[7] Ueber den Lukas, s. 74, and elsewhere. [↑]
[9] Schleiermacher (s. 175) does not perceive the connexion of the discourse on the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, in Matthew ([xii. 31 f.]), though it links on excellently to the foregoing expression, ἐγὼ ἐν πνεύματι θεοῦ ἐκβάλλω τὰ δαιμόνια ([v. 28]). It is more easy, however, to understand this difficulty, than that he should think (s. 185 f.) that discourse better introduced in Luke ([xii. 10]). For here, between the preceding proposition, that whosoever denies the Son of Man before men, shall be denied before the angels of God, and the one in question, the only connexion is that the expression ἀρνεῖσθαι τὸν υἰὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου brought to the writer’s recollection the words εἰπεῶ λὸγος εἰς τὸν υίὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. One proof of this is that between the latter passage and the succeeding declaration, that the necessary words would be given to the disciples, when before the tribunal, by the πνεῦμα ἅγιον, the connexion consists just as superficially in the expression πνεῦμα ἅγιον. What follows in Matthew ([v. 33–37]), had been partly given already in the Sermon on the Mount, but stands here in a better connexion than Schleiermacher is willing to admit. [↑]
[10] Luke makes the demand of a sign follow immediately on the accusation, and then gives in succession the answers of Jesus to both. This representation modern criticism holds to be far more probable than that of Matthew, who gives first the accusation and its answer, then the demand of a sign and its refusal; and this judgment is grounded on the difficulty of supposing, that after Jesus had given a sufficiently long answer to the accusation, the very same people who had urged it would still demand a sign (Schleiermacher, s. 175; Schneckenburger, über den Urspr. s. 52 f.). But on the other hand, it is equally improbable that Jesus, after having some time ago delivered a forcible discourse on the more important point, the accusation concerning Beelzebub, and even after an interruption which had led him to a totally irrelevant declaration ([Luke xi. 27 f.]), should revert to the less important point, [[393]]namely, the demand of a sign. The discourse on the departure and return of the unclean spirit, is in Matthew ([v. 43–45]) annexed to the reply of Jesus to this demand; but in Luke ([xi. 24 ff.]) it follows the answer to the imputation of a league with Beelzebub, and this may at first seem to be a more suitable arrangement. But on a closer examination, it will appear very improbable that Jesus should conclude a defence, exacted from him by his enemies, with so calm and purely theoretical a discourse, which supposes an audience, if not favourably prepossessed, at least open to instruction; and it will be found that here again there is no further connexion than that both discourses treat of the expulsion of demons. By this single feature of resemblance, the writer of the third gospel was led to sever the connexion between the answer to the oft-named accusation, and that to the demand of a sign, which accusation and demand, as the strongest proofs of the malevolent unbelief of the enemies of Jesus, seem to have been associated by tradition. The first Evangelist refrained from this violence, and reserved the discourse on the return of the unclean spirit, which was suggested by the suspicion cast on the expulsion of demons by Jesus, until he had communicated the answer by which Jesus parries the demand of a sign. [↑]
[11] Vid. Griesbach, Comm. crit. in loc. [↑]
[12] Comp. Schleiermacher, s. 190 f. [↑]
[13] De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 139. [↑]
[14] Ueber den Urspr. s. 115. [↑]
[15] For the proof of this interpretation, see Fritzsche, comm. in Marc. p. 97 ff. [↑]