Luke 4:38,39

3 d. Luke 4:38-39.

Peter, according to our narrative, seems to have lived at Capernaum. According to John 1:45, he was originally of Bethsaida. The two places were very near, and might have had a common synagogue; or, while originally belonging to the one, Peter might have taken up his abode at the other.

The term πενθερά (not μητρυῖα) proves that Peter was married, which agrees with 1 Corinthians 9:5. It is possible that from this time Jesus took up His abode in Peter's house, Matthew 17:24 et seq.

According to Mark 1:29, His train of disciples consisted, not only of Simon and Andrew, but also of James and John. This already existing association supposes a prior connection between Jesus and these young fishermen, which is explained in John 1. Luke does not name the companions of Jesus. We only see by the words, she arose and ministered unto them (Luke 4:39), that He was not alone.

The expression πυρετὸς μέγας does not appear to be used here in the technical sense which it has in ancient books of medicine, where it denotes a particular kind of fever.

In Luke, Jesus bends down over the sick woman. This was a means of entering into spiritual communication with her; comp. Peter's words to the impotent man (Acts 3:4): Look on me. In Matthew, He touches the sick woman with His hand. This action has the same design. In Mark, He takes her by the hand to lift her up. How are these variations to be explained, if all three drew from the same source, or if one derived his account from the other?

Luke says, literally, He rebuked the fever; as if He saw in the disease some principle hostile to man. This agrees with John 8:44, where the devil is called the murderer of man.

It was doubtless at the time of the evening meal (Luke 4:40). The first use which the sick woman makes of her recovered strength was to serve up a repast for her guests. Holtzmann finds a proof in the plur. αὐτοῖς, “she served them,” that Luke's narrative depends on Mark; for thus far Luke has only spoken of Jesus: He came down (Luke 4:31), He entered (Luke 4:38). But this proof is weak. In the description of the public scene, Luke would only present the principal person, Jesus; while in the account of the domestic scene he would naturally mention also the other persons, since they had all the same need of being waited upon.

In Luke and Mark the position of this narrative is very nearly the same, with merely this difference, that in the latter it follows the calling of the four disciples, while in Luke it precedes it. In Matthew, on the contrary, it is placed very much later after the Sermon on the Mount. As to the details, Matthew is almost identical with Mark. Thus the two evangelists which agree as to the time (Luke and Mark) differ most as to the details, and the two which come nearest to each other in details (Matthew and Mark) differ considerably as to time. How can this singular relation be explained if they drew from common written sources, or if they copied from each other? Luke here omits Andrew, whom Mark mentions. Why so, if he copied from the primitive Mark? Had he any animosity against Andrew? Holtzmann replies: Because he does not speak of Andrew in what follows. As if, in Mark himself, he was any the more mentioned in the incidents that follow!