luke gives it in a quite different connection. The position assigned it by Matthew and Mark is at least fitting, and through it one can understand the motive. Not vanity: a desire to make a parade of their influence over their famous relative on the part of mother and brethren (Chrys., Theophy., etc.), but solicitude on His account and a desire to extricate Him from trouble. This incident should
It is an explanatory gloss.
BC retain it (W.H. within brackets),
be viewed in connection with the state- ment in Mk. iii. 21 that friends thought Jesus beside Himself. They wished to rescue Him from Himself and from men whose ill-will He had, imprudently, they probably thought, provoked.—Ver. 46. ἀδελφοὶ, brothers in the natural sense, sons of Mary by Joseph? Pre- sumably, but an unwelcome hypothesis to many on theological grounds.— εἰστήκεισαν, pluperfect, but with sense of imperfect (Fritzsche). They had been standing by while Jesus was speak- ing.—逧w, on the outskirts of the crowd, or outside the house into which Jesus entered (Mk. iii. 19).—Ver. 47 (wanting
in NBL) states what is implied in ver.
48 (τῷ λέγοντι), that some one reported to Jesus the presence of His relatives. — Ver. 48. τίς ἔστιν ἡ µήτηρ pov. One might have expected Jesus, out of deli- cacy, to have spoken only of His brethren, leaving the bearing of the question on His mother to be inferred. But the mention of her gave increased emphasis to the truth proclaimed. The question repels a well-meant but ignorant interference of natural affection with the sovereign claims of duty. It reveals a highly strung spirit easily to be mistaken for a morbid enthusiasm.—Ver. 49. ἐκτείνας τ. χ.: an eloquent gesture, making the words following, for those present, superfluous.—i8ov, etc. There