THE ΔΥΝΑΜΙΣ OF JESUS.

Before proceeding further in this investigation, it is necessary to examine Luke's use of the word dúvaμis. Above all the other Evangelists he has a fondness for the term, which almost invariably means, in his usage, power or force of a spiritual kind, whether divine or diabolical. It is not a mere potentiality of power, but a power in actual exercise; and in one or two passages it bears the derivative meaning of potentates. When used by Luke of Jesus or His apostles, it refers, in all but a few cases, to His or their power of healing disease or casting out devils, and in accordance with Luke's views of the spiritual world, the power of the enemy is conceived as an opposing force. The word occurs in Luke fifteen times in all, ten times in Mark, and twelve times in Matthew. But the numerical value of the figures in Matthew and Mark is greatly diminished in relative significance when we find that only in one instance in Mark-viz., v. 30-is the word unmistakably used of the power of curing disease, and that in neither Matthew nor Mark is it clearly and unambiguously employed to denote the power of casting out demons; whereas in Luke the exact contrary is the general practice. Let us examine the passages in Luke. (1) The forerunner of Jesus shall "go before his face in the spirit and power [Svváμe] of Elijah" (i. 17);

while (2) to Mary, the mother of Jesus, it is said (i. 35), “the power [dúvaμis] of the Most High shall overshadow thee." When (3) Jesus returns from the Temptation, He does so (iv. 14)" in the power [Svváμei] of the Spirit "1 with which He was filled before entering on it. These three statements are unknown to any other Evangelist. (4) After His first casting out of a demon, which, next to His preaching, is the first act of Jesus recorded by Luke, the people acknowledge this power when they ask (iv. 36), "What is this word? for with authority [egovoíą] and power [Svváμei] he commandeth the unclean spirits, and they come out "-a passage which has no equivalent in Matthew; and in Mark (i. 27) we read only-"What is this? a new teaching ! with authority [egovoía] he commandeth even the unclean spirits, and they obey him." Here there is no mention of δύναμις, while Luke has ἐξουσία as well, the meaning of which he, for the most part, carefully distinguishes from that of Súvaμis, even where he mentions them together. (5) This power is specifically named at v. 17 as a healing power derived from God: "And the power (Sivapus) of the Lord was with him to heal " 1 another declaration which is unknown to any other Evan

1 Cf. Acts x. 38: "Jesus of Nazareth, how that God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power [dvváμei]; who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him ;" also xix. 12, 13-20.

gelist. (6) The same association of power (Súvaμis) and healing is to be seen in vi. 19: "And all the multitude came to touch him; for power [dúvaμis] came forth from him, and (power 1) healed them all;" whereas in the parallel passage in Mark (iii. 10) power is not mentioned at all, and we read simply: "For he had healed many; insomuch that as many as had plagues pressed upon him that they might touch him.” The statement in either form is not found in Matthew. (7) In narrating the cure of the woman with the issue of blood, the same power, proceeding from the mere touch of the person of Jesus, is vividly described by Luke in the very words of Jesus Himself (viii. 46): "But Jesus said, Some one did touch me: for I perceived that power [Súvaμiv] had gone forth from me." In Mark (v. 30), however, where the word occurs for the first time, the statement comes from the reflective consciousness of the author: "And straightway Jesus, perceiving in himself that the power [Súvaμiv] proceeding from him had gone forth,2 . . . said, Who touched my garments?" It is noteworthy that this is the only passage in Mark in which power (dúvaμis), even by touch, is indisputably associated with an act of

1 There is no doubt that duvauis is the subject of laro (healed). See Meyer, Godet, in loc.

2

Meyer's more correct translation runs: Perceiving in himself the power gone forth from him." It should be noted that in Mark the construction here is the same as in Luke, though the former is in oratio obliqua, while the latter gives the exact words of Jesus.

healing. The whole story is absent from Matthew's account. (8) Again, in the commission to the Twelve, as recorded by Luke, ix. 1, we have power (dúvaμıv) linked with authority (¿§ovoíav) for casting out demons and healing diseases: "And he called the Twelve together, and gave them power and authority over all demons, and to cure diseases." In Matthew, in the parallel passage, x. 1, authority alone is deemed sufficient for both purposes: "And he called unto him his twelve disciples, and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of disease and all manner of sickness;" while in Mark vi. 7, the authority is given for exorcism alone-" And he gave them authority over the unclean spirits." This passage affords conclusive evidence that Mark does not regard the connection of power (dúvaμis) and casting out of demons as a necessary one, for we read further on (verse 13), that with mere authority the Twelve had been not merely successful, but had continued, in the exercise of their gift-" And they cast out many demons."1 Further, Luke, who seems to know nothing of the success of the Twelve as exorcists (see ix. 10), records at great length the return and success of the Seventy as exorcists in a remarkable passage (9), peculiar to himself, in which he distinctly names the hostile forces

1 The verbs are in the imperfect tense: "They were casting out," and " were anointing."

of the prince of this world as a dúvaμs to which the Seventy are superior, x. 19: "Behold, I have given you authority [éžovoíav] to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy [Súvaμiv TOû exeρoû], and in nothing 1 will it hurt you." Hitherto Luke has been constant in his use of the word dúvaμis as denoting a subjective force or power, except in one instance (10) a little further back. The passage is x. 13: "Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works [Svváμeis] had been done in Tyre and Sidon 2 which were done in you, they," &c. In Matthew a similar upbraiding of those cities and Capernaum is found at xi. 20-24,2 in which the word dvváμeis occurs three times, and is also there translated "mighty works," as representing

1 Oudev is the accusative neuter: "and in nothing will it [the Súv. T. èx0.] harm you." Cf. Acts xxv. 10; Gal. iv. 12. Meyer, Com. on Luke.

2 This denunciation, found in both Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark, certainly implies that " mighty works had not been done in Tyre and Sidon. Luke, in harmony with this interpretation, does not record the cure of the Canaanitish woman's daughter, which, as we learn from Matthew (xv. 21), took place in "the parts of Tyre and Sidon," after the denunciation. Must we therefore understand the denunciation in Matthew as meaning that "mighty works" had not yet been done in Tyre and Sidon? Mark places the locality of the same miracle in "the borders of Tyre and Sidon," and adds (vii. 31) the apparently more precise words: "He went out from the borders of Tyre, and came through Sidon unto the Sea of Galilee, through the midst of the borders of Decapolis." That is, Jesus journeyed northwards from Tyre, passed through Sidon, crossed the Lebanon range and the Jordan, and arrived at the Sea of Galilee on the eastern side of the lake. The only passage in Luke in which mention is made of works of

с