wrote for Jewish Christians or otherwise for Jews, has more diligently than Mark set forth, by means of his version of the Sermon on the Mount, the conservative position of Jesus towards the Old Testament law. But that he has urged it in the sense of an abiding validity of the Mosaic law more strongly than the apostolic source, cannot be proved. Rather he loves to set forth prominently, how Jesus, in the way of the old prophets (§ 24, c), puts more value on pitying love than on sacrifice (ix. 13, xii. 7; comp. Mark xii. 23), and set His person above the Holy Place of the Old Covenant (xii. 6). In his interpretation of the words, xv. 11-20, there appears a contrast between the law of meats and that of purification, which is not found in the older representation in Mark. Deeds, according to which Christ, when He comes again, will judge (xvi. 27), are according to the connection the proof of following Him in self-denial and self-sacrifice (vv. 24, 25). The commands which the exalted Christ lays on His confessors to keep (xxviii. 20), are no longer the Mosaic, but His own (comp. § 52, a; 135, a).

(d) The more that the gospel was rejected by the Jews, and the apostolic mission therefore turned to the Gentiles, the more natural was it to examine the sayings of Jesus handed down on the point, in so far as they pointed out this course of development, or even were in harmony with it. From this point of view Mark thought that he had to premise, that the word about the children and the dogs (Matt. xv. 26) only guarded the historical prerogative of the Jews, and did not exclude the Gentiles (vii. 27: ἄφες πρῶτον χορτασθῆναι Tà Téкva; comp. Rom. i. 16), as he also expressly mentions that Jesus, by simply entering into a Gentile house, in harmony with His position towards the Jewish scruples about cleanness (vv. 2-4), yet had not by any means intended any activity on Gentile territory (vii. 24). On the other hand, he widens the intimation, according to which the apostles would stand before Gentile tribunals, in order to testify to

• Accordingly the avouía, which, xiii. 41, is threatened with judgment, cannot be Paulinism free from the law, but only heathen-Christian libertinism (§ 110, a, 128, d; 135, a, footnote 4), of which, along with the false prophecy, which favoured it, Jesus prophesied (xxiv. 11, 12), and which, in spite of all deeds in His name, He condemns (vii. 22, 23).

VOL. II.

T

the Gentile (Matt. x. 18); hence, that before the end the gospel had to be preached to all the Gentiles (xiii. 10), a proposition evidently founded on the Petrine universalism (§ 50, d), and even, xiv. 9, he had the proclamation of the gospel in all the world already in his eye. But, conformable to the destination of his gospel, the question must have interested our evangelist in the liveliest way, how it came to pass that Israel's Messiah had yet not brought salvation to His people. He begins by confirming the promise of the prophet by the words of the angel, according to which Messiah was appointed to deliver His people (i. 21). But he shows immediately how the new-born King of the Jews was persecuted by Israel's king, while Gentiles coming from far paid Him homage (chap. ii.); he even emphasizes the participation of all Syria in the activity of Jesus, after he has by the prophecy in ver. 15 included the Gentiles in and about Galilee in the destination for the Messianic salvation, as he also gives for the same reason hope to the Gentiles, xii. 21, and in one of the Lord's first miracles he inserts a statement which predicts the casting away of Israel and the receiving of the Gentiles (viii. 11, 12). He yet shows how Jesus on His part had done nothing to bring about this catastrophe. While he puts the words of direction spoken to the disciples, when sent out on trial, on a level with those spoken to the apostles generally, he yet acknowledges that Jesus had originally limited the mission of the Twelve to Israel (x. 5, 6) as He limited His own (xv. 24), nay, he shrinks from allow. ing him to tread Gentile territory (vv. 21 f., 29). Only after Jesus has definitely broken with the blood-stained hierarchy (xxi. 39-41) does he bring forward Jesus' second prophetic word, which announces the catastrophe (xxi. 43). Only after that Jesus has announced destruction for the city and temple (xxii. 7, xxiv. 2) does he bring forward from Mark the prophecy of a mission to the Gentiles, which must precede the end (xxiv. 14). Only after the hierarchy has misled the people, by the vilest imposture, to regard the message of the resurrection as a lie (xxviii. 11-15), does he allow the exalted Messiah to send His apostles to all nations (ver. 19). Thus it was no blame of Jesus if Israel did not become partakers of the promise. Because the people, misled

by their own leaders, fell under judgment, the gospel had to turn from the Jews to the Gentiles.'

§ 137. The Writings of Luke.

The Gospel of Luke makes the destination of salvation for the Gentiles prominent with a doctrinal intention, even though it is not to the extent and with the one-sidedness which criticism has supposed it has found it (a). The acknowledgment of the law is not entirely denied by Jesus; the ascetic way of looking at riches and poverty, which has, to be sure, become strongly prominent in Luke, has nothing to do with Jewish legalism (b). The Acts of the Apostles show how, by explicitly divine indications, the transference of the gospel from the Jews to the Gentiles was effected, till Gentile missions reached in their progress westward the world's capital (c). This apology for the world-historical course of the development of Christianity comes of itself to be an apology for the great apostle of the Gentiles (d).

(a) Since the Gospel of Luke openly acknowledges the intention to confirm doctrine, and especially, as we shall see, § 139, Pauline doctrine (i. 4), it is certainly significant that in its early history the Messiah is praised as the light of the Gentiles (ii. 32), and that His genealogy is traced back to Adam (iii. 23-38). But, above all, it is occasioned by this doctrinal intention, that the representation of His Galilean activity opens with the scene in the synagogue of Nazareth, which not only indicates beforehand the rejection of Jesus by His people (iv. 24), but also, at the same time, points prophetically to this, that the salvation, of which Israel had shown themselves unworthy, must come to the Gentiles

Yet Jerusalem continued to be to the evangelist the holy city (iv. 5, xxvii. 53; comp. v. 35: xóλis reł pryádov Baridéws), as it was to the author of the Apocalypse (xi. 2; comp. xxi. 2-10, xxii. 19), although judgment had already gone forth against it (Matt. xxii. 7), and the Old Testament pious were äyıos (xxvii. 52). Nay, it appears that, quite like the author of the Apocalypse (§ 130, c, footnote 5), he had thought but of the conversion of individuals among the Gentiles, since the nations, as such, at the last judgment stand over against the brethren (i.e. the fellow-citizens) of Jesus, but are, to be sure, only judged on this point, whether they have shown love to these or not (Matt. xxv. 31 f., 40, 45). Comp. Schenkel, p. 173.

(iv. 25-27).1 It has to be conceded, that Luke has omitted expressions from the apostolic source, as Matt. vii. 6, x. 5, 6, xv. 24, xxii. 14, because they might have been misunderstood in a particularist sense; but also, xiii. 30, is an expression of Jesus applied, contrary to its original sense (comp. § 32, b), to the rejection of Israel and the calling of the Gentiles; and, xiv. 22, to the parable of the feast a thought is added, which points to the Petrine doctrine (§ 91, a) of the coming of the Gentiles into the place of the cast-off Israelites. Since Mark xiii. 10 is left out, even so here the Risen One just gives the direct command for missions to the Gentiles (xxiv. 47; comp. Acts i. 8). On the other hand, Luke has omitted neither the Messianic character of Jesus' appearance, nor the historical significance of His salvation for Israel. Rather Jesus appears in the early portions of the history, which the author has taken from his sources, as the Son of God, crowned with the highest name of honour, who, upon the throne of His father David, sets up the eternal kingdom over the house of Jacob (i. 32, 33), assumes it for Himself, on the ground of the Abrahamitic. covenant (vv. 54, 55), and through a political deliverance lays the foundation for the Messianic consummation (vv. 68-75; comp. ii. 38). The Saviour of the whole nation is born in the Messiah (ii. 10, 11; comp. ver. 26); and even where He is

1 If, on the other hand, Luke already divides Christ's public ministry into a Galilean (iv. 14-ix. 50) and an extra-Galilean ministry (ix. 51-xix. 27), that is just an attempt to separate the traditional materials in a way more suitable for historical narrative; for neither is it clear that the latter was exclusively engaged on Samaritan territory, nor that Jesus had met here with a better reception, as Baur, p. 329, conjectures. This section, too, begins with the rejection of Jesus in a Samaritan village (ix. 53); but the stories of the merciful and thankful Samaritans (chap. x. 17) contain no prejudice in favour of the question towards the attainment of salvation. Quite as little is it certainly clear, that the sending out of the seventy disciples, resting as it does on a literary combination (x. 1; comp. Jahrbucher, 1864, p. 66), is a type of the mission to the Gentiles; and that the Twelve, whose original destination was confined to Israel, is to be put down in contrast to these, is entirely an utterly unproveable imagination of criticism (comp. on the other hand, Stud. u. Krit. 1861, p. 710 ff.). But if criticism has pointed out a series of parables and other incidents pointing to the Pauline universal sense, it has also partly overlooked the hints of the author, who would have these to be regarded as anti-pharisaic (xiv. 15, 16, xv. 1, 2, xvi. 14, 15), and it has partly dragged in this reference only by arbitrary allegorizing.

2

designated as a light to the Gentiles (ver. 32), His appearance yet tends at the same time to the glorification of His people Israel, if even but a portion of them are actually delivered by Him (ver. 34). Here too, therefore, in conformity with prophecy, Jesus has come, in the first place, for the salvation of Israel (xiii. 16, xix. 9); but in a clause, inwoven with the parable of the talents, Luke has set forth in a striking allegory how Jesus' fellow-citizens, when He had gone away to get possession of His Messianic kingdom, rebelled against that kingdom, and on that account fell under judgment (xix. 12, 14, 27). (b) If Luke has intentionally omitted from the Sermon on the Mount Jesus' lawgiving, as it no longer had any interest to His Jewish-Christian readers, who were free from the law, he has yet preserved, xvi. 17, His explanation of the abiding significance of the law in principle (§ 24, a). Here, too, Jesus recognises the commandments of the law (x. 26, xviii. 20) as commandments of God, and the significance of Moses and the prophets as leading to repentance (xvi. 29–31). As He urges the fulfilment of legal institutions, so He praises the piety of the Old Testament law (i. 6, ii. 25, 37). Chap. v. 39 contains a mild apology, peculiar to our Gospel, for clinging to old usages; and it is presupposed, xxiii. 56, that the followers of Jesus strictly observed the Sabbath law. How high a value Luke places on deeds that are well-pleasing is clear from this, that

2 With the proclamation of the fulfilment of Scripture Jesus Himself comes forward (iv. 21), and the chief work of the Risen One consists in this, to open the understanding of the disciples to understand the Scriptures, which prophesied of His death and resurrection (xxiv. 44-46; comp. vv. 25-27, 32). But the evangelist has not only accepted Mark's references to the Scriptures (iii. 4-6, xx. 17, xxii. 22), but he has even increased them (xviii. 31, xxii. 37). Here, too, Jesus is the promised Messiah of Israel, the Anointed One (iv. 41, ix. 20), or the Holy One of God (iv. 34); the Messianic King (xix. 38), or the Son of God, in the Messianic sense (iv. 41; comp. vv. 3, 9), the Son of David (xviii. 38, 39, xx. 41–44).

3 If all legal prescriptions were fulfilled even to the child Jesus (ii. 21–24), that appears, to be sure, as an illustration of Gal. iv. 4, only that this is yet presented with a doctrinal intention. On the other hand, Matt. xxiii. 2, 3 is intentionally omitted, because this statement was so easily misunderstood, and was intelligible only on presuppositions, which were quite awanting to his readers. But as Baur, p. 328, xvi. 17, prefers the Marcionite reading, which is contrary to the context (comp. Lechler, p. 158), so has he, in xvi. 16, arbitrarily introduced an antithesis contrary to Matt. xi. 13; and if a recommendation of the Pauline freedom from the law of meats is sought in x. 8, it is overlooked that the decisive av is awanting in 1 Cor. x. 27.