Library of The Theological Seminary
PRINCETON : NEW JERSEY
C=):
Green Fund
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL
COMMENTARY
ON
THE NEW TESTAMENT.
BY HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, Tu.D.,
OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER.
From the German, With the Sanction of the Author.
THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY
WIDEIAM PF: DICKSON, Dw, AND
WILETAM STEWART, D:D:
PART I. The GOSPEL OR Sf. MATTHEW. WOE oIah.
DIN BU RG EH: i & 2. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREEEL
MDCCCLXXIX.
PRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIBB, FOR
T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH.
LONDON, - . . . HAMILTON, ADAMS, ANI) CO. DUBLIN,. . . . . ROBERTSON AND CO.
NEW YORK, - . . SCRIBNER AND WELFORD.
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL
HANDBOOK
THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
BY / HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, Tz#.D.,
OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER.
TRANSLATED FROM THE SIXTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY REV. PETER CHRISTIE.
THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY
WILLIAM STEWART, D.D.,
PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW.
WA is IA
EDINBURGH: me TT) CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET
MDCCCLXXIX.
PREFATORY NOTE.
S Dr. Crombie has been prevented by other engagements from continuing his co-operation with me in the revision and editing of this series of translations, I have asked my esteemed colleague, Dr. Stewart, to take part in it. He has kindly consented to do so; and he has revised, and seen through the press, the present volume, with the exception of a few pages at the beginning which I had previously looked over. I learn from him that the translation has been executed with care and skill by Mr. Christie.
Mr. Christie desires me to mention that at the time of pre- paring his translation of the earlier portion of the Commentary on Matthew (from chapter vi. onward) he was not aware of the mode of rendering, which had been adopted in the previous volumes, for Dr. Meyer’s references to other portions of his own Commentary (e.g. “comp. on Luke xvi. 7 ;” “see on Rom. vi. 5”); and he requests that, in conformity to it, the word “note” inserted by him in such cases may be held as deleted, since the references are, in general, to the text of the commen- tary itself, and not to the notes or Remarks appended (except when so specified).
The following important work ought to have been included in the “ Exegetical Literature” prefixed to vol. I. :—
Weiss (Bernhard): Das Matthiiusevangelium und seine Lukas- Parallelen. 8°, Halle, 1876.
WILLIAM P. DIcKSON.
GuLascow CoLiece, Febru ry 1879.
GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
CHAT TE BR Xx VLE
VER. 1. pe] Lachm.: 74ép¢, which Fritzsche has adopted, against decisive evidence; although ancient, since both readings are found as early as the time of Origen, juép¢ is a gloss instead of ape, as there appeared to be nothing in the context to which the latter might be supposed to refer.— Ver. 4. rareswon] The future rareaces is, with Lachm. and Tisch, to be adopted on decisive evidence. — Ver. 6. e/g rov rp.] for eis Elz. has éai, while Lachm. and Tisch. 8 read zepi. Only «fs and zepi have anything like important testimony in their favour. But ep/ is taken from Mark ix. 42; Luke xvii. 2.— Ver. 7. On weighty evidence we should follow Lachm. in deleting écrw after yap, and éxefvw in the next clause, as words that might naturally have been inserted; Tisch. 8 has deleted éor only. — Ver. 8. aira] BDL &, min. vss. and Fathers: airév. So Lachm. and Tisch. correctly; airé is an emendation to include both—Further on Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have xvarw 7 xwrdv, following B &, Vulg. It.; a transposition to suit xefp and cots.— Ver. 10. The evidence is too weak to warrant us in substituting 2 r@ obpavm (so Lachm. in brackets) for the first év odpavois; still weaker is the evidence in favour of omitting the words, although they are omitted at an early period (as early as the time of Clem. Or. Syr. ?).— Ver. 11. This verse does not occur in B L* 8, 1*, 13, 33, Copt. -‘Sahid. Syrie. Aeth. (cod. 1), Eus. Or. Hil. Jer. Juv. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. ; condemned also by Rinck. Already suspected by Griesb. to have been an interpolation from Luke xix. 10, which in fact it is, con- sidering how much evidence there is against it, and considering, on the other hand, that, if it had been genuine, there was no obvious motive on exegetical grounds for the omission. — Ver. 12. dgels... copevdetc] Lachm.: apo... xai ropevdeis, follow- ing B D L, min. Vulg. It. (of which, however, D, Vulg. have apinouy, MATT. IL A
2 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
and D, opevéuevos). Exegetical analysis, in order to remove ambiguity as to the connection.— Ver. 14. ¢7s] Lachm. and Tisch.: &, following B D L M*x8, min. Altered to ¢éf¢ in accordance with ver. 10; while zarpég mov, which Lachm. sub- stitutes for tarp. tuav (following B F H J, min. vss. Or.), is to be regarded in the same light.— Ver. 15. «fs o#] deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, after B &, 1, 22, 234*, Sahid. Or. Cyr. Bas. This evidence is too weak, especially as the omission of EIZ3E might easily enough have happened from its following H=H (auaprjon), While it is further to be borne in mind that, in what goes before, it was sin in general, not merely an offence, that was in question. The <«/s oé, which is here genuine, was inserted from our passage into Luke xvii. 3, Elz. — 2acyEov] Elz., Scholz: xa: a., against B C 8 and many min. vss. and Fathers. The xas was inserted as a connective particle. — Ver. 19. réarv &wyv] Elz. (so also Griesb. Scholz, Fritzsche, Rinck, Tisch. 8) has merely +éAw, and Lachm., following min. only (B being erroneously quoted), has merely éujv. But the attestation for réAw a&ujv (Tisch. 7) is about equal in weight (incl. B) to that in favour of the simple +é% (incl. &), and one of the words might easily enough have been omitted from the combination not occurring anywhere else.— cvuzparvjowory| Seeing that the future cvumpwrjcove is supported by the prepon- derating evidence of B DE HILV AS, min, and seeing, on the other hand, that it might very readily have been supplanted by the subjunctive as being the mood most in accordance with the usual construction, it is, with Tisch., to be adopted as the correct reading.— Ver. 24. rpoonvéxd7] Lachm. and Tisch. 7: spoojxén, following B D Or. Correctly; this and Luke ix. 41 are the only instances in which zpocéyew occurs in the Gospels, zpoogépew being the form most familiar to the copyists. — Ver. 25. 7] Lachm. and Tisch. 7: zye, following only B, min. Or.; but it is to be preferred, since to the mecha- nical transcribers the present would doubtless seem to be improper. — Ver. 26.] xtpse before waxp. is to be regarded as interpolated, being omitted by B D, min. Vulg. codd. of It. Syr™ Or. Chrys. Lucif., and deleted by Lachm. and Tisch, — Ver. 27. éxefvov] omitted by Lachm., only after B, min., as is also éxeivos, ver. 28, only after B.— Ver. 28. wo.] not found in the more weighty witnesses; deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. An interpolation.— <7 r:] Elz.: 6, 1, against decisive evidence. Erroneous emendation.— Ver. 29. aisot] Elz. Fritzsche, Schulz, Scholz, Tisch. 7, insert <is rods aédaz airct, which, however, is omitted by BC* DGLavxs, min. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Syre
CHAP. XVIII. 1, 2. 3
It. (Brix. excepted) Vulg. Or. Lucif. Gloss on the simple zeou, In regard to «s,comp. John xi. 32, al.—ardvra] Deleted by Matth., Scholz, Tisch., on preponderating evidence; bracketed by Lachm. It is a mechanical interpolation from ver. 26.— Ver. 31. For the first yeviweva Fritzsche and Tisch. substitute yiwoueva, following only D L &**, min. Vulg. It. Chrys. Lucif., but correctly. The transcribers failed to notice the difference of meaning. — For airéy or airay we should, with Lachm. and Tisch., read éavrav, upon decisive evidence ; the reflexive refer- ence of the pronoun was overlooked, as was often the case. — Ver. 34. #i7@] not found in B D &**, min. vss. Lachm.; but it may easily enough have been left out in conformity with ver. 30. — Ver. 35. suav] Elz. Fritzsche, Schulz, Scholz insert ra Toparrwwara avrav, Which is not found in BDL ¥&, min. and several vss. and Fathers. Gloss from vi. 14,15; Mark xi. 25, 26.— But érovpévioc, for which Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. 8 substitute odpavos (B C** D K L IL8, min. Or. Damasc.), is to be retained, all the more that the expression 6 rarzp 6 éroup. occurs nowhere else, though we frequently find 6 =. 6 cipévos.
Ver. 1. "Ev éxeivy tH dpa] the account of Matthew, which is throughout more original in essential matters than Mark ix. 33 ff. and Luke ix. 46 ff., bears this impress no less in this definite note of time: in that hour, namely, when Jesus was holding the above conversation with Peter.— és dpa] quis igitur (see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 176). The question, according to Matthew (in Mark otherwise), is suggested by the considera- tion of the circwmstances: Who, as things stand, is, etc.; for one of them had just been peculiarly honoured, and that for the second time, by the part he was called upon to take in a special miracle. Euthymius Zigabenus says well: avOpémwov Te TOTe TeTOVOacw ot paOnTtai.— pwelfwv] greater than the other disciples in rank and power. —éoviv] they speak as though the approaching Messianic kingdom were already present. Comp. xx. 21.
Ver. 2. ILavdiov] According to Nicephorus, ii. 35, the child in question is alleged to have been St. Ignatius. Chrysostom correctly observes that it is a little child («¢ddpa Tatdiov) ; TO yap ToLodTOY Tatdlov Kal amrovoias Kai Sofopavias k. Backavias x. hidoverkeias kK. TavT@V TOV TOLOVT@Y aT7)hNaAK- Tat TaGav, Kal ToAAAS éxov TAS apeTas, abédeLav, TaTreLVod-
4 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
poovvny, ampaynoovvny, er ovdert TovTwy émaipetat. Comp. Mark ix. 36; Luke ix. 47.
Ver. 3. Ei tis améyetar Tov TpoaipeTiKav Tabdv, yiveTat @s Ta Taldla, KT@pevos 8 acKiocews, dmep Exovot TA Travia e& agenreias, Euthymius Zigabenus. — Zo turn round (otpa- dire, representing the peravova under the idea of turning round upon a road), and to acquire a moral disposition similar to the nature of little children—such is the condition, without complying with which you will assuredly not (od jm) enter, far less be able to obtain a high position in, the Messianic kingdom about to be established. The same truth is presented under a kindred figure and in a wider sense in John iii. 3, 5 ff.; the divine agent in this moral change, in which child- like qualities assume the character of manly virtues, is the Holy Spirit; comp. Luke xi. 13, ix. 55.
Ver. 4. Inference from the general principle of ver. 3 to the special child-like quality in which the disciples were deficient, as well as to the special subject of their question. If your entering the future Messianic kingdom at all is deter- mined by your returning again to a child-like frame of mind, then above all must you acquire, through humble self-abase- ment, the unassuming character of this child, in order to be greater than others in the Messiah’s kingdom. — éorus] quicunque ; “de individuo, de quo quaerebant, non respondet,” Bengel. In what follows tazrewaoe is emphatic, and accord- ingly stands near the beginning of the sentence. Had the subjunctive been critically certain, we should not have had to borrow édv from the second part of the statement (Fritzsche), but rather to observe the distinction in the manner of pre- senting the idea, according to which the insertion of ay marks the presupposition as conditioned. The /futwre assumes the action as actually occurring in the future; while the subjunc- tive after the relative without av keeps the future realization still within the domain of thought, without, however, conceiving of the realization as conditioned (av). For this usage among Attic prose writers, see Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 6. 138.— Moreover, the words of vy. 3, 4, inasmuch as they are essentially connected with the question of the disciples, are certainly
CHAP. XVIII. 5, 6. 5
original, not an anticipation of xix. 13 ff. (Holtzmann), and dispose us to prefer the account of Matthew to that of Mark or Luke.
Ver. 5. Comp. Mark ix. 37; Luke ix. 47. The question of the disciples has been answered. But His eye having lighted upon this child who happened to be present, Jesus now seizes the opportunity of inculcating upon them the duty of taking an affectionate interest in such little ones,—an exhor- tation, of which the jealous and ambitious spirit evinced by their question in ver. 1 must have shown they stood but too much in need. —acdiov tovodtov] such a little child, i.e. according to the context, not a literal child (Bengel, Paulus, Neander, de Wette, Arnoldi, Bleek, Hilgenfeld), which would give a turn to the discourse utterly foreign to the connection, but a man of such a disposition as this little child represents one who with child-like simplicity is humble and unassum- ing. So Chrysostom (zaidiov yap évtad0a tovs avOpmrovs Tods ovTas adenreis Gynot Kai TaTreLvos Kal aTreppipévous Tapa ToOIS modXots), Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Wetstein, Kuinoel, Olshausen, Kern, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Keim. Jesus well knew how much the unassuming, child-like disposition, free from everything like self-assertion, was just that which others, animated by an opposite spirit, were in the habit of overlook- ing, slighting, and thrusting aside.—€v] @ single one. So
very precious are they !— dé£n tac] denotes a loving reception with a view to further care for the soul; the opposite to this is cxavdanrifew, ver. 6.— él TO dvopartié pov] on the ground
of my name (xxiv. 5)—i.e. on account of my name, which, however, is not, with de Wette, to be taken subjectively, and referred to the faith of the one who receives (whosoever confess- ing my name, on account of his faith in me, etc.) but is to be understood as referring to the waidiov tovodtov that is to be received (Mark ix. 41; Matt. x. 42), because my name (Jesus the Messiah) contains the sum of his belief and confession (“ non ob causas naturales aut politicas,’ Bengel).— éwé] comp. x. 40, xxv. 40; John xiii, 20.
Ver. 6. Comp. Mark ix. 42 ; Luke xvii. 2. — ccavdanrion] Opposite of d¢&)rar, meaning: will have been to him the
6 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
oceasion of his fall, especially of his apostasy from the faith (v. 29, xi. 6).— Tv pLxpOv TovTa@r] not to be understood, any more than ra.diov ToodTo, ver. 5, of literal children (Holtz- mann), and consequently not to be used as proof of the faith of little children (Baur, Delitzsch), but as meaning: one of those little ones,—a way of designating modest, simple-minded, unassuming believers, that had just been suggested by seeing in the child then present a model of such simplicity. This is not quite the same as Tay muKpav Tov’Twy, x. 42 (xxv. 40), where the expression is not borrowed from the illustration of a child. —cupdépes adTo, iva, x.7.r.] For the construction, comp. note on v. 29. “ But whoever will have offended one of those little ones,’—it is of service to him, with a view to, ie. in hune finem ut. That, which such a person may have come to deserve, is thus expressed in the form of a divine purpose, which his evil deed must help him to bring about; comp. John xi 50. <A comparative reference of oupdéper (Jerome: “ quam aeternis servari cruciatibus ;” others: than again to commit such a sin) is a pure importation. —
“pvros dvexds] The larger mills (in contradistinction to the xerpoutrar, xxiv. 41) were driven by an ass ; Buxtorf, Lez. Talm. p. 2252. Comp. also Anth. Pal. ix. 301; Ovid, A. A. iii, 290.—The xatarovticpos (Wesseling, ad Diod. Sic. xvi. 35; Hermann, Privatalterth. § 72, 26; Casaubon, ad Suet. Oct. 67) was not a Jewish method of putting to death, neither was it a practice in Galilee (Joseph. Anéz. xiv. 15. 10), but belonged to the Greeks, Romans, Syrians, and Phoenicians. Consequently it here expresses in a manner all the more vivid and awe-inspiring that punishment of death to which the man in question has become liable, and which is intended to represent the loss of eternal life; comp. vv. 7—9.
Ver. 7. Odal] Opnvet ds firtavOpwrros Tov Koopov as péh- Aovta PBraBhvar ard Tov cKavdarwv, Theophylact. — ao] indicating the causal origin of the woe for humanity (7@ coop). The world is not conceived of as giving the offence (in answer to Jansen, Arnoldi, Bleek), but as suffering from it. With regard to dz, see Buttmann, Newt. Gramm. p. 277 [E. T. 322].—dvdyxn yap] assigns the reason for the amo tév
CHAP. XVIII. 8, 9. 7 oxavoan. immediately before: on account of offences, I say, for they cannot but come. This necessity (necessitas consequentiae) has its foundation in the morally abnormal condition of man- kind, yet (comp. 1 Cor. xi. 19) is to be traced back to the divine purpose (not merely permission), which, however, does away neither with the moral freedom of him who, by word or deed, gives offence (Rom. xiv. 13), nor with his liability to punish- ment. Hence: Any (yet) oval TO avOpeTro, K.T.A.—Ta oKAaD- Sanda] temptations, as a general conception.— 76 cxav6.] the temptation as conceived of in each individual case.
Ver. 8 f. Comp. Mark ix. 43 ff. A passing direction, sug- gested by ver. 7, for avoiding certain specified offences, and substantially the same as in v. 29. A repetition depending here, no doubt, on Mark (Weiss), yet not to be regarded as out of place, because the proverbial saying refers to one’s own temptations as coming through the senses, while here the point in question is the temptation of others (de Wette, Kuinoel, Strauss, Holtzmann, Hilgenfeld), but on the contrary as quite appropriate, inasmuch as the cxdvédara occasioned from without operate through the senses, and thereby seduce into evil. —xanrov cou éotiv ... 4] a mixture, by attraction, of two constructions: J¢ 7s good to enter into the life (of the Messiah’s kingdom at the second coming) maimed (and better) than, etc. See Fritzsche’s note on this passage, and Dissert. WI. ad 2 Cor. p. 85; Winer, p. 226 [E. T. 302]; Buttmann, p. 309 [E. T. 360]. For examples from classical writers, see Kypke, Obss. I. p. 89; Bos, Hilips. ed. Schaefer, p. 769 ff. See besides, the note on v. 29, 30. But in the present passage the material representation of mortification as the condition of eternal life is somewhat more circumstantial and graphic. — ywX6r] refers to the feet, one of which, indeed, is supposed to be awanting (comp. Hom. J. ii. 217: yards & €repov mda); while, according to the context, cvArov here (more general in xv. 30) refers to mutilation of the arm, from which the hand is supposed to be cut off. Hence: limping (x@Aov) or maimed (kvddov). But the circumstance of xywAdv being put jirst is due to the fact that the cutting off of the foot (avTov, see critical notes) had been specified, although at the
8 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
same time an identical proceeding in regard to the hand is, of course, to be understood. — wovofOarp.] Herod. iii. 116, iv. 27; Strabo, II. p. 70. According to the grammarians, we should have had érepopOanru. in contradistinction to wovddParu., which denotes the condition of one born with one eye. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 136 f.; Becker, Anecd. I. p. 280.
Ver. 10. Jesus now proceeds with His cautions, which had been interrupted by the parenthetical exhortation in vv. 7-9. The belief that every individual has a guardian angel (see Tob. v.; comp. in general, Schmidt in Igen’s Denkschr.I. p. 24 ff.) —which is a post-Babylonian development of the Old Testa- ment view, that God exercised His care over His people through angelic instrumentality—is here confirmed by Jesus (Acts xii. 15)—a point which is to be simply admitted, but not to be explained symbolically, neither by an “as it were” (Bleek), as though it were intended merely to represent the great value of the little ones in the sight of God (de Wette), nor as referring to human guardians, who are supposed to occupy a position of pre-eminent bliss in heaven (Paulus). — év ovp. dia mavtTos BNETovet,K.T.r.] inasmuch as they are ever in imme- diate proximity to God’s glory in heaven, and therefore belong to the highest order of angels. This is not merely a way of expressing the great importance of the puxpoi, but a proof which, from Déyo tpiv and Tod matpds pov, receives all the -weight of an emphatic testimony; while the mode of representation (comp. o% ‘Nb of the Rabbinical writers, Schoettgen’s note on this passage) is borrowed from the court arrangements of Oriental kings, whose most confidential ser- vants are called 9287 38 ‘N40, 2 Kings xxv. 19; 1 Kings mee Lop. xu, 15: Lukes lo.
Ver. 11 f. Omitting ver. 11, which is not genuine (see critical notes), we come to the parable vv. 12-14, which is intended to show that it would be in direct opposition to God’s desire for human salvation to lead astray one of those pxpoi, and to cause him to be lost, like a strayed sheep. Luke xv. 4 ff. records the same beautiful parable, though in a different connection, and with much tenderer, truer, and more original features. But the time-hallowed parable of the
CHAP. XVIII. 14. 9
shepherd came so naturally to Jesus, that there is no reason why He should not have employed it more than once, in a shorter or more detailed form, according as it happened to be appropriate to the occasion. — Té bpiv doxet] “suavis com- municatio,’” Bengel. — dav yévnraz, «.7.d.] if a hundred sheep have fallen to a man’s lot, if he has come into the possession of them (Kiihner, II. 1, p. 364). The contrast to & requires that we should conceive of éxatov as a large number (not as a small flock, Luke xii. 32). Comp. Lightfoot. — It is preferable to connect émt ta dpn with adeis (Vulgate, Luther), because the connecting of it with .zopevGeis (Stephanus, Beza, Casaubon, Er. Schmid, Bengel) would impart an unmeaning emphasis to él Ta dpn. The man is pasturing his sheep upon the hills, observes that one of them is amissing, therefore meanwhile leaves the flock alone upon the hills (for the one that has strayed demands immediate attention), and, going away, searches for the one sheep that is lost. The reading of Lachmann repre- sents the right connection. — él ta dpn] evi is not merely upon (as answering the question: where ?), but expresses the idea of being scattered over the surface of anything, which corresponds exactly with what is seen in the case of a flock - when it is grazing, and which is likewise in keeping with ageis, which conveys the idea of being Jet owt, let loose. Comp. notes on xiii. 2, xiv. 19, xv. 35. — édv yévntac ebpety ado] uf wt should happen that he finds it. Comp. Hesiod, Theog. 639; in classical Greek, found mostly with, though also with- out, a dative. Xen. Mem. i. 9.13; Cyr. vi. 3.11; Plato, Rep. p. 397 B; Kiihner, II. 2, p. 582. This expression is unfavourable to the notion of irresistible grace. — yaipeu, «.T.d.] This picture, so psychologically true, of the first im- pression is not applied to God in ver. 14 (otherwise in Luke xv. 7), although, from the popular anthropopathic point of view, it might have been so. Luke’s version of the parable is characterized by greater freshness.
Ver. 14. Accordingly, as it is not the will of that man that one of his sheep should be lost, so it is not the will of God that one of those wuxpod should be lost (should fall into eternal perdition). The point of the comparison therefore lies in the
10 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
unwillingness to let perish ; in the parable this is represented by the case of a strayed sheep, for the purpose of teaching the disciples that if a suxpos happens to err from the faith and the Christian life, they should not abandon him, but try to induce him to amend.—What is said in regard to the pxpoi is there- fore put in the form of a climax: (1) Do not despise them, inasmuch as you would cause them to go astray, and be the occasion of their ruin (vv. 6-10); (2) On the contrary, if one does go wrong, rescue him, just as the shepherd rescues his wandering sheep, in order that it may not be lost (vv. 12-14). — éumpocGer] coram (xi. 26; Luke xv. 10). There is not before God (before the face of God) any determination having as tts object that, etc.; consequently, no predestination to condemnation in the divine will. On the idea involved in 6énpa, comp. note oni. 19. For the ¢elic sense of tva, comp. vii. 12; Mark vi. 25, x. 35, al., and the é0érew ddpa of Homer; Niigelsbach’s note on liad, i. 133. — &v] See critical notes. The idea of the sheep still lingers in the mind.
Ver. 15. The connection with what precedes is as follows : “ Despise not one of the pexpor (vv. 10-14); if, however, one offends against thee, then proceed thus.” The subject changes from that of doing injury to the puxpol, against which Jesus has been warning (vv. 10-14), to that of suffering injury, in view of which he prescribes the proper method of brotherly visitation. However, in developing this contrast, the point of view becomes so generalized that, instead of the puxpoit, who were contemplated in the previous warning, we now have the Christian brother generally, 0 ddehpos cov — there- fore, the genus to which the puxpds as species belongs. — apaptynon eis oé] The emphasis is not on es oé, but on dpaptynon: but if thy brother shall have sinned against thee, which he is supposed to do not merely “ scandalo dato” (Bengel), but by sinful treatment in general, by any un- brotherly wrong whatsoever. Comp. ver. 21. Ch. W. Miiller in the Stud. u. Krit. 1857, p. 339 ff, Julius Miller, Dogmat. Abh. p. 513 ff, reject the reading ets oé, ver. 15, though on internal grounds that are not conclusive, and which might be met by stronger counter-arguments against the use of
CHAP. XVIII. 16. ib
auaptyon without modification of any sort. How can it be supposed that the procedure here inculcated was intended to apply to every sin without any limitation whatever ? Would we not have in that case a supervision omniwm contra omnes ? The reference can only be to private charges, to offences in which the one sins against the other (ets oé), and which, as such, ought to be dealt with within the Christian church. Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 1 ff.—darye] do not wait, then, till he himself come to thee.—peta&d cod Kk. adtod povov] so that except him no one else is to be present along with thee, so that the interview be strictly confined to the two of you. We must not therefore supply a povouv after cod as well. But the rebuking agency (Eph. v. 11) is regarded as in- tervening between the two parties. The person who re- proves mediates between the two parties, of which he himself forms one. — édv cov axovcon] if he will have listened to thy admonition, will have complied with it. But Fritzsche and Olshausen connect the preceding povov with this clause: “ §2 tibi soli aures praebuerit.” This would imply an arrange- ment that is both harsh and foreign to New Testament usage. — éxépdnoas] usually explained: as thy friend; mparov yap é€nusod todTov, Sua Tod cKavdddov pyyripevov amd Tis aderguxhs cov cvvadeias, Euthymius Zigabenus. But what a truism would such a result imply! Therefore it should much rather be explained thus: thou hast gained him Jor the eternal blessedness of my kingdom, to which, from not being brought to a state of repentance, he would otherwise have been lost (ver. 17). But the subject who gains is the party that has been aggrieved by the offence of the brother, because the successful result is understood to be brought about by his affectionate endeavours after an adjustment. Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 19; 1 Pet. 11. 1. Ver. 16. Second gradus admonitionis. The one or the two who accompany him are likewise intended to take part in the eheyyew (see avtarv, ver. 17). — tva él otdpatos, K.7.dr.] in order that, in the mouth of two or three witnesses, every word may be duly attested ; i.e. in order that every declaration which he makes in answer to your united éAéyyew may be heard by two or three persons (according as one or two may happen to
£2 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
be present besides thyself), and, on the strength of their testi- mony (él orduatos, ‘5 Sy), may be duly authenticated, so that in the event of his submitting to the ééyyew the possibility of evading or denying anything afterwards will be precluded ; or else, should he prove so refractory that the matter must be brought before the church, then, in the interests of this further disciplinary process, it will be of consequence to have the declaration made by him in the previous attempt to deal with him in an authentic and unquestionable shape. — In order to convey His idea, Jesus has used, though somewhat freely (otherwise in 2 Cor. xiii. 1), the words of the law, Deut. xix. 15, and made them His own. Comp. 1 Tim. v. 19.
Ver. 17. TH éxxrAnoia] is not to be understood of the Jewish synagogue (Beza, Calvin, Fritzsche), which is never called by this name, and any reference to which would be contrary to the meaning of Jesus; but it is to be taken as referring to the community of believers on Jesus (comp. note on xvi. 18), which is, as yet, regarded as one body with the apostles included (ver. 18). There is here no allusion to individual congregations in different localities, since these could come into existence only at a later period ; neither, for this reason, can there be any allusion to presbyters and bishops (Chrysostom), or to those whom they may have invested, as their representatives, with spiritual jurisdiction (Catholic writers, comp. besides, Dollinger). There is, further, nothing to warrant the assumption of an historical prolepsis (de Wette, Julius Miiller), for the truth is, the Sap of believers was actually existing; while, in the terms of this passage, there is no direct reference to individual congregations. But as Jesus had already spoken elsewhere of His snp (xvi. 18), it was impossible for the disciples to misunderstand the allusion. The warrant for regarding the judgment of the church as final in regard to the édey&s lies in the moral power which belongs to the unity of the Holy Spirit, and, consequently, to true understanding, faith, earnest effort, prayer, etc., the existence of all which in the church is pre- supposed. It is not inconsistent with this passage to suppose that, under the more developed circumstances of a later
CHAP. XVIII. 18, 19. 13
period, when local congregations sprung up as offshoots from the Snp, there may have been some representative body, com- posed of individuals chosen for the purpose of maintaining discipline, but the choice would necessarily be founded on such conditions and qualifications as were in keeping, so far as it was possible for man to judge, with the original principle of entrusting such matters only to those who were actual believers and had been truly regenerated. — éav Sé Kal Tr. exkyr. Tapak.| but if he refuses to listen even to the church ; if he will not have submitted to its advice, exhortation, injunction. — ETTW TOL dome, «.7.r.] let him be for thee (ethical dative) ;
let him be in thy estimation as, etc. ; Nowrov aviata 6 ToLodTOS vooet, Chrysostom. What is here ‘indicated 4 is the breaking off of all further Christian, brotherly fellowship with one who is hopelessly obdurate, “as not being a sheep, nor caring to be sought, but willing to go right to perdition,” Luther. In this passage Christ says nothing, as yet, about formal excommunication on the part of the church (1 Cor. v.); but the latter was such a fair and necessary deduction from what he did say, as the apostolic church, in the course of its development, considered itself warranted in making. “Ad eam ex hoc etiam loco non absurde argumentwm duci posse non negaverim,” Grotius. In answer to the latter, Calovius, in common with the majority of the older expositors, asserts that the institu- tion of excommunication is, in the present passage, already expressly declared. — 6 é@vixds] generic.
Ver. 18 f. By way of giving greater confidence in the exercise of this last stage of discipline at which the matter is finally disposed of by the church, let ne assure you of two things: (1) Whatever you (in the church) declare to be un- lawful on the one hand, or permissible on the other (see note on xvi. 19), will be held to be so in the sight of God; your judgment in regard to complaints brought before the church is accordingly ratified by divine warrant. (2) If two of you agree as to anything that is to be asked in prayer, it will be given you by God; when, therefore, your hearts are thus united in prayer, you are assured of the divine help and illumination, in order that, in every case, you may arrive at
14 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
and, in the church, give effect to decisions in accordance with the mind of God.—Those addressed in the second person (éyonTe, k.7.r.) are the apostles (Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 266 f,), but not the disciples in the more comprehensive sense of the word (Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 103), nor the church (Bleek, Schenkel, Keim, Ahrens), nor its Jeaders (Euthymius Zigabenus, de Wette), nor the parties who have been injured (Origen, Augustine, Theophylact, Grotius). In order to a clear understanding of the whole discourse from ver. 3 onwards, it should be observed generally, that wherever the address is in the second person plural (therefore in vv. 3, 10, 12,14, 18, 19), it is the Twelve who came to Jesus, ver. 1, that are intended; but that where Jesus uses the second person singular (as in vv. 8, 9, 15-17), He addresses every believer individually (including also the puxpot). But as far as the éxxAyova is concerned, it is to be understood as meaning the congregation of belrevers, including the apostles, It is the possessor and guardian of the apostolic moral legislation, and consequently it is to it that the offender is in duty bound to yield obedience. Finally, since the power of bind- ing and loosing, which in xvi. 19 was adjudged to Peter, is here ascribed to the apostles generally, the power conferred upon the former is set in its proper light, and shown to be of necessity a power of a collegiate nature, so that Peter is not to be regarded as exclusively endowed with it either in whole or in part, but is simply to be looked upon as primus inter pares.— Twadrw.v apnv r bp.| Once more a solemn assurance! and that to the effect that, etc. Comp. xix. 24. For éay with the indicative (cupdwrvicovow, see critical notes), see note on Luke xix. 40, and Buttmann, Neut. Gramm. p. 192 [E. T. 222]; Bremi, ad Lys. Alc. 13. The construction is a case of attraction; wav should have been the subject of the principal clause of the sentence, but was attracted to the subordinate clause and joined to wpdyuaros, so that without the attraction the passage would run thus: éav dvo by. cuphwvicovow emt T. yas Tepl mpdypyatos, mav 0 éay aitnowvTat, ywroetar avtois. Comp. Kiihner, II. 2, p. 925. For the contrast implied in ei 7. yfs, comp. ix. 6.
CHAP. XVIII. 20-22. US
Ver. 20. Confirmation of this promise, and that not on account of any special preference for them in their official capacity, but generally (hence the absence of vudy in connec- tion with the dvo 7 tpets) owing to the fact of His gracious presence in the midst of His people when met together: for where two or three are gathered together with reference to my name, there am I (my presence being represented by the Holy Spirit, comp. Rom. vii. 9 f.; 2 Cor. xiii. 5; 1 Cor. v. 4; Gal. ii. 20; Eph. i. 16 f.; also in general, xxviii. 20) in the midst of them ; so that you need therefore have no doubt as to the yevijceras just promised to you, which I, as associated with my Father (ver. 19), will bring about. The statement is put in the form of an axiom; hence, although referring to the future, its terms are present. The higher, spiritual object of the meeting together of the two or three lies not in cuvnypévor, which expresses nothing more than the simple fact of being met (in answer to Grotius, de Wette), but in eis To euov dvoua, which indicates that the name of Jesus Christ (ze. the confession, the honouring of it, etc.) is that which in the cuvnypévoy eivat is contemplated as its specific motive (wu Ov érépay aitiav, Euthymius Zigabenus). “Simile dicunt Rabbini de duobus aut tribus considentibus in judicio, quod m3 sit in medio eorum,” Lightfoot.
Ver. 21. At this point Peter steps forward from amongst the disciples (ver. 1), and going up to Jesus, vouifov gavirat peyarovrvyotatos (Euthymius Zigabenus), proposes that for- giveness should be shown more than twice the number of times which the Rabbis had declared to be requisite. Baby. Joma, f. 86. 2, contains the following words: “ Homini in alterum peccanti semel remittunt, secundo remittunt, tertio remittunt, quarto non remittunt.”
Ver. 22. Ov rXéyw cor] are to be taken together (in answer to Fritzsche), and to be rendered thus: J do not say to thee, I do not give thee ¢he prescription; comp. John xvi. 26.— éEBdounkovtakis éwta] not: till seventy times seven, we. till the four hundred and ninetieth time (Jerome, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Grotius, de Wette, Bleek); but, seeing that we have émra, and not éwtd«s again, the rendering should
16 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
simply be: till seventy-seven times. No doubt, according to the classical usage of adverbial numerals, this would have been expressed by ém7a kal éBdopnkovtdkis or éSdouHnKovTa értaxis ; but the expression in the text is according to the LXX. Gen. iv. 24.1 So, and that correctly, Origen, Augustine, Bengel, Ewald, Hilgenfeld, Keim ; comp. “the Gospel of the Hebrews” in Hilgenfeld’s W. 7. extra can. IV. p. 24.— For the sense, comp. Theophylact: ody tva apiOued tmepikrelon THY. cuyyepnow, add TO dTretpov evTavOa onpaiver ws av et édeyev’ ocadkis dv TTalcas peTavon cUyY@pEL AUTO.
Ver. 23. Mia todro] must refer to the reply to Peter's question, for a new scene was introduced at ver. 21. Therefore to be explained thus: “ because I have enjoined such wnlimited forgiveness” (not merely a conciliatory disposition generally, in answer to de Wette and Bleek). The duty of unlimited forgiveness proves any shortcoming in regard to this matter to be but the more reprehensible, and to point this out is the object of the parable which follows. — ®y01w6n 4 Bac. T. ovp.| See note on xiiii 24.—The dodo are the king’s ministers who are indebted to him through having received money on loan (Savecov, ver. 27), or, relatively, as treasurers, land stewards, or the like. But it is not without reason that - aOparw is joined to PBacrre?, seeing that the kingdom of heaven is likened to a human king. Comp. the avip Bactreds of Homer. — cvvaiperv Aoyor] to hold a reckoning, to settle accounts, occurs again in xxv. 19, but nowhere else. Classical writers would say: SsaroyiecOar mpos twa, Dem. 1236. 17.
Ver. 24 ff. According to Boeckh, Staatshaush. d. Athener, I. p. 15 ff., an (Attic) talent, or sixty minae, amounted to 1375 thalers [about £206 sterling]. Ten thousand talents, amount- ing to something considerably over thirteen millions of thalers, are intended to express a sum so large as to be well-nigh
1 Where, indeed, mya mya cannot possibly mean anything else than seventy-seven, as is clear from the }, not seventy times seven; comp. Judg. viii. 14. This in answer to Kamphausen in the Stud. u. Krit. 1861, p. 121 f. The (substantive) feminine form MYyaw cannot be considered strange (seventy
and a@ seven). See Ewald, Lehrb. d. Hebr. Spr. § 267 ¢., and his Jahrb, XI. p- 198,
CHAP. XVIII. 28. Lz
incalculable. So great was the debt of one (els). — éxéXNevcer avtov ... éyxet] according to the Mosaic law; Lev. xxv. 39, 47; 2 Kings iv. 1; Ex. xxii. 2. See Michaelis, % R.§ 148; Saalschiitz, 2 R. p. 706 f. The word adrov is emphatic: that he should be sold, etc. On the present indicative éye (see critical notes), which is derived from the idea of the narrative being direct, comp. Kiihner, II. 2, p. 1058.— Kai atoooOhvac] and that payment be made. This was the king’s command ; it must be paid, viz. the sum due. The fact of the proceeds of the sale not proving sufficient for this purpose did not in any way affect the order; hence dzodo8. is not to be referred merely to the proceeds (Fritzsche). The king wants his money, and therefore does the best he can in the circum- stances to get it.—mavta cot atod@ca] in his distress and anguish he promises far more than he can hope to per- form. And the king in his compassion goes far beyond what was asked (adfxev att). — For davecov, money lent, comp. Deut. xxiv. 11; found frequently in classical writers since the time of Demosth. 911. 3.
Ver. 28. A hundred denarii, about forty Rhenish Gulden, or 23 thalers [about £3, 9s. sterling] (a denarius being not quite equal to a drachma), what a paltry debt compared with those talents of which there were a hundred times a hundred ! — émvuye| Creditors (as the Roman law allowed them to do) often dragged their debtors before the judge, holding them by the throat. Clericus and Wetstein on this passage. — a7é5os, el TL @PetrELs] ef Te is not to be taken, as is often done, as though it were equivalent to 6, 7x. For where ei 7, like si quid, is used in the sense of quicquid (see Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 10. 18), e¢ always has a conditional force, which would be out of place in the present instance; but, with Fritzsche and Olshausen, to trace the expression to Greek urbanity, would be quite incongruous here. Neither, however, are we to affirm, with Paulus and Baumgarten-Crusius, that the conditional expression is rather more severe in its tone, from representing the man as not being even certain in regard to the debt ; for the certainty of the debt is implied in the terms of the passage, and, moreover, in the kpatycas adr. érvuye was
MATT. II. B
18 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
necessarily to be presupposed on the part of the doddes. No, the e¢ is simply the expression of a pitiless logic: Pay, if thou owest anything (d7ddos being emphatic). From the latter the former follows as matter of necessity. If thou owest anything (and such is the case), then thou must also pay,—and therefore I arrest thee!
Ver. 29. lecdy] after that he had fallen down,—that is, as one who 7pocexvver, which follows, as a matter of course, from ver. 26, without our requiring to insert such words as eis Tovs T70das avTod (see critical notes). Chrysostom appropri- ately observes: od TO oxyfpa Ths txeTnplas avéuynoev avTov Ths TOU SeaTrdTOU piravOpwrias.
Ver. 31 f. “EdXurn@noav]| They were grieved at the hard- heartedness and cruelty which they saw displayed in what was going on (Ta yuvoweva, see critical notes). — dsecad.] not simply narrarunt (Vulgate), but more precisely: declar- arunt (Beza) ; Plat. Prot. p. 348 B; Legg. v. p. 733 B; Polyb. i 46. 4; i 27. 3; 2 Macc. i 18, ii 9.—7O Kupio éavt@v| The reflective pronoun (see critical notes) indicates ‘ that, as befitted their position, the ovvdovdor addressed them- selves to their own master. Their confidence in him led them to turn to him rather than to any one else. — éwel mapexdn. pre] because thou entreatedst me. And he had not gone so far as to beg for entire remission of the debt, but only for for- bearance !
Ver. 33. On the well-known double xaé used comparatively, see Klotz, ad Devar. p.635. Baeumlein, Partik. p.153.—édec] the moral oportwit.— tots Bacaviotais| to the tormentors (Dem. 978, 11; 4 Mace. vi. 11) to torture him, not merely to cast him into prison, which latter was only a part of their functions (Fritzsche). The idea involved in Bacavifew is of essential importance, typifying as it does the future Bdoavos of Gehenna. Comp. viii. 29; Luke xvi. 23; Rev. xiv. 10. Grotius well observes, though he takes the Bacaworas as = SecpopvAaxas (Kuinoel, de Wette), “utitur autem hic rex ille non solo creditoris jure, sed et judicis."— ws 08 a7roda] as in ver. 30. wntil he shall have paid. Though not expressly asserted, it is a legitimate inference from the terms of the
CHAP. XVIII. 33. 19
passage (comp. v. 26) to say: toutéote Simverds, ote yap atrode@cet Troté, Chrysostom.
Doctrine of the parable: The remission which thou hast obtained from God of thy great unpayable debt of sin, must stimulate thee heartily to forgive thy brother the far more trifling debt which he has incurred as regards thee; otherwise, when the Messianic judgment comes, the righteousness of God will again rise up against thee, and thou wilt be cast into Gehenna to be punished eternally ; comp. v. 25 f., vi. 14 f£— That motive, drawn from the forgiving mercy of God, could only be exhibited in all its significance by the light shed upon it in the atoning death of Christ (Eph. iv. 32, Col. ii. 12 f.), so that Jesus had to leave to the future, which was fast approaching, what, as yet, could be but inadequately under- stood (so far we have here a tatepov mporepov), and hence our passage is not inconsistent (Socinian objection) with the doctrine (also expressly contained in xx. 28, xxvi. 28) of satisfaction. — amo tT. xapo. by.) from your heart, therefore out of true, inward, heartfelt sympathy, not from a stoical indifference. Comp. ver. 33. This is the only instance in the New Testament of azo being used in connection with this phrase; elsewhere it is é« that is employed. But comp. the classical expressions amo yvouns, amd orovdss, amd dpevos, and the like; also do xapdias in Antoninus ii. 3, and azo THs Yuxjs. Dem. 580, 1.
20 TIIE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
CHAPTER X1X,
VER. 3. of @apso.] Lachm. has deleted oi, following BC LM AT, min. Correctly; the oi dap. would suggest itself mechanically to the transcribers from being in current use by them; in several manuscripts it is likewise inserted in Mark x. 2.— After Aéyovres Elz. and Scholz insert air@, which, owing to the preponderance of evidence against it, is to be regarded as a common interpolation, as are also «iro, ver. 4, airqv, ver. 7. — avoparw)] is wanting in B L res* min. Aug. deleted by Lachm. Correctly; supplement from ver. 5, and for which Cod. 4 has dvdpf (Mark x. 2).— Ver. 5. rpooxorA78.] Lachm. and Tisch., also Fritzsche: x09, following very weighty evidence. The compound form, however, is more common, and is taken from the LXX.—Ver. 9. ér: before és is not, with Lachm. and Tisch. 7, to be deleted. It has the pre- ponderance of evidence in its favour, and how readily may it have been overlooked, especially before ¢¢, seeing that it is not indispensable. — Instead of jj 2a? cropyeia Lachm. has supexris Adyeu sopvetas, following B D, min. It. Or., but clearly borrowed from v. 32 by way of a gloss. For mua, Elz. and Scholz have <i «4, against decisive evidence; an exegetical addition.— x. 6 droreruu. yaw. woryara:| are deleted by Tisch. 8, following C** D LS x, vss. Or.? Chrys. But there is preponderating evidence in favour of the words, and the homoeoteleuton might readily enough be the occasion of their omission. Moreover, there is no parallel passage verbally identical with this. — Ver. 13. tpoonvéxé7] Lachm. and Tisch.: xpoonvexdnoay, following BC DL», min. Or. In presence of such weighty evidence, the singular is to be regarded as a gram- matical correction. — Ver. 16. é4ya4é] is justly condemned by Griesb. and deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. (B D Ls, min. codd. of It. Or. Hilar.). Inserted from Mark x. 17; Luke xvill. 18.— Ver. 17. The Received text (so also Fritzsche and Scholz) has cf ws Aéyers cyuddv; oddels cyabic ef mun eis 6 dds. But the reading: ri we epwrdis rep) rod dyabod; cig goriv 6 ayadés, is attested by the very weighty evidence of B D LX¥, Vulg.
CHAP, XIX, 1, 2 21
It. Or. and other vss. and Fathers. So Griesb., Lachm., Tisch. The reading of the Received text is taken from Mark and Luke, and would be adopted all the more readily the more the original reading seemed, as it might easily seem, to be inappropriate! The order: e¢ rv wiv eiocad. (Lachm., Tisch.), has decisive attestation ; but rype7 (Lachm., Tisch. 7) for rjpyoov finds but inadequate support, being favoured merely by B D, Homuil. Cl. — Ver. 20. EQUAGE amNY Ex VEdTHTOS ov] Lachm. and Tisch. : 2pdAuZa, following important, though not quite unani- mous, witnesses (B D L &* among the uncial manuscripts; but D has retained 2x veér., though omitting wov). The reading of the Received text is taken from Luke and Mark. — Ver. 23. Lachm. and Tisch., following decisive evidence, read zAoveis ducxdrAws. — Ver. 24. Instead of the first eiceAdew, Elz. has 6sAde%, which is defended by Fritzsche and Rinck, and also adopted again by Lachm., in opposition to Griesb., Matth., Scholz, Schulz, Tisch., who read <«iceAdc. The evidence on both sides is very weighty. dee 1s a correction for sake of the sense, with which <iceAdeiv was supposed not to agree. Comp. note on Mark x. 25; Luke xviii. 25. If the second é:eAde% were to be retained, the preponderance of evidence would be in favour of inserting it after zActomy (Lachm.); but we must, with Tisch., following L ZX, 1, 33, Syr™ Or. and other Fathers, delete it as being a supplement from the parallel passages. — Ver. 28. For xai iue7s read, with Tisch. 8, xa) airo/, following DLZx, 1, 124, Or. Ambr. The reading of the Received text is an exegetical gloss. — Ver. 29. éorsc] The simple é¢ (Elz., Griesb., Fritzsche, Scholz) is opposed by preponderating evidence; zs was omitted as unnecessary (but comp. vil. 21, x. 32).—7 yuvatxa| after wyr.is correctly deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., on the evidence of B D, 1, Or. Ir. Hil. vss. Taken from Mark and Luke. — For ixarovrarAacfova Lachm. and Tisch. have vo A«- graciova, following B L, Syr Sahid. Or. Cyr. Correctly; it would be much more natural to explain the indefinite roA,«- ahac. from Mark x. 30 by means of the definite expression txarorarAae., than to explain the latter from Luke xvii. 30 by means of woAAuTAas.
Ver. 1 f. With his usual formula, «. éyév. bre érér., «7.2. (vii. 28, xi. 1, xiii. 53), Matthew here introduces the accownt of the closing stage in Christ’s ministry by mentioning His
1 So also Rinck, Lucubr. crit. p. 268f. Differently Hilgenfeld in the Theol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 414 f., but not on critical evidence.
22 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
departure from Galilee to Judaea. It does not follow (comp. note on xvi. 21) that there may not have been previous visits to Judaea (in answer to Baur), but, in order to give to this journey, above all, the prominence due to its high significance, it was necessary that the Synoptists should confine their view to the Galilaean ministry until the time came for this final visit to the capital——The conversation concerning divorce and marriage is likewise given in Mark x. 1 ff., and, on the whole, in a more original shape. — wethpev amo ths T'adsr.] Comp. xvii, 22, 24. mwépav rod Iopddvov] This expression can- not be intended to define the locale of eis Ta dpa THs Iovdaios, for the reader knew, as matter of course, that Peraea and Judaea (iv. 15, 25) meant diferent districts, although, accord- ing to Ptolem. v. 16. 9, several towns east of the Jordan might be reckoned as included in Judaea; neither can it belong to petipev azo tr. Tax. (Fritzsche : “ Movens a Galilaea transiit fluvium”’), for «. 7AGev eds 7. dp. T. Love. is not of the nature of a parenthesis; rather is it to be regarded as in- dicating the route (Mark x. 1) which Jesus took, thus defining HNOGev (Mark vii. 31) somewhat more precisely, lest it should be supposed that He was on this side Jordan, and therefore approached Judaea by going through Samaria, whereas, being on the farther side of the river, He went by Peraea, and reached the borders of Judaea by crossing over to the west side of the Jordan (somewhere in the neighbourhood of Jericho, xx. 29). The expression is not awkward (Volkmar) ; nor, again, is it to be erroneously understood as showing that the Gospel was written in some district east of the Jordan. — Further, the narrative of Matthew and Mark cannot be recon- ciled with that of Luke, who represents Jesus as keeping to this side of the Jordan (ix. 51, and see note on xvi. 11); nor with the account of John, who, x. 22, says nothing about the jowrney to Jerusalem, but represents Jesus as already there, and in ver. 40 as setting out from that city to make a short sojourn in Peraea. — éxe@] that is, in Peraea, just mentioned, and through which He was travelling on His way to the borders of Judaea, ver. 1. On avrovs (their sick), see Winer, p. 139 [E. T. 183]. Instead of the
CHAP. XIX. 3. 23
healing, Mark speaks of the teaching that took place on this occasion.
Ver. 3. etpdfovres] The question was of an ensnaring nature, owing to the rivalry that existed between the school of Hillel and that of the more rigorous Sammai. See note on v. 31. There is not the slightest foundation in the text for the idea that the questioners had in view the matrimonial relations of Antipas (Paulus, Kuinoel, de Wette, Ewald), as though they wanted to involve Jesus, while yet in Peraea, within that prince’s domains, in a fate similar to that of the Baptist. Moreover, the adoption of this view is altogether unnecessary, since the whole school of Sammai had already condemned that most unlawful state of matters just referred to, and therefore there was on this score nothing of a specially tempting character about the question. But they expected that Jesus in His reply would declare in favour of one of the rival schools (and that it would doubtless be that of Sammai ; for with «. wacav aitiay they suggested the answer, Wo), so that they might be able to stir up party feeling against Him. Falling back, however, upon the divine idea on which the institution of marriage is founded, He took higher ground than either of the schools in question, inasmuch as from this divine idea He deduces that marriage is a union which no human authority has a right to dissolve; but as for Himself, He avoids prescribing any law of His own with reference to this matter ; comp. Harless, Ehescheidungsfr. p. 34 ff.— et] See note on xii. 10.—7)v yuvaixa avdtod] Assuming avOpér@ to be spurious, the avrod can only refer to something in the context, and that doubtless to the logical subject, to the ris implied in the éfeo7s. For a similar classical usage, comp. Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 503 D.—xata wacav aitiar| for every cause, which he has to allege against her,—the view maintained by the school of Hillel, and which was precisely that which gave to this question its tempting character, though it is not so represented in Mark. As given by the latter evangelist the question is not presented in its original form ; as it now stands it would have been too general, and so not calculated to tempt, for it would certainly have been foolish
24 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
to expect from Jesus any answer contrary to the law (in answer to Weiss, Keim) ; but, according to Matthew’s version, the persons who were tempting Jesus appear to have framed their question with a view to His splitting on the casuistical rock implied in «. tacav aitiay. After having laid down as a principle the indissoluble nature of the marriage tie, Jesus, in the course of the conversation, replies to this captious point in their query in the very decided terms of ver. 9, where He says, 2) éml Topveia.
Ver. 4. Adrovs]| Sydrad) robs avOpmmovs* TouTi pev odv TO pyntov év TH BiB THs yevécews (i. 27) yeypamrat, Euthymius Zigabenus. The following adtovs should be understood after 0 Tounoas, as the object of the succeeding verb has often to be supplied after the participle (Kriiger’s note on Xen. Anab. i. 8.11). For qoceiv, to create, comp. Plat. Tim. p. 76 C; Hesiod, Theog. 110, 127 (yévos avOpérrwv).— am’ apxis] does not belong to 6 tromoas (as usually explained), in which case it would be superfluous, but to what follows (Fritzsche, Bleek), where great stress is laid on the expression, “ since the very beginning” (ver. 8).—dpoev x. Orv] as male and female, as a pair consisting of one of each sex.— émoincev] after 0 moinoas the same verb. See Kiihner, ad Xen, Mem. iv. 2. 21, and Gramm. II. 2, p. 656.
Ver. 5. Eiwev] God. Comp. note on 1 Cor. vi. 16. Al- though, no doubt, the words of Gen. ii. 24 were uttered by Adam, yet, as a rule, utterances of the Old Testament, in which God’s will is declared, are looked upon as the words of God, and that altogether irrespective of the persons speaking. Comp. Euthymius Zigabenus and Fritzsche on the passage. — €vexev tovtov] refers, in Gen. ii. 24, to the for- mation of the woman out of the rib of the man. But this detail, which belongs to an incident assumed by Jesus to be well known, is included in the general statement of ver. 4, so that He does not hesitate to generalize, somewhat freely, the particular to which the évexev tovrovu refers. Observe, at the same time, that vv. 4 and 5 together constitute the scriptural basis, the divine premisses of what is to appear in the shape of an inference in the verse immediately following. — cata-
CHAP. XIX. 6-8 Qt
Retwer] “necessitudo arctissima conjugalis, cui u- HoLyaTas] materna cedit,” Bengel. — oi dv0] These words are with the in the Hebrew, though they occur in the Samaritan7et been they must also have done in that which was followé this the LXX. They are a subsequent addition by way of m.an distinctly emphasizing the claims of monogamy. See note on 1 Cor. vi. 16. The article indicates the two particular persons in question. — ets cdpxa piav| Ethical union may also be represented by other ties; but this cannot be said of bodily unity, which consists in such a union of the sexes, that in marriage they cease to be two, and are thenceforth constituted one person. Comp. Sir. xxv. 25 and Grimm’s note. The construction is not Greek (in which eivau ets means to refer to anything, or to serve for anything, Plat. Phil. p. 39 E; Alc. I. p. 126 <A), but a rendering of the Hebrew ) mn (Vorst, Hebr. p. 680 f.).
Ver. 6. Ovdxére] after this union, ver. 5. — iad] are they, that is, the two of ver. 5.—6] quod, “ut non tanquam de duobus, sed tanguam de wno corpore loqueretur,” Maldonatus. — 0 Oeos] through what is said in ver. 5. Obseive the con- trast to dv@pwros. — Having regard, therefore, to the specific nature of marriage as a divine institution, Jesus utterly con- demns divorce generally as being a putting asunder on the part of man of what, in a very special way, God has joined together. With regard to the exception, by which, in fact, the essential idea of marriage as a divine institution is already practically destroyed, see ver. 9, and comp. note on v. 32.
Ver. 7. Supposed counter-evidence.— éveteinato] Deut. xxiv. 1, in which, indeed, there is no express command, though it may be said to contain cata dvavoray the prescrip- tion of the bill of divorce. Mark—and in this his account is certainly more original—represents the whole reply of Jesus as beginning with the question as to the law of Moses on the matter (x. 3). Moreover, the more appropriate expression emrétpewev, Which in ver. 8 is ascribed to Jesus (not so in Mark), undoubtedly betrays the influence of riper reflection. — Comp. besides, note on v. 31.
Ver. 8. IIpos] out of regard to, with (wise) consideration
24 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
to expect frert greater evil. — oKAnpoKapdiav] stubbornness answer to Mark xvi. 14; Rom. it. 5; Acts vi. 51; Sir. xvi. the perseut. x. 16), which will not be persuaded to self- their ion, gentleness, patience, forbearance, etc.; cata dvado- rocks aitias pucovvtav tas yapertas, Kal un KaTadANaTTOMEvOV pavtais. "“Evopobétnce yap arodvew tavtas, va pr ovev- evrat, Kuthymius Zigabenus.— ov yéyovev ott] non ita factum est, namely, that a man should have permission to put away his wife. The above primitive institution of God is accordingly not abrogated by Moses, who, on account of the moral obduracy of the people, is rather to be understood as only granting a dispensation in the form of a letter of divorce, that the woman might be protected against the rude severity of the man.
Ver. 9. See note on v. 32.— wx éri mopy.] not on account — of fornication, i.e. adultery. The deleting of those words (Hug, de conjug. vinculo indissolub. p. 4 f.; Maier’s note on 1 Cor. vii. 11; but also Keim, who sees in them the correc- tion of a subsequent age) is justified neither by critical evidence, which Keim himself admits, nor by the following o GTONEN. yap. wouxarat, which is in no way inconsistent with the exception under consideration, seeing that, as a matter of course, the dzroXex. refers to a woman who has been divorced arbitrarily, 2) ézt mopv. (see note on v. 32); nor by ver. 10, where the question of the disciples can be sufficiently accounted for; nor by 1 Cor. vu. 11 (see note on this passage). We are therefore as little warranted in regarding the words as an interpolation on the part of the evangelist in accord- ance with a later tradition (Gratz, Weisse, Volkmar, Schenkel). —
> The exception which they contain to the ‘law against divorce is the unica et adaequata exceptio, because adultery destroys what, according to its original institution by God, constitutes the very essence of marriage, the wnitas carnis; while, on this account also, it furnishes a reason not merely for separation a toro et mensa (Catholic expositors), but for separation guoad vinculum. To say, as Keim insists (according to Mark), that Jesus breaks with Moses, is unwarranted, not only by Matthew’s narrative, but also by Mark’s; and any indication of such a
CHAP. XIX. 10-12. 27
breach would betray the influence of a later age. — wouyaraz] commits adultery, because, in fact, his marriage with the woman whom he has arbitrarily dismissed has not yet been disannulled. The second povyarac is justified: because this amonerupevn is still the lawful wife of him who has, in an arbitrary manner, put her away.
Ver. 10. This conversation is to be understood as having taken place privatim, in a house (Mark x. 10), or elsewhere. —el ottTws éotivy } atta, K.T.r.] 7 aitia means causa, but not in the sense of res or relation (Grotius) : “sz ita res se habet hominis cum uxore” (Grimm), which is at variance with the Greek usage, and would be tantamount to a Latin idiom; nor is it to be understood in the sense imported by Fritzsche: “causa, qua aliquis cum uxore versari cogatur.” According to the text, 7 aitia can only be taken as referring back to the question concerning divorce, kata tacav aitiav, ver. 3. The correct interpretation, therefore, must be as follows: Jf it stands thus with regard to the reason in question, which the man must have in relation to his wife (in order, namely, to her divorce). The Lord had, in fact, declared the wopveia of the wife to be such an airia as the disciples had inquired about, and that, moreover, the sole one. This also leads me to with- draw my former interpretation of aitéa in the sense of guilt, that, namely, which was understood to be expressed by the pouyarat. The correct view is given by Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1868, p. 24, and, in the main, by so early an expositor as Euthymius Zigabenus: éay pla wovn éotlv aitia 4 pécov Tov avopos K. THS yuvarKos ) Svafevyvvovca, — ov cup. yap.] because one cannot be released again, but, with the exception of adultery alone, must put up with all the woman’s other vices.
Vy. 11, 12. The disciples have just said: od cupdpéper yaujca. But to this saying must tov Oyov TovToy be re- ferred, not to the statement concerning the indissoluble nature of marriage, as though Jesus meant to say that this was to be insisted on only in the case of those who had been endowed with the donum continentiae (Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 410 f.) ; which would be to contradict His argument in favour of non-dissolution taken from the objective nature of marriage,
28 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
no less than His absolute declaration in v. 32, as well as to render nugatory, for all practical purposes, the primitive moral law of non-dissolution, by making it dependent on a subjective condition. Besides, the illustration of the ewnuchs is only applicable to continence generally, not to a mere abstaining from the sin of adultery. No. Jesus wishes to furnish His disciples with the necessary explanation regarding their ov cupdéper yaujoat, and for this end He by no means questions their Adyos, but simply observes that: it is a proposition which all do not accept, v.e. which all cannot see their way to adopt as a maxim, but only such as God has endowed with special moral capabilitees. ‘Then, in ver. 12, He explains who are meant by the ois déd0Ta, namely, such as have become eunuchs ; by these, however, He does not understand Jiteral eunuchs, whether born such or made such by men, but those who, for the sake of the Messiah’s kingdom, have made them- selves such so far as their moral dispositions are concerned, ze. who have suppressed all sexual desire as effectually as though they were actual eunuchs, in order that they might devote themselves entirely to the (approaching) Messianic kingdom as their highest interest and aim (to labour in pro- moting it, comp. 1 Cor. vii. 32, 34). Finally, He further recommends this ethical self-castration, this “ voluntary chas- tity” (Luther), when He exclaims: Whosoever is able to accept (to adopt) az (that which I have just stated), let him accept it! Chrysostom well observes: He says this, wpo@vpotépovs te molov TO Sei~ar wrépoyKov Ov TO KaTopOwma, Kal ovK aduels els avaykKnv vomov TO Tpaywa KrecoOjvar. Comp. 1 Cor. vii. 1 f. The ywpetv, ver. 11 f, means simply to receive, and to be understood as referring to a spiritual reception, a receiving in the heart (2 Cor. vii, 2); and those endowed with the power so to receive it have, in consequence of such endowment, not only the inclination to be continent, but at the same time the moral force of will necessary to give effect to it, while those who are not so endowed “aut nolunt, aut non implent quod volunt,” Augustine. The more common interpretation, praestare posse (“negat autem Jesus, te, nisi divinitus concessis viribus tam insigni abstinentiae, qua a matrimonio abhorreas, parem
CHAP. XIX. 11, 12. 29
esse,” Fritzsche), might be traced to the rendering capere, but it is precluded by the fact that the object of the verb is a Aovyos (a saying). Others take it in the sense of: to wnder- stand, with reference, therefore, to the power of apprehension on the part of the ztellect (Maldonatus, Calovius, Strauss, Bretschneider, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald ; similarly Bengel, de Wette, Bleek, who, however, arbitrarily take tov Ady. Tod. as pointing forward to ver. 12). So Plut. Cat. min. 64; Ael. V. H. iii. 9; Phocyl. 86: od yopet peyddrnv dudaynv adidaxtos axovew ; Philo, de mundo 1151: avOpamwos rNoyio- pos ov xwpei. But the difficulty with respect to what the disciples have said, and what Jesus says in ver. 12, is not connected with the apprehension of its meaning, but with its ethical appropriation, which, moreover, Jesus does not abso- lutely demand, but leaves it, as is also done by Paul, 1 Cor. vil, to each man’s ability, and that according as he happens to be endowed with the gift of continence as a donwm singulare. Consequently, the celibate of the clerical order, as such, acts in direct opposition to this utterance of the Master, especially as the evvovyifew éavtov cannot be acted on by any one with the certainty of its lasting. Comp. Apol. Conf. A., p. 240f: “non placet Christo immunda continentia.” As showing how voluntary celibacy was by no means universal, and was exceptional even among the apostles themselves, see 1 Cor. ix. 5—The metaphorical use of edvovyicay éavtovs to denote entire absence from sexual indulgence, likewise occurs in Sohar Ex. f. 37, c. 135; Levit. f. 34,¢. 136 b; Schoettgen, p. 159.—It is well known that from a misunderstanding of the meaning of this passage Origen was led to castrate himself. On the correctness of this tradition (in answer to Schnitzer and - Bauer), see Engelhardt in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 157; Redepenning, Origenes, I. p. 444 ff—That Jesus was not here contemplating any Lssenian abstinence (Strauss, Gfrorer, Philo, II. p. 310f, Hilgenfeld), is already manifest from the high estimate in which marriage is always held by Him, and from His regard for children. The celibacy which a certain class of Essenes observed was founded on the fact that they regarded matrlage as wmpure.
30 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
Ver. 13. Comp. Mark x. 13. At this point (after being suspended from ix. 51—xviii. 14) the narrative of Luke again becomes parallel, xviii. 15.—Little children were brought to Jesus, as to a man of extraordinary sanctity, whose prayer was supposed to have peculiar efficacy (John ix. 31); as, na similar way, children were also brought to the presidents of the synagogues in order that they might pray over them (Buxt. Synag. p. 138). The laying on of the hands (Gen. xlvii. 14) was desired, not as a mere symbol, but as a@ means of com- municating the blessing prayed for (Acts vi. 6); hence, with a nearer approach to originality, Mark and Luke have simply apnras and a&mretas (which, in fact, was understood to be of itself sufficient for the communication in question).—The conjunctive with tva after the preterite (Kiihner, II. 2, p. 897; Winer, p. 270 [E. T. 359]) serves to represent the action as immediately present. — adtots] are those of whom the zpo- onvexOn is alleged, ze. those who brought the children. The disciples wished to protect Jesus from what they supposed to be an unseemly intrusion and annoyance; a verecundia intem- pestiva (Bengel), as in xx. 31.
Ver. 14. By r@v tovovTwy we are not to understand literal children (Bengel, de Wette), for the Messianic kingdom cannot be said to belong to children as such (see v. 3 ff.), but men of a child-like disposition and character, xvii. 3 f. Jesus cannot consent to see the children turned away from Him; for, so far from their being too insignificant to become the objects of His blessing, He contemplates in their simplicity and innocence that character which those who are to share in His kingdom must acquire through being converted and becoming as little children. If they thus appeared to the Lord as types of the subjects of His kingdom, how could He withhold from them that prayer which was to be the means of communicating to their opening lives the blessing of early fellowship with Him! Herein lies the warrant, but, according to 1 Cor, vu. 14, not the necessity, for infant baptism; comp. in general, note on Acts xvi. 15.
Ver. 16 ff. Comp. Mark x. 17 ff.; Luke xviii. 18 ff. — Eés] One, a single individual out of the multitude. According to
CHAPS XIKas7: on
Luke, the person in question was an adpxyev, not a veavicxos (ver. 20), which is explicable (Holtzmann) on the ground of a different tradition, not from a misunderstanding on the part of Matthew founded on é« veotnt. wou (Mark x. 20).—rié aya0dv totnoco] is not to be explained, with Fritzsche, as equivalent to Ti ayaOov ov troujow, quid, quod bonum sit, faciam ? for the young man had already made an effort to do what is right, but, not being satisfied with what he had done, and not feeling sure of eternal life in the Messiah’s kingdom, he accordingly asks: which good thing am I to do, etc.? He wishes to know what particular thing in the category of the eternal good must be done by him in order to his obtaining life. Ver. 17. Thy question concerning the good thing, which is necessary to be done in order to have eternal life in the Messianic kingdom, is quite superfluous (7/ pe épwrds, x.7.r.) ; the answer is self-evident, for there is but one (namely, God, the absolute ideal of moral life) who is the good one, there- fore the good thing to which thy question refers can be neither more nor less than obedience to His will,—one good Being, one good thing, alterwm non datur! But if thou (6, the continuative autem: to tell thee now more precisely what I wished to impress upon thee by this eis éotly 0 dyabos) desirest to enter into life, keep the commandments (which are given by this One dyaos). Neander explains incorrectly thus: “ Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One is the good one, and to Him thou must address thyself; He has, in fact, revealed it to thee also; but since you have asked me, then let me inform you,” etc. This view is already pre- cluded by the enclitic we (as otherwise we should necessarily have had éuwé)—For the explanation of the Received text, see note on Mark x. 18 ; the claim to originality must be decided in favour not of Matthew (in answer to Keim), but of Mark, on whom Luke has also drawn. The tradition followed by Matthew seems to have already omitted the circumstance of our Lord's declining the epithet dyaos. The claims of Mark and Luke are likewise favoured by Weisse, Bleek, Weiss, Schenkel, Volkmar, Holtzmann, Hilgenfeld, the last of whom, however, gives the
ar THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
palm in the matter of originality to the narrative of the Gospel of the Hebrews (WV. 7. extra can. IV. p. 16 f.)—For oddeis adya0os, «7X. comp. Plat. Rep. p. 379 A: ayabos 6 ye Oeos T® OvtTt TE Kal NexTéov ovTwS.—On the dogmatic importance of the proposition that God alone is good, see Koster in the Stud. u. Krit. 1856, p. 420 ff; and on the fundamental principle of the divine retribution: ef Oédes .. . THpyoov Tas évtodds, which impels the sinner to repentance, to a renuncia- tion of his own righteousness, and to faith; comp. notes on Rom. ii. 13; Gal. iii. 10 ff. Bengel well remarks: “Jesus securos ad legem remittit, contritos evangelice consolatur.” Comp. Apol. Conf. A., p. 83.
Ver. 18 f. Agreeably to the meaning of his question, ver. 16, the young man expected to be referred to commandments of a particular kind, and therefore calls for further informa- tion respecting the évtoAds to which Jesus referred; hence molas, which is not equivalent to tivas, but is to be under- stood as requesting a qualitative statement.—For the purpose of indicating the kind of commandments he had in view, Jesus simply mentions, by way of example, one or two belonging to the second table of the decalogue, but also at the same time the fundamental one (Rom. xiii. 9) respecting the love of our neighbour (Lev. xix. 18), because it was through it (for which also see note on xxii. 39) He wished the young man to be tested. This latter commandment, introduced with skilful tact, Origen incorrectly regards as an interpolation ; de Wette likewise takes exception to it; comp. Bleek, who considers Luke’s text to be rather more original.
Ver. 20. In what respect do I still come short? what further attainment have I yet to make? Comp. Ps. xxxix. 4: wa wo Ti votep® eyo; 1 Cor. xii. 24; 2 Cor. xi. 5, xi.11. This reply (Plat. Rep. p. 484 D: wnS év ddr undevi pépet aperijs tatepodytas) serves to show that his moral striving after the Messianic life is confined within the narrow limits of a decent outward behaviour, without his having felt and understood the spirit of the commandments, and especially the boundless nature of the duties implied in the commandment of love, though, at the same time, he has a secret consciousness that
CHAP. XIX. 21, 22. 36
there must be some higher moral task for man, and feels impelled towards its fulfilment, only the legal tendencies of his character prevent him from seeing where it lies.
Ver. 21. Tédevos] perfect, one, who for the obtaining of eternal life, oddév ete torepe’. In accordance with the moral tendencies and disposition which He discerned in the young man, Jesus demands from him that moral perfection to which, from not finding satisfaction in legalism, he was striving to attain. The following requirement, then, is a special test for a special case,’ though it is founded upon the universal duty of absolute self-denial and devotion to Christ; nor is it to be regarded merely in the light of a recommendation, but as a command. Observe that the Lord does not prescribe this to him as his sole duty, but only in connection with axonrov9e por. It was intended, by pressing this requirement upon him, that the young man should be led to realize his own shortcomings, and so be enabled to see the necessity of putting forth far higher efforts than any he had hitherto made. It was meant that he should feel himself weak, with a view to his being made morally strong; accordingly it is precisely upon the weak side of the young man’s character that Jesus imposes so heavy a task, for with all his inward dissatisfaction he was not aware of his actual weakness in that direction. — 7twyots]| the poor. — év ovpave@| thou wilt have (instead of thy earthly goods) a treasure im heaven, i.e. in the hands of God, where it will be securely kept till it comes to be bestowed at the setting up of the Messiah’s kingdom. Comp.v. 12, vi 20. For the whole saying, comp. Avoda Sara f. 64, 1: “Vendite omnia, quae habetis, et porro oportet, ut fiatis proselyti.”
Ver. 22 f. Avmovpevos| because he could not see his way to compliance with that first requirement, and saw himself thereby compelled to relinquish his hope of inheriting eternal life. “ Aurum enervatio virtutum est,” Augustine. — duc- kOXws] because his heart usually clings too tenaciously to his possessions (vi. 19-21) to admit of his resigning them at
? The Catholics found upon this passage the consiliwm evangelicum of poverty, as well as the opera supererogativa in general. See, on the other hand, Miller, von d. Siinde, I. p. 69 ff., ed. 5.
MATT. IL, Cc
34 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
such times and in such ways as the interests of the kingdom may demand. For analogous passages from the Greek classics bearing on the antagonism between wealth and virtue, see Spiess, Logos spermat. p. 44.
Ver. 24. “ Difficultatem exaggerat,” Melanchthon. For wanuw, comp. xviii. 19. The point of the comparison is simply the fact of the impossibility. A similar way of proverbially expressing the utmost difficulty occurs in the Talmud with reference to © an elephant.' See Buxtorf, Lew. Talm. p. 1722, and Wetstein. To understand the expression in the text, not in the sense of a camel, but of a cable (Castalio, Calvin, Huet, Drusius, Ewald), and, in order to this, either supposing xauAov to be the correct reading (as in several cursive manuscripts), or ascribing this meaning to xdpumydos (Twés in Theophylact and Euthymius Zigabenus), is all the more inadmissible that «ayndos never has any other meaning than that of a camel, while the form xapidAos can only be found in Suidas and the Scholiast on Arist. Vesp. 1030, and is to be regarded as proceeding from a misunder- standing of the present passage. Further, the proverbial ex- pression regarding the camel likewise occurs in xxiii. 24, and the Rabbinical similitude of the elephant is quite analogous. — eioeNOetp after pag. is universally interpreted: to enter in (to any place). On the question as to whether pads is to be recognised as classical, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 90. To render this word by a narrow gate, a narrow mountain-pass (so Furer in Schenkel’s Zex. III. p. 476), or anything but a needle, is — simply inadmissible——The danger to salvation connected with the possession of riches does not lie in these considered in themselves, but in the difficulty experienced by sinful man in subordinating them to the will of God. So Clemens Alexan- drinus: tls 6 cwfowevos wAovcLos. Hermas, Pastor, i. 3. 6.
Ver. 25. Tis apa] who therefore, if the difficulty is so great in the case of the rich, who have the means of doing much good. The inference of the disciples is a majoribus ad minores.
1 The passage in the Koran, Sur. vii. 38: ‘‘ Non ingredientur paradisum, donec transeat camelus foramen acus,” is to be traced to an acquaintance with our present saying ; but for an analogous proverb concerning the camel which “ saltat in cabo,” see Jevamoth f. 45, 1.
CHAP, XIX. 26, 27. 35
The general expression tis cannot be intended to mean what’ rich man (Euthymius Zigabenus, Weiss), as is further evident from what is said by Jesus in vv. 23, 24.
Ver. 26. "EuBréwas] This circumstance is also noticed by Mark. The look which, during a momentary pause, pre- ceded the following utterance was doubtless one of a telling and significant character, and calculated to impress the startled disciples (Chrysostom, Euthymius Zigabenus: juep@ Bréppare). Comp. Luke xx. 17; John i. 43. — rapa dvOpe@rots] so far as men are concerned, t.e. not hominwm judicio (Fritzsche, Ewald), but serving to indicate that the impossibility is on the part of man, is owing to human inability, Luke i. 37. — rodTo] namely, the cwjvat, not: that the rich should be saved. See ver. 25 (in answer to Fritzsche, de Wette). Jesus invites the disciples to turn from the thought of man’s own inability to obtain salva- tion, to the omnipotence of God’s converting and saving grace.
Ver. 27. Peter’s question is suggested by the behaviour of that young man (hence dzroxp., see note on xi. 25), who left Jesus rather than part with his wealth. The «apostles had done quite the contrary (eis placed emphatically at the be- ginning, in contrast to the young man).—ddyKapev Tavta| employment, the custom-house, worldly things generally. It is therefore a mistake to suppose that the disciples were still pursuing their former avocations while labouring in the service of Jesus (not to be proved from John xxi. 3 ff.). See Fritzsche, ad Mark. p.441. —tidpa écrac jpiv] dpa: in consequence of this. The question has reference to some special compensation or other by way of reward; but as to the form in which it is to be given, it leaves that to be explained by Jesus in His reply. In spite of the terms of the passage and the answer of Jesus, Paulus incorrectly explains thus: what, therefore, will there be for us still to do? Similarly Olshausen: what is awaiting us ? Are we, too, to be called upon yet to undergo such a test (as the young man had just been subjected to)? In Mark x. 28 and Luke xviii. 28 it is not expressly asked, Ti dpa €otat jpiv; but the question is tacitly implied in the words of Peter (in answer to Neander, Bleek), as reported by those evangelists, while Matthew appears to have gleaned it from Mark.
36 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
Ver. 28. This part of the promise is omitted in Mark, but comp. Luke xxii. 30.—JIn answer to the question concerning the reward, Jesus, in the first place, promises a specual recom- pense to His disciples, namely, that they should have the honour of being associated with Him in judging the nation at the second coming ; then, in ver. 29 (comp. Mark x. 29; Luke xvill. 29), He adds the general promise of a reward to be given to those who for His sake have sacrificed their worldly interests; and finally, in ver. 30, He makes a statement calcu- lated to rebuke everything in the shape of false pretensions, and which is further illustrated by the parable in xx. 1 ff— There is no touch of zrony throughout this reply of Jesus (in answer to Liebe in Winer’s exeget. Stud. I. p. 73). Comp. Fleck, de regno div. p. 436 ff.—év TH madiyyevecia] in the regeneration, does not belong to adkoXovOncavrés woe (Hilary, explaining the words by baptismal regeneration (Titus i. 5) ; also Calvin, who understands by wanuyyeveoia the renovation of the world begun in Christ’s earthly ministry), for the disciples could only have conceived of the renovation of the world as something that was to take place contemporaneously with the actual setting up of the kingdom; the azoxata- otaows, Acts iil. 21, does not represent quite the same idea as the one at present in question. Neither are we, with Paulus, to insert a point after waduyyev., and supply éo7e (“you are already in the position of those who have been regenerated,” spiritually transformed), which would have the effect of introducing a somewhat feeble and irrelevant idea, besides being incompatible with the abruptness that would thus be imparted to the 67ay (otherwise one should have expected 67ay 6€). The words belong to xa@icec@e, and signify that change by which the whole world is to be restored to that original state of perfection in which it existed before the fall, which renewal, restitutio in integrum, is to be brought about by the coming Messiah (ohyn win). See Buxtorf, Lex Tal. p- 712; Bertholdt, Christol. p. 214 f£.; Gfrorer, Jahrh. d. Heils, Il. p. 272 ff. Comp. Rom. viii. 19 ff; 2 Pet. iii. 13. When the resurrection is over, and the last judgment is going on (and it is to this part of the scene that the Lord is here
Pad
CHAP. XIX. 28. ys
referring), this renovation will have already begun, and will be in the course of development, so that Jesus can say with all propriety: €v 7H wadiyy. “Nova erit genesis, cui preerit Adamus secundus,” Bengel. Comp. waduyyevecia ths matpidos in Joseph. Antt. xi. 3. 9; taduyyev. Tov GAwv in Anton. xi. 1. Philo, de mund. p. 1165 C.; leg. ad Caj. p. 1037 B. Augus- tine, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Fritzsche, interpret the expression of the resurrection, in favour of which such passages might be quoted as Long. ui. 4; Lucian, Muse. enc. 7; but this would be to understand it in too restricted a sense, besides being contrary to regular New Testament usage (avdotacts). — dtav Kabion, K.7.r.] as judge. -— S0Ens avtov| the throne, that is, on which the Messiah shows Himself in His glory, xxv. 31.—«at avroi (see critical notes) : likewise, just as the Messiah will sit on His throne. — KaBicecGe| you will take your seats upon. Christ, then, is to be understood as already sitting. Moreover, though the promise applies, in a general way, to the twelve disciples, it does not preclude the possibility of one of them failing, through his apostasy, to participate in the fulfilment of the promise ; “ thronum Judae swmsit alius, Acts 1. 20,” Bengel. — Kkptvovtes| not: ruling over (Grotius, Kuinoel, Neander, Bleek), but, as the word means and the context requires: judging. As believers generally are to be partakers of the glory and sovereignty of Christ (Rom. viii. 17; 2 Tim. ii. 12), and are to be associated with Him in judging the non- Christian xoopos (1 Cor. vi. 2), so here it is specially pro- mised to the disciples as such that they shall have the peculiar privilege of taking part with Him in judging the people of Israel. But it is evident from 1 Cor. vi. 2 that the people of Israel is conceived of as still forming part of the koopos, therefore it will be so far still wnconverted, which coincides with the view that the second coming is near at hand, x. 23. It is a mistake, therefore, to take the people of Israel as intended to represent the people of God in the Christian sense (de Wette, Bleek); but it is no less so to suppose that the judging in question is merely of an indirect character, such as that which in xii. 41 is ascribed to the queen of the
38 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
south and the Ninevites (Chrysostom, Euthymius Zigabenus, Erasmus, Maldonatus),—a view which does not at all corre- spond with the picture of the judgment given in the text, although those expositors correctly saw that it is the wnbeliev- ing Israel that is meant. This sitting upon twelve thrones belongs to the accidental, Apocalyptic form in which the promise is embodied, though it is not so with regard either to the judging itself or its special reference to the dwdexagvrov of Israel (Acts xxvi. 7), to which latter the number of the apostles expressly corresponds; for the second coming, instead of subverting the order of things here indicated, will only have the effect of exhibiting it in its perfection, and for the © apostles themselves in its glory. It is therefore too rash to infer, as has been done by Hilgenfeld, that this passage bears traces of having been based upon an original document of a strictly Judaeo-Christian character. Even the Pauline Luke (xxii. 30) does not omit this promise, although he gives it in connection with a different occasion,—a circum- stance which by Schneckenburger, without sufficient reason, and by Volkmar, in the most arbitrary way possible, is interpreted to the disadvantage of Matthew. It is not the case that ver. 28 interferes with the connection (Holtzmann), although Weizsicker also is disposed to regard it as “a mani- fest interpolation.”
Ver. 29. The promise that has hitherto been restricted to the apostles now becomes general in its application: and (in general) every one who, etc. —adijxev] has left, com- pletely abandoned. Comp. ver. 27. — €vexev 7. ov. p.] We. because my name represents the contents of his belief and confession. Comp. Luke xxi. 12. This leaving of all for the sake of Jesus may take place without persecution, simply by one’s choosing to follow Him as a disciple; but it may also be forced upon one through persecution, as for instance by such a state of matters as we find in x. 35 ff— modXamAa- otlova (see critical notes) Ajyeras, according to the context (see xaBicecOe, ver. 28; KAnpovounoe, ver. 29; écovTat, ver. 30), can certainly have no other reference but to the recompense in the future kingdom of the Messiah, in which a
CHAP. XIX. 30. 39
manifold compensation will be given for all that may have been forsaken. Here the view of Matthew diverges from that of Mark x. 38, Luke xviii. 30, both of whom represent this manifold compensation as being given during the period preceding the second advent. This divergence is founded upon a difference of conception, existing from the very first, regarding the promise of Jesus, so that the distinction between the karpos odros and the aiwy épyowevos in Mark and Luke may be regarded as the result of exegetical reflection on the meaning of the expressions in the original Hebrew. The words are likewise correctly referred to the reward of the future world by de Wette, Bleek, Keim, Hilgenfeld, while Fritzsche is at a loss to decide. In opposition to the context, the usual interpretation in the case of Matthew as well, is to refer the promise of a manifold compensation to the alev odTos, Some supposing it to point to the happiness arising from Christian ties and relationships, as Jerome, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Erasmus, Grotius, Wetstein ; others, to the receiving of all things in return for the few (1 Cor. ii. 21; Olshausen) ; others, again, to inward peace, hope, the fellowship of love (Kuinoel, Calvin), or generally, the spiritual blessings of believers (Bengel); and others still, to Christ Himself, as being (xii. 49 f.) infinitely more to us than father, mother, brother, etc. (Maldonatus, Calovius). Julian mocked at the promise. — x. €w7v at. kXnp.| the crown of the whole, which perfects all by rendering it an eternal possession. Observe, further, how what is promised is represented as a recompense, no doubt, yet not for meritorious works, but for self-denying, trustful obedience to Christ, and to His invita- tion and will. Comp. Apol. Conf. A., p. 285 f.
Ver. 30. However, the measure of rewards in the Messianic kingdom is not to be determined by the time, sooner or later, at which any one may have entered into fellowship with me. No, it is not seniority of discipleship that is to be the standard of reward at the setting up of the approaching kingdom: Many who were the first to enter will receive just the same treat- ment as those who were the last to become my followers, and vice versa. The correct construction and translation are not those
40 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
of Fritzsche, who interprets: Many will be first though last (€oxaTou dvtes, namely, before the second coming), and last though first (rpartot dvtes), but those usually adopted, accord- ing to which wp@ro: is the subject of the first, and éoyatou that of the second part of the sentence. This is not forbidden by xx. 16, where, on the other hand, the order seems to have been inverted to suit the context. Observe, further, that the arrangement by which woAdol . . . mpotos stand so far apart serves to render vroAdoi very emphatic: In multitudes, how- ever, will the first be last, and vice versé. The second clause is to be supplemented thus: xat moddol ecovtar éxyaTot mpoto.. But to understand mp@rov and éoyaror as referring, not to ¢ime, but to rank, regarded from the divine and human point of view, as though the idea were that “when the rewards come to be dispensed, many a one who considers himself among the highest will be reckoned among the lowest” (Hilgenfeld, following Euthymius Zigabenus, Erasmus, Jansen, Wetstein, de Wette, Bleek),—1is forbidden by the subsequent parable, the connection of which with the present passage is indicated by yap. However, there is a little warrant in the text for taking the words as referring specially to the Jews on the one hand, and the Gentiles (who were later in being called) on the other (Theophylact, Grotius).
CHAP, XX. Al
CHAPTER XX.
Ver. 6. wpa] is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted as a sup- plement, following B D L 8, vss. Or. —éoraras] Elz., Fritzsche, Scholz insert &pyots, which is not found in B C** D L 8, vss. and Fathers. Interpolation taken from vv. 3 and 7. — Ver. 7. x. 6 Za» n Oixasov, AR~Yeode] is Wanting in important codd. (B DLZ »&), vss. and Fathers. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. For ajbeods, several vss. have dabo vobis. The words are a very ancient interpolation, in conformity with ver. 4.— Ver. 8. Delete airoiz, with Tisch. 8, following CL Zs, Or. A supplement. — Ver. 10. are tova| Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch. 7: Asi, following B C* N Z A, min. vss. Or. The reading of the Received text is of the nature of an explanation (a greater number of denarii). — For dvé read rd dvé, with Tisch., following CLN Z x, 33. The article was omitted in conformity with ver. 9.— Ver. 12. ér:] does not occur, it is true, in B C*¥* D 8, 1, Vulg. It. Syr., and is deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.; but how readily may it have been overlooked before ofro:!— Ver. 15. The first 7 is deleted by Lachm., following B D L Z, Syr™ Arm. (in accordance with which evidence, as well as that of &, the arrangement 6 02.w sorjou: should be restored). Correctly ; an old interpolation for the purpose of marking the ques- tion. There would be no motive whatever for omitting the 4. For the second 7 (in Elz.) we should, with Tisch. 7, read e/, following B** H S 1, Chrys. Did. and many min. From not being understood, </ was all the more readily replaced by 7, owing to the pronunciation being much the same. — Ver. 16. ToAAol yap siot xAnrol, dAfvyor OF ExAexro/| omitted in BLZR, 36, Copt. Sahid., and deleted by Tisch. 8, with whom Keim con- curs. But it is not at all likely that the words would be inter- polated from xxii. 14; for, so far from there having been any occasion for so doing, they have here more the appearance of being out of place than otherwise. This apparent irrelevancy may have led to the omission of the saying, which is supported by testimony so old as that of C D, It. Syr., unless we suppose it to have been due rather to the simple homoeoteleuton éoya-
42 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
TOU... éxAexTOI.— Ver. 17. 2v +4 60% xa/] read with Lachm. and Tisch.: xa ¢v rj 66%, following B L Z &, min. Copt. Sahid. Arm. Pers?. Or. (twice). At a very early period (Vulg. It. Hil.), év +7 66% was omitted either accidentally, or because it is likewise awanting in the parallel passages in the other Synoptists. But, in restoring it, it would most naturally occur to those who did so to insert it after xar #d/av.— Ver. 19. dvao- rnoeras] Tisch.: éyepdjoeras, following C* L N Z 8, Or. Chrys. The reading of the Received text is taken from the parallel passages. — Ver. 22. wivesy;] Elz., Scholz insert: xa/ (Scholz: i) vd Barriowa, 6 @ya BarriZouu, Parriobjver, against BD LZR, 1, 22, the majority of vss. and Or. Epiph. Hilar. Jer. Ambr. Juv. Taken from Mark x. 38.— Ver. 23. rieode] Elz., Scholz, in opposition to the same witnesses, insert: xa? (Scholz: 7) rb Bdarioue b ya BurriCouwos, Pamriobjocobe. — Ver. 26. torus év bury] for gore, Lachm. has éori#, following B D Z, Cant. Sahid. Correctly; the reading of the Received text is an alteration to suit what follows in this and the 27th verse, where, with Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. 8, we ought to read goras instead of Zorw, in accordance with preponderating evidence; zorw (like- wise derived from Mark x. 43) is a gloss. But Fritzsche was scarcely warranted in restoring 6é after odrws, ver. 26, for it is condemned by decisive evidence, and is a connecting particle borrowed from Mark.— Ver. 31. ¢xpa@ov] Lachm. Tisch. 8: éxpacay, following BD LZI18, min. Copt. Sahid. A repetition from ver. 30. — Ver. 33. dvorydGorv jy. of 696.) Lachm. Tisch. 8: avoryaow of 698. yu, following BDL Z 8, min. Or. Chrys. To be adopted, inasmuch as the first aorist was the more common tense, comp. ix. 30, John ix. 10.— Ver. 34. é¢daAuav] B D L Z, min. Or. have éumérar. So Lachm., Rinck, Tisch. 8. Correctly; the more usual term has been adopted from the context. — Lachm. and Tisch. 8 delete airéy of épdadrmoi after dvéBarevav. The words are not found in B D L Z 8, min. vss. (also Vulg. It.) and a few Fathers, but they were left out as being superfluous and cumbersome. There was no motive whatever for inserting them.
Remark.—After ver. 28 there occurs in D (and in codd. of It. with many variations in detail) the following interpolation, apocryphal, no doubt, but akin to Luke xiv. 8 ff: iyers 62 Cnreire én pinpod avejous x. &x weiCovos crAurroy civ. Eicepyomevor Of xa mapan nrnoevres Oeimvjous uy cvaxdAiveode cig Tors ELEyovTAS TimOUS, MH ToTE Ev- doZérepég cou eréAdn, nal xpocsAdav 6 deimvoxAnrwp ein col orl naTW x wpe, nad AAT GOK UVOTON. "Edy 0& avaméons is Tov qrrova romov nai
CHAP, XX. 14 43
extrdn cou nrrwy, pe? oor 6 OermvoxAnrwp? obvaye ert ave, xl ZorEs cos roure xpyoiwov. Comp. Hilar., also Syre™.
Ver. 1. The parable is peculiar to Matthew. — yap] ex- plaining and confirming what has been said in xix. 30.— av@p. 0ix08.] See notes on xiii. 24, xviii. 23.— aya rpwi] Comp. notes on xiii. 29, Acts xxviii. 23: dao mpwi. Classical writers would say: dua &, dua TH Hpépa, dua opOpe, and such like. —eés Tov aumer. avtod] into his vineyard, into which he wished to send them, ver. 2. Comp. Acts vii. 9 ; and see, in general, Wilke, Rietor. p. 47 f—On the whole parable, see Rupprecht in the Stud. u. Krit. 1847, p. 396 ff.; Steffensen, ibid. 1848, p. 686 ff.; Besser in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1851, p. 122; Rudel, aid. p. 511; Miinchmeyer, ibid. p. 728. For proof that it is not to be regarded as furnishing directions for the regulation of offices, see Kostlin, d. Wesen d. Kirche, 1854, p. 52 ff.
Ver. 2. "Ex 8nvapiov thv jpépav] After he had agreed with the labourers, on the condition that he was to pay them a denarius per day. é€k does not denote the payment itself (which would have been expressed by the genitive, ver. 13), although é« Syvap. is that payment (xxvii. 7; Acts i. 18); but it is intended to indicate that this payment was the thing, on the strength of which, as terms, the agreement was come to; comp. Kiihner, II. 1, p. 399 f. tv aépay is the accusative, as further defining the terms of the agreement: in consideration of the day, so that a denarius was to be the wages for the (current) day during which they might work. As an accusative of time (which it is wswally supposed to be), it would not correspond with cuwdwr. to which it belongs. — A denarius was the usual wages for a day’s work (Tob. v. 14). See Wetstein. .
Ver. 3. The third hour: somewhere about nine o'clock in the morning. In ordinal numbers the article is unnecessary. See note on 2 Cor. xii. 2.—év TH ayopa] where they were waiting in expectation of getting employment. The men in question belonged to the class of free labourers; Poll. iii. 82: éAedOepor pev, Sua rreviav Sé em” apyupieo SovdevovTes.
Ver. 4. Kdxetvous] to those also he spoke. The point
44 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
of assimilation (also) lies in the circumstance that, as he had invited the first, so he now invites these also to go into the vineyard. — 6 éav 7 dSixacov] so that, as part of the day had already elapsed, he did not make with them any definite agree- ment as to wages for the day, and therefore acted differently in this case from what he had done in the former.
Ver. 5 ff. "Esroincev ®cavtas] the same thing, namely, as he had done in the preceding case, ver. 4, sending them away, and promising them also only what was equitable. Comp. ver. 7. — 67] because.
Ver. 8. "Owias Sé yev.] we. at the close of the twelfth hour (six o’clock in the evening).—7T@ émutpoT@ adTod] the chief of the servants (occovdpuos), to whom was entrusted the management of the household, Luke viii. 3. — tov prc Aor] the wages in question. The ofcovouos had instructions from his master to give the same amount of wages to all, although all had not wrought the same number of hours. — éws tov mpata@v] is connected with dmddos avr. tT. uio8., without anything requiring to be understood (and continuing, and such like), as is evident from those passages in which the terminus ad guem is placed first; for example, Plat. Legg. vi. p. 771 C: wacas tas Svavopas éyer péypt tov SHdeKa amo yas apEawevos. Comp. Luke xxiii. 5; Acts i.21; John viii. 9.
Ver. 9 ff. Of wept tHv Evdex. Bpav] that is, those who, according to ver. 6, were sent into the vineyard about the eleventh howr.—mXetov] more than a denarius, plainly not more denarii.— dvd] used distributively; Winer, p. 372 [E. T. 496]. The article 7d before dva Snv., ver. 10 (see critical notes), denotes: the sum amounting in each case to a denarius, so that in analyzing év would require to be supplied. — According to ver.10 f., they do not contemptuously decline to lift the denarius (Steffensen), but begin to murmur after receiving it (Miinchmeyer).
Ver. 12. "Ore] recitative, not because (yoyyvfouev, Ste), inasmuch as the words Aéyortes Ste x.7.r. express the contents of the yoyytfeuw. — od701] spoken disdainfully. — évo/nacav] they have spent one hour (Acts xv. 33, xvill. 23; 2 Cor. xi.
CHAP. XX. 13—16. 45
25; Eccles. vi 12; Wetstein on this passage; Schaeffer, ad Bos. p. 313; Jacobs, in Anthol. IX. p. 449, X. p. 44). The ordinary interpretation: they have wrought, laboured, one hour, is in opposition to the terms of the passage (as little is it to be confirmed by an appeal to Ruth ii. 19, where zovd émoinoas means: where hast thou been occupying thyself 2) ; there would have been more reason to interpret thus: they have been doing it (that is, the work) for one hour, if the specifying of the time in connection with éoimcav had not suggested our explanation as. the most obvious and most natural.— +r. kavcwva] Those others had not entered till the evening.
Vv. 13-15. “Ev/] One, as representing the whole. — étaipe] Comrade, a mild way of introducing a rebuke, similar to “good friend” among ourselves. Comp. xxii. 12, xxvi. 50. So also ayaGé, BéXtucte. See Herm. ad Vig. p.722. Comp. Wetstein. —ovx« adsx@ ce] From the standpoint of justice. — dnvapiov] genitive of price. Somewhat different from the idea of ver. 2.—6édo 6é] “Summa hujus vocis potestas,” Bengel.—év tots éwots] not to be taken in the general sense of: in my affairs (Fritzsche, de Wette), but, according to the context, to be understood in the more definite sense of: in disposing of my own property. Comp. Td adv, and Plato, Legg. ii. p. 969 C.— ei 0 dfOarpos cov, k.7.r.] see critical notes. The e¢ is not interrogative, as in xii. 10, xix. 3 (for, according to the connection, the doubt implied in such a question would be entirely out of place), but the speaker is to be regarded as saying that, though such and such be the case, his right to do what he pleases with his own is by no means impaired, so that ef may be taken as almost equivalent to e kai (Jacobs, Del. Epigr. p. 405; Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 212; Kiihner, II. 2, p. 991): if thine eye is evil (ic. envious, comp. Mark vii. 22, and yn, Prov. xxviii. 22; Ecclus. xiv. 10), because I (I, on my part, hence éy#) am good! The mark of interrogation after éyois is therefore to be deleted. ‘
Ver. 16. The teaching of the parable: So, — just, as in the case here supposed, those who were the last to be sent into the
46 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
vineyard received the same amount of wages as the first; so in the Messiah’s kingdom, the last will be on the same footing as the first, and the first as the last, without a longer period of service giving an advantage, or a shorter putting to a dis- advantage. Comp. xix. 30.— €covtas] that is, practically, as far as the reward they are to receive is concerned. The first will be Jast, inasmuch as the former receive no more than the latter (in answer to de Wette’s objection, as though, from the expression here used, we would require to suppose that they will receive less than a denarius). There is nothing whatever in the text about the exclusion of the mpa@ror from the kingdom, and the admission of the éoyarou (Krehl in the Stichs. Stud. 1843); and as little to favour the view, adopted by Steffensen: those who esteem themselves last shall be first, and those who esteem themselves first shall be last, for the labourers in the parable were in reality éryatou and mpwrot. The proposition: “that, in dispensing the blessings of the kingdom of heaven,-God takes no account of human merit, but that all is the result of His own free grace” (Rupprecht, Bleek, Holtzmann, Keim), does not constitute the leading thought set forth in the parable, though, no doubt, it may be supposed to wnderlic it.— moAXot yap, «.7.r.] Confirmation of what has just been said about the éryarou being put upon an equality with the zp@to.: “for although many are called to share in the future recompense for services rendered to the Messiah’s kingdom, yet those chosen to receive rewards of a pre-eminent and peculiarly distinguished character in that kingdom are but few.” These éxdexror are not the éryarou (those, as Olshausen fancies, whose attitude toward the king- dom is of a more spontaneous nature, and who render their services from hearty inclination and love), but those who are selected from the multitude of the «Anrot. We are taught in the parable what it is that God chooses them for, namely, to be rewarded in an extraordinary degree (to receive more than the denarius). The train of thought, then, is simply this: It is not without reason that I say: cat of mpdtou éoyxarou, for, from this equalizing of the first with the last, only a few will be excepted, — namely, those whom God has selected for
CHAP. XX. 16. 47
this from among the mass of the called. Thus the parable concludes, and that very appropriately, with language which, no doubt, allows the Apostles to contemplate the prospect of receiving rewards of a peculiarly distinguished character (xix. 28), but does not warrant the certainty of it, nor does it recognise the existence of anything like so-called valid claims ; for, according to the idea running through the parable, the éxroy is to be ascribed simply to the purpose of God (Rom. ix. 11,15 f.). See ver. 15. Comp. also note on xxii. 14.
REMARK.—The simple application of ver. 16 ought to warn against arbitrary attempts to trace a meaning in all the little details of the parable, many of which belong to the mere drapery of the story. The householder is God; the vineyard is the Christian theocracy, in which work is to be done in the interests of the approaching kingdom of the Messiah; the oizovouos 18 Christ; the twelfth howr, at which the wages are paid, is the time of the second coming; the other hours mark the different periods at which believers begin to devote them- selves to the service of God’s kingdom; the denarius denotes the blessings of the Messianic kingdom in themselves, at the distribution of which the circumstance of an earlier entrance into the service furnishes no claim to a fuller measure of reward, however little this may accord with human ideas of justice; hence the zpara are represented as murmuring, whereupon they are dismissed from the master’s presence. Calvin appropriately observes: “hoc murmur asserere noluit ultimo die futurum, sed tantum negare causam fore murmurandi.” But there is nothing to warrant the view that, inasmuch as they consented to be hired only for definite wages, the zpara betrayed an wnworthy disposition, while those who came later exhibited a more commendable spirit in being satisfied simply with the promise of 6 é&y 4 dixasmv. It can only be of service in the way of edifying application, but it is not reconcilable with the historical sense of the passage, to explain the different hours as re- ferring to the different stages of life, childhood, youth, manhood, and old age (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus), inasmuch as they are meant to represent various periods be- tween the time of Christ and the close of the aia oiros, at which the second coming is to take place, and are therefore to be regarded as exhibiting the time embraced by the generation then existing (xvi. 28) under the figure of a day with its various divisions. Origen supposed that the allusion was to
48 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
the leading epochs of history from the beginning of the world (1) till the flood; (2) till Abraham; (3) till Moses; (4) tall Christ ; (5) till the end of the world. This view is decidedly forbidden by xix. 29 f. Yet similar explanations, based upon the history of the world, are likewise given by Theophylact and others. No less foreign is the reference to the Jews and Gentiles, which Grotius, but especially Hilgenfeld, following Jerome, has elaborated, so that the first of the labourers are taken to represent the Jews, whose terms of service, so to speak, are distinctly laid down in the law, and subsequently re-affirmed, at least, in an indefinite form; while those who come last are supposed to represent the Gentiles, who, in accordance with the new covenant of grace, receive, and that before all the others, precisely the same reward as those who were the first to be called. Scholten is disposed to think that the parable was also intended to expose the pretensions of the Jews to precedence and distinction in the kingdom.
Vv. 17-19. According to the Synoptists, Jesus now takes occasion, as He approaches Jerusalem (dvaf. eis “Iepoc. is the continuation of the journey mentioned in xix. 1), to intimate to His disciples more plainly and distinctly than before (xvi. 21, xvii. 22) His impending fate. Comp. Mark x. 32 ff; Luke xviii. 31 ff —xar idlav] didts otk Sev tadTa pabeiv Tovs ToAAOdS, a 1) GKavdadicGeow, Euthymius Zigabenus. There were others travelling along with them.— @avato] dative of direction: even to death. See Winer, p. 197f. [E. T. 263]. This is in accordance with later Greek usage. Comp. Wisd. ii. 20; 2 Pet. ii. 6 ; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 475 ; Grimm’s note on Wisd. as above. On the prediction of the resurrection, see note on xvi. 21.
Ver. 20. Tére] after the announcement in vy. 17-19. Salome, His mother’s sister (see note on John xix. 25), was one of those women who were in the habit of accompanying Jesus, xxvii. 56; Mark xv. 40, xvi. 1. She may have heard from her sons what He, xix. 28, had promised the apostles. — aitovad TL] making a request. It is to anticipate to suppose Te to imply aliquid magni (Maldonatus, Fritzsche). Comp. ver. 21, tl Oéres. On the present participle, see Kiithner, IT. 2, p. 622 f.; Dissen, ad Pind. Ol. vii. 14 ; Bornem. ad Xen. Anab. vii. 7. 17.
Ver. 21. She thus designates the two most distinguished
CMAP. XX. 22, 23. 49
positions in the Messiah’s kingdom. For among Orientals the foremost place of honour was considered to be immediately on the right, and the next immediately on the left of the king, Joseph. Antt. vi. 11. 9; Wetstein and Paulus on this passage. She desired to see her sons not merely in the position of ordinary ovyKAnpovopoe and cvpRacirevovtes (Rev. iii. 21), but in that of the most distinguished proceres regni.— ite iva] asin iv. 3. The fact that the gentle and humble John should also have shared this wish (for both the disciples, in whose name also the mother is speaking, are likewise to be regarded as joining in the request, ver. 22, so that there cannot be said to be any essential difference between the present passage and Mark x. 35), shows how much his character must subsequently have been changed. Comp. Introduction to John, § 3.
Ver. 22. Ovd« olSare, «.7..] You do not understand what is involved in your request ; you do not seem to be aware that the highest stages of cupBacirevew (2 Tim. ii. 12; 1 Cor. iv. 8) in my kingdom cannot be reached without previously sharing in such sufferings as I have to endure. Jesus addresses the two disciples themselves. — divac Oe] said with reference to moral ability.— ro wortypsov] di3, figurative description of his fate generally, and of his sufferings in par- ticular. See the exposition of Isa. li. 17; Jer. xlix. 12; Martyr. Polye. 14.
Ver. 23. The disciples reply: Suvdywefa, not because they did not quite understand what Jesus meant (ver. 18 f.), but because they were animated by a sincere though self-confident determination, such, too, as was afterwards sufficiently verified in the case of both, only in somewhat different ways. — ov« éotiv éwov Sodvat, GAN obs jToip. UO TOD TaTp. m.] SC. So0yceTat: is not my business (does not behove me) to give, but it will be given to those for whom it has been prepared (has been put in readiness, xxv. 34; 1 Cor. ii 9) by my Father. For éuov éoré with infinitive, comp. Plat. Legg. ii. p. 664 B: éeuov dy ein réyeev. Jesus thus discourages the questionable request by frankly declaring that the granting of what has just been asked is one of those things which God
MATT. U. D
50 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
has reserved to Himself; that it is a matter with which He, the Son, must not interfere. For another instance of such reservation on the part of the Father, see xxiv. 36; Mark xiii. 32. This evident meaning of the words is not to be explained away or modified. The former has been done by Chrysostom and his successors, also by Castalio, Grotius, Kuinoel, who took ada as equivalent to «¢ yu; the latter by Augustine, Luther, according to whom the words as man (“secundum formam servi”) are to be understood, and Bengel, who modifies ov« éotw éuov dodvar by erroneously supplying the words: til after my death. Further, the words 70 pev moTnp. 4. mlecOe are to be regarded as expressing the Lord’s unfeigned trust and confidence in the dvvaueba of the disciples ; He feels confident that they will verify it by their actions. His words, therefore, are only indirectly tantamount to a prediction, and that not exactly of death by martyrdom, which was cer- tainly the fate of James, Acts xii, though not of John,* but of suffering generally in the interests of the Messiah’s kingdom (Rom. viii. 17; 2 Cor.i.5). It is probable, however, that the apocryphal story about John swallowing a cup full of poison (see Fabricius, ad Cod. Apocr. I. p. 576; Tischendorf, Act. ap. apocr. p. 269), and that without being anything the worse (Mark xvi. 18), as well as the legend about the attempt to scald him to death in boiling oil (Tertullian, de praescr. 36), owe their existence and propagation to the present passage. Origen views our Lord’s words on this occasion in connection with the banishment of John to Patmos.
Ver. 24. “"Hyavaxtyncav] Jealousy of the two disciples who were thus aspiring to be first. Euthymius Zigabenus: o¢ déxa Tois Svol pabytais epOovncav, Tov TpwTelwy epiepéevats.
Ver. 25 ff. Those ambitious desires which prompted the request of the sons of Zebedee have likewise a good deal to do
1 The statement of Gregorius Hamartolos (quoted by Nolte in the T'%ib. theol. Quartalschr. 1862, p. 466), to the effect that, in his aéy«, Papias declares that John was put to death by the Jews, cannot outweigh the testimony of the early church to the fact that he died a natural death. For the discussion of this point, see Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1865, p. 78 ff. ; Overbeck, ibid. 1867,
p- 68 ff. ; Holtzmann in Schenkel’s Lex. III]. p. 333; Keim, Ill. p, 44 £5 Steitz in the Stud. u. Krit. 1868, p. 487 tf.
CHAP. XX. 28. ta
with the displeasure of the other disciples. Accordingly, Jesus endeavours to check their ambition by insisting on the humble spirit of the servant as the way to true greatness in the ranks of His followers. — 01 dpyovtes THv €Ov.] the heathen rulers. —x«atakup.| the intensive force of the compound verb serves to convey the idea of oppressive rule. Comp. Diod. Sic. xiv. 64, and the Sept. passim; see Schleusner; 1 Pet. v. 3; Acts xix. 16. Similarly with regard to the carefouvc., which occurs nowhere else, and which may be rendered : they practise violence toward. —avt@yv| refers in both instances to tT. €Ov@v.— of peydaXot] the magnates (Hom. Od. xviii. 382, comp. wey Taves, Mark vi. 21), “ipsis saepe dominis imperiosiores,’ Bengel. — ovX oUTwS éoTLV év Vuty] it is not soamong you. Observe the present (see critical notes); there is no such order of things among you. — péyas] great, not equivalent to péysotos, but in the sense of: to occupy a high and distinguished place among you. In the sphere to which you belong, true greatness lies in doing service; that is the principle on which you will act. Hence the future éora; for, in the event of any one wishing to become great, he will aim at it by means of serv- ing; the latter is the way to the former.—ap@ros] one of the first in point of rank, a sort of climax to péyas, as Staxovos is to dodAos. The emphasis in the consequent clauses rests on those two predicates, and hence the emphatic word is placed in each case at the close.
Ver. 28. “Qozep] “summum exemplum,” Bengel. Comp. Phil. ii. 5; Rom. xv. 3; Polye. Phil. 5: os éyévero StdKxovos mavtwv. Observe here the consciousness, which Jesus had from the very first, that to sacrifice himself was His great divine mission. Comp. Dorner, siindlose Vollk. Jesu, p. 44 ff. — StaxovnOjvac| to be waited upon, as grandees are.— Kai Sodvat] intensive ; adding on the highest act, the culminating point in the SvaxovAcas; but dodvas is made choice of, because the Wuy7 (the soul, as the principle of the life of the body) is conceived of as AvTpov (a ransom); for, through the shedding of the blood (xxvi. 28; Eph. i. 7), it becomes the tv.) of the redemption, 1 Cor. vi. 20, vii. 23. Comp. note on John x. 11. —avTi TodAGr] avi denotes substitution, That which is
52 THE GOSPEL OF MATTIIEW.
given as a ransom takes the place (is given instead) of those who are to be set free in consideration thereof. The Avtpoy (Plat. Legg. xi. p. 919 A, Rep. p. 393 D, Thue. vi. 5. 4) is an avti- Avtpov (1 Tim. ii. 6), avtddXaypa (xvi. 26). Whether avti modroy should be joined to Avzpov, which is the simpler course, or connected with dodvar, is a matter of perfect indif- ference (in answer to Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 300) so far as the meaning of ayti is concerned. In any case, that meaning is strictly and specifically defined by Awvtpov (72), according to which avré can only be understood in the sense of substitution in the act of which the ransom is presented as an equivalent to secure the deliverance of those on whose behalf it is paid,—a view which is only confirmed by the fact that in other parts of the New Testament this ransom is usually spoken of as an expiatory sacrifice, xxvi. 28; John i 29; 1 John iv. 10; Rom. ui, 25; Isa. li 10; 1 Petia iii. 18. Zhat which they are redeemed /rom is the eternal am@neva, in which, as having the wrath of God abiding upon them (John i. 36), they would remain imprisoned (John iii. 16; Gal. m.13;.2 Cor v.21; 1 Pet. 1 24; Col tam 13 f.) as in a state of hopeless bondage (Heb. 11. 15), unless the guilt of their sins were expiated. — 7oAA@v] The vicarious death of Jesus may be described as having taken place for all (Rom. v. 18; 1 Tim. i. 6; 1 John ii. 2), or for many
1 Ritschl, in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1863, p. 222 ff., defines avrpoy as mean- ing something given by way of equivalent in order to avert death ; this, how- ever, is not sufficient, for, throughout the Sept. also, in which 155 is rendered by Adrpov (Ex. xxi. 30, xxx. 12; Num. xxxv. 31 f.; Prov. vi. 35, xiii. 8), pretiwm redemtionis is found to be the specific meaning given to the word, although the connection may sometimes admit ex adjuncto the additional idea of something given for the purpose of averting death. The Sept. likewise adheres to the same
meaning in cases where other expressions are rendered by Avrpoy, such as nya (Lev. xxv. 24, 51), DY (Num. iii. 51), jp (Ex. xxi. 30), VM (Isa. xlv. 13). Ritschl interprets our present passage as follows: ‘‘Z am come to give away my life to God in sacrifice, that I may become the substitute of those who could never hope to succeed in finding, either for themselves or others, any adequate ransom as a means of securing their exemption from death ; but the substitute only of those who, through faith and self-denying devotion to my person, fulfil the condition on which alone the ransom furnished by me can procure the hoped for exemption,” p. 238.
CHAP. XX. 29-32. na
(so also xxvi. 28; Heb. ix. 28), according as we regard it as an objective fact (that fact being: Jesus has given His life a ransom for a// men), or look at it in relation to the sub- jective appropriation of its results on the part of individuals (which happens only in the case of believers). So in the present case, where, accordingly, woAA@y is to be understood as meaning all who believe now and will believe hereafter (John xvii. 20).
Ver. 29. Comp. Mark x. 46 ff; Luke xviii. 35 ff'— Kat éxTop. avTav ato ‘Lepryo| The Synoptists make no mention whatever of the visit to Ephraim and the journey to Bethany (mentioned in John x1. 54, xii. 1) ; indeed, their narrative (Matt. xxi. 1 f.) positively excludes at least the latter of these. This divergence, and not a mere want of precision, should be fairly acknowledged (comp. note on xxi. 1), and not explained away by means of ingenious conjectures (Paulus, Schleiermacher, Neander, comp. also Sieffert, who suppose that Jesus may have entered Bethany along with the rest of the pilgrims in the evening, and may have left it again next morning or the morn- ing after; see, on the other hand, on John xii. 17 f., note). A further discrepancy is to be found in the fact that Luke represents the healing as having taken place &v 7@ éyyifew avtov eis ‘Iepuy., and that Mark and Luke mention only one blind man, although the first mentioned divergence has been turned to account in the way of supporting the hypothesis that Matthew has blended together two distinct cases of heal- ing, one of which is supposed to have taken place when Jesus was entering the town, the other when He was leaving it (Theophylact, Neander, Wieseler, Ebrard, Krafft). The diffi- culty connected with the mention of two men is not removed by a supposed reminiscence of ix. 27 ff. (Strauss), nor ex- plained by supposing that the blind man of Bethsaida, Mark vill. 22, may have been included (Holtzmann, Volkmar); but it proves that, in point of authenticity, Matthew’s account compares unfavourably with the characteristic narrative of Mark, which bears traces of being the original account of what took place. Comp. note on viii. 28 ff.
Ver. 31. “Iva ciwmno.] Aim of éxetiynoey avtois. —
54 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
Euthymius Zigabenus says well: éweoropicey adtods eis Tyunv Tod ‘Incod, as évoyAodvtas adtov. Comp. xix.13. They pro- bably saw that He was just then in the act of conversing on some topic or other. — ri OédXeTe Totnow vpiv ;|] The ques- tion is intended to increase their confidence by means of the hope which it excites. Comp. note on John v. 6. There is no need to supply fva, but comp. note on xiii. 28.
Ver. 33 f. “Iva dvowydouv, x.7.d.] answering the above question in terms of the object aimed at in the cry, éAénoov nas, of which iva avovy., x.T.r. is the continuation. — HyaTo] different from Mark and Luke, who represent Jesus as healing merely by the power of His word.— tév oupartor (see critical notes), used for variety, being, as far as the meaning is con- cerned, the same as 6d@admol. Comp. Xen. Mem. i. 4.17; Plat. Alc. I. p. 133 B.—avéBnr. adr. of 666.) their eyes re- covered the power of seeing ; naively told.— Kxorov8. adto| we cannot tell whether they followed him permanently, though this seems probable from Mark x. 46,
CHAP. XXI,
on ct
C yA, Pi Tek, Xe X TE
VeR. 1. rpic rd pos] Instead of zpéc, Lachm. and Tisch. have «is, following B C** 33, codd. of It. Or.(once). Correctly; =pés is taken from Mark xi. 1; Luke xix. 29.— Ver. 2. wopevdnre| Lachm. Tisch. 8: zopeteode, following important evidence. But the transcribers happened to be more familiar with sopeteads (x. 6, xxii. 9, xxv. 9, 41). — For dwévavrs, Lachm. Tisch. 8 have zarévavrt, Which, though sanctioned by important evidence, is borrowed from Mark and Luke. — éyéyere, for which, with Lachm., éyere should be read, is likewise taken from the parallel passages (see, however, on Mark xi. 2).— Ver. 3. With the Received text, Lachm. and Tisch. read dooreA<z; following B D H Mx, Vulg. It. Copt. Sahid. Arm. Or., while Matth. Griesb. Scholz, on the other hand, have adopted drooréxAe. Important evidence on both sides. The connection seemed to require the future, which was acordingly introduced here and in Mark xi. 3.— Ver. 4. Gaov] is to be deleted, with Lachm. and Tisch. 8, following C* D L ZX, vss. Or. Chrys. Hil. Comp. i. 22, xxvi. 56.—Ver.5. r#Aov] Lachm. Tisch. : éx/ réAcv, following BLN x, 1, 124, vss. Correctly ; in the Sept. there is only one éai,— Ver. 6. The evidence of B C D 33 in favour of owéraZev (Lachm. Tisch. 7) is sufficient. Tisch. 8, with the Received text, reads xpoosracev, the more usual form.— Ver. 7. For the first éréva airév, Lachm. and Tisch. 8 read é@ airév, following B L Z 8, 69, Or., with which we may class D and codd. of It., which have tm aid. The transcriber would be apt mechanically to anticipate the subsequent érévw.— erexcéicev (Elz.: exexcbsouy) is supported by decisive evidence (adopted by Matth. Griesb. Fritzsche, Scholz, Lachm. Tisch.),so that instead of supposing it to be taken from Mark xi. 7 (comp. John xii. 14), we should rather regard the reading of the Received text as derived from Luke xix. 35. — Ver. 8. gorpuvyuov] Tisch. 8: gorpwouy, following only D &* Or. A repetition of Zozpwouv in the earlier part of the verse. — Ver. 9. mwpoayovres| Lachm. Tisch. : rpoay. avrey, fol- lowing B C D Lx, min. vss. Or. Eus. This «irév, which in itself is not indispensable, was still more apt to be omitted in con-
56 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
sequence of Mark xi. 9.— Ver. 11. Lachm. (B D 8, Or.) puts 6 =pog. before "Ijcots; so also Tisch. 8. But how current was the use of the phrase, “Jesus of Nazareth!”— Ver. 12. rod ©¢oi] deleted by Lachm., following B L &, min. vss. and Fathers. It was omitted as superfluous, and from its not being found in Mark and Luke, also in consequence of its not occurring else- where in the New Testament. — Ver. 13. éro:qc0ur¢| Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch.: zos?rz, following B L &, 124, Copt. Aeth. Or. Eus. Correctly; éro:joure is from Luke. Comp.on Mark xi. 17. — Ver. 19. wyxér:] Lachm. and Tisch.: od wqxér, following, it is true, only B L; but od would readily be omitted, all the more that Mark xi. 14 has simply wyxér:— Ver. 23. erddves aire] Lachm. Tisch. 8: éAdévrog adrod. See on viii. 1.—Ver. 25. Iwdvvov] Lachm. and Tisch.: +3 "Iwévov, which is sufficiently attested by BC ZX, Or.; 7é was omitted as superfluous. — rap éavr.] Lachm.: év éavr., following B L M** Z, min. Cyr. Gloss in accordance with xvi. 7, 8. — Ver. 28. wov] upon important evi- dence, is with Fritzsche, Tisch. to be deleted as an interpolation. — Ver. 30. répw]| So also Griesb. Scholz, Tisch. The devrépw (Lachm.) of the Received text is opposed by C* DEFGHKU X A IL8, min. vss. and Fathers, and, coming as it does after zpérw, looks like an exegetical gloss.— Ver. 31. rparo¢] Lachm.: Sorepog. Maintained by Rinck and Schweizer’ in the Stud. uw.
Krit. 1839, p. 944. Comp. Ewald also, who, however, suggests — Lorepov, sc. weraernderc. Similarly Buttm. in the Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 343 ff. dorepos is found in B, while D, vss. (also codd. of It. and the Vulg.) and several Fathers read Zoyuros. Consequence of the transposition that had taken place in vv. 29, 30 (B, min. vss. and Fathers): 6 6: daoxp. sixev "Eya, xup., nad on aayrdsv. Kal apoozrd. ra érépw six. wo. “O 0 aaoxp. cimevr Od déAw, dorepoy 6, x.7.A. But this transposition was the result of the ancient interpretation of the two sons as referring to the Jews and the Gentiles. — Ver. 32. 03] Lachm.: 0t62, following B, min. Syreur and jer, Copt. Aeth. It. Vulg. Hilar. The compound nega- tive, the force of which had not been observed, would be omitted
1 Schweizer explains thus : 6 tarepes, sc. dx2A¢av (which Buttm. should not have declared to be erroneous). The answer,he says, is hesitating and reluctant, perhaps intentionally ambiguous. But coming after the question ris tx ray dv, x.7.A., the simple é derepos can only be taken as equivalent to 6 dedrepos, as in Xen. Hell. i. 7. 6, al. Lachm. was of opinion that the answer was intended to be inappro- priate (comp. already Jerome), though he ultimately decided in favour of the view that the words 2éyouow . . . "Inzovs, which Or. omits, arespurious. See the latter’s Praefat. Il. p. v. Tisch., Bleek, and others have correctly upheld the reading of the Received text.
CHAP, XXI. 2. 57
all the more readily that 62 occurs just before. —Ver. 33. rs after dévépwros (in Elz. Matth.) is deleted by Griesb. and more recent editors, in accordance with decisive evidence. — Ver. 38. za7d- oxwwev) Lachm. and Tisch.: syépev, following B D L Z¥, min. Or. Cyr. The compound form, for sake of greater precision. — Ver. 44. This whole verse is wanting in D, 33, Cant. Ver. Vere. Corb. 1, 2, Or. Eus. (?) Lucif. Cyr.(?); condemned by Griesb., bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. The external evidence is not sufficient to warrant deletion. Had the words been borrowed from Luke xx. 18, they would have been inserted after ver. 42, and the first half of the passage would have been in closer agreement with Luke (that is to say, the zés would not have been left out). The omission, again, might well be due to a mistake on the part of the copyist, whose eye might pass at once from air%s xai to airiv xa/.— Ver. 46. ws] Lachm. and Tisch. : ec, following B L&,1,22,Or. ag is from ver. 26, xiv. 5.
Ver. 1. Comp. Mark xi. 1 ff; Luke xix. 29 ff. Kat 7X0ov ets BnO@dayh] by way of giving greater precision to the foregoing iyyicav eis ‘Iepoo. They had come towards Beth- phage; that is, as the connection shows (ver. 2), they had not actually entered the village, but were close upon it, so that it lay right before them; comp. on Johniv. 5. Hard by them (“in latere montis Oliveti,” Jerome) was the neighbouring village of Bethany (ver. 17), about which, however, and its position with reference to Bethphage (Robinson, Pal. II. p. 312), nothing more precise can now be said. Consequently there is no divergence from Mark and Luke, so that it is unnecessary to understand ets, versus, after #Oov (Fritzsche), which is distinct from, and more definite than, *y yar. —Of Bethphage, "385 ™2, house of figs, no trace remains (Robinson, as above). It is not once mentioned in the Old Testament, though frequently in the Talmud. Buxtorf, p. 1691; Hug, Hinl. I. p. 18. — ere] an important juncture. “Non prius; vectura mysterii plena,” Bengel. To any one travelling from Jericho, the holy city would be in full view at Bethphage (not at Bethany). And Jesus makes due arrange- ments for the entry ; it is not something done simply to gratify the enthusiastic wishes of those about Him (Neander, de Wette, Weizsacker) ; comp. Keim, III. p. 85 f.
58 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
REMARK.—The stay of Jesus at Bethany, recorded by John (xii. 1 ff.), does not admit of being inserted into the account given by the Synoptists (in answer to Ebrard, Wichelh. Komment. tiber d. Leidensgesch. p.149; Lichtenstein); we should rather say that these latter expressly forbid the view that the night had been passed at Bethany, all the more that they introduce the anoint- ing (Matt. xxvi. 6 ff.; Mark xiv. 3 ff), and consequently the stay of Jesus at this village after the triumphal entry, and that not merely in the order of their narrative, but also in the order of events (Matt. xxvi. 2; Mark xiv. 1). This likewise in answer to Wieseler, p. 391 f—The tradition, to the effect that the triumphal entry took place on the Sunday (Palmarum), is in no way inconsistent with the synoptic narrative itself, and agrees at the same time with John xii. 1, 12, inasmuch as it would appear from this evangelist that the day on which Jesus arrived at Bethany was most probably the 8th of Nisan, which, however, according to John’s representation, must have been Saturday (see note on John xi. 1). Still, as regards the dates of the passion week, there remains this fundamental divergence, that, according to the Synoptists, the Friday on which Jesus died was the 15th, while according to John (see note on John Xviii. 28) it was the 14th of Nisan; and further, that John xii. 12 represents Jesus as having passed the night at Bethany previous to His triumphal entry, while according to the synop- tical account He appears to have gone at once from Jericho to Jerusalem. In any case, the most authentic view of this matter is that of John, on whose authority, therefore, must rest the tradition that Sunday was the day on which Christ rode into the city.
Ver. 2 f. Eis tHv copnv, «.7.r.] Bethphage. — ed0éws] essentially appropriate to the specific character of the instruc- tions: immediately, after you have entered. — The mention of two animals made by Matthew, though seemingly at variance with Mark xi. 2, Luke xix. 30, John xii. 14, represents the matter more correctly than the other evangelists, and is neither to be explained symbolically (of Judaism and heathenism, Justin Martyr), nor to be regarded as a reduplication on the part of Matthew (Ewald, Holtzmann), nor to be traced to a misap- prehension of the words of the prophet (de Wette, Neander, Strauss, Hilgenfeld), who intends Y ay as an epexegetical parallel to nion~>y ; for just in the same way are we to understand
CHAPAXXE 46) 59
Kal émt mo@ndov, ver. 5, so that, according to Matthew as well, Jesus rides upon the foal, though accompanied by the mother, a detail which the other evangelists fail to notice. Moreover, it is simply arbitrary to assign a mythical character to the prediction of Jesus on the strength of Gen. xlix. 11 (Strauss ; on the other hand, Bleek). —- 670] recitative. -— a@roorénNnXeu] so far from refusing, He sends them away. The present repre- sents as already taking place what will immediately and cer- tainly be realized. Comp. Mark iv. 29. In ev@éws 5é, but at once, observe Jesus’ marvellous knowledge, not merely of the fact that the animals would undoubtedly be found awaiting them exactly as He said they would be, but of the further fact that the people of the place are so loyal to Him as perfectly to understand the meaning of the 6 xvpsos, «.7.r., and to find in those words sufficient reason for at once complying with His request. Comp. xxvi. 18. The idea of a magical virtue attaching to the use of the name Jesus (Strauss) is foreign to the text; while, on the other hand, we fail to satisfy the requirements of the three accounts of this incident by resolving it into a mere case of borrowing (Paulus) or requisition (Keim).— The simple account of John does not affect the credibility of the synoptic narrative (also in answer to Bleek). See note on John xu. 14 f.
Ver. 4 f. “Iva tAnpwO7] not accidental, but in accordance with the divine purpose of fulfilling, etc. This quotation, which is a free rendering, partly of the original Hebrew and partly of the Septuagint, combines Isa. lxii. 11 (elzrate... Sov) and Zech. ix. 9, where the riding of the ideal Messianic king upon an ass is simply a representation, not indeed of absolute humility (Hengstenberg, Christol. III. p. 360 f.), for such riding is a sign of mpavrns, but of a peaceful disposi- tion; comp. Ewald, Propheten, I. p. 256, ed. 2. He does not come upon a war-horse, not apyata éAavvwv ws of RoxTrOL Baotreis, Chrysostom. The incident in which Jesus then realized the recognised fulfilment of the prophecy (Hengsten- berg, Ewald, Keim) would suggest the strained interpretation of the figure, and quite properly, inasmuch as Christ’s riding into the city revealed the typical nature of the form in which the
60 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
prophet embodied his prediction (Diisterdieck, de rei propheticae natura ethice, 1852, p.'78 f.). For the prophetic expression daughter of Zion (the locality of the town regarded as its mother), see Knobel’s note on Isa. i. 8. Comp. Lam. i. 6.— coi] Dative of ethical reference, common likewise in classical Greek along with épyeo@ar.— nai éri odor] See note on ver. 2. Kal is epexegetical.—vidv brotvy.] MHN ja, For wmotiytov, beast of burden, a term more frequently used in the Septuagint to designate the ass, comp. Herod. ix. 24, 39, 41; Xen. Anadb. 1. 3. 1; Lucian, Cynic. x.; Polyb. ii. 51. 4; 3 Esdr. v. 43; 2 Pet. 1. 16.
Ver. 7. They spread their outer garments upon both animals, being uncertain which of them Jesus intended to mount. — The (second) ¢rdvw avtév must necessarily be referred, with Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Castalio, Beza, Homberg, Fritzsche, Winer, p. 165 [E. T. 219], to the garments, in which case it is clear from ver. 5 that Jesus sat upon the foal. Were we to refer avtav to the animals, the result would be the absurd idea (which Strauss, B. Bauer, Volkmar make use of against Matthew) that Jesus mounted both of them at once, not one after the other (Fritzsche, Fleck), seeing that «. érexd@icev én. avtov denotes the instantaneous, finished act which followed the spreading of the garments. To suppose (Ebrard, Olshausen), by way of justifying the reference to the animals, that we have here a loose form of speech, corresponding to the German phrase: he leaps from the horses, and such like, is out of the question, for the simple reason that no such ovAAnYus can be assumed in the case of ver. 5, all the less so that, from this verse, it would appear that it was the dam on which Jesus rode, with the foal walking by her side.
Ver. 8. Manifestations of respect, such as kings were usually ereeted with on entering cities, 2 Kings ix. 13; Wetstein’s note on this passage; Robinson, II. p. 383.—0o mAeloros dxXos] the most of the people, the greatest part of the multi- tude. Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 397 D; Thuc. vii. 78; Xen. Anab. iii. 2. 36.— éavrdvr] states what the multitude did with their own garments, after the disciples had spread theirs upon the two beasts.
CHAP) XXI. 9-11. OL
Ver. 9 ff. ‘Acavva] SI 7YwIN, Ps. exvilil. 25, bestow blessing !—addressed to God. The dative is due to the meaning of the verb (opitulare) contained in woavyva, — aocavva év Tots biort.| Grant blessing in the highest places (Luke ii. 14), ze. in the highest heaven (Eph. iv. 10), where Thy throne is fixed, and from which let it descend upon the Messiah. The interpretation of Fritzsche, Olshausen: let blessing be proclaimed (by the angels) in heaven! is far- fetched. No less so is that of de Wette, Bleek: let Hosanna be confirmed in heaven, let it be ratified by God! Nor is éy r. inp. equivalent to o dv T. oy. (grant blessing, O Thou who art in heaven), as Beza, Vatablus, Calovius, Bengel, Kuinoel, are disposed to think. — év dvd. kupiov] i.e. as sent by God to be His representative, John v. 43.— Speaking generally, the exclamation may be described as an outburst of enthusiasm expressing itself, in a free and impromptu manner, in language borrowed from the hymn for the feast of Tabernacles, Ps. cxviii. (Succoth iv. 5).— écetcOn] was thrown into a state of com- motion (Pind. Pyth. iv. 484; Soph. Ant. 163), on account of the sensation created by this Messianic entry into the city. The excitement was contagious.— 06 tpodytys] the well- known prophet. The crowds that accompanied Him had, in most explicit terms, designated Him the Messiah; but the less interested people of the city wished above all to ascertain His name and rank. Hence the full reply, Inoots... Tarr, in which the o ao Nagap. r. adn. doubtless betrays some- what of the Galilean consciousness of the multitude, inasmuch as it was for most part composed of Galileans.
REMARK.— The triumphal entry of Jesus is not a final attempt to establish the Messianic kingdom in a political sense (Wolfenb. Fragm.), such a kingdom having been entirely foreign to His purpose and His function. It is rather to be regarded as His last public and solemn appearance as the Messiah,—an appearance which, coming as it did immediately before His passion, was on the one hand a matter of deep personal interest because of the necessary bearing it was felt to have upon the mission of His life; while, if taken in con- nection with what happened so soon after, it was calculated, on the other hand, to destroy all expectations of a merely political
62 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
kind. The time was now come when Jesus felt that, just because He was the Messiah, it behoved Him to do something— and for this He appropriates the prophet’s symbol of the Prince of Peace—by way of contrast to His practice hitherto of for- bidding the publication of His Messiahship. This step, which, from the fact of the crisis being so near, might now be taken without risk, He had postponed till the eve of His death,—a circumstance of the utmost significance as regarded the sense in which His Messiahship was to be understood. This incident, too, was one of the things for which His hour had not previously come (John vi. 15). Comp. note on John vi. 5 f. Strauss asserts that there is here the possibility at least of a mythical story, though his objections are far from being to the point. See, on the other hand, Ebrard and Bleek. Accord- ing to Wittichen, Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1862, p. 365, Jesus did not intend this incident to be regarded in any other light than as an ordinary festival procession, but the multitude, without consulting Him, turned it into an occasion for a Messianic demonstration. This is not in keeping with the unusual pre- parations mentioned in ver. 2; comp. ver. 7.
Ver. 12. Different from Mark xi. 11, 15, where the narra- tive is more precise; comp. Weiss’ note on Mark. — In the court of the Gentiles were the tabernae, nvin, where animals, incense, oil, wine, and other requisites for sacrifice were ex- posed for sale. Lightfoot on this passage. — The money- changers (KoNAvB., see Phrynichus, p. 440) exchanged on commission (jap, Maimonides, Shekal. 3) ordinary money for the two drachmae pieces which were used in paying the temple tribute (see note on xvii. 24).— This cleansing of the temple is, with Chrysostom, Paulus, Kuinoel, Tholuck, Olshau- sen, Kern, Ebrard, Baumgarten - Crusius, Schleiermacher, Hengstenberg, Wieseler, to be regarded as the second that took place, the first being that recorded in John i. 13 ff, and which occurred on the occasion of the first visit to Jerusalem. The abuse having been repeated, there is no reason why Jesus should not have repeated this purifying process, and that (in answer to Hofmann, Luthardt, Hengstenberg) without any essential difference. The absence, in the synoptical account, of any allusion to a previous occasion, is sufficiently explicable from the length of time that intervened, and from the fact
CHAP. XXI. 13. 63
that the Synoptists take no notice generally of what took place during the earlier visit to Judea. The similarity of the accompanying circumstances may be accounted for from the similarity of the incidents themselves ; whereas the supposition that the cleansing took place only on one occasion would necessarily involve a chronological derangement extending to almost the whole period of Christ’s ministry,—a derangement which can neither be fairly imputed to the synoptical narrative nor even conceived of as far as John is concerned, whose testimony is that of an eye-witness. This is not “ wishy- washy criticism ” (Keim), but it is based upon the authenticity of the fourth Gospel, as well as upon the weighty and unani- mous testimony of the synoptical writers, to sacrifice whose authority for the sake of John would be both one-sided and violent. This, however, is what Wetstein, Liicke, Neander, de Wette, Bleek, Ewald, Weizsicker have done. Others, again, have rejected the fourth evangelist’s account, so far as its chronology is concerned, in favour of that of the Synoptists (Ziegler, Theile, Strauss, Baur, Weisse, Hilgen- feld, Schenkel, Keim). Comp., further, the remarks under John ii. 17.
Ver. 13. Free combination of Isa. lvii 7 and Jer. vii. 11, and taken from the Sept.—«r7@7c.] how sacred the pur- pose for which it was intended, but ye, etc. — trovetre (see critical notes) censures this desecration of the temple as a thing in which they are still persisting. — om7Xatov AnoTOV] The strong language of the prophet (otherwise in John) was in keeping with the emotion that was awakened in Jesus. The use of such language is sufficiently accounted for by the fact that avarice had taken up its abode in those sacred precincts to carry on its huckstering and money-changing: To yap diroxepdés AnoTpiKdoy Taos éo7r, Theophylact. Differently Fritzsche : “ Vos undequaque pecuniam, animalia hue conge- rere sustinetis, ut latrones praedam comportant in speluncam,” —where, however, due prominence is not given to the dis- tinctive point of comparison, viz. the robbery. — In vv. 12,13, Jesus acts with higher authority than that of a mere zealot (Num. xxv. 11): He addresses Himself to the purifying of the
,
64 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
temple and its worship with such a reforming energy as, according to Mal. iii. 1-3, befitted the Messiah. Comp. Bertholdt, Christol. p. 163; Ullmann, Sind/.p.177. And the acquiescence of the astonished multitude is all the more in- telligible on the occasion of this cleansing, that the indignant reformer had just celebrated His triumphal march into the city in the character of Messiah. But even on the first occa- sion, John ii., their acquiescence is sufficiently explicable from the sudden and decided nature of the proceeding, taken in connection with the spiritually -imposing character of the Lord’s person and bearing (“divinitatis majestas lucebat in facie,” Jerome), so that it is quite needless to resort to the hypothesis of a miracle (Origen, Jerome).
Ver. 14 ff. The insertion of vv. 14-16 from the apostolic tradition is peculiar to Matthew. — Ta @avydcua] the only instance of this usage in the New Testament, though very com- mon in classical Greek and the Sept.: the wonderful things, viz. the cleansing of the temple and the miraculous cures. This combination has suggested the use of the more comprehensive term. — Ver. 16. dkovets x.7.d.] in a tone of rebuke, implying that He was the occasion of such impropriety, and was tolerat- ing it.— 671] recitative. The reply of Jesus, so profoundly conversant with the true sense of Scripture, is as much as to say that this shouting of the children is altogether befitting, as being the praise which, according to Ps. viii. 3, God has perfected. —vnriov xk. Onralovtwr] In explaining the words of the psalm, there is no need to have recourse to the fact that children usually received suck for two and three years (Grimm’s note on 2 Mace. vii. 27), nor even to the idea of the children being transformed into adult instruments in effecting the triumph of God’s cause (Hofmann, Weiss. u. Erf. II. p. 118), but only to bear in mind that, as a genuine poet, the psalmist seemed to hear, in the noise and prattle of the babes and sucklings, a celebration of their Maker's praise. But, in- asmuch as those children who shouted in the temple were not vymuot (1e. in connection with @yraf. infantes, Isa. xi. 8 ; 1 Cor. iii. 1), the scriptural warrant by which Jesus here justifies their hosannas may be said to be based upon an in-
CHAP, XXI. 19. 65
ference a minore ad majus. That is to say, if, according to Ps. viii. 3, God had already ordained praise from the mouths of sucklings, how much more has He done so from the mouths of those little ones who now shouted hosanna! The former, though unable to speak, and still at the mother’s breast, are found praising God; how much more the latter, with their hosanna cries! These last are shouted in honour of the Messiah, who, however, is God’s Son and Representative, so that in His d0éa God is glorified (John xiii. 31, xiv. 13; Phil. ui. 11), nay, God glorifies Himself (John xii. 28). — x. nvricOn éxei] Consequently He did not pass the night in the open air (in answer to Grotius), for neither in classical Greek do we always find avAifeoac used in the sense of bivouacking (Apollonid. 14; Diod. Sic. xiii. 6). Comp. Tob. iv. 14, vi. 10, ix. 5; Judg. xix. 9 f,_— On Bethany, some 15 stadia from Jerusalem (John xi. 18), see Tobler, Topogr. v. Jerus. II. p. 432 ff. ; Robinson, Pal. IL p. 309 ff. ; Sepp, Jerus. u. d. heil. Land, I. p. 583 ff. At present it is only a miserable village, known by the Arabic name of el-Aziriyeh (from el-Azir, i.e. Lazarus). For the name, see note on John i. 28.
Ver. 19. Comp. Mark xi. 19 ff Muiav] “unam illo loco,” Bengel. — él ris 0600] The tree, which was by the side of the public road (not on private property), stood above the road, either projecting over it merely, or occupying an eminence close to it, or the road itself may have been in a ravine. It was a favourite practice to plant fig-trees by the roadside, because it was thought that the dust, by absorbing the exuding sap, was conducive to the better growth of the fruit, Plin. VW. H. xv. 19.—d@ev ex’ adtyy] not: con- scendit arborem (Fritzsche), but: He went up to it. From seeing the tree im foliage, Jesus expected, of course (for it was well known that the fig-tree put forth its fruit before coming into leaf), to find fruit upon it as well, namely, the early boccére, which, as a rule, did not ripen till June, and not the harvest-figs, kermuse, that had been on the tree all winter, and the existence of which He could not infer from seeing leaves. Comp. Tobler, Denkbl. aus Jerus. p. 101 ff On the disappointed expectation of Jesus, Bengel MATT. IL. E
66 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW,
observes : “maxima humanitatis et deitatis indicia uno tem- pore edere solitus est.” It is a perversion of the text to say, with Chrysostom, Euthymius Zigabenus, that He did not ex- pect to find fruit upon the tree, but went up to it merely for the purpose of working the miracle. Moreover, the hunger is alleged to have been only a oynwariteoOar (Euthymius Zigabenus), or an esuries sponte excitata (Cornelius a Lapide). The account of the withering of the tree, contained in Mark xi, 12 ff, 19 f., is more precise and more original (in answer to Kostlin, Hilgenfeld, Keim). Matthew abridges.
Ver. 21 f. Instead of telling the disciples, in reply to their question, by what means He (in the exercise of His divine power) caused the tree to wither, He informs them how they too might perform similar and even greater wonders (John xiv. 12), namely, through an unwavering faith in Him (xvii. 20), a faith which would likewise secure a favourable answer to all their prayers. ‘The participation in the life of Christ, implied in the riots, would make them partakers of the divine power of which He was the organ, would be a guarantee that their prayers would always be in harmony with the will of God, and so would prevent the promise from being in any way abused. — Zhe affair of the fig-tree (70 Ths ovkhs, comp. vill. 33) should neither be explained on natural grounds (Paulus says: Jesus saw that the tree was on the point of dying, and that He intimated this “in the popular phraseology” ! Comp. even Neander, Baumgarten - Crusius, Bleek), nor regarded as a mythical picture suggested by the parable in Luke xiii. 6 ff. (Strauss, de Wette, Weisse, Hase, Keim), but as the miraculous result of an exercise of His will on the part of Jesus—such a result as is alone in keeping with the conception of Christ presented in the Gospel narrative. But the purpose of the miracle cannot have been to punish an inanimate object, nor, one should think, merely to make a display of miraculous power (Fritzsche, Ullmann), but to ve- present in a prophetic, symbolical, visible form the punishment which follows moral barrenness (Luke xii. 6 ff)—-such a punishment as was about to overtake the Jews in particular, and the approach of which Jesus was presently to announce
CHAP. XXI. 23. G7
with solemn earnestness on the eve of His own death (vv. 28-44, xxii. 1-14, xxiii., xxiv., xxv.). It is true He does not make any express declaration of this nature, nor had He previously led the disciples to expect such (Sieffert); but this objec- tion is met partly by the fact that the mas of the disciples’ question, ver. 20, did not require Him to do so, and partly by the whole of the subsequent denunciations, which form an eloquent commentary on the silent withering of the fig-tree. —aitnonte év TH TpocevxyH] Comp. note on Col. i. 9: what ye will have desired in your prayer.— meotevortes| - Condition of the AyfecGe. He who prays in faith, prays in the name of Jesus, John xiv. 13.
Ver. 23. Comp. Mark xi. 27 ff.; Luke xx. 1 ffi— 4.éa- axov7t| while He was engaged in teaching.—év oda e€ovaola| in virtue of what kind of authority. Comp. Acts iv. 7. The second question is intended to apply to Him who has given the authority ; the first is general, and has reference to the nature of the authority (whether it be divine or human). —tadta] these things, cannot point merely to the cleansing of the temple (Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus), which is too remote for such special reference. As little can the teaching by itself be intended (Grotius, Bengel), that being a matter in connection with the ministry of Jesus about which the Sanhedrim was comparatively unconcerned, and for which He did not need a higher authority. We should rather say that, in their tadra, the questioners mean to include all that up till that moment Jesus had done and was still doing in Jerusalem, and therefore refer to the triumphal entry, the cleansing of the temple, the miraculous healing and the teach- ing in the temple, all which, taken together, seemed to betoken the Messianic pretender. Comp. de Wette, Bleek, Weizsicker, p. 532; Keim, III. p.112. The members of the Sanhedrim hoped either to hear Him acknowledge that the é£ovcla was divine, or presumptuously assert that it was self-derived, so that in either case they might have something on which to found judicial proceedings against Him. They seem to have been a provisional deputation of the Sanhedrim appointed to discover a pretext for excommunicating Him. Comp. Johni. 19.
68 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
Ver. 24 f. Jesus prudently frustrates their design by pro- posing in reply a puzzling question, which, in the circumstances, they did not know how to answer.—dyor éva] a single word, a single question ; not more. The subject of the ques- tion itself is admirably chosen, seeing that the work of reform in which Jesus was engaged had a necessary connection with that of John ; both would stand and fall together. — 7o0ev Vv] whence did it proceed? The following alternative is ex- planatory : was it from God, who had commissioned John, or from men, so that he baptized simply on his own authority or that of his fellow-mortals ? The latter was out of the ques- ~ tion, if John was a prophet (ver. 26). Comp., further, Acts v. 39.—dvedXoy. wap éavtots] they deliberated by themselves, privately cat’ idiav, ic. with cach other, during a brief pause for private consultation, before giving their decision, which was intimated in the subsequent dmoxpilévtes tO “Iqood. dvaroyifecPac in this instance also denotes reflection combined with mutual consultation. Comp. xvi. 7; Mark viii. 16; Luke xx. 14.—éauctevoate avt@] AéyovTe OANA Kal peyara rept ewov, Euthymius Zigabenus.
Ver. 26 f. BoBovpea tov dyrov] Those words are pre- ceded by an aposiopesis, the import of which, however (Luke xx. 6), is indicated by the words themselves.—The language of embarrassment: “ But suppose we should say: From men ; we are afraid of the people,’ etc. Comp. note on Acts xxiii. 9,—advtes yap, «.7.r.] See on xiv. 5.—x«al adros] He also on His part ; for as they with their wretched ov« oidapev left the question of Jesus wnanswered, so now in like manner He with His decided and humbling odd éye (neither do I) refuses to answer thes.
Vy. 28—32. Peculiar to Matthew, and doubtless taken from the collection of the sayings of the Lord—dJesus now assumes the offensive in order to convince His adversaries of their own baseness. — Téxva and téxvov suggest the father’s love. — Ver. 30. éy@] is to be taken elliptically, and that with due regard at the same time to its emphatic character, in virtue of which it forms a contrast to the negative answer of the other son: J, sir, will go and work in the vineyard this very day. The
CHAP. XXI. 33-39. 69
xupte expresses the hypocritical submission of the man. — The publicans and harlots are represented by the jirst mentioned son ; for previous to the days of John they refused to obey the divine call (in answer to the command to serve Him, which God addressed to them through the law and the pro- phets, they practically said: od 0éd), but when John appeared they accorded him the faith of their hearts, so that, in con- formity with his preaching, they were now amending their ways, and devoting themselves to the service of God. The members of the Sanhedrim are represented by the second son ; for, while pretending to yield obedience to the law of God revealed in the Scriptures (by the submissive airs which they assumed, they practically uttered the insincere éya, cvpte), they in reality disregarded it, and, unlike the publicans and the harlots, they would not allow themselves to be influenced by the movement that followed the preaching of the Baptist, so that neither the efforts of John nor the example of the publicans and harlots had any effect upon them in the way of producing conversion. To understand by the two sons the Gentiles and the Jews, is entirely against the context.— mpoayoucuwy vas] as though the future entering into the Messianic king- dom were now taking place. The going before, however, does not necessarily imply that others are following. Comp. xviii. 14,— év 086 8iKxatoctvns] in the way of righteousness, i.e. as one whose walk and conversation are characterized by moral integrity. év auéumt@ Bio (Theophylact), a xai a&v- motos dav (Euthymius Zigabenus). Comp. 2 Pet. ii. 21, i. 2; Prov. vii. 20, xii 28, xvi. 23. The preaching of righteousness (de Wette, Bleek, Keim) would have been ex- pressed by some such terms as oddv dixatoc. didacKkwv (xxii. 16).— idovres] the fact, namely, that the publicans and harlots believed Him. — ov6é wetepen. tot.] did not even feel penitent afterwards (ver. 29), far less did you get the length of actual conversion. The example of those others produced so little impression upon you. The emphasis is not on vortep., but on petew.— TOD mictedoas] Object of mereu. voT., so as to believe Him.
Ver. 33 ff. Comp. Mark xu. 1 ff; Luke xx. 9 ff. Jesus,
70 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
in ver. 28 ff., having shown His adversaries how base they are, now proceeds to do this yet more circumstantially in another parable (founded, no doubt, upon Isa. v. 1 ff.), in which, with a lofty and solemn earnestness, He lays bare to them the full measure of their sin against God (even to the killing of His Son), and announces to them the punishment that awaits them. —dpv&ev év adt® Anvor| dug a wine-vat in it. Comp. Xen. Occ. xix. 2: omocov Babos dpvrrew Sei TO utov. This was a trough dug in the earth for the purpose of receiving the juice of the grape as it flowed down from the press through an aperture covered with a grating. See Winer, Aealw. I. p. 653 f.—-7vpyov] a tower, for watching the vineyard. Such tower-shaped structures were then, and are still, in common use for this purpose (Tobler, Denkbl. p. 113.— é&é- Soro] he let it owt (Pollux. i. 75; Herod. i 68; Plat. Parm. p. 127 A; Dem. 268, 9), namely, to be cultivated. Seeing that the proprietor himself collects the produce (vv. 34, 41), we must assume that the vineyard was let for a money rent, and not, as is generally supposed, for a share of the fruit. For nothing is said in this passage about payment in kind to the proprietor, including only part of the produce. Other- wise in Mark xii. 2; Luke xx. 10; comp. Weiss’ note on Mark.—rovs xaptovs avtobd] avtod is often taken as referring to the vineyard ; but without reason, for there is nothing to prevent its being referred to the subject last mentioned. It was his own fruit that the master wished to have brought to him. The fruit of the vineyard, and the whole of it too, belongs to him.— érvOoBornaar] they stoned him (xxiii. 37; John viii. 5; Acts vii. 58 f, xiv. 5; Heb. xi. 20), forms a climax to améxr., as being a “species atrox” (Bengel) of this latter. — évtpamo.] a reasonable expecta- tion. —ezrov év éavtots] they said one to another.—kat TXGwev THY KXNpov. avTOd] and let us obtain possession of his inheritance, namely, the vineyard to which he is the heir. In these words they state not the reswlt of the murder (as in Mark), but what step they propose to take next. After the death of the son, who is therefore to be regarded as an only one, they intend to lay claim to the property.— é&éSanov x.
CHAP. XXI. 40, 41. 71
améxt.] differently in Mark xii. 8, hence also the transposition in D, codd. of It. This passage contains no allusion to the previous excommunication (Grotius), or to the crucifixion of Christ because it took place outside of Jerusalem (comp. Heb. xii. 12 f.; so Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Olshausen), but simply describes the scene in which the son on his arrival is thrust out of the vineyard and murdered.— The parable illustrates the hostile treatment experienced time after time by God’s prophets (the dodA0r) at the hands of the leaders (the husbandmen) of the Jewish theocracy (the vineyard), an institution expressly designed for the production of moral fruit,—and also shows how their self- seeking and love of power would lead them to put to death even Jesus, the Son, the last and greatest of the messengers from God. Comp. Acts vii. 51f. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, likewise find a meaning in the hedge (the law), the wine-vat (the altar), and the tower (the temple). So also Bengel, who sees in azedjunoev an allusion to the “tempus divinae taciturnitatis ;” while Origen takes it as re- ferring to the time when God ceased to manifest Himself in a visible shape.
Ver. 40 f. According to Mark and Luke, it is Jesus who replies. But how appropriate and how striking (comp. ver. 31) that the adversaries themselves are forced to pronounce their own condemnation (in answer to Schneckenburger, de Wette, Bleek) !— xaxovs kaxos aTodécet adt.] as despic- able creatures (scoundrels), He will miserably destroy them. The collocation Kaxov’s Kakés serves to indicate in an emphatic manner the correspondence between the conduct in question and its punishment. See Wetstein’s note; Fritzsche, Diss. in 2 Cor: ii. p. 147 f.; Lobeck, Paralip. p. 58. Comp. Eur. Cycl. 270: Kaxos obtot xakol amodow6’; and, in general, Lobeck, ad Soph. Aj. 866; Elmsl. ad Eur. Med. 787. If we are to apply the parable in accordance with the order of thought, and, therefore, in conformity with the meaning intended by Jesus Himself, we cannot understand the coming of the xvpsos and the execution of the punishment as denoting the second advent and the last judgment.; for, apart from the
72 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
fact that it is God and not Christ that is represented by the xupios, the words oftives atrod@covew, «.7.r., would point to the period subsequent to the advent and the judgment,— a reference not in keeping with the sense of the passage. The true reference is to the destruction of Jerusalem, the shape in which the divine judgment is to overtake the then guardians of the theocracy, whereupon this latter would be entrusted to the care of other guides (ie. the leaders of the Christian church as representing the true "IcparA tod Geod), who as such will be called upon to undertake the duties and responsibilities of their unfaithful predecessors. Comp. xxii. 7; John vii. 34; Eph. iv. 11f. Such are the things which those hostile questioners “dxovtes mpopntevovor” (Euthymius Zigabenus).— év tots Katpots avTa@v| avTov refers to the yewpyoi: at the terms prescribed to them for doing so.
Ver. 42. The enemies of Jesus have answered correctly, but they are not aware that they have thus pronounced their own condemnation, since those who thrust out the Son that was sent to them are no other than themselves. To bring this fully home to them (ver. 45), is the purpose of the concluding words added by our Lord. The quotation is from the Septuagint version of Ps. exvili. 22 f, which was composed after the captivity, and in which the stone, ac- cording to the historical sense of the psalm, represents the people of Israel, who, though rejected by the Gentiles, were chosen by God to form the foundation-stone of His house (the theocracy); while, according to the typical reference of the passage (which the Rabbinical teachers also recognised, see Schoettgen), it denotes the ideal head of the theocracy,
viz. the Messiah. —iOov dv] a stone which, attraction of very frequent occurrence. — a7redoxipu.| as not fit for being used in the building.— odros] this, and no other. —
cehariny yovias] 3B WN, head of the corner, i.e. corner- stone (in Hesychius we find xegaditys in the sense of corner-stone ; see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 700), is the meta- phorical designation of Him on whom the stability and development of the theocracy depend, without whom it would
CHAP. XXI. 43, 73
fall to pieces, and in this respect He resembles that stone in a building which is indispensably necessary to the support and durability of the whole structure. The antitype here referred to is not the Gentiles (Fritzsche), but, as must be inferred from the connection of our passage with what is said about the Son being thrust out and put to death, from the further statement in ver. 44, and from the common usage throughout the New Testament (Acts iv. 11; Eph. 11. 20; 1 Pet. ii. 7), the Messiah. — éyéveto airy] did he become so (viz. the corner-stone, cepadn ywvias). Here the feminine is not a Hebraism for the xeuwter (as little is it so in 1 Sam. iv. 7; Ps. xxvii. 4), as Buttmann, Newt. Gr. p. 108 [E. T. 123], would have us suppose, but strictly grammatical, inasmuch as it refers to xed. yov.; and accordingly we find that in the Septuagint also nxt is rendered according to its contextual reference. To refer to ywvias merely (Wetstein) is inad- missible, for this reason, that, in what precedes, xefadn yov. was the prominent idea.—xai éote Pavpacty, K.T.r.] Viz. this cepary yov. “ Our eyes,” as referring to believers.
Ver. 43. Ata todro] therefore, because, according to the psalm just quoted, the rejected stone is destined to become the corner-stone. What is contained in the following announcement is the necessary consequence of the inversion of the order of things just referred to. The rAéyw tyiv, how- ever, like the ag’ tuav below, implies the obvious inter- mediate thought: “ for it is you who reject this corner-stone.” —apOyncetat af’ vudr] for they, along with the whole *Iopaii Kata cdpxa represented by them, were by natural | right the owners of the approaching Messianic kingdom, its theocratic heirs; comp. xiii. 38.— €@ver movodvte, x.7.2.] Jesus is not here referring to the Gentiles, as, since Eusebius’ time, many, and in particular Schenkel, Hilgenfeld, Keim, Volkmar, have supposed, but, as the use of the singular already plainly indicates, to the whole of the future subjects of the kingdom of the Messiah, conceived of as one people, which will therefore consist of Jews and Gentiles, that new Messianic people of God, which is to constitute the body politic in the kingdom that is about to be established,
74 TUE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
1 Pet. ii 9. The fruits of the Messiah’s kingdom are those fruits which must be produced as the condition of admission (v 3 ff, xiii. 8). Hence, likewise, the use of the present movovvtt; for Jesus regards the future subjects of the king- dom as already anticipating its establishment by producing its fruits. The metaphor is to be regarded as an echo of the parable of the vineyard. The fruits themselves are identical with those mentioned in Eph. v. 9; Gal. v. 22; Rom. vi. 22.
Ver. 44. After having indicated the future punishment in the merely negative form of ap@jcetar x.7.r., Jesus now pro- ceeds to announce it in positive terms, by means of parallelism in which, without dropping the metaphor of the stone, the person in question is first the subject and then the object. A solemn exhausting of the whole subject of the coming doom. And whosoever will have fallen upon this stone (who- soever by rejecting the Messiah shall have incurred the judgment consequent thereon) shall be broken (by his fall) ; but on whomsoever it shall fall (whomsoever the Messiah, as an avenger, shall have overtaken), 2 shall winnow him, “ee. throw him off like the chaff from the winnowing-fan. ovvOddo- Oar (to be crushed) and AuKpac@a, which form a climax, are intended to portray the execution of the Messianic judgments. ikaw is not equivalent to conterere, comminuere, the meaning usually assigned to it in accordance with the Vulgate, but is rather to be rendered by to winnow, ventilare (Zl. v. 500; Xen. Occ. xviii. 2. 6; Plut. Mor. p. 701 C; Lucian, Gymnas. xxv.; Ruth ii. 2; Ecclus. v.10). See likewise Job xxvii. 21, where the Sept. employs this figurative term for the purpose of rendering the idea of driving away as before a storm (ryw). Comp. Dan. u. 44; Wisd. xi. 20.— Observe the change which the figure undergoes in the second division of the verse. The stone that previously appeared in the character of the corner- stone, lying at rest, and on which, as on a stone of stum- bling (Isa. vii. 14 f.), some one falls, is now conceived of as rolling down with crushing force upon the man; the latter having reference to the whole of such coming (ver. 40) in judgment down to the second advent; the former expressing
CHAP. XXI. 45, 46. ta
the same thought in a passive form, xelrau els mréow (Luke iil, 34).
Ver. 45 f. It was the hint contained in this concluding remark that led Jesus at once to follow up what had been already said with another parabolic address directed against His enemies. — of apycepets x. 0t Papso.] identical with the of apy. K. ot mpecBitepor of ver. 23, so that, in the present instance, the latter are designated by the name of the party to which they belonged. — éyvwcav] what had now become clear to them from what was said, vv. 42-44. The confident manner in which they express themselves in ver. 41 bears up to that point no trace of such knowledge, otherwise we should have to suppose that they consciously pronounced their own condemnation. — e¢s (see critical remarks) rpog1- tnv: held Him as a prophet, i.e. in Him they felt they possessed a prophet; on eis, which is met with in later writers in the sense of the predicate, see Bernhardy, p. 219.
76 TIIE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
Oo AvP ER, xe
VER. 4. qro/waca] Following BC* DL», 1, 22, 23, we should, with Lachm. and Tisch., read Aroiucno because of the prepon- derance of manuscript authority. — Ver. 5. 6 wiv... 6 6&| eam min. Or.: 65 wiv... 5 6& So Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. To be preferred on the strength of this external authority, particularly as O* &, which have 6 ey ... 0g 6é, cannot be regarded as counter- pealence: —For «ic rq, Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. read ea? rq, following B C D x, min. Or. Correctly ; e/g 18 a mechanical repetition of the one ‘preceding, — Ver. 7. The Received text has anobous 6¢ 6 Bac. Of the numerous readings, the simple 6 6: BaciAedbs is the one favoured by B Ls, min. Copt. Sahid., while most of the other witnesses have zai ax. 6 Buc. (so Fritzsche, Scholz, Tisch. 7). Lachm. reads 6 6: Bas. dxovenc, but only following min. It. Vul& Arm. Ir. Chrys. Eus. In presence of such a multi- plicity of readings, we ought to regard the simple 6 6: Bac. as the original one (so also Tisch. 8), to which, in conformity with Matthew’s style (comp. on the reading of the Received text, especially il. 3), dxoboug was added, being inserted sometimes in one place and sometimes in another. Many important witnesses insert éxefiog after Baca. (D and codd. of It. Lucif. place. it before), a reading which is also adopted by Scholz and Tisch. 7 (therefore: ~. dxodoug 6 Pacireds exec). It is not found in B L ®, min. Copt. Sahid. codd. of It. Vulg. Ir. It, too, has been inserted mechanically as being in accordance with Matthew’s usual manner; it would scarcely have been omitted as being somewhat in the way because of the éxstios which follows. —
Ver. 10. 6 y anos | Tisch. 8: 6 vyuguy, following B* L&® Agnige taken gloss, for ued» means the bride-chamber. — Ver. 13. dpure auroyv nal éxParere| Lachm. Tisch. 8: euBdrer ¢ adrov, following B L 8, min. vss. and Fathers. The word épare, not being needed to complete the picture, was struck out. The read- ing of the Received text ought to be maintained. The genuine- ness of the d&pare is likewise confirmed by the gloss dpure aidriv rodwy x. xerpav, Which came to be substituted for dyouvres adrod «60. x. xeIpas (so D, Cant. Verc. Ver. Colb. Corb. 2, Clar. It.
CHAP. XXII. th
Lucif.). — Ver. 16. Aéyovres] Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. 8: Aéyo- rac, following B L 8, 27, vss. (?). An improper emendation. — Ver. 23. of Aéyovres] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have deleted the article, following B D M S Z¥8, min. Or. no doubt; but in- correctly, for it is indispensable, and would be readily enough overlooked in consequence of the OI which immediately precedes it. — Ver. 25. For yaujous, with Lachm. and Tisch., following B Lx, min. Or. read yjuas, a form which the copyists would be very apt to exchange for one of more frequent occurrence in the New Testament. — For xai 4 yg, ver. 27, read, with Tisch. 8, simply % yvv4, in accordance with the preponderance of evidence. — Ver. 28. Instead of év r¥ ody dvaor., we should, with Lachm. and Tisch., read 2 +. dvaor. otv, following BD L®&, min. The reading of the Received text was intended to be an emendation as regards the position of the oiv.— Ver. 30. éxyapmiovras] Lachm. Tisch. 8: yamwiGovros, following B D Ls, min, Clem. Or. (twice) Ath. Isid. The compound form, besides being obviously suggested by Luke, is intended to be more precise, so as to bring out the reference to women. Neither of the words belongs to the older Greek, hence the variations are not of a grammatical nature. — rod dot] wanting in B D, 1, 209, vss. and Fathers. Deleted by Lachm. Left out, in accordance with Mark xii. 25. — Ver. 32. odx Zoriv 6 bebe b26¢] The second é<é¢ is deleted by Lachm., following B L A, min. Copt. Sahid. Or. (2). It is like- wise wanting in D x, min. Eus. Chrys., which authorities drop the article before the first ésés. Tisch. 8 follows them, simply reading odx gor eds. The sufficiently attested reading of the Received text is to be adhered to; it was simplified in accord- ance with Mark and Luke. — Ver. 35. xa/ A2ya»] not found in B LX, 33, vss. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. The omis- sion, though opposed to Matthew’s usual style (xi1. 10, xvii. 10, xxii. 23, 41, xxvii. 11), is in accordance with Mark xii. 28.— Ver. 37. ’Inoods] is to be deleted, with Lachm. and Tisch., follow- ing B Ls, 33, Copt. Sahid. Inserted from Mark xu. 29.— ¢97] having decisive evidence in its favour, is to be preferred to sivev - of the Received text. — Ver. 38. For rpwry x. weydéan, read, with Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch.: 4 weyaan x. sparn, following B D (which latter, however, omits 7) L (which, however, inserts the article also before xpairy) Z 8, min: vss: Hilar.; rpwrn would be placed first as being the chief predicate. Comp. devrépa below.— Ver. 40. naloi rpopyras: xpewavra:] BDL ZX, 33, Syr. Vulg. It. Tert. Hil.: xpzwaras xa) of zpog. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. The reading of the Received text is an exegetical correction. — Ver. 44. irorédsov] BD G L
78 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
ZY AX, min. vss: Aug.: isoxérw. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. The reading of the Received text is taken from the Sept. and Luke.
Ver. 1. Kai dzoxp. 0 ’Ino. waduv elzrev, «.7.r.] In the full consciousness of His mission and His own superiority, Jesus replied (a7oxp., see note on xi. 25) to their hostile &mreiv, which only fear of the people kept in check, by adding another parabolic address (€v vrapaf. plural of the category). Olshausen and Keim are not justified in doubting this con- nection on the ground that xxi. 45 f. is, as they suppose, the formal conclusion. The parable as given in Luke xiv. 16 ff. is not a Pauline modification of the one before us (Baur, Hilgenfeld), but is rather to be regarded as representing an imperfect version of it which had found its way into the document consulted by Luke. Others are of opinion that the parable in Luke xiv. 16 ff. is the more original of the two, and that here it is interwoven with another (ver. 8 ff.), the introduction to which, however, has disappeared, and that, in the process, still a third feature (vv. 6, 7) has been added from the parable which precedes (Ewald, Schneckenburger, de Wette, Strauss, Weizsiicker, Keim, Scholten). But coming as it does after the remark of xxi. 45 f., a somewhat copious parable such as that before us, so far from being a mere heaping of passage upon passage, is intended to serve as a forcible concluding address directed against His obdurate enemies,—an address, too, which does not interrupt the connection, since it was delivered before those for whom it was intended had had time to with- draw (ver. 15). As, in presence of such obduracy, thoughts of the divine love and of the divine wrath could not but crowd into the mind of Jesus; so, on the other hand, there could not fail to be something corresponding to this in their parabolic utterance.
Ver. 2 f. On yadmous rovety, to prepare a marriage feast, comp. Wetstein and Xen. de rep. Lac. 1. 6; Tob. vii. 19. Michaelis, Fischer, Kuinoel, Paulus are mistaken in supposing that what is meant is a feast on the occasion of his son’s acces- sion to the throne. — The Messiah is the bridegroom (xxv. 1 ; Rev. xxi. 2, 9), whose marriage represents the setting up of His kingdom, Comp. ix. 15, John in. 29, and note on Eph.
CHAP. XXII. 4-9. 79
v. 27.—Kadéoat] we. to tell those who had been previously invited that it was now time to come to the marriage. Comp. ver, 4; Luke xiv. 17. For instances of such repeated invita- tions, see Wetstein. — av@p. Pactn.] as in xviii. 23 ; opowwOn, as In xii. 24.
Ver. 4. Td dprorov] not equivalent to detrvov (see Luke xiv. 12; Bornemann, ad Xen. Cyr. ii. 3. 21), nor a meal gene- rally, but in the sense of breakfast, prandium (towards mid-day, Joseph. Anti. v. 4. 2), with which the series of meals con- nected with marriage was to begin. — 7To(waxa (see critical re- marks): paratum habeo.— kat wavta] and everything generally.
Ver. 5 ff. "Aperynoavtes| having paid no attention, said with reference merely to those who went away ; for the others, ver. 6, conducted themselves in a manner directly hostile. This in answer to Fritzsche, who holds that Matthew would have expressed himself more precisely: of O6€ duer., of mev aTHAGov . . . of 6é AowTrol, x.7.X. Instead of so expressing himself, however, he leaves it to appear from the context that the first oi represents the majority of those invited, while the of 68é Aov7rot constitute the remainder, so that the general form of expression (ot dé dpen., x.7.r.) finds its limitation in of 5€ Nowrod. This limitation might also have been expressed by o/ 6€ alone, in the sense of some, however (see Kiihner, II. 2, p. 808). — eds Tov Ldtov aypor] to his own farm (Mark v. 14, vi. 36), so that he preferred his own selfish interests to being present at the marriage of the royal prince, as was also the case with him who went to his merchandise. For iévos, comp. note on Eph. v. 22.
Ver. 8. Od« oav d£Evot] Comp. Acts xiii. 46. “ Prae- teritum indignos eo magis praetermittit,’ Bengel. To repre- sent the expedition against the rebels, and the destruction of their city as actually taking place while the supper is being prepared, —a thing hardly conceivable in real life,—jis to introduce an episode quite in accordance with the illustrative character of the parable, which after all is only a fictitious narrative. Comp., for example, the mustard seed which grows to a tree; the olive on which the wild branch is engrafted, Rom. xi., etc.; see also note on xxv. 1 f.
Ver. 9. “Emi tas SueEddous trav 6501] to the crossings of
80 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
the roads, where people were in the habit of congregating most. It is evident from ver. 7, according to which the city is destroyed, that what is meant is not, as Kypke and Kuinoel suppose, the squares im the city from which streets branch off, but the places where the country roads cross each other. Comp. Babyl. Berac. xlui. 1. Gloss.: “Divitibus in more fuit, viatores pauperes ad convivia invitare.”
Ver. 10. "E&eAOovres] from the palace of the king out into the highways. — cuvvyyayor] through their invitation, which was accepted.—wovnp. te wai ayad.] not “locutio quasi proverbialis,” Bengel, but they proceeded on the prin- ciple of not inquiring whether the parties in question were at the time morally bad or good, provided they only accepted the invitation. The separation between the bad and the good was not to be made by them, but subsequently by the king himself, and that according to a higher standard. Accordingly, the separation takes place in ver. 11 ff., where the man who has no wedding garment represents the sovnpol.— o yapos] not equivalent to vupydev, but the wedding (i.e. the marriage feast, as in ver. 8; comp. Hom. Od. iv. 3, J/. xviii. 491), was full of guests. The emphasis, however, is on éAjo0n.
Ver. 11 f. "Evduua yapov] a dress suited for a marriage. Comp. yAavis yapyixny, Aristoph. Av. 1693. It is true that, in interpreting this passage, expositors (Michaelis, Olshausen) lay stress on the Oriental custom of presenting handsome caftans to those who are admitted to the presence of royalty (Harmer, Beobacht. II. p. 117; Rosenmiiller, Morgenl. V. p. 75 ff); and they are all the more disposed to do so, that such a custom is calculated to make it appear with greater prominence that righteousness is a free gift, and that, consequently, man’s sin is so much the more heinous: but neither can it be proved (not from Gen. xlv. 22; Judg. xiv. 12; 2 Kings v. 22, x. 22; Esth: vi 8) vin Do)Ghas any such custom existed in ancient times, nor does the text make any allusion to it whatever, although it would have contributed not a little to bring out the idea of the parable. That those invited, however, should appear in festive attire was a matter of course, and demanded by the rules of ordinary
CHAP! WII 13, 14, 81
etiquette (see Dougt. Anal. II. p. 23). The only thing intended to be represented here is the moral Sixatocvvy, which, by faith in Christ, men are required to assume after being called to the Messianic kingdom through petdvoa. Comp. vi. 33, v. 20. So far, our Lord’s adversaries themselves could understand the figure of the wedding garment. But, of course, the true inward basis of the moral dicarocvvn was to be sought in that righteousness which, as a free gift, and in virtue of the death of Jesus, would be bestowed on those who believed (comp. the Fathers in Calovius). The knowledge of this truth, how- ever, had to be reserved for a later stage in the development ‘of Christian doctrine. — étatpe] Comp. on xx. 13.— ds elonrOes, «.7.r.] a question expressive of astonishment : how has it been possible for thee to come in hither (how couldst thou venture to do so), without, etc.? — yu» éywv] although thow hadst not. Differently ver. 11: od« évdeduu. Comp. Buttmann, Weut. Gr. p. 301 [E. T. 351).
Ver. 13. Anoavtes, «.7.r.] that is, to make it impossible for him to get loose in course of the éxBaddeoOas, as well as to secure against his escape subsequently from the oxdtos éEotepov.— avdtod 706.| his feet; comp. on vill. 3. — For the Svaxovor of this passage (not doddou this time, for the servants waiting at the table are intended), see xii. 41.— éxel otras, «.7.A.| not the words of the king, but, as the future éoras indicates, a remark on the part of Jesus, having reference to the condition hinted at in the words 70 oxor. . é&oT. See, further, on viii. 12.
Ver. 14. I'ap] introduces the reason of the éxe? gorau, «.7.X. For, so far from the mere calling availing to secure against eternal condemnation, many, on the contrary, are called to tha Messiah’s kingdom, but comparatively few are chosen by God actually to participate in it. This saying has a somewhat different purport in xx. 16; still in both passages the é«doy1) is not, in the first instance, the judicial sentence, but the eternal decree of God; a decree, however, which has not selected the future subjects of the kingdom in any arbitrary fashion, but has destined for this honour those who, by appro- priating and faithfully maintaining the requisite d:mavoovvy
MATT. II. r
82 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
(see on ver. 11 f.), will be found to possess the correspond- ing disposition and character. Comp. xxv. 34. Similarly, too, in xxiv. 22; Luke xviii. 7. It was, however, only a legitimate consequence of the contemplation of history from a religious point of view, if the Christian consciousness felt warranted in attributing even this amount of human freedom to the agency of God (Eph. i. 4; Phil. i. 13), and had to be satisfied, while maintaining the human element no less than the divine, with leaving the problem of their unity unsolved (see on Rom. ix. 33, Remark).
Teaching of the parable: When the Messianic kingdom is about to be established, instead of those who have been invited to enter it, ze. instead of the people of Israel, who will despise the (according to the plural) repeated invitations, nay, who will show their contempt to some extent by a violent behaviour (for which God will chastise them, and that before the setting up of the kingdom, ver. 7), God will order the Gentiles to be called to His kingdom. When, however, it is being established, He will single out from among the Gentiles who have responded to the call such of them as turn out to be morally disqualified for admission, and condemn them to be punished in Gehenna. — The first invitation, and which is referred to in the tods xexAnuévous of ver. 3, is conveyed through Christ; the successive invitations which followed were given through the apostles, who, ver. 9, likewise invite the Gentiles. Comp. xxvii. 19; Acts i. 8, xii. 46.— Observe in connection with tore, ver. 8, that it is not intended thereby to exclude the calling of the Gentiles before the destruction of Jerusalem ; but simultaneously with this event the work of conversion was to be directed in quite a special manner toward the Gentiles. The destruction of Jerusalem was to form the signal for the gathering in of the fulness of the Gentiles (Rom. xi. 25). Thus the tore marks a grand epoch in the historical development of events, an epoch already visible to the far-seeing glance of Jesus, though at the same time we are bound to admit the discrepancy that exists between this pas- sage and the very definite statement regarding the date of the second advent contained in xxiv. 29. As is clear from the
+
CHAP. XXII. 15. \ 83
whole connection, we must not suppose (Weisse) that the man without the wedding garment is intended to represent Judas ; but see on ver. 12. What is meant is a Christian with the old man still clinging to him. Comp. on Rom. xiii. 14; Gal. iii. 27; Eph. iv. 24; Col. iii, 12.
_ Remarx.—tThe part of the parable extending from ver. 11 onwards was certainly not spoken, so far as its immediate refer- ence is concerned, with a view to the Pharisees, but was essen- tial to the completeness of the truths that were being set forth, inasmuch as, without that part, there would be no reference to the way in which the holiness of God would assert itself at the » setting up of the Messianic kingdom. And the more this latter point is brought out, the more applicable did it become to the case of the Pharisees also, who would be able to infer from it what their fate was to be on that day when, even from among those who will be found to have accepted the invitation, God will single out such as appear without the garment of dimasootvy, and consign them to the punishment of hell,
Wern i> i. Comp. Mark xi. 13 ff; Luke xx, 20. ff,— Oi Papicaior] now no longer in their official capacity, as deputed by the Sanhedrim (xxi. 23, 45), but on their own responsibility, and as representing a party adopting a still bolder policy, and proceeding upon a new tack. —é7ws]| They took counsel (comp. AaBov aipecw, Dem. 947, 20), ex- pressly with a view to. Not equivalent to was, the reading in D, and originating in a mistaken gloss. Comp. xii. 14. For oupBovrLov, consultation, comp. xxvii. 1, 7, xxviii. 12 ; Mark ii. 6 ; Dio Cass. xxxvill. 43 ; classical writers commonly use oupBovry, cvpPovdia. Others (Keim included), without gram- matical warrant, render according to the Latin idiom: consilium ceperunt. KEuthymius Zigabenus correctly renders by: cvcKéa- TovTal.— €v AoYa] in an utterance, i.e. in a statement which he might happen to make. This statement is conceived of as a trap or snare (maryis, see Jacobs ad Anthol. VII. p. 409, XI. p. 93), into which if He once fell they would hold Him fast, with a view to further proceedings against Him. Others explain: 6.’ épwryjcews (Euthymius Zigabenus). But Jesus could not become involved in the snare unless He gave such
84 ‘ THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
an answer to/ their queries as they hoped to elicit. rayudeveuv, illaqueare, iss not met with in classical writers, though it fre- quently ogeurs in the Septuagint.
Ver. 1f. The Herodians are not Herod’s courtiers (Fritzsche, following Luther), but the political party among the Jews that sought/to uphold the dynasty of the Herods, popular royalists, in opposition to the principle of a pure theocracy, though willing also to take part with the powerful Pharisees against the unpopular Roman sway, should circumstances render such <4 movement expedient. For other interpretations, some of them rather singular, see Wolf and Kocher in loc. The pas- sage in Joseph. Antt. xiv. 15. 10, refers to different cir- cumstances from the present. Comp. Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 97 ff; Keim, III. p. 130 ff To regard (as is done by Origen, Maldonatus, de Wette, Winer, Neander, Volkmar) those here referred to as supporters of the Roman sway generally (and not merely of the Herodian dynasty in parti- cular), is certainly not in accordance with the name they bear. We may further observe that no little cunning was shown by the orthodox hierarchy in selecting some of the younger members of their order (who as such would be less liable to be suspected) to co-operate with a party no less hostile than themselves to the Messianic pretender, with a view to betray Jesus into an answer savouring of opposition to the payment of the tribute. Zhis was the drift of the flattering preface to their question, and upon His answer they hoped to found an accusation before the Roman authorities. Comp. Luke xx. 20. But though the plot miscarried, owing to the answer being in the affirmative, the Pharisees had at least succeeded in now getting the Herodians to assume a hostile attitude toward Jesus, while at the same time they would be able to turn the reply to good account in the way of rendering Him unpopular with the masses. — réyovtes] that is, through their representatives. Comp. xi. 2, xxvii. 19. — OudadcKare, oldapev, K.T.r.] Comp. with this cunning, though in itself so true an instance of captatio benevolentiae, the sincere one in John iii. 2.—ad7Ons €@] true, avoiding every sort of yeddos in your dealings, either simwlando or
CHAP. XXII. 17, 18. 85
dissimulando. In what follows, and which is still connected with 670, this is made more precise, being put both positively and negatively. — rv od0v Tod Oeod] the way prescribed by God, 7.e. the behaviour of men to each other which God requires. Comp. tiv Scxavoctyny tT. Beod, vi. 33; Ta épya tT. Ocod, John win 29 and so Ps:-xxvir, 1h » Wisd..v. 7; Bar) iii, 13.— ép anrnGeia] truthfully, as beseems the character of this way ; see on John xvii. 19.— od péder coe epi oddeves] Thou carest for no man, in Thy teaching Thou actest without regard to the persons of men.—ov yap Bréeis, K.7.r.] giving the reason for the statement contained in oléapev, x.7.X. : for Thou lookest not to mere external appearances in men ; to Thee it is always a matter of indifference in regard to a man’s person whether he be powerful, rich, learned, etc., or the reverse ; therefore we are convinced, 671 adnOns ef Kal Thy ooor, «.7.X. IIpoowrrov avOp. denotes the outward manifesta- tion in which men present themselves (comp. on xvi. 3). Comp. Oavydfew tpocwrov, Jude 16. The emphasis, how- ever, is on ov Brees. We have not here a “natural para- phrase” of the Hebrew idiom AapBdvew mpdcwmov (Luke xx. 21), which expresses another, though similar idea (in answer to de Wette; see on Gal. ii. 6). In classical Greek, B. eis mp. Twos is used in the sense of being barefaced. See Bremi ad Aeschin. p. 370.
Ver. 17. "E&eo7] problem founded on theocratic one-sided- ness, as though the Jews were still the independent people of God, according to their divine title to recognise no king but God Himself. Comp. Michaelis, Mos. R. III. p. 154. It was also on this ground that Judas the Gaulonite appears to have refused to pay the tribute. See Joseph. Antt. xviii. 1. 1. As to «jvoos, not merely poll-tax, but land-tax as well, see on xvil. 25. —- Kaicapz] without the article, being used as a proper name.— 7) ov] “flagitant responsum rotundum,” Bengel.
Ver. 18. Tijv wovnpiav] for they concealed malicious designs (the reverse of dm)détns) behind their seemingly candid, nay, flatteringly put question, in which their object was to try (wewpafere) whether He might not be betrayed
86 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
into returning such an answer as might be used in further proceedings against Him. Apropos of w7oxpitai, Bengel appropriately observes: “verwm se eis ostendit, ut dixerant, ver. 16;” but in the interrogative ri, why, is involved the idea of: what is your design in putting such a question? _
Ver. 19. To vopicpa rt. «.] “nummum aliquem ejus monetae, in qua tributum exigi solet,’ Grotius. The tribute was paid in Roman, not in Jewish money. “Ubicunque numisma regis alicujus obtinet, illic incolae regem istum pro domino agnoscunt,” Maimonides in (rezelah v. 18.— 7po- onveyk. avT@ Onvadp.| they had such current coin upon them.
Ver. 21 f. “There He catches them in their own trap,” Luther. The pointing to the image and inscription furnishes the questioners with ocular demonstration of the actual exist- ence and practical recognition of Caesar’s sway, and from these Jesus infers not merely the lawfulness, but the duty of paying to Caesar what belongs to Caesar (namely, the money, which shows, by the stamp it bears, the legitimacy of the existing rule) ; but He also recognises at the same time the necessity of attending to their theocratic duties, which are not to be regarded as in any way compromised by their political circumstances: and to God what is God’s (what you derive from Him in virtue of His dominion over you). By this is not meant simply the temple tribute, nor the repentance which God may have desired to awaken through punishing them with a foreign rule (Ebrard), nor merely the life of the soul (Tertullian, Erasmus, Neander); but everything, in short, of a material, religious, and ethical nature, which God, as sovereign of the theocratic people, is entitled to exact from them as His due. By the ta Kaicapos, on the other hand, we are not to understand merely the civil tax, but everything to which Caesar was entitled in virtue of his legitimate rule over the theocratic nation. So with this reply Jesus disposes of the ensnaring question, answering it immediately with decision and clearness, and with that admirable tact which is only met with where there is a moral insight into the whole domain of duty ; in a quick and overpowering manner He disarmed His adver- saries, and laid the foundation for the Christian doctrine which
CHAP. XXII. 21, 22. 87
was more fully developed afterwards (Rom. xii. 1 ff; 1 Tim. ii, 1 f.; 1 Pet. ii. 13 f, 17), that it is the duty of the Christian not to rebel against the existing rulers, but to conjoin obedience to their authority with obedience to God. At the same time, there cannot be a doubt that, although, in accordance with the question, Jesus chooses to direct His reply to the first and not to the second of those two departments of duty (in answer to Klostermann’s note on Mark), the second is to be regarded as the unconditional and absolute standard, not only for the first of the duties here mentioned (comp. Acts v. 29), but for every other. Chrysostom observes that: what is rendered to Caesar must. not be tyv evoéBevay TapaBrarTovta, otherwise it is ov«ére Kaicapos, adda Tod StaBorov Popos Kal Tédos. Thus the second part of the precept serves to dispose of any collision among our duties which accidental circumstances might bring about (Rom. xii. 5). According to de Wette, Jesus, in the first part of His reply, does not refer the matter inquired about to the domain of conscience at all, but treats it as belonging only to the sphere of politics (Luke xu. 14), and then adds in the second part: “You can and ought to serve God, in the first place, with your moral and religious dispositions, and should not mix up with His service what belongs to the domain of civil authority.” But such a severance of the two is not in accordance with the context; for the answer would in that case be an answer to an alternative question based on the general thought : is it lawful to be subject to Caesar, or to God only ? Whereas the reply of Jesus is: you ought to do both things, you ought to be subject to God and to Caesar as well; the one duty is inseparable from the other! Thus our Lord rises above the alternative, which was based on theocratic notions of a one-sided and degenerate character, to the higher wnity of the true theocracy, which demands no revolutions of any kind, and also looks upon the right moral conception of the existing civil rule as necessarily part and parcel of itself (John xix. 11), and consequently a simple yes or no in reply to the ques- tion under consideration is quite impossible. — aw06o7¢] the ordinary expression for paying what i is one’s duty to pay,
88 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
as in xx. 8, xxi. 41; Rom. xiii, 7.— Ver. 22. é@avdpacar] “conspicuo modo ob responsum tutum et verum,’ Bengel. Ov« ériatevoay 6é, Euthymius Zigabenus.
Ver. 23. Comp. Mark xii. 18 ff. ; Luke xx. 27 ff. ; Matthew condenses. — Of NéyovTes wy elvat dvaoT.| who assert, etc., serving to account for the question which follows. On the necessity of the article, inasmuch as the Sadducees do not say to Jesus that there is no resurrection, but because their regular confiteor is here quoted, comp. Kiihner ad Xen. ii. 7.13; Mark xii. 18: oftwes Aéyover.
Ver. 24 ff. A free citation of the law respecting Jevirate marriage, Deut. xxv. 5, and that without following the Sep- tuagint, which in ¢his instance does not render 53° by the characteristic évvyau8p. If a married man died without male issue, his brother was required to marry the widow, and to register the first-born son of the marriage as the son of the deceased husband. See Saalschiitz, WR. p. 754 ff. ; Ewald, Alterth. p. 276 ff.; Benary, de Hebracor. leviratu, Berl. 1835. As to other Oriental nations, see Rosenmiiller, Morgenl. V. p. 81; Bodenstedt, d. Volker des Kaukasus, p. 82; Benary, p. 31 ff. — éruvyapBpevew, to marry as brother-in-law (levir. o>). Comp. Gen. xxxviil. 8; Test. XII. patr. p. 599. Differently eruyauBp. Twein 1 Macc. x. 54; 1 Sam. xviii. 22. — &ws Tov éeTta] wntil the seven, i.e. and in the same manner they continued to die until the whole seven were dead. Comp. xvill. 22; 1 Mace. 1. 38.—dtortepov ravtw@r]| later than all the husbands.
Ver. 28. Founding upon this alleged incident (which was undoubtedly a silly invention got up for the occasion, Chry- sostom), as being one strictly in accordance with the law, the Sadducees now endeavour to make it appear that the doctrine of the resurrection—a doctrine which, for the purpose of being able to deny it, they choose to apprehend in a gross material sense — 1s irreconcilable with the law; while, by their fancied acuteness, they try to involve Jesus Himself in the dilemma of having to give an answer either disadvantageous to the law or favourable to their doctrine. — yuv7] Predicate. -
Ver. 29. Jesus answers that, in founding upon Deut. xxv. 5
CHAP. XXTl 20: 89
the denial of the resurrection, which their question implies, they are mistaken, and that in a twofold respect: (1) they do not understand the Scriptures, i.e. they fail to see how that doctrine actually underlies many a scriptural utter- ance; and (2) they do not sufficiently realize the extent of the power of God, inasmuch as their conceptions of the resur- rection are purely material, and because they cannot grasp the thought of a higher corporeality to be evolved from the material body by the divine power. And then comes an illustration of the latter point in ver. 30, and of the former im ver.-31.
Ver. 30. "Ev yap TH avactdcet] not: in the resurrection life, but, as in ver. 28: at the resurrection (in answer to Fritzsche), which will be signalized not by marrying or giving in marriage, but by ushering in a state of things in which men will be like the angels, therefore a higher form of existence, from which the earthly conditions of life are eliminated, in which human beings will be not indeed disembodied, but endowed with a glorified corporeality, 1 Cor. xv. 44. The cessation of ° human propagation, not the abolition of the distinction of sex (Tertullian, Origen, Hilary, Athanasius, Basil, Grotius, Volkmar), is essentially implied in the ad@apoia of the spiritual body. Comp. Luke xx. 36.—yayodcur] applies to the bridegroom ; yapifovras (Apoll. de Synt. p. 277, 13), on the other hand, to daughters who are given in marriage by their parents.— aA’ ws ayyeror, K.7.r.] but they are as the angels of God in heaven. év ovpav@ belongs not to eict, but to ayyerou T. Geod, because the partakers in the resurrection (and the Messianic kingdom) are not understood to be in heaven (xxv. 31 ff.; 1.Cor. xv. 52; 2 Pet. iii, 13; not inconsistent with 1 Thess. iv. 17). It is obvious from our passage—in which the likeness to the angels has reference to the nature of the future body—that the angels are to be conceived of not as mere spirits, but as possessing a supramundane corporeality. This is necessarily presupposed in the language before us. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 40; Phil. ii, 10; Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. 1. p. 267; Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 68; Kahnis, Dogm. I. p. 556. The do£a of the angels is essentially connected with their cor-
90 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
poreality (in opposition to Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 66). — While a similar idea of the future body and the future mode of existence is met with in Rabbinical writers (see Wetstein), it ‘is also conjoined, however, with the gross materialistic view: “Mulier illa, quae duobus nupsit in hoc mundo, priori restituitur in mundo futuro,” Sohar Gen. f. xxiv. 96.
Ver. 31 f. But with reference to the resurrection, set over: against the foregoing év yap TH dvact.; the sequence of the address is indicated by the prepositions. rept ths avaot. should be taken along with ov« avéyvwte. — buiv] imparts the vivacity of individuality to the words of Jesus. The quotation is from Ex. i. 6. His opponents had cited a passage from the law; with a passage from the law Jesus confutes them, and thus combats them with their own weapons. It is wrong to refer to this in support of the view that the Sadducees accepted only the Pentateuch as authori- tative scripture (Tertullian, Origen, Jerome, Luther, Paulus, Olshausen, Siiskind in the Stud. u. Krit. 1830, p. 665). Yet these aristocrats regarded the law, and the mere letter of the law too, as possessing supreme authority. — od« éotuy 6 Beds, k.7.r.] This is the major proposition of a syllogism, in terms of which we are warranted in recognising in the passage here quoted a scriptural testimony in favour of the resurrection. The Sadducees had failed to draw the inference thus shown to be deducible from the words; hence ver. 29: py eidotes Tas ypadas, a fact which Jesus has now confirmed by the illustration before us. The point of the argument does not turn upon the present e¢ué (Chrysostom, and those who follow him), but is to this effect: seeing that God calls Himself the God of the patriarchs, and as He cannot sustain - such a relation toward the dead, ze. those who are absolutely dead, who have ceased to exist (ov« dvTwyv Kai KaOaraé apaviolwtov, Chrysostom), but only toward the living, it follows that the deceased patriarchs must be living,—living, that is, in Sheol, and living as dvactivat wéddovtes (Euthy- mius Zigabenus). Comp. Heb. xi. 16. The similar inference in Menasse f. Isr. de Reswrr. i. 10. 6, appears to have been deduced from the passage before us. Comp. Schoettgen, p. 180.
CHAP, XXII. 33-35. 91
Ver. 38. Of dyXot] arrovnpor Kai adéxacrot, Euthymius Zigabenus. Comp. vil. 28.
Ver. 34. The following conversation respecting the great commandment is given in Mark xii. 28 ff. with such charac- teristic detail, that Matthew’s account cannot fail to have the appearance of being incomplete, and, considering the bias of the incident (see note on ver. 35), to look as if it represented a corrupt tradition. In Luke x. 25 ff. there is a similar con- versation, which, however, is not given as another version of that now before us, but as connected with a different incident that took place some time before. —oé d€ Papis.] Comp. ver. 15. They had already been baffled, and had withdrawn into the background (ver. 22); but the victory of Jesus over the Sadducees provoked them to make one more attempt, not to avenge the defeat of those Sadducees (Strauss), nor to display their own superiority over them (Ebrard, Lange), —neither view being hinted at in the text, or favoured by any- thing analogous elsewhere,—but, as was the object in every such challenge, to tempt Jesus, if that were at all possible, to give such an answer as might be used against Him, see ver. 35.—axovoavtes| whether while present (among the multitude), or when absent, through the medium, perhaps, of their spies, cannot be determined.— cuvyiyOncav éri Td auto] for the purpose of concerting measures for a new attack. Consequently the vousxeds of ver. 35 had to be put forward, and, while the conversation between Jesus and him is going on, the parties who had deputed him gather round the speakers, ver. 41. There is, accordingly, no reason to apprehend any discrepancy (Kostlin) between the present verse and ver. 41. — éwl ro avdro] locally, not said with reference to their sentiments. See on Acts i. 15; PS, i. 2.
Ver. 35. Noywcxods] the only instance in Matt.; it is met with in none of the other Gospels except that of Luke. It occurs, besides, in Tit. ii. 13. The word is used to signify one who is conversant with the law, émictnwov Tév vouwv (Photius), Plut. Sull. 36; Strabo, xii. p. 539; Diog. L. vi. 54; Epictet. 1.13; Anthol. xi. 382.19. It is impossible to
92 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
show that there is any essential difference of meaning between this word and ypapupareds (see note on ii. 4); comp. on the contrary, Luke xi. 52, 53.—The term vopixos is more specific (jwrisconsultus), and more strictly Greek; ypappatevs, on the other hand, is more general (literatus), and more Hebrew in its character (15D), The latter is also of more frequent occurrence in the Apocr.; while the former is met with only in 4 Macc. v. 3. In their character of teachers they are designated vopodidaoKaror, Luke v. 17; Acts v. 37; 1 Tim. i. 7.— wetpafav avror] different from Mark xii. 28 ff, and indicating that the question was dictated by a malicious intention (Augustine, Grotius). The ensnaring character of the question was to be found in the circumstance that, if Jesus had specified any particular vovdrns of a great commandment (see on ver. 36), His reply would have been made use of, in accordance with the casuistical hair-splitting of the schools, for the purpose of assailing or defaming Him on theological grounds. He specifies, however, those two commandments themselves, in which all the others are essentially included, thereby giving His answer indirectly, as though He had said: supreme love to God, and sincerest love of our neighbour, constitute the zrovrns about which thou inquirest. This love must form the principle, spirit, life of all that we do.
Ver. 36 f. What kind of a commandment (qualitative, comp. xix. 18) ts great in the law; what must be the nature of a commandment in order to constitute it great? The com- mandment, then, which Jesus singles out as the great one cat’ é£oyyv, and which, as corresponding to the subsequent Sevrépa, He places at the head of the whole series () weydAn «. mporTn,
in which regular designation tov @eov cov is in apposition, consequently not to be rendered: “wtpote Dominum tuum,” Fritzsche—Love to God must fill the whole heart, the entire inner sphere in which all the workings of the personal con- sciousness originate (Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 248 ff.; Krumm, de notionib. psych. Paul. § 12), the whole soul, the whole
CHAP, XXII. 39. 93
faculty of feeling and desire, and the whole understanding, all the powers of thought and will, and must determine their operation. We have thus an enumeration of the different elements that go to make up 70 deiv dyarrdv Tov Oedv odopiyas, TovTO €oTt TO Sid TaVTWY TOY THS Wuyns wepov Kal Suvapwewv avt@® tpocéyew (Theophylact), the complete harmonious self- dedication of the entire inner man to God, as to its highest good. Comp. Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 81, ed. 2.
Ver. 39. But a seeond is like unto it, of the same nature and character, possessing to an equal extent the movorns (674 alTn éxeivnv TpoovoTrolel, Kai Trap’ avTHS TuUyKpoTeirae Tau, Chrysostom), which is the necessary condition of greatness, and therefore no less radical and fundamental. Comp. 1 John iv. 16, 20, 21; Matt. xxv. 40,45. Euthymius Zigabenus: AAnroyxodvtat x. Pepadrnroi eta ai dvo. We should not adopt the reading oyola airy, recommended by Griesbach, following many Uncials and min. (but in opposition to the vss.); nor again that of Fritzsche, opoia adth, at'rn (conjecture). The former was presumed (comp. Mark xii. 31) to be a necessary emendation, because from the commandment being immediately added, the demonstrative seemed requisite by way of intro- ducing it. Moreover, according to the context, there would be no need for the dative in the case of Guovos. The com- mandment is quoted from Lev. xix. 18, after the Sept. — ayatnaoets| This, the inward, moral esteem, and the corre- sponding behaviour, may form the subject of a command, though the same cannot be said of guAciv, which is love as a matter of feeling. Comp. on v. 44, and see in general Tittmann, Syn. p. 50 ff. The irda tod xdopouv (Jas. iv. 4), on the other hand, may be forbidden ; comp. Rom. viii. 7; the guretv of one’s own Wuy7 (John xii. 25), and the px) pireiy tov Kvpsov (1 Cor. xvi. 22), may be condemned, comp. also Matt. x. 37. —s ceavt.| as thou shouldst love thyself, so as to cherish toward him no less than toward thyself that love which God would have thee to feel, and to act toward him (by promot- ing his welfare, etc., comp. vii. 12) in such a manner that your conduct may be in accordance with this loving spirit. Love must do away with the distinction between I and Thou.
94 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
Bengel: “Qui Deum amat, se ipsum amabit ordinate, citra philautiam,’ Eph. v. 28.
Ver. 40. Those two commandments contain the funda- mental principle of the whole of the commandments in the Old Testament. — tavtats] with emphasis: these are the two commandments on which, etc. —«péuatar] depends thereon, so that those commandments constitute the basis and essen- tial condition of the moral character of all the others, Rom. xiii, 8 £; Gal. v. 14. Comp. Plat. Legg. viii. p. 831 Clee Ov Kpewamevn Taca ux Todritov. Pind. Ol. vi. 125; Xen. Symp. viii. 19; Gen. xliv. 30; Judith viii. 24.—xai ot mpopytac| so far as the preceptive element in them is con- cerned. Comp. on v.17. Thus Jesus includes more in His reply than was contemplated by the question (ver. 36) of the VOMLLKOS.
Ver. 41. Comp. Mark xii. 35 ff; Luke xx. 41 ff. Jesus, in His turn, now proceeds to put a question to the Pharisees (who in the meantime have gathered round Him, see on ver. 34), for the purpose, according to Matthew’s view of the matter (ver. 46), of convincing them of their own theological helplessness, and that in regard to the problem respecting the title “Son of David,” to which David himself bears testimony, and with the view of thereby escaping any further molestation on their part. According to de Wette, the object was: to awaken a higher idea of His (non-political) mission (Neander, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek, Schenkel, Keim). This view, however, is not favoured by the context, which represents Jesus as victor over His impudent and crafty foes, who are silenced and then subjected to the castigation described in ch. xxiii.
Ver. 43 f. II és] how is it possible, that, etc.—In His ques- tion Jesus starts with what was a universal asswmption in His day, viz. that David was the author of Ps. cx., which, however, is impossible, the fact being that it was only composed in the time of this monarch, and addressed to him (see Ewald on this psalm). The fact that Jesus shared the opinion referred to, and entertained no doubt as to the accuracy of the title of the psalm, is not to be questioned, though it should
CHAP. XXII. 45, 46. 95
not be made use of, with Delitzsch and many others, for the purpose of proving the Davidic authorship of the composition ; for a historico-critical question of this sort could only belong to the sphere of Christ’s ordinary national development, which, as a rule, would necessarily bear the impress of His time. With ev rvevy. before us, the idea of accommodation or of a play upon logic is not to be thought of, although Delitzsch himself maintains that something of the kind is possible. Among the unwarrantable and evasive interpretations of certain expositors is that of Paulus, who thinks that the object of the question of Jesus from beginning to end was the historico- critwcal one of persuading His opponents that the psalm was not composed by David, and that it contains no reference to the Messiah.'"— év mvevmarte] meaning, perhaps, that He did not do so on His own authority, but dmpulswu Spiritus Sancti (2 Poetic: 21) 5) Luke. 27 5,1, Cor. xi,,3';. Roms. viii. 15, ix. 2. David was regarded as a prophet, Acts ii 30,1. 16. —avrtov] the Messiah ; for the personage in the psalm is a prophetic type of the Messiah ; as also the Rabbinical teachers recognised in him one of the foremost of the Messianic pre- dictions (Wetstein, Schoettgen), and only at a later period would they hear of any other reference (Delitzsch on Heb. i, 13, and on Ps. cex.).— €ws av 00, «.7.r.| see on 1 Cor. xv. 25.
Ver. 45 f. Ei ody Aavetd, «7.r.| The emphasis rests on the correlative terms xvpsov and vids: If, then, as appears from this language of the psalm, David, whose son He is, accord- ing to your express confession, still calls Him Lord, how is this to be reconciled with the fact that He is at the same time the
1 For the correct view of this matter, see Diestel in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1863, p. 541 f.; see also the pointed elucidation, as well as refutation of the other interpretations, in Keim, III. p. 154 ff.; comp. Gess, I. p. 128 f. Then there is the explanation, frequently offered since Strauss suggested it, and which is to the effect that Jesus wished to cast discredit upon the currently received view regarding Messiah’s descent from David, and that He Himself was not descended from David,—a circumstance which is supposed to have undoubtedly stood in the way of His being recognised as the Messiah (Schenkel, Weisse, Colani, Holtzmann); all which is decidedly at variance with the whole of the
New Testament, where the idea of a non-Davidic Messiah would be a contradictio tn adjecto.
96 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
psalmist’s son? Surely that styling of Him as Lord must seem incompatible with the fact of such sonship! The difficulty might have been solved in this way: according to His human descent He is David’s son ; but, according to His divine origin as the Son of God, from whom He is sprung, and by whom He is sent (xi. 27, xvi; 26; John 1 14, 18, vi 46, va Zoey tom. 1. 3 f.)—in virtue of which relation He is superior to David and all that is merely human, and, by His elevation to the heavenly Sofa (Acts ii. 34), destined to share in the divine administration of things in a manner in keeping with this superiority,—He is by David, speaking under the in- fluence of the Holy Spirit, called his Zord. The Pharisees understood nothing of this twofold relation, and consequently could not discern the true majesty and destiny of the Messiah, so as to see in Him both David’s Son and Lord. Hence not one of them was found capable of answering the question as to the més... €o7. Observe that the question does not amply a negative, as though Jesus had asked, pa vids adtod éote ; — ovxéte] “ Nova dehinc quasi scena se pandit,” Bengel.
CHAP. XXIIL 97
CHAP TER xe L
VER. 3. rype7v] after yw is deleted by Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch., following Mill. It is wanting in very important autho- rities. A gloss, for which certain authorities have oe%,.— rnpeire x. coretre| Lachm.: somoure x. ryperre. So also Tisch. This is the original reading (B L Z s** 124, Hilar.) ; for the sake of uniformity, sojoars was changed into soir (D, 1, 209, Eus. Dam.); but the transposed order rap. x. 7. is an ancient logical correction (as old as Syr. Vulg. It.).— Ver. 4. For yap Lachm. and Tisch. read 6:2, following weighty attestation. Cor- rectly; yép was meant to be more precise.— xai dueBaez.| deleted by Tisch. 8, following L 8, vss. Ir. But the evidence in favour of the words is too strong, and their omission on account of the two z«/’s might so readily occur that they must not be regarded as an interpolation from Luke xi. 46.—+ra 6é] Lachm. Tisch. 8: «iro? 6: ra, following B D L x, and two min. vss. and Fathers. Exegetical amplification after Luke xi. 46.— Ver. 5. For 62 after +Aariv. Lachm. Tisch. 8 have yep, in accord- ance with B D L»&, min. vss. Chrys. Damasc. See on ver. 4. — ray eae air.| deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., following B Dx, 1, 22, vss. Correctly; an explanatory addition. — Ver. 6. For gia. re we should, with Lachm. and Tisch., read gv. 62, in accordance with decisive evidence. — Ver. 7. Lachm. and Tisch. 8
have «867 only once, following B L A 8, min. vss. and Fathers. But how easily may the reduplication have been overlooked, both on its own account and in consequence of its not occurring in the instance immediately following! Comp. on Mark xiv. 45. — Ver. 8. xaénynrq¢| Fritzsche, Lachm., and Tisch., following Grotius, Mill, and Bengel, read 6:dé0x«2.0¢, which Rinck also ap- proves. No doubt xaéjyzr. has a very decided preponderance of evidence in its favour (of the uncials only B U x**? read d:déox.); but, owing to ver. 10, it is so utterly inappropriate in the present instance, that it must be regarded as an old and clumsy gloss inserted from ver. 10 (namely, xadnynris 6 Xpiorés, according to the reading of Elz. Scholz). By this it was merely intended to intimate that it is Christ that is referred to here as well as
MATT. II. G
98 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
in ver. 10 below. — Ver. 10. «7s yap duav gory 6 nxadny.] Lachm. and Tisch.: ér: xadnynris id éoriv cig. The latter is the best attested reading ; that of the Received text is to con- form with ver. 8 f.—In the Zeaxtus receptus the two verses, 13 and 14, stand in the following order: (1) otal... siserAdew; (2) odai,.. xpque, in opposition to E FG HKMSU VIrAQ, vss. and Fathers. On this evidence Griesbach, Scholz, Fritzsche have adopted the transposed order. But oda? .. . pia (in Elz. ver. 14) is wanting in B D L Z 8, min. vss. and Fathers (Origen as well), and is correctly deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., although defended by Rinck and Keim. An interpolation from Mark xii. 40; Luke xx.47.— Ver. 17. ris yap weiZwv] Lachm.: si yap weiGov, but, undoubtedly, on the evidence of Z only. The vss. (Vulg. It.) can have no weight here.—éy:é@ov] Lachm. and Tisch.: éyidous, following B D Z 8, Cant.; Vulg. has sancti- ficat. The present participle is from ver. 19, where there is no difference in the reading. — Ver, 19. wmpo/ xai] 1s wanting in D LZR, 1, 209, and several vss., also Vulg. It. Bracketed by Lachm., condemned by Rinck, deleted by Tisch. ; and justly so, ‘because there was no motive for omitting the words, while their insertion would be readily suggested by ver. 17.— Ver. 21. For xzaromjoauvrs Elz. Lachm. Tisch. 8 have AATOMMOUYTH, following BH Sx, min., the force of the aorist not being apprehended. —Ver. 23. Elz.: ratra de; but Griesb., Fritzsche, Lachm., Tisch. 7 have adopted ruira 6: ¢ée. In both cases the evi- dence is considerable ; but how readily might 6: be omitted before ¢ds: through oversight on the part of the transcriber ! — Ver. 25. 22] is wanting in C D, min. Chrys. Deleted by Lachm. It had been omitted as unnecessary. — Elz. Lachm. Tisch. read d&xpacias, instead of which Griesb. and Scholz have éé:xias. The evidence is very much divided, being strong on both sides ; dxpucias is to be preferred. This word, the only other instance of which in the N. T. is at 1 Cor. vii. 5, appeared to be inap- propriate, and came to be represented by a variety of glosses (anabapsiacs, mrsovecing, admins, covnpiac). — Ver. 26. aur ay] Fritzsche, Lachm., Tisch.: airod, following B* D E* min. Aeth. Vere. This airoi is bound up with the omission of zai r%s capo. in D, min. Cant. Vere. Clem. Chrys. Ir. (deleted by Tisch.). Those words, however, are evidently an insertion from ver, 25, an insertion, moreover, which is inconsistent with airod, so that the words ought to be deleted and airod preferred to wdrév. — Ver. 27. rapowora ere] Lachm.: swoaéZere, only on the evidence of B, 1. The preposition has been left out, probably because the compound form is not found elsewhere in the N. T.
CHAP, XXIII. 1. 99
— Ver. 30. 7a, instead of jue of the Received text, is sup- ported by decisive evidence. — Ver. 34. xa/ 2& ai-.] in the first case zai is wanting in BM ATL, min. codd. of It. Syr. Arm. Or.(once). Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.; but how readily may this xaé have been omitted since the next clause opens with xa/! — Ver. 36. Before 72, Griesb., followed by Matth., Fritzsche, Scholz, inserted 6, which, however, Lachm. and Tisch. have deleted again. é7, has important evidence both for and against. A common interpolation.—raira révra| The order révra raira (Lachm, Tisch. 7) is well attested, though there is a prepon- derance of evidence (C DX, etc., Vulg. It.) for the reading of the Received text. — Ver. 37. voccia éaurye| Lachm. has deleted zaur., but only on the evidence of B, vss. Clem.(once) Or.(once) Cypr. Hil., and notwithstanding the probable omission of the pronoun as apparently superfluous. Had it been inserted from Luke xii. 34, it would have been placed between ré and vosoia. For eaur%s Tisch. reads airs, following B** D, marg. M A®* 33, Clem.(once) Eus. Cyr. Theodoret. The reflective might be easily overlooked, as was often the case. — Ver. 38. zpyuwog is wanting in B L Copt.* Corb. 2, Or. Deleted by Lachm.; to be maintained on account of the preponderating evidence in its favour, though in the case of Luke xiii. 35 it is inserted as a gloss from Matthew.
Ver. 1. After the Pharisees have been thus silenced, there now follows the decisive and direct attack upon the hierarchs, in a series of overwhelming denunciations extending to ver. 39, and which, uttered as they are on the eve of His death, form a kind of Messianic onpetoy through which Jesus seeks to testify against them. Luke has inserted at ch. xi. portions of this discourse in an order different from the original; but he has given in the present connection, like Mark xii, only a few fragments, so that, keeping in view that a collection of our Lord’s sayings was made by Matthew, and considering the originality in respect of matter and arrangement which charac- terizes the grand utterances now before us, the preference must be accorded to the report furnished by this apostle (in answer to Schleiermacher, Schulz, Schneckenburger, Olshausen, Volkmar). The entire discourse has so much the character of a living whole, that, although much that was spoken on other occasions may perhaps be mixed up with it, it is scarcely possible to disjoin such passages from those that are essentially
100 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
original. Ewald thinks that the discourse is made up of passages that were probably original, though uttered on very different occasions; Holtzmann has recourse to the hypothesis that the evangelist has derived his account from a supposed special source, the same as that on which ch. v. is based; in answer to the latter, see Weiss, 1864, p. 114. Observe that the ¢yAo are mentioned first, because the first part of the discourse on to ver. 7 is directed to them, then the paOnrai are addressed in vv. 8-12, whereupon in ver. 13 ff. we have the withering apostrophe to the Pharisees who were present, and that for the purpose of warning the éyAou and the pa@nrai to beware of them ; and finally, the concluding passage, ver. 37 ff., containing the pathetic exclamation over Jerusalem. The glance, the gesture, the attitude, the matter and the language, were such that there could be no doubt who were immediately aimed at in the various sections of the dis- course. We may imagine the scene in the temple to have been as follows: in the foregrownd, Jesus with His disciples ; a little farther off, the 6ydou ; more in the background, the Pharisees, who in xxii. 46 are spoken of as having withdrawn.
Ver. 2. The phrase: “to sit in Moses’ seat” (in the seat which Moses had occupied as lawgiver), is borrowed not from Ex. xviii. 13, but refers to the later practice of having chairs for teachers (comp. Acts xxi. 3), and is intended as a figura- tive mode of describing the functions of one who “ acis as a public teacher of the Mosaic law,’ in discharging which functions the teacher may be regarded as the representative and successor of Moses. Accordingly, in Rabbinical writers, one who suc- ceeds a Rabbi as the representative of his school is described as INDI“2Y wi. See Vitringa, Synag. p. 165 f. — éxaOicar] have seated themselves, have assumed to themselves the duties of this office. In the whole of this phraseology one cannot fail to detect an allusion to the pretensions and self-seeking character of the Pharisees. Comp. 2 Thess. u. 4.
Ver. 3. Odv] inasmuch as they speak as teachers and interpreters of the Mosaic law.—mavta...6ca] Limitations of the sense, which lie outside the point of view marked out by the expression “ Moses’ seat,’—-as though Jesus had in
CHAP. XXIII. 4. LOL
view only the moral part of the law (Chrysostom), or contem- plated merely what had reference to the theocratic polity (Lange), or meant simply to speak comparatively (Bleek),— are in opposition to the text, and are of an arbitrary character, all the more so that the multitude was assumed to possess sufficient capacity for judging as to how much of the teaching was binding upon them, and how much was not. The words are addressed to the 6yAor, whom Jesus had neither the power nor the wish to release from their obligations in respect to the manifest teachings of the law. But having a regard to the glaring inconsistency between the teaching and the conduct of their pharisaic instructors, and considering His own funda- mental principle with regard to the obligatory character of the law, ver. 18 f., He could not have spoken otherwise than He did when He inculcated upon the people the duty of comply- ing with the words while refusing to imitate the conduct of those instructors. This utterance was conservative, as befitted the needs of the people, and unsparingly outspoken, as the conduct of the Pharisees deserved ; but, in opposition to both Pharisees and people, it guarded the holiness of the law. Observe that He is here speaking of the Pharisees in their special capacity as teachers of the Mosaic law (Augustine, Calvin, Grotius, Bengel), so that His language is at variance neither with xvi. 6 nor with the axiom given in xv.13; Acts v. 29. — Tounoate K. THpelTe (see critical notes): aorist and present: do it, and observe it constantly. See Kiihner, II. 1, p. 158 f. Ver. 4. Comp. Luke xi. 46.— In Secpevovar Sé (see critical notes), the dé introduces an instance of their Aéyover Kal od movovot of a peculiarly oppressive character.— The binding (tying up into a bundle portions from the various elements, comp. Judith viii. 3) of heavy burdens is an expression intended to represent the connecting together of a number of require- ments and precepts, so that, from their accumulation, they become difficult to fulfil—7@ d€ daxtirXw ad’tor, x.7r.] but are themselves indisposed to move them even with their finger, in the direction, that is, of their fulfilment. The emphasis rests on T@ OaxTvA@ ; they will not move the burdens with their finger, far less would they bear them upon their shoulders.
102 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
Vv. 5-7. Comp. Luke xi. 43 f:— dvdaxtypia, amulets, were the pPaN, the strips of parchment with passages of Scripture, viz. Deut. xi. 13-22, vi. 4-10, Ex. xiii. 11-17, 1—11, written upon them. They were enclosed in small boxes, and, in accordance with Ex. xiii. 9, 16, Deut. vi. 8, xi. 18, worn during prayer, some on the forehead, some on the left arm next the heart. They were intended to remind the wearer that it was his duty to fulfil the law with head and heart, and, at the same time, to serve the purpose of protecting him from the influence of evil spirits. Joseph. Anti. iv. 8.13; Lund, Jiid. Heiligth., ed. Wolf, p. 898 ff; Keil, Arch. I. p. 342 f.—awdrartvvover] they broaden their dudraxtypia, i.e. they make them broader than those of others, in order that they may thereby become duly conspicuous. Corresponding to this is: weyadvvovor, they enlarge. On the cpaomeda, see on ix. 20.— Tv mpwtokrLclav] the foremost couch at table, ie. according to Luke xiv. 8 ff. (Joseph. Anétt. xv. 2. 4), the wppermost place on the divan, which the Greeks also regarded as the place of honour (Plut. Symp. p. 619 B). The Persians and Romans, on the other hand, looked upon the place in the middle as the most distinguished. The term is met with only in the synoptical Gospels and the Fathers. Suidas: mpwtoxdcla’ % mpeTn Kabédpa.— paBBi, paBBi] ‘D1, 131 (d:dacKxare, John i. 39; with yod paragogic). The reduplication serves to show how profownd the reverence is. Comp. Mark xiv. 15; Matt. vi. 21 f For the view that “Rabbi (like our “ Dr.”) was the title used in addressing learned teachers as early as the time of Jesus (especially since Hillel's time), see Lightfoot, also Pressel in Herzog’s Hncykl. XII. p. 471; Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 305.
Vv. 8-12. ‘Ywets] with which the discourse is suddenly turned to the disciples, is placed first’ for sake of emphasis, and forms a contrast to the Pharisees and scribes. — yp)
1 In consequence of this address to the disciples, Holtzmann, p. 200, regards the whole discourse, in the form in which it has come down to us, asan historical impossibility. Observe, however, the impassioned and lively way in which the topics are varied so as to suit exactly the different groups of which the audience was composed (see on ver. 1),
CHAP. XXIII. 13. 103
kX OAT] neither wish nor allow it.—7mdvtes 8é€] so that no one may violate the fraternal tie on the ground of his sup- posed superiority as a teacher. — Kal matépa, «.7.d.] The word matépa, by being placed at the beginning, becomes emphatic, and so also tuev, by being separated from watépa to which it belongs: And you must not call any one father of you upon earth, 7.e. you must not apply the teacher’s title “owr father” (a8, see Buxtorf, p. 10, 2175; Ewald as above) to any mere man. Comp. Winer, p. 549 [E. T. 738].— Ver. 10. Neither are you to allow yourselves to be called leaders (in the scholastic sense), for the leader of you is One (see critical notes), the Messiah. For examples of the way in which Greek philosophers were addressed by their disciples, see Wetstein.—o dé pe(fav vp@v, k.7.r.| But among you greatness is to be indicated quite otherwise than by high-sounding titles: the greater among you, ve. he among you who would surpass the others in true dignity, will be your servant. Comp. ver. 12. This is a say- ing of which Jesus makes very frequent use (Luke xiv. 11, xvill. 14). Comp. xx. 26 f.; also the example of Jesus in the washing of the disciples’ feet, and Phil. 11. 6 f. — ravrewvo®.
. Uw9.] that is, on the occasion of the setting up of my kingdom.
ReMARK.—The prohibitions, ver. 8 fi., have reference to the Awerarchical meaning and usage which were at that time associated with the titles in question. The teacher’s titles in themselves are as legitimate and necessary as his functions ; but the hierarchy, in the form which it assumed in the Catholic church with the “holy father” at its head, was contrary to the spirit and mind of Jesus. Apropos of ver. 11, Calvin appro- priately observes: “ Hac clausula ostendit, se non sophistice litigasse de vocibus, sed vem potius spectasse.”
Ver. 13. Here begins the direct and withering apostrophe of Jesus to His adversaries themselves who are still present, this part of the address consisting of seven woes, and extending to ver. 36. For the spurious ver. 14, £lz., concerning the devouring of widows’ houses, see the critical remarks. The characteristic feature in this torrent of woes is its intense righteous indignation, such as we meet with in the prophets
104 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
of old (comp. Isa. v. 8, x. 1; Hab. ii. 6 ff.),—an indignation which abandons the objects of it as past all hope of amendment, and cuts down every bridge behind them. To Celsus (in Origen, ii. 76) all this sounded as mere empty threat and scolding. — 671] assigns the reason of this ova’. — creleTe, «.7.r.] The approaching kingdom of the Messiah is conceived of under the figure of a palace, the doors of which have been thrown open in order that men may enter. But such is the effect of the opposition offered to Christ by the scribes and Pharisees, that men withhold their belief from the Messiah who has appeared among them, and show themselves indifferent to the ducaroovvn, necessary in order to admission into the kingdom from which they are consequently excluded. Comp. Luke xi. 52. They thus shut the door of the kingdom in men’s faces. — twets yap, x.T..] explanatory reason. — tods efoepyou.] who are trying, who are endeavouring to obtain admission. See Bernhardy, p. 370 f.
Ver. 15. Instead of helping men into the Messiah’s kingdom, what contemptible efforts to secwre proselytes to their own way of thinking! This representation of pharisaic zeal is doubt- less hyperbolical, though it is, at the same time, based upon actual journeyings for the purpose of making converts (Joseph. Antt. xx. 2. 4). On Jewish proselytism generally, see Danz in Meuschen, NV. 7. ex Talm. wll. p. 649. Wetstein’s note on this passage. — €va] a single. —xai Otay yévnrat] sc. Tpoon- AuUTOS.—viov yeévyns] one fit for Gehenna, condemned to be punished in it. Comp. on vul. 12; John xvii. 12.— Sum@AOTEpov vu@r] is commonly taken in an adverbial sense (Vulg.: duplo quam), a sense in which it is consequently to be understood in the corresponding passage of Justin (¢. 77. 122): viv dé Simdorepov viol yeévyns, os avTds eizre, yiveoOe. Coming as it does after vicv, it is more natural to regard it, with Valla, as an adjective: who is doubly more so than you are. For the comparative itself, comp. App. Hist. praef. 10: oxevn durrdotepa To’Twy. But it is still rendered doubt- ful whether Su7rAdrepov is to be taken in an adverbial or adjective sense by a passage from Justin as above: of 6é TpooHAVTOL ov movOY Ov TiaTEvoVoW, GAAA SuTAOTEPOY VUaV
CHAP. XXIII. 16. 105
Bracdypodct. This passage is likewise unfavourable to Kypke’s interpretation : fallaciorem, which adjective would be of a more specific character than the context would admit of. But in how far was Jesus justifiable in using the words Su@AoTepov vuov? According to Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Euthymius Zigabenus: in consequence of the evil example of him who made the convert, which was such that “ex malo ethnico fit pejor Judaeus” (Erasmus) ; according to de Wette: in consequence of the high estimate in which the teachers are held by their disciples, and because superstition and error usually appear with a twofold greater intensity in the taught than in the teachers; according to Olshausen: because the converted heathen had not the atlvantage of enjoying the spiritual aid to be found in Mosaism ; according to Bleek: because it was common also to admit as converts those who were influenced by mere external considerations. According to the context (7rovetre) : on account of the manner in which the proselytes contiiwed to be influenced and wrought upon by those who converted them, in consequence of which they were generally found to become more bigoted, more un- loving, and more extreme than their instructors, and, of course, necessarily more corrupt.
Ver. 16. A new point, and one so peculiarly heinous that a somewhat larger portion of the denunciatory address is de- voted to it.—év T@ va@] as in the Mischna we frequently meet with such expressions as: per habitaculum hoc, nn py. See Wetstein and Lightfoot.— é€v T@ ypva® Tod vaod] by the gold which belongs to the temple, the ornaments, the vessels, perhaps also the gold in the sacred treasury (to which latter Jerome, Maldonatus, refer). We nowhere meet with any example of such swearing, and the subject of Corban (xv. 5) is foreign to our passage (Lightfoot), inasmuch as there is no question of vows in the present instance. For év with oprvey, comp. on v. 34.— ovdév éotuv] it (the oath) is nothing, is of no consequence. It is not the person swearing who is the subject, but os av duocn, x.7.X., form an absolute nominative, as in vu. 24, x. 14, xiii, 12.— ode/rex] is indebted, bound to keep the oath,
106 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
Ver. 17 ff. Idp] Justifies the preceding epithets. — petCor] of greater consequence, and consequently more binding, as being a more sacred object by which to swear. The reason of the peifov lies in 6 dyacas Tov ypvaor, according to which the consecrated relation is conceived of as one between the temple and the gold, that has been brought about (otherwise if aylafwv be read) by the connecting of the latter with the former. — 70 S@pov] the offering (v. 23), as laid upon the altar, it belongs to God.
Vv. 20-22. Odv] inference from ver. 19; because the creater, from which the less (the accessoriwm), as being bound up with it, derives its sanctity, necessarily includes that less. —0 duocas... duvve.] The aorist participle represents the thing as already in the course of being done (Kihner, II. 1, p. 134, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1. 18): he who has proceeded to swear by the altar, swears (present), according to the point of view indicated by odv, not merely by the altar, but at the same time by all that is upon it as well.— Ver. 21. No longer dependent on ody; but two other examples of swearing are adduced independently of the former, in each of which even the highest of all, God Himself, is understood to be in- cluded. Accordingly we find the objects presented in a dif- ferent relation to one another. Formerly the greater included the less, now the converse is the case. But though differing in this respect, there is in both instances a perfect agreement as to the sacred and binding character of the oaths.—«arTov- KnoavtTe] who made it his dwelling-place, took up his abode in it (after it was built). Comp. Jas. iv. 5; Luke i. 49.— Ver. 227]. Comp. on v. 34.
Ver. 23. Comp. Luke xi. 39 ff.— In accordance with cer- tain traditional enactments (Babyl. Joma, f. lxxxiil. 2), the Pharisees extended the legal prescriptions as to tithes (Ley. xxvii. 30; Num. xviii. 21; Deut. xii. 6 f., xiv. 22-27) so as to include even the most insignificant vegetable products, such
1 The opposite of ver. 22 occurs in Schevuoth, f. xxxv. 2: ‘‘ Quia praeter Deum, coeli et terrae creatorem, datur etiam ipsum coelum et terra, indubium esse debet, quod is, qui per coelum et terram jurat non per eum juret, qui illa creayvit, sed per illas ipsas creaturas.”
CHAP. XXIII. 24, 107
as mint, anise, and cummin. See Lightfoot and Wetstein on this passage. Ewald, Alterth. p. 399.—tTa Bapuitepa tod vopou] the weightier things, 7c. the more important (graviora) elements of the law (comp. Acts xxv. 7), not: the things more dificult of fulfilment (difficiliora, as Fritzsche), which inter- pretation is indeed grammatically admissible (1 John v. 3), but must be rejected, because, according to the context (see ver. 24), Jesus was comparing the important with the less important, and most probably had in view the analogy of the praecepta gravia (awn) et levia (orp) of the Jewish doctors (see Schoettgen, p. 183).— tv xpicev] comp. Ps. xxxiii. 5; not: righteousness (the usual interpretation), a sense in which the term is never used (comp. on xii. 18), but judgment, i.e. deciding for the right as against the wrong. Comp. Bengel and Paulus. The «picts is the practical manifestation of righteous- ness. —THv wictev] faithfulness, Jer. v. 1; Rom. iii. 3; Gal. v. 22; and see on Philem. 5. The opposite of this is amiotia, perfidia (Wisd. xiv. 25, frequent in classical writers). — tadta] the Bapvtepa just mentioned, not the tithing of mint, ete. (Bengel). — €dec] oportebat. See Kiihner, IL. 1, p. 176 f. Those were the duties which had been neglected. — wn adrévac] scarcely so strong as the positive zroujoas. Observe the con- trasts: What you have neglected you ought to have done, and at the same time not have neglected what you are in the habit of doing,—the former being of paramount importance; the sub- ordinate matter, viz. your painful attention to tithes, is not super- seded by the higher duties, but only kept in its proper place. Ver. 24. The Jews were in the habit of straining their wine (dwg, Plut. Mor. p.692 D), in order that there might be no possibility of their swallowing with it any unclean animal, how- ever minute (Lev. xi. 42). Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p.516. Comp. the liquare vinum of the Greeks and Romans; Mitscherlich, ad Hor. Od. i. 11.7; Hermann, Privatalterth. § xxvi. 177. Figurative representation of the painful scrupulosity with which the law was observed. — tov k@vwtra] a kind of attrac- tion for percolando removentes muscam (that found in the wine, Tov «.), just as in classical writers the phrase ca@aipew te is often used to express the removing of anything by cleansing
108 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
(Hom. Jl. xiv. 171, xvi. 667; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 52). xovory is not a worm found in sowr wine (Bochart, Bleek), but, as always, a gnat. In its attempt to suck the wine, it falls in amongst it. — Tv 6€ Kaper. KataTriv.] proverbial expression, Ta péeyiota Sé aTrapatnpntws dpaptavovtes, Euthymius Ziga- benus. Observe at the same time that the camel is an wnclean animal, Lev. xi. 4.
Ver, 25. But inwardly they (the cup and the plate) ave filled from extortion and excess (axpacias, see critical notes). That with which they are filled, viz. the wine and the meat, has been obtained through extortion and excess. Plunder (Heb. x. 34, common in classical writers) and exurbitance have contri- buted to fill them. On yéwew éx, see on John xii. 3. The simple genitive (ver. 27) would only be equivalent to: they are full of plunder, ete.—akpacias] a later form of axpa- tetas. See on 1 Cor. vii. 5.
Ver. 26. Ka@dpicov mpartov, x.7r.] ic. let it be your first care (7p@Tov, as in vi. 33, vii. 5, and elsewhere), to see that the wine in the cup is no longer procured by extortion and exorbitance.— iva yévnrat, «.7.r.] not: “ut tum recte etiam externae partes possint purgari,” Fritzsche, but with the emphasis on yévytau: in order that what you aim at may then be effected, viz. the purity of the outside as well, —in order that, then, the outside of the cup also may not merely appear to be clean through your washing of it, but may actually become so, by losing that impurity which, in spite of all your cleansing, still adheres to it (which it contracts, as it were, from its contents), simply because it is filled with that which is procured through immoral conduct. The external cleansing is not declared to be un- necessary (de Wette), nor, again, is it intended to be regarded as the true one, which latter can only be brought about after the purifying of the contents has been effected. Bengel fitly observes: “alias enim illa mundities externa non est mundities.” That which is insisted on with wpwrov is to be attended to in the first place.
Ver. 27 f. The graves were whitewashed with lime (xovia) every year on the 15th of Adar (a custom which Rabbinical
CHAP, XXIII. 29-31. 109
writers trace to Ezek. xxxix. 15), not for the purpose of ornamenting them, but in order to render them so conspicuous as to prevent any one defiling himself (Num. xix. 16) by coming into contact with them. For the passages from Rabbinical writers, see Lightfoot, Schoettgen, and Wetstein. A kind of ornamental appearance was thus imparted to the graves. In Luke xi. 44, the illustration is of a totally dif- ferent character. — b7roxpic. x. dvop.| (immorality): both as representing their disposition. Thus, morally speaking, they were Tdgot Eurapvyo., Lucian, D. M. vi. 2.
Ver. 29 ff. Comp. Luke xi. 47 ff. —- The olxodopeiv of the tombs of the prophets and the coopety of the sepulchres of the righteous (the Old Testament saints, comp. ver. 35, xiii. 17; Heb. xi. 23); this preserving and ornamenting of the sacred tombs by those who pretended to be holy was accompanied with the self-righteous declaration of ver. 30. On the ancient tombs of a more notable character, see, in general, Robinson, Pal. 11. p. 175 ff., and on the so-called “ tombs of the prophets ” still existing, p.194. Tobler, Topogr. v. Jerus. I. p. 227 ff. — et nueOa, «.7.r.] not: if we had been, but: if we were (comp. on John xi. 21), of we were living in the time of our fathers, certainly we would not be, ete. — Wate paptupeite EavTots, «.7.r.] Thus (inasmuch as you say tay tatépwv juov) you witness against yourselves (dative of reference, Jas. v. 3), that you are the sons, ete. viot contains a twofold meaning. From trav matép. nu., in which the Pharisees point to their bodily descent, Jesus likewise infers their kinship with their fathers in respect of character and disposition. There is a touch of sharpness in this pregnant force of viol, the discourse becoming more and more impassioned. “ When you thus speak of your fathers, you yourselves thereby testify to your own kinship with the mur- derers of the prophets.” De Wette’s objection, that this inter- pretation of uvéot would be incompatible with what is said by way of vindicating themselves at ver. 30, does not apply, because Jesus feels convinced that their character entirely belies this self-righteous utterance, and because He wishes to make them sensible of this conviction through the sting of a penetration that fearlessly searches their hearts and reads their thoughts,
110 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
-— €yv 76 aiparte] ic. the crime of shedding their blood. On aia in the sense of caedes, see Dorvill. ad Charit. p. 427. For év, see on Gal. vi. 6.
Ver. 32. Quite in keeping with the deepening. intensity of this outburst of indignation is the bitter irony of the imperative 7Anpwocate (comp. xxv. 45), the mere permissive sense of which (Grotius, Wetstein, Kuinoel) is too feeble.’ This filling up of the measure (of the sins) of the fathers was brought about by their sons (“haereditario jure,” Calvin), when they put Jesus Himself as well as His messengers to death. —xat tpets] ye also. The force of «ai is to be sought in the fact that wAnpwcate, «.7.r., is intended to in- dicate a line of conduct corresponding to and supplementing that of the fathers, and in regard to which the sons also must take care not to come short.
Ver. 33. IIas gvynre] Conjunctive, with a deliberative force: how are you, Jadging from your present character, to escape from (see on iii. 7),etc. Comp. xxvi. 54; Mark iv. 30; Hom. Jl. i. 150: was tis tow mpodpwv érecw retOnta "Ayatov ;—The xpiors tis yeévv. means the pronouncing of the sentence which condemns to Gehenna. The phrase judiciwm Gchennae is also of very frequent occurrence in Rabbinical writers. See Wetstein. The judgment comes when the measure is full. Comp. 1 Thess. u. 16.
Ver. 34. 41a tovro] must be of substantially the same import as G7rws EXOn ep’ buds in ver. 35. Therefore, in order that ye may not escape the condemnation of hell (ver. 33), behold, I send to you... and ye will, etc.; nat é& adtav is likewise dependent on 8a todro. Awful unveiling of the divine decree. Others have interpreted as follows: d:oTe wédXeTE TANPGoat TO MEeTpov THS KaKlas THY TaTépov Luov (Euthymius Zigabenus, Fritzsche), thus arbitrarily disregarding what im- mediately precedes (ver. 35). Moreover, without any hint what-
ihe readings tranpocers (D H, min.) and wxAnpacere (B* min. vss.) are nothing but traces of the difficulty felt in regard to the imperative. The former is preferred, though at the same time erroneously interpreted by Wilke, thetor. p. 867; the latter, again, is adopted by Ewald, who regards x. speis awanpwcere as also dependent on és,
CHAP. XXIII. 34. Pie
ever in the text of Matthew, idov, éyw droctédXo, «.T.X., has sometimes been taken for a quotation from some lost apocryphal prophecy, éfn o Geos, or some such expression, being under- stood (van Hengel, Annotatio, p. 1 ff., and Paulus, Strauss, Ewald, Weizsiicker),—a view borne out, least of all, by Luke xi. 49, which passage accounts for the unwarrantable inter- pretation into which Olshausen has been betrayed. The corre- sponding passage in Luke has the appearance of belonging to a later date (in answer to Holtzmann and others). Comp. on Luke xi. 49. — éyo] is uttered not by God (Ewald, Scholten), but by Jesus, and that under a powerful sense of His Messianic dignity, and with a boldness still more emphatically manifested by the use of ¢dov. Through this éy@ amootédXo, x.7.X., Jesus gives it to be understood that it is Himself who, in the future also, is still to be the object of hatred and persecution on the part of the Pharisees (comp. Acts ix. 5).—=apog¢ytas x. copous Kk. ypaup.| by whom He means His apostles and other teachers (Eph. iv. 11), who, in respect of the Messianic theocracy, would be what the Old Testament prophets were, and the Rabbins (0937) and scribes of a later time ought to have been, in the Jewish theocracy. For the last-mentioned order, comp. xill. 52. Olshausen is of opinion that the Old Testament prophets themselves must also have been intended to be included, and that dmooréAXw (which represents the near and certain future as already present) must indicate “God's pure and eternal present.” The subsequent futures
1 « TJesus,”’ he says, ‘‘is here speaking as the very impersonation of wisdom ; Matthew has omitted the quotation formula, because his object was to represent Jesus as the one from whom the words originally and directly emanate ; but the original form of the passage is that in which it is found in Luke.” Strauss, in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1863, p. 84 ff., also has recourse to the hypothesis of a lost book, belonging, as he thinks, to a date subsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem, and written by a Christian, and in which the messengers in question are understood to be those whom God has been sending from the very earliest times. In this Strauss, following in the wake of Baur, is influenced by anti- Johannine leanings. According to Ewald, a volume, written shortly after the death of the prophet Zechariah in the fifth century before Christ, but which is now lost, was entitled % ccPia cod éeod. The oravpwcezt, he thinks, was in- serted by Matthew himself. Bleek, in the Stud. u. Arit. 1853, p. 834, and in his commentary, agrees in the main with Ewald.
ri2 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
ought to have prevented any such construction being put upon the passage. For ypayp, comp. xiii. 52.—x«xati é& aut@v| ov mavtes (Euthymius Zigabenus), but more em- phatic than if we had had teas besides: and from their ranks ye will murder, etc., so that the actions are conceived of absolutely (Winer, p. 552 [E. T. 743]). The same words are solemnly repeated immediately after.— cai otavpo- oete] and among other ways of putting them to death, will crucify them, ve. through the Romans, for crucifixion was a oman punishment. As a historical case in point, one might quote (besides that of Peter) the crucifixion of Simeon, a brother of Jesus, recorded by Eusebius, H. Z. iii. 32. The meagreness, however, of the history of the apostolic age must be taken into account, though it must not be asserted that in otavpwoere Jesus was referring to His own case (Grotius, Fritzsche, Olshausen, Lange). He certainly speaks with reference to the third class of divine messengers, the class whom He is now sending (Calov.), but not from the standpoint of His eternal, ideal existence (Olshausen), nor in the name of God (Grotius), and then, again, from the stand- point of His personal manifestation in time (Olshausen), fancies for which there is no foundation either in Luke xi. 49 or in the text itself. Jesus does not contemplate His own execution in what is said at ver. 32.— é€v tats cvvayoy.| x. 17.— amo TwoXews eis ToALY] x. 23. Comp. Xen. Anab. v. 4. 31: ets ti érépay &x Ths Etépas Trodews.
Ver. 35.”Orws €NOn, k.7.A.] Teleology of the divine decree: in order that all the righteous (innocent) blood (Jonah i. 14; Joel 11.19; Ps. xciv. 21; 1 Mace. i. 37) may come upon you, ze. the punishment for shedding it. Comp. xxvii. 25. The scribes and Pharisees are regarded as the representatives of the people, and for whom, as their leaders, they are held vespon- sible. —atwa] “ter hoc dicitur uno hoc versu, magna Vi,” 3engel. And it is dtkacov, because it contains the life (see on Acts xv. 20). Comp. Delitzsch, Psych. p. 242. — éxyuvope- vov] present, conceived of as a thing going on in the present, Kiihner, II. 1, p. 116. <A vivid picture, in which we seem to see the blood still actually flowing. On the later form
CHAP, XXIII. 35. 113
exyuve for éxyéw, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 726.— eri rHs ys] according to the canonical narrative (see below). — Zaxapiov viod Bapayxiov] refers to 2 Chron. xxiv. 20, where Zechariah, son of Jehoiada, is said to have been stoned to death by order of King Joash, €v avAf oixov xupiov. Comp. Joseph. Antt. ix. 8. 3. The detail contained in peta€d, «.7.X., renders the narrative more precise, and serves to emphasize the atrocious character of a deed perpetrated, as this was, on so sacred a spot. Since, according to the arrangement of the books in the Hebrew Canon, Genesis stood at the beginning and 2 Chronicles at the end, and since the series here in- dicated opens with the case of Abel (Gen. iv. 10; Heb. x1. 4), so this (2 Chron. xxiv. 20) is regarded as the Jas¢t instance of the murder of a prophet, although, chronologically, that of Urijah (Jer. xxvi. 23) belongs to a more recent date. The Rabbinical writers likewise point to the murder of this Zacharias as one of a peculiarly deplorable nature ; see Zar- gum Lam. it. 20; Lightfoot on our passage. And how admirably appropriate to the scope of this passage are the words of the dying Zechariah: 17) TiN NY, 2 Chron. xxiv. 22; comp. with Gen. iv.10! If this latter is the Zacharias referred to in the text, then, inasmuch as the assumption that his father had two names (scholion in Matthaei, Chrysostom, Luther, Beza, Grotius, Elsner, Kanne, dib/. Unters. II. p. 198 ff.) is no less arbitrary than the supposition that viod Bapay. is a gloss (Wassenbergh, Kuinoel), there must, in any case, be some mistake in the quoting of the father’s name (de Wette, Bleek, Baumgarten-Crusius). It is probable that Jesus Him- self did not mention the father’s name at all (Luke xi. 51), and that it was introduced into the text from oral tradition, into which an error had crept from confounding the person here in question with the better known prophet of the same name, and whose father was called Barachias (Zech. i. 1). Comp. Holtzmann, p. 404. This tradition was followed by Matthew ; but in the Gospel of the Hebrews the wrong name was carefully avoided, and the correct one, viz. Jehoiada, inserted instead (Hilgenfeld, WV. 7. extra can. IV. p. 17, 11). According to others, the person referred to is that Zacharias MATT. IL, II
114 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
who was murdered at the commencement of the Jewish war, and whose death is thus recorded by Joseph. Bell. iv. 6. 4: dvo 5é Tév ToApnpoTatwv (EMrwTadv) MpooTrecovTes ev perce TO lep@ SiaPOeipover tov Zaxaplav viov tod Bapovyov. So Hammond, Krebs, Hug, Credner, Hinl. I. p. 207, Gfrorer, Baur, Keim. It is the opinion of Hug that Jesus, as speak- ing prophetically, made use of the future tense, but that Matthew substituted a past tense instead, because when this Gospel was written the murder had already been committed (after the conquest of Gamala). Keim likewise finds in this a hint as to the date of the composition of Matthew. But apart from the fact that the names Barachias and Baruch are not one and the same, and that the reading in the passage just quoted from Josephus is doubtful (Var. Bapicxaiov), the alleged substitution of the aorist for the future would be so flagrantly preposterous, that a careful writer could scarcely be expected to do anything of the sort. As against this whole hypothesis, see besides Theile in Winer’s new. krit. Journ. II. p- 405 ff, Kuhn in the Jahrb. d. Theol. I. p. 350 ff. Finally, we may mention, only for the sake of recording them, the ancient opinions (in Chrysostom and Theophylact) that the Zacharias referred to in our passage was either the minor prophet of that name, or the father of the Baptist (see Prof- evang. Jac. 23). The latter view is that of Origen, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Theophylact, and several others among the Fathers (see Thilo, Praef. p. lxiv. f.); and recently of Miller. in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1841, p. 673 ff.—peta&d Tod vaod, «.7.r.| between the temple proper and the altar of burnt- offerings in the priests’ court.
Ver. 36. “Hé&ev] Put first for sake of emphasis: shall come, shall inevitably come upon, etc. Comp. ix. 15, xxvii. 49. —Tayta Tavta] according to the context: all this shedding of blood, i.e. the punishment for it.— él 7. yeveav tavr.] See on xi. 16; upon this generation, which was destined to be overtaken by the destruction of Jerusalem and the judg- ments connected with the second coming (ver. 38 f.), comp. on xxiv. 34.
Ver. 37 ff. After denouncing all those woes against the
CHAP. XXIII. 38, 39. 115
scribes and Pharisees, the departing Redeemer, looking with sad eye into the future, sets the holy city also—which He sees hastening to its destruction under the false guidance of those leaders—in a living connection with the tragic contents of ver. 34 ff, but in such a way that his parting words are no longer denunciations of woe, but the deep wail of a heart wounded, because its love has been despised. Thus ver. 37 ff. forms an appropriate conclusion to the whole drama of the discourse. Luke xiii. 34 introduces the words in a historical connection entirely different.— The repetition of the name of Jerusalem is here éwavtixos €X€os, Euthymius Zigabenus. — a7oKxtetvovea, «.t.r.] The present participles denote the wswal conduct: the murderess, the killer with stones. —mpos avtnv] to her; because the attributive participial clause from being in the nominative places the subject addressed under the point of view of the third person, and only then pro- ceeds (moodkis .. . Téxva cov) with the vocative of address in ‘Iepovoadjp. Comp. Luke i. 45; Job xviii. 4; Isa. xxii. 16. With Beza and Fritzsche, ait#v might be read and taken as equivalent to ceavtjv; but adtyy is to be preferred, for this reason, that there is here no such special emphasis as to call for the use of the reflective pronoun (we should expect simply mpos ce in that case). — tocdxis, x.7.r.] The literal meaning of which is: “ How often I have wished to take thy citizens under my loving protection as Messiah!” For the metaphor, comp. Eurip. Here. Fur. 70 f., and the passages in Wetstein, Schoettgen, p. 208 (Rabbinical writers speak of the Shechinah as gathering the proselytes under its wings). Observe éautis : her own chickens. Such was the Jove that I felt toward you. On the form vooc. for veooc., see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 206. ovK eOerAnoaTeE] sc. EmicvvaxOhva ; they refused (Niigelsbach on Ji. iii. 289; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 278), namely, to have faith in him as the Messiah, and consequently the blame rested with themselves. This refusal was their actual xpiua, John ix. 39.
Ver. 38 f. “Adietas tpiv o oikos bp.] your house ts abandoned to your own disposal ; the time for divine help and protection for your city is now gone by! For the meaning,
116 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW,
comp. Joseph. Antét. xx. 8. 5. The present implies the tragic and decisive ultimatum. The épyuos, which is to be retained on critical grounds (see critical notes), intimates what is to be the final result of this abandonment, viz. the destruction of Jerusalem (é€pyywous, xxiv. 45; Luke xxi. 20); on the proleptic use of the adjective, comp. on xii. 13, and Kiihner, II. 1, p. 236. According to the context, 6 oikos tuo@v can only mean ‘Iepoveandijp, ver. 37 (Bleek), in which their children dwell ; not the city and the country at large (de Wette and earlier expositors, in accordance with Ps. lxix. 25), nor the whole body of the Jewish people (Keim), nor the temple (Jerome, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Calvin, Olearius, Wolf, Michaelis, Kuinoel, Neander, Baumeister in Klaiber’s Stud. II. p. 67 f.; Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 92 ; Ewald). — Ver. 39 proceeds to account for this adpieras byuiv, x.T.X. Were your city any longer to be shielded by the divine protection, I would still linger among you; but I now leave you, and it is certain that henceforth (His presence among them, as He knows, being about to cease with His death, comp. xxvi. 64) you will not see me again until my second coming (not: in the destruction of Jerusalem, Wetstein), when I shall appear in the glory of the Messiah, and when, at my approach, you will have saluted (elmnre, dixeritis) me, whom you have been rejecting, with the Messianic confession evAoy7- pévos, «.T.X. (xxi. 9). This is not to be understood of the conversion of Israel (Rom. xi.; Rev. xi.) in its development down to the second coming (Bengel, Késtlin, Hofmann, Lange, Schegg, Auberlen, Ewald) ; for Jesus is addressing Jerusalem, and threatening it with the withdrawal of God’s superintend- ing care, and that until the second appearing of Messiah (6 €pxopuevos), and hence He cannot have had in view an inter- vening perdvova and regeneration of the city. No; the abandonment of the city on the part of God, which Jesus here announces, is ultimately to lead to her destruction; and then, at His second appearing, which will follow immediately upon the ruin of the city (xxiv. 29), His obstinate enemies will be constrained to join in the loyal greeting with which the Messiah will be welcomed (xxi. 9), for the manifestation of
CHAP. XXIII. 38, 39. Pe
His glory will sweep away all doubt and opposition, and force them at last to acknowledge and confess Him to be their Deliverer. A truly tragic feature at the close of this moving address in which Jesus bids farewell to Jerusalem, not with a hope, but with the certainty of ultimate, though sorrowful, victory. Euthymius Zigabenus very justly observes in connection with éws ay elmnte, K.T.X.: Kal TOTE TOUTO elTHW- ow ; éxovtTes pev ovdeTroTe’ aKovTes SE KaTa TOV KaLpoV TIS Sevrépas avTod Trapovoias, dTav HEE peta Suvdpews Kal do&ns ToOAAHS, Stay ovdey avTois dpedos THs emvyvocews. Comp. Theophylact, Calvin, Gerhard, Calovius. Wieseler, p. 322, despairing of making sense of the passage, has gone the length of maintaining that some ancient reader of Matthew has inserted it from Luke. This view might seem, no doubt, to be favoured by the use, in the present instance, of “Iepovoadnp, ver. 37, the form in which the word regularly appears in Luke, and for which, on every other occasion, Matthew has ‘Iepooo- Avpa; but it might very easily happen that, in connection with an utterance by Jesus of so remarkable and special a nature, the form given to the name of the city in the fatal words addressed to her would become so stereotyped in the Greek version of the evangelic tradition, that here, in particular, the Greek translator of Matthew would make a point of not altering the form “‘Iepovcadnp,” which had come to acquire so fixed a character as part of the utterance before us.
REMARK.—It is fair to assume that Christ’s exclamation over Jerusalem presupposes that the capital had repeatedly been the scene of His ministrations, which coincides with the visits on festival occasions recorded by John. Comp. Acts x. 39, and see Holtzmann, p. 440 f.; Weizsacker, p. 310. Those who deny this (among them being Hilgenfeld, Keim) must assume; with Eusebius in the Zheophan. (Nova bibl. patr. iv. 127), that by the children of Jerusalem are meant the Jews in general, inasmuch as the capital formed the centre of the nation ; comp. Gal. iv. 25. Baur himself (p. 127) cannot help seeing the far-fetched character of this latter supposition, and consequently has recourse to the unwarrantable view that we have before us the words of a prophet speaking in the name of God,—words which were first put into the mouth of Jesus
118 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
in their present form, so that, when they were uttered, roodxi¢ would be intended to refer to the whole series of prophets and messengers, who had come in God’s name; just as Origen had already referred them to Moses and the prophets as well, in whom Christ was supposed to have been substantially present ; comp. Strauss in Hilgenfeld’s Zedtschr. 1863, p. 90.
CHAP. XXIV, 119
CHAP T HR. XL:
VER. 2. For 6 6: "Iyoods we should read, with Lachm. and Tisch., 6 6 droxpibeis, following important evidence. The insertion of the subject along with the participle led to the omission of the latter.— ot GAéwere] Fritzsche: Baérere, following D L X, min. vss. and Fathers. Ancient (It. Vulg.) correction for sake of the sense, after Mark xii. 2.— For zdévre raira we should read, with Lachm. Fritzsche, Tisch. 8, raira révrx, in accordance with a preponderance of evidence. — és 0d] Elz.: o¢ od «4, against decisive evidence. Mechanical repetition of the preceding od on. — Ver. 3. r7¢ cuvred.] The article is wanting in BC Lx, min. Cyr. (in the present instance), and has been correctly deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. Superfluous addition. — Ver. 6. cévra] is wanting, no doubt, in B D L®&, min. vss., and has been deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, but it had been omitted in conformity with Mark xii. 7; while in some of the wit- nesses we find rai7a, in accordance with Luke xxi. 9, and in some others, again, révra raira (Fritzsche: raitra révra). The various corrections were occasioned by the unlimited character of révra.— Ver. 7. xa? Aosmo/| is wanting in B D E* 8, min. Cant. Ver. Vere. Corb. 2, Hilar. Arnob. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. Other witnesses reverse the order of the words, which is strongly favoured by Luke. All the more are they to be regarded as inserted from Luke xxi. 11.— Ver. 9. Elz. has édvav. But the reading ray 2dvay has a decided preponderance of evidence in its favour; and then how easily might ray be overlooked after zévrwy! The omission of ray 26vav in C, min. Chrys. was with a view to conformity with Mark and Luke. — Ver. 15. torus] Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch.: éorés, follow- ing a preponderance of MS. authority (including B* 8), and correctly. The transcribers have contracted into éorws what, strictly speaking, should be spelt éoraés, though the spelling éorés is also met with in classical writers. — Ver. 16. éz/] Lachm.: </s, following B D A, min. Fathers. Adopted from Mark xiii. 14; Luke xxi. 21. Mark is likewise the source of the reading xaraSdrw, ver. 17,in BDLZx, min. Or. Caes. Isid.
120 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
Chrys., and which Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. 8 have adopted. — For v é, as in Elz., read, with Lachm. and Tisch., rd éz, fol- lowing decisive evidence. — Ver. 18. ra iwaria] rd iwdriov, no doubt, has weighty evidence in its favour, and is approved by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, but it is taken from Mark xiii. 16.— Ver. 20. The simple caPGdérw (Elz.: év ca.) 1s Supported by decisive evidence. — Ver. 23. riorebonre | Lachm.: siozevere, following only B* Or. Taken from Mark xi. 21.— Ver. 24. For rravjou: Tisch. 8 has rAavndyjves, follow- ing D x8, codd. of It. Or."* and several other Fathers. The reading of the Received text is, no doubt, supported by pre- ponderating evidence; but how readily might the active have been substituted for the passive in conformity with vv. 5, 11! — Ver. 27. xaé is, with Scholz, Lachm. Tisch., to be deleted after goras, in accordance with decisive evidence. Inserted in conformity with the usual mode of expression; in vv. 37, 39 we should likewise delete the xa, which Tisch. 8 retains in ver. 39.— Ver. 28. y&] deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, follow- ing B DLS, min. vss. and Fathers. Correctly. A common insertion of the connecting particle. This is more probable than the supposition that a fastidious logic took exception to the kind of connection. — Ver. 30. rére xé-p.] The omission of rére by Tisch. 8 is without adequate evidence, having among the uncials only that of 8*. Had the words been inserted in accordance with Mark xiii. 26, Luke xxi. 27, they would have been placed before tovras.— Ver. 31. gwv%s] is not found in L AX, min. Copt. Syr. and several Fathers. Being awkward and superfluous, it was in some cases omitted altogether, in others (Syr.* Aeth., also Syr.”, though with an asterisk at guy.) placed before caav., and sometimes it was conjoined with car. by inserting x«/ after this latter (D, min. Vulg. It. Hilar. Aug. Jer.).— For the second éxpay Lachm. has ray &xp., following only B, 1, 13, 69.—- Ver. 34. After Aéyw iui, Lachm., in accordance with B D F L, min. It. Vulg. Or., inserts é7:, which, however, may readily have crept in from Mark xiii. 30; Luke xxi. 32. — Ver. 35." Griesb. and the more recent editors (with the ex- ception, however, of Matth. and Scholz) have adopted capered- cera: in preference to the raupersdoovra: of Elz., following B D L, min. Fathers. The plural is taken from Mark xiii. 31; Luke xxl 33,— Ver. 36. Before dpas Elz. has ric, which, though defended by Schulz, is condemned by decisive evidence. Super-
? The omission of this whole verse by N*, an omission sanctioned neither by earlier nor by later evidence, is simply an error of the transcriber.
\
CHAP. XXIV. LZe
fluous addition. Comp. ver. 3.— After odpavdy Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have od6: 6 vids, in accordance with B D &, min. codd. of It. Syr. Aeth. Arm. Chrys. Or.** Hil. Ambr., etc. Fora detailed examination of the evidence, see Tisch. The words are an ancient interpolation from Mark xiii. 32. Had it been the case ‘that they originally formed part of our passage, but were deleted for dogmatic reasons, it is certain that, having regard to the christological importance sometimes ascribed to them (“ gaudet Arius et Eunomius, quasi ignorantia magistri,” Jerome), they would have been expunged from Mark as well. The interpola- tion was all the more likely to take place in the case of Matthew, from its serving to explain wuéves (which latter does not occur in Mark). — Elz. Scholz, and Tisch. 7 have mov after rarjp. De- fended by Schulz, though deleted by Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. 8. It is likewise adopted by Fritzsche, who, however, deletes the following wévs, which is wanting only in Sahid. In deference to the ordinary usage in Matthew (vii. 21, x. 32 f, etc.), wou should be restored. It is wanting, no doubt,in BD LATS, min. vss. and Fathers, but it may readily enough have been omitted in consequence of the MO immediately following it, all the more that it is not found in Mark. — Ver. 37. 6é] Lachm. : yap, following B D I,vss. Fathers. An exegetical gloss.— Ver. 38. vrais xpo] is deleted by Fritzsche and Tisch. 7, in accordance with some few, and these, too, inadequate witnesses (Origen, however). Coming as it does after ver. 37, it had been mechani- cally omitted ; it can scarcely have been inserted as the result of reflection. Before raig Lachm. has éxsivous, following B D (which latter omits rai), codd. of It.—a reading which ought to be adopted, all the more because in itself it is not indispensable, and because it was very apt to be omitted, in consequence of the similarity in the termination of the words. — For éxyamiZovres read yamiZovres, with Tisch. 8, following D 8, 33, Chrys.; comp. on xxii. 30.— Ver. 40. For 6 eg Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch. have simply «is in both instances, following B D I L®, min. (A and Chrys. leave out the article only in the first case). For sake of uniformity with ver. 41.— Ver. 41. wvadys] Lachm. and Tisch. : wirw, following preponderating evidence; the reading of the Received text is intended to be more precise. —- Ver. 42. wpa] Lachm. and Tisch.: juépg. So BDI AS, min. Ir. Cyr. Ath. Hilar. and vss. The reading of the Received text is by way of being more definite. Comp. ver. 44.— Ver. 45. airod after zips is wanting in important witnesses (deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8), but it must have been left out to conform with Luke xii. 42.— dspamseias| Lachm. and Tisch.:
4
122 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
cixereiac, following B I L A, min. Correctly; from the word not occurring elsewhere in the New Testament, it would be explained by the gloss ofzxias (8, min. Ephr. Bas. Chrys.), or at other times by é:pax.— For the following d:ééves read dotver, with Griesb. Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch., in accordance with prepon- derating evidence. — Ver. 46. rosodvra otrws| Lachm. and Tisch. : odrws rootvra, following BC DIL», min. Vulg. It. Aeth. Tr. Hil. The reading of the Received text is from Luke xii. 43. — Ver. 48. The order jou 6 xdpioe is favoured by a preponderance of evidence, and, with Lachm. and Tisch., ought to be preferred. Lachm. and Tisch. 8 omit 27%, though on somewhat weaker evidence ; éAés# is further confirmed by the reading ¢pyeodas in min. Or. Bas., which is taken from Luke xii. 45. The infini- tive not being indispensable (comp. xxv. 5), was passed over. — Ver. 49. airod, which is wanting in Elz. (and Tisch. 7), has been restored by Griesb. Lachm. and Tisch. 8, in accordance with preponderating evidence. Similarly with regard to éodiy 6: xa) rivn (for todiey 6: xai sivew in Elz.), which has decisive evidence in its favour, and is an altered form of Luke xii. 45.
Ver. 1. On the following discourse generally, see: Dorner, de orat. Chr. eschatologica, 1844; R. Hofmann, Wiederkunft Chr. u. Zeichen d. Menschensohnes, 1850; Hebart, d. zweite sichtb. Zuk. Chr. 1850; Scherer in the Strassb. Beitr. 1851, II. p. 83 ffi; E. J. Meyer, krit. Comment. zu d. eschatolog. Rede Matth. xxiv. xxv., I, 1857; Cremer, d. eschatolog. Rede Matth. xxiv., xxv., 1860; Luthardt, Lehre v. d. letzten Dingen, 1861; Hoelemann, Bibelstudien, 1861, II. p. 129 ff. ; Auberlen in the Stud. u. Krit. 1862, p. 213 ff.; Pfleiderer in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1868, p. 134 ff; Kienlen, zdid. 1869, p. 706 ff., and Commentaire sur Vapocalypse, 1870, p. 1 f£.; Wittichen, [dee d. Reiches Gottes, 1872, p. 219 ff.; Weissen- bach, d. Wiederkunfts-gedanke Jesu, 1873, p. 69 ff, comp. his Jesu in regno coel. dignitas, 1868, p. 79 ff.; Colani, Jésus Christ et les croyances messian. de son temps, ed. 2, 1864, p. 204 ff—tThe parallel passages are Mark xiii., Luke xxi. Luke, however, in accordance with his own independent way of treating his narrative, does not merely omit many particulars and put somewhat differently many of those which he records (as is likewise the case with Mark), but he introduces nota few in a different, and that an earlier historical connection
CHAP. XXIV. 1. EAS
(ch. xii. 17). But this would not justify us, as Luther, Schleiermacher, Neander, Hase suppose, in using Luke’s nar- rative for correcting Matthew (Strauss, II. p. 337 f.; Holtz- mann, p. 200 ff.), to whom, as the author of the collection of our Lord’s sayings, precedence in point of authority is due. It must be admitted, however, that it is precisely the eschatological discourses, more than any others, in regard to which it is impossible to determine how many modifications of their original form may have taken place’ under the influ- ence of the ideas and expectations of the apostolic age, although the shape in which they appeared first of all was given to them, not by Mark (Holtzmann, p. 95; see, on the other hand, Weiss), but by Matthew in his collection of the sayings of our Lord. This is to be conceded without any hesitation. At the same time, however, we must as readily allow that the discourse is characterized by all the unity and consecutiveness of a skilful piece of composition, and allow it all the more that any attempt to distinguish accurately between the original elements and those that are not original (Keim) only leads to great uncertainty and diversity of opinion in detail. But the idea that portions of a Jewish (Weizsiicker) or Judaeo-Chris- tian (Pfleiderer, Colani, Keim, Weissenbach) apocalyptic writing have been mixed up with the utterances of Jesus, appears not only unwarrantable in itself, but irreconcilable with the early date of the first two Gospels, especially in their relation to the collection of our Lord’s sayings (Aoyia). — €€eX Pwr] from the temple, xxi. 23. — émopeveto ao Tod tepod] He went away from the temple, withdrew to some distance from it. Comp. xxv. 41. For this interpretation we require neither a hyper- baton (Fritzsche, de Wette), according to which azo Tt. tepod
1 Although the contents of the discourse itself, as well as the earlier date of the first two Gospels generally, decidedly forbid the supposition that it was not composed till after the destruction of Jerusalem, and that, consequently, it assumes this latter to have already taken place (Credner, Baur, Késtlin, Hilgen- feld, Volkmar). If this supposition were correct, the discourse would have to be regarded as a late product of the apostolic age, and therefore as a vaticiniwm post eventum. Further, the eschatological views of the apostolical Epistles, though they presuppose corresponding teaching on the part of Jesus, by no means imply any knowledge of the specific discourses in ch. xxiv., xxy. (in answer to E, J. Meyer, p. 50 ff.).
124 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
would belong to éeA@av,' nor the accentuation dro (Bornemann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 108 f.).— Tas ofkodopas Tod tepod| not merely Tod vaod, but the whole of the buildings connected with the temple, all of which, with the vads and the porches and the courts, constituted the ‘epdv. Comp. on iv 5. The magnificent structures (Joseph. Bell. v. 5. 6, vi. 4. 6,8; Tac. Hist. v. 8. 12) were not then finished as yet, see on John ii. 21.—Even Chrysostom, Erasmus, and Bengel did not fail to perceive that what Jed the disciples to direct the attention of Jesus to the temple-buildings was the announce- ment contained in xxiii. 38, which, though it did not refer caclusively to the temple, necessarily included the fate of this latter as well. This the disciples could not but notice; and so, as they looked back and beheld the splendours of the entire sacred edifice, they could not help asking Jesus further to explain Himself, which He does at’once in ver. 2, and in terms corresponding with what He had announced in xxii. 38.
Ver. 2. Ov? BrErete tadta Tava (see critical notes) does not mean: “ do not gaze so much at all this” (Paulus), in which case 7, at least, would be required; nor: “ are you not astonished at all this magnificence” (de Wette, following Chrysostom) ? which would be to import a different meaning into the simple SAézere; but: ye sce not all this, by which, of course, Jesus does not intend the mere temple-buildings ia themselves considered, but the doom which awaits all those splendid edifices,—a doom which He at once proceeds to reveal. Instead of having an eye to perceive all this, to them every- thing looked so magnificent; they were @dézovres ov BAEé- movtes (xiii. 13), so that they were incapable of seeing the true state of matters as regarded the temple; it was hid from their eyes. The more vividly Jesus Himself foresaw the
1 This supposition, indeed, has likewise led to the transposition : 70 (Lachm. : zx, following B) rod ispov txop:vero (B D L AN, min. vss. Fathers), which order is adopted by Tisch. 8.
2 Among modern critics, Kuinoel, Fritzsche, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Bleek, have decided in favour of omitting od, as approved by Griesbach and
Schulz. Among those belonging to an earlier date, Casaubon says distinctly, with regard to the negative: ‘‘ hic locum non potest habere.”
CHAP. XXIV. 2. 182)
coming ruin; the more distinct the terms in which He had just been pointing to it, xxiii. 38; the deeper the emotion with which He had taken that touching farewell of the temple; the fuller, moreover, the acquaintance which the disciples must have had with the prophecy in Dan. ix; and the greater the perplexity with which, as the Lord was aware, they continued to regard His utterance about the temple, xxiii. 38; so much the more intelligible is this introduc- tory passage, in which Jesus seeks to withdraw their attention from what presents itself to the mere outward vision, and open their eyes in order that as ya) BAémovres PAErwor (John ix. 39). Further, it is better to take this pregnant utterance in an affirmative rather than in an wterrogative sense, as is usually done, because there is no preceding assertion on the part of the disciples to which the question of swrprise might be said to correspond. Grulich (de loci Matth. xxiv. 1, 2, interpret., 1839) places the emphasis on 7dvta: “ videtis quidem Taira, sed non videtis tavra wavta (nimirum templi desolationem, ete.).” So also Hoelemann. This is improbable, if for no other reason than the ordinary usage as regards tavta qavta, which has no such refinement of meaning anywhere else. Jesus would simply have said: od wdavta Brémere. Borne- mann, as above, after other attempts at explanation, finds it simplest to interpret as follows: ye see not; of all this, believe me, not one stone will remain upon another, etc. He thinks that what Jesus meant to say was: tatta mdavta KatadvOn- cera, but that He interrupts Himself in order to introduce the asseveration duv Aéyw vuiv, and so breaks the construc- tion. That Jesus, however, would not merely have broken the construction, but still more would have used the words ov pn adeOj without any logical reference to tadta maya, is Clearly indicated by @de, which therefore contradicts the explanation just given. — 0s od catadv9.] For ov, see Winer, p. 448 [E. T. 604]; Buttmann, p. 305 [E T. 355]. Not a stone will be left upon another without being thrown down. Occurring as it does in a prophetical utterance, this hyperbolical language should not be strained in the least, and certainly it ought not to be made use of for the purpose of disproving
126 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
the genuineness of the passage; see, as against this abuse, Keim, III. p. 190 ff.; Weissenbach, p. 162 ff And on account of Rev. xi. 1 ff., comp. also Weizsicker, p. 548 f. Ver. 3. Kar idiav] unaccompanied by any but such as belonged to the number of the Twelve, because they were going to ask Him to favour them with a secret revelation. Differently Mark xiii, 3.—tadra] those disastrous events of ver. 2.— «al ti TO onpetor, x.7.r.] The disciples assume, as matter of course, that immediately after the destruction in question the Lord will appear, in accordance with what is said xxii. 39, for the purpose of setting up His kingdom, and that with this the current (the pre-Messianic) era of the world’s history will come to an end. Consequently they wish to know, i the second place (for there are only two questions, not three, as Grotius, Ebrard suppose), what is to be the sign which, after the destruction of the temple, is to precede this second coming and the end of the world, that by it they may be able to recognise the approach of those events. The above assumption, on the part of the disciples, is founded on the doctrine respecting the mwnn San, dolores Messiae, derived from Hos. xiii. 13. See Schoettgen, II. p. 550;. Bertholdt, Christol. p. 43 ff. — tis offs tapovoias] After his repeated intimations of future suffering and death, the disciples could not conceive of the advent of Jesus (1 Cor. xv. 23; 1 Thess. ii. 19; in the Gospels peculiar to Matthew) to set up His kingdom and make a permanent stay in any other way than as a solemn second coming. After His resurrection they ex- pected the Risen One straightway to set up His kingdom (Acts i. 6),—a very natural expectation when we bear in mind that the resurrection was an unlooked-for event; but, after the ascension, their hopes were directed, in accordance with the express promises of Jesus, to the coming from heaven, which they believed was going to take place ere long, Acts i. 11, i 20 f, al, and the numerous passages in the New Testament Epistles. Comp. Wittichen in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1862, p. 354 ff. Observe, too, the em- phatic ofs coming after the general expression tadta. — kat cuvTer, TOD ai@vos| In the Gospels we find no trace of
CHAP. XXIV. 4. LO
the millenarian ideas of the Apocalypse. The Tod aldvos, with the article, but not further defined, is to be understood as referring to the existing, the then current age of the world, ie. to the ai@v obtos, which is brought to a close (cuvTéAea) with the second coming, inasmuch as, with this latter event, the aiwv péd\rAwy begins. See on xiii. 39. The second coming, the resurrection and the last judgment, fall upon the éoydtn juépa (John vi. 39, xi. 24), which, as it will be the last day of the ai@y obros in general, so of the éoyd- tov nuepov (Acts ii. 17; 2 Tim. iii. 1; Jas. v. 3; Heb. i. 2; 2 Pet. ili. 3) in particular, or of the xaspos Eryatos (1 Pet. i. 5), or of the ypovos éoxyatos (Jude 18; 1 Pet. i. 20), which John likewise calls the éoyatn dpa (1 John ii. 18). This concluding period, which terminates with the last day, is to be characterized by abounding distress and wickedness (see on Gal. i. 4). The article was unnecessary before cuvtededas, seeing that it is followed by the genitive of specification ; Waner: ps dtS)f. (ET, 155].
Ver. 4. The reply of Jesus is directed, in the first instance, to the second question (ti TO onueiov, x.7.d.), Inasmuch as He indicates, as the discourse advances, the things that are to pre- cede His second coming, till, in ver. 28, He reaches the point which borders immediately upon the latter event (see ver. 29). But this answer to the second question involves, at the same time, an indirect answer to the first, in so far as it was possible to give this latter at all (for see ver. 36), and in so far as it was advisable to do so, if the watchfulness of the disciples was to be maintained. The discourse proceeds in the following order down to ver. 28: first there is a warning with regard to the appearing of false Messiahs (extending to ver. 5), then the announcement of the beginning and development of the dolores Messiae on to their termination (vv. 6-14), and finally the hint that these latter are to end with the destruction of the temple and the accompanying disasters (vv. 15-22), with a repetition of the warning against false Messiahs (vv. 23-28). Ebrard (adv. erroneam nonnull. opinion., qua Christus Christique apost. existumasse perhibentur, fore ut univ. tudiciwum ipsor. actate superveniret, 1842) finds in vy. 4-14
128 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. -
the reply of Jesus to the disciples’ second question. He thinks that in ver. 15 Jesus passes to the first, and that in ver. 29 He comes back “ad onyetoy ths éavtod Tapovolias Kat €foynv, ic. ad secundae quaestionis partem priorem.” This supposition is simply the result of an imperious dogmatic pre- conception, and cannot be justified on any fair exegetical principle. See below. Dorner, who spiritualizes the dis- course, understands vv. 4-14 as setting forth the nature of the gospel and its necessary development, while he regards what follows, from ver. 15 onward, as describing the historical “decursum Christianae religionis;” he thinks that Jesus desired by this means to dispel the premature Messianic hopes of the disciples, and make them reflect on what they must bear and suffer “ut evangelium munere suo /istorico perfungi possit.”
Vv. 4, 5. In the first place—and how appropriate and necessary, considering the eagerness of the disciples for the second coming !—a warning against false Messiahs, and then ver. 6f. the first, far off, indirect prognostics of the second advent, like the roll of the distant thunder. — émi rt. dvop. prov] on the strength of my name, so that they rest their claims upon the name of Messiah, which they arrogate to themselves. Comp. xviii. 5. The following Aéyovtes, «.7.r. is epexegetical. We possess no historical record of any false Messiahs having appeared previous to the destruction of Jerusalem (Barcochba did not make his appearance till the time of Hadrian); for Simon Magus (Acts vii. 9), Theudas (Acts v. 36), the Egyptian (Acts xxi. 38), Menander, Dositheus, who have been referred to as cases in point (Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Grotius, Calovius, Bengel), did not pretend to be the Messiah. Comp. Joseph. Anti. xx. 5.1; 8.6; Bell. ii. 13.5. Then as for the period subsequent to the destruction of the capital, it is not here in question (in answer to Luthardt, Cremer, Lange) ; for see on ver. 29. And consequently it cannot have been intended, as yet, to point to such personages as Manes, Mon- tanus, and least of all Mohammed.
Ver. 6. 4é] continuative: but to turn now from this pre- liminary warning to your question itself—ye will hear, ete.
CHAP. XXIV..'6. 129
This reply to the disciples’ question as to the events that were to be the precursors of the destruction of the temple (comp. 7rore, ver. 3),-is so framed that the prophetic outlook is directed first to the more general aspect of things (to what is to take place on the theatre of the world at large, vv. 6-8), and then to what is of a more special nature (to what con- cerns the disciples and the community of Christians, vv. 9-14). For the future werrjo. (you will have to), comp. 2 Pet. i. 12 ; Plat. Ep. vii. p. 326 C.—odrémous Kk. akoas Todepnor] said with reference to wars near at hand, the din and tumult of which are actually heard, and to wars at a distance, of which nothing is known except from the reports that are brought home. — opate, 2 Opoeicbe] take care, be not terrified. For OpoeicGe, comp. 2 Thess. ii. 2; Song of Sol. v. 4; on the two imperatives, as in vill. 4, 15, ix. 30, see Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 209 [E. T. 243].— de? yap wavta yevéo8at] they are not to be terrified, because it is necessary that all that should take place. The reflection that it isa matter of necessity in pursuance of the divine purpose (xxvi. 54), is referred to as calculated to inspire a calm and reassured frame of mind. mavta is to be understood as meaning : everything that is then to happen, not specially (ta wavta, tadta tavta, comp. critical notes) the matters indicated by perArjoete ... mordéuar, but rather that: nothing, which begins to take place, can stop short of its full accomplishment. The emphasis, however, is on del. — aX ovTw é€oTl TO TéXoS] however, this will not be as yet the final consummation, so that you will require to preserve your equanimity still further. Comp. Hom. Ji. ii. 122: tédos & ov we Ti Tépavtat. To TédXos cannot mean the cvyTédea, ver. 3 (Chrysostom, Ebrard, Bleek, Lange, Cremer, Auberlen, Hoelemann, Gess), but, as the context proves by the correlative expression apy7 @divwv, ver. 8, and by 7d Tédos, ver. 14, comp. with ody, ver. 15, the end of the troubles at present under consideration. Inasmuch, then, as these troubles are to be straightway followed by the world’s last crisis and the signs of the Messiah’s advent (vv. 29, 30), ro réXos must be taken as referring to the end of the dolores Messiae. This end is the laying waste of the temple and the unparalleled desolation of MATT. IL. I
130 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW
the jand that is to accompany it. Ver. 15 ff. This is also substantially equivalent to de Wette’s interpretation: “the decisive winding up of the present state of things (and along with it the climax of trouble and affliction).”
Ver. 7. I'dp] it is not quite the end as yet; for the situa- tion will become still more turbulent and distressing: nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, ete. We have here depicted in colours borrowed from ancient prophecy (Isa. xix. 2), not only those risings, becoming more and more frequent, which, after a long ferment, culminated in the closing scene of the Jewish war and led to the destruction of Jerusalem, but also those convulsions in nature by which they were accompanied. That this prediction was fulfilled cn its general aspects is amply confirmed, above all, by the well- known accounts of Josephus; but we are forbidden by the very nature of genuine prophecy, which cannot and is not meant to be restricted to isolated points, either to assume or try to prove that such and such historical events are special literal fulfilments in concrete of the individual features in the prophetic outlook before us,— although this has been attempted very recently, by Kostlin in particular. As for the Parthian wars and the risings that took place some ten years after in Gaul and Spain, they had no connection whatever with Jerusalem or Judaea. There is as little reason to refer (Wet- stein) the vrodeuous of ver. 6 to the war waged by Asinaeus and Alinaeus against the Parthians (Joseph. Antt. xvii. 9. 1), and the dxoas mroAéuov to the Parthian declaration of war against King Izates of Adiabene (Joseph. Antt. xx. 3. 3), or to explain the latter (axods modéuwv) of the struggles for the imperial throne that had broken out after the death of Nero (Hilgenfeld). Jesus, who sees rising before Him the horrors of war and other calamities connected, ver. 15, with the coming destruction of Jerusalem, presents a picture of them to the view of His hearers. Comp. 4 Esdr. xiii. 21; Sohar Chadasch, f. viii. 4: “Ilo tempore bella in mundo excitabuntur; gens erit contra gentem, et urbs contra urbem: angustiae multae contra hostes Israelitarum innovabuntur.” SBeresch. Rabba, 42 f., 41.1: “Si videris regna contra se invicem insurgentia,
CHAP. XXIV. 8, 9. ESL
tunc attende, et adspice pedem Messiae.” — Acpot x. cevcpol] see critical notes. Nor, again, is this feature in the prediction to be restricted to some such special famine as that which occurred during the reign of Claudius (Acts xi. 28), too early a date for our passage, and to one or two particular cases of earthquake which happened in remote countries, and with which history has made us familiar (such as that in the neighbour- hood of Colossae, Oros. Hist. vii. 7, Tacit. Ann. xiv. 27, and that at Pompeii).— «ata tomovs]| which is applicable only to gevopol, as in Mark xiii. 8, is to be taken distributively (Bernhardy, p. 240; Kiihner, II. 1, p. 414): locatim, travel- ling from one district to another. The equally grammatical interpretation: in various localities here and there (Grotius, Wetstein, Raphel, Kypke, Baumgarten-Crusius, Késtlin, Bleek), is rather too feeble to suit the extraordinary character of the events referred to. In vv. 6, 7, Dorner finds merely an em- bodiment of the thought: “ evangelium gladii instar dissecabit male conjuncta, ut vere jungat; naturae autem phaenomena concomitantia quasi depingent motus et turbines in spiritu- alibus orbibus orturos.”
Ver. 8. But all this will be the beginning of woes (Euthymius Zigabenus: mpooiuwia Tav cvudpopev), will stand in the same relation to what is about to follow, as the beginning of the birth- pangs does to the much severer pains which come after. It is apparent from ver. 7 that éoraz is understood. The figure contained in ®@édivwv is to be traced to the popular way of conceiving of the troubles that were to precede the advent of the Messiah as mwnn San. Comp. on ver. 3.
Ver. 9. Jesus now exhibits the seguel of this universal beginning of woes in its special bearing upon the disciples and the whole Christian community. Comp. on x. 17 ff.— tote] then, when what is said at ver. 7 will have begun. Differently in Luke xxi. 12 (apo 6é rovrwv), where, though Tore is not in any way further defined (Cremer), we have clearly a correction in order to adapt the expression to the persecutions that in the evangelist’s time had already begun. Seeing that the expressions are distinctly different from each other, it is not enough to appeal to the “ elasticity” of the tore
132 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
(Hoelemann).— azroxtrevodatv tuas| spoken generally, not as intimating, nor even presupposing (Scholten), the death of all of them. After wapadwc. twas the current of prophetic utterance flows regularly on, leaving to the hearers themselves to make the necessary distinctions. —xat écecOe ptoov- pevot] It is a mistake to suppose that we have here a reference to Nero’s persecution (proceeding upon an erroneous inter- pretation of the well-known “ odio humani generis” in Tacit. Ann. xv. 44, see Orelli on the passage), because it is the disciples that are addressed ; and to regard them as the repre- sentatives of Christians in general, or as the sum total of the church (Cremer), would be arbitrary in the highest degree; the discourse does not become general in its character till ver. 10. Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 13. —im6 mavtov Tr. €Ovdr] by all nations. What a confirmation of this, in all general respects, is fur- nished by the history of the apostles, so far as it is known to us! But we are not justified in saying more, and especially when we take into account the prophetic colouring given to our discourse, must we beware of straining the wavtwy in order to favour the notion that the expression contains an allusion to the vast and long-continued efforts that would be made to disseminate the gospel throughout the world (Dorner) ; let us repeat that it is the apostles who are in question here. Comp. x. 17 f., 22.
Ver. 10. Kai tore] and then, when those persecutions will have broken out against you.— ocxavdartcOnoorvtac ‘moAnol| many will receive a shock, 1.e. many Christians will be tempted to relapse into unbelief, see on xii. 21. For the converse of offendentur in this sense, see ver. 13. Conse- quence of this falling away: cat aAXHAOUS Tapadwa.] one another, 2.e. the Christian who has turned apostate, him who has continued faithful. What a climax the troubles have reached, seeing that they are now springing up in the very heart of the Christian community itself!
Ver. 11. Besides this ruinous apostasy in consequence of persecution from without, there is the propagation of error by false Christian teachers living in the very bosom of the church itself (comp. vil. 15). These latter should not be more
CHAP, XXIV. 12, 13. 133
precisely defined (Kostlin: “ extreme antinomian tendencies ;” Hilgenfeld: “those who adhere to Pauline views;” comp. also Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 586, ed. 2). The history of the apostolic age has sufficiently confirmed this prediction, Acts m8 04. Jobe ave: lt
Ver. 12. And in consequence of the growing prevalence of wickedness (as the result of what is mentioned in vv. 10, 11), the love of the greater number will become cold ; that pre- dominance of evil within the Christian community will have the effect of cooling the brotherly love of the majority of its members. The moral degeneracy within the pale of that community will bring about as its special result a pre- vailing want of charity, that specific contrast to the true characteristic of the Christian life (Gal. v. 6; 1 Cor. xii. 1 ff. ; 1 John iv. 20). For avouia, the opposite of moral compliance with the law of God (= dwapria, 1 John iii. 4), comp. vii. 23, xiii. 41, xxiii. 28; 2 Cor. vi. 14; 2 Thess. ii. 7. For yoryeu with y, comp. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 318.—t@v modd@r] are not the 7oAAo/ mentioned in ver. 10 (Fritzsche), whose love, as that verse informs us, is already changed into hatred, but the multitude, the mass, the great body (Kihner, IT. 1, p. 548 ; Ast, Lex. Plat. III. p. 148) of Christians. In the case of those who were distinguished above the ordinary run of Christians, no such cooling was to take place; but yet, as compared with the latter, they were only to be regarded as oAdyot. According to Dorner, vv. 11, 12 apply not to the apostolic age, but to a subsequent stage in the history of the church. But such a view is inconsistent with the numerous testimonies to be met with in the Epistles, with the apprehensions and expectations regarding impending events to which they give expression. Comp. on Gal. i. 4.
Ver. 13. ‘O dé brropeivas] contrast to what in the cxar- daricOns. moddot of ver. 10 and the wAaviyjo. wodXovs of ver. 12 is described as apostasy, partly from the faith generally, and partly (ver. 12) from the ¢rwe Christian faith and life. Comp. x. 22. According to Fritzsche, it is only the per- severing in love that is meant, so that the contrast has reference merely to Wuyycetat, «.7.A. But according to our
134 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
interpretation, the contrast is more thorough and_ better suited to the terms of the passage.—eés TédXos] not perpetuo (Fritzsche), which, as the connection shows (ver. 6), is too indefinite; but: wnto the end, till the last, until the troubles will have come to an end, which, as appears from the context (cwOyjceraz), will, in point of fact, be coincident with the second advent. Comp. vv. 30, 31, x. 22. The con- text forbids such interpretations as: wnto death (Elsner, Kuinoel, Ebrard), wntil the destruction of Jerusalem (Krebs, Rosenmiiller, R. Hofmann), cwOjcerat being referred in the latter case to the flight of the Christians to Pella (Eusebius, H. £. iii. 5). Of course ver. 13 describes the “ sanam hominis Christiani dis- positionem spiritualem ad eschatologiam pertinentem ” (Dorner), always on the understanding, however, that the second advent is at hand, and that the “ homo Christianus ” will live to see tt.
Ver. 14. Having just uttered the words els 7édos, Christ now reveals the prospect of a most encouraging state of matters which is immediately to precede and usher in the consum- mation indicated by this e¢s réXos, namely, the preaching of the gospel throughout the whole world in spite of the hatred and apostasy previously mentioned (vv. 9,10 ff.) ; 67u ovdev Tav Sewav Tepryevnoetat Tov Knpvyyatos, Euthymius Zigabenus. The substantial fulfilment of this prediction is found in the missionary labours of the apostles, above all in those of Paul ; comp. Acts i. 9; Rom. i. 14, x: 18, xv. 19; Matt. xxviii. 19; Col. i. 23; Clem. 1 Cor. v.—rodro ro evayy.| According to de Wette, the author here (and xxvi. 13) so far forgets himself as to allude to the gospel which he was then in the act of writing. The tovro here may be accounted for by the fact that Christ was there and then engaged in preaching the gospel of the Messiah’s kingdom, inasmuch as eschatological prediction undoubtedly constitutes an essential part of the gospel. Consequently: “hoc evangelium, quod nuntio.”— év on TH olKkovp.] must not be limited to the Roman empire (Luke ii. 1), but should be taken quite generally: over the whole habitable globe, a sense which is alone in keeping with Jesus’ consciousness of His Messianic mission, and with the waou tots €@veot which follows.—eis waptvptoy, K.t.d.] in order that
CHAP, XXIV. 15. bas
testimony may be borne before all nations, namely, concerning me and my work, however much they may have hated you for my name’s sake. The interpretation of the Fathers: eis éreyxov, is therefore substantially in accordance with the context (ver. 9), though there was no need to import into the passage the idea of the condemnation of the heathen, which condemnation would follow as a consequence only in the case of those who might be found to reject the testimony. There are other though arbitrary explanations, such as. “ut nota illis esset pertinacia Judaeorum” (Grotius), or: “ut gentes testi- monium dicere possint harum calamitatum et insignis pompae, qua Jesus Messias in has terras reverti debeat” (Fritzsche), or: “ita ut crisin aut vitae aut mortis adducat” (Dorner). — kal TOoTE| and then, when the announcement shall have been made throughout the whole world. — ro téXos] the end of the troubles that are to precede the Messiah’s advent, correlative to dpyy, ver. 8. Comp. ver. 6 ; consequently not to be under- stood in this instance either as referring to the end of the world (Ebrard, Bleek, Dorner, Hofmann, Lange, Cremer), which latter event, however, will of course announce its approach by catastrophes in nature (ver. 29) immediately after the termina- tion of the dolores Messiae.
Ver. 15. See Wieseler in the Gétting. Vierteljahrschr. 1846, p. 183 ff.; Hengstenberg, Christol. ILI. p.116 ff. More precise information regarding this TéAos.— odv] therefore, in conse- quence of what has just been stated in the Kai tote HE To tédos. According to Ebrard and Hoelemann, ody indicates a resuming of the previous subject (Baeumlein, Partek.p. 177; Winer, p.414 [E.T.555]): “Jesusad primam questionem revertitur, prae- misso secundae quaestionis responso.” But even Ebrard him- self admits that Jesus has not as yet made any direct reference to the disciples’ first question, ver. 3, accordingly he cannot be supposed to recur to it with a mere ody. Wieseler also takes a similar view of ody. He thinks that it is used by way of resuming the thread of the conversation, which had been interrupted by the preliminary warning inserted at vv. 4-14. But this conversation, which the disciples had introduced, and in which, moreover, vv. 4-14 are by no means of the nature
136 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
-of amere warning, has not been interrupted at all. According to Dorner, ody marks the transition from the eschatological principles contained in vv. 4—14 to the applicatio ecorwm his- torica s. prophetica, which view is based, however, on the erroneous assumption that vv. 4-14 do not possess the character of concrete eschatological prophecy. The predic- tions before us respecting the Messianic woes become more threatening till just at this point they reach a climax.— 70 BoérXvypa THs Epnuwacews| the abomination of desolation ; the genitive denotes that in which the @déAvyya specifically consists and manifests itself as such, so that the idea, “the abominable desolation,’ is expressed by the use of another substantive instead of the adjective, in order to bring out the characteristic attribute in question; comp. Ecclus. xlix. 2 ; Hengstenberg: the abomination, which produces the desola- tion. But in Daniel also the épjyuwors is the leading idea. The Greek expression in our passage is not exactly identical with the Septuagint’ rendering of DDwN D'SipY, Dan, ix. 27 (xi. 31, xii. 11). > Comp. 1 Mace. i 54, v7 angle prediction it is not to Antichrist, 2 Thess. ii. 4 (Origen, Luthardt, Klostermann, Ewald), that Jesus refers; nor, again, is it to the statue of Titus, which is supposed to have been erected on the site of the temple after its destruction (Chry- sostom, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus) ; nor to that of Caligula, which is said (but see Krebs, p. 53) to have been
1 In the Hebrew of the passage referred to in Daniel the words are not intended to be taken together (Havernick, von Lengerke on Dan. ix. 27, Hengstenberg, Christol. III. p. 103 f.). They are, moreover, very variously interpreted ; von Lengerke (Hengstenberg), for example: ‘‘the destroyer comes over the pinnacles ofabomination ;’’ Ewald (Auberlen): ‘‘and that on account of the fearful height of abominations ;” Wieseler: ‘‘and that because of the destructive bird of abomina- tion” (referring to the eagle of Jupiter Olympius, to whom Epiphanes dedicated the temple at Jerusalem, 2 Mace. vi. 2); Hofmann, Weissag. u. Lrf. I. p. 309: ‘‘and that upon an offensive idol cover” (meaning the veil with which the altar of the idol was covered). My interpretation of the words in the original ( Dow DO sIpy’ HID 21) is this: the destroyer (comes) on the wing of abomi- nations, and that until, ete. Comp. Keil. Ewald on Matthew, p. 412, takes 35 as a paraphrase for +o isp. The Sept. rendering is probably from
such passages as Ps, lvii. 2. For other explanations still, see Hengstenberg, Christol. III. p. 123 ff. ; Bleek in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1860, p. 98 ff.
CHAP: XXIV. 15, 137
set up within the temple; nor even to the equestrian statue of Hadrian (all which Jerome considers possible), which references would imply a period too early in some instances, and too late in others. It is better,on the whole, not to seek for any more special reference (as also Elsner, Hug, Bleek, Pfleiderer have done, who see an allusion to the sacrilegious acts committed by the zealots in the temple, Joseph. Bell. iv. 6. 3), but to be satisfied with what the words themselves plainly intimate : the abominable desolation on the temple square, which was historically realized in the doings of the heathen conquerors during and after the capture of the temple, though, at the same time, no special stress is to be laid upon the heathen standards detested by the Jews (Grotius, Bengel, Wetstein, de Wette, Ebrard, Wieseler, Lange), to which the words cannot refer. Fritzsche prefers to leave the Boden. T. ép. without any explanation whatever, in consequence of the o avaywook. voeitw, by which, as he thinks, Jesus meant to indicate that the reader was to find out the prophet’s meaning for himself. The above general interpretation, however, is founded upon the text itself; nor are we warranted by Dan. ix. 27 in supposing any reference of a very special kind to underlie what is said. The idea of a desecration of the temple by the Jews themselves (Hengstenberg), or of the corrwpt state of the Jewish hierarchy (Weisse, Hvangelienfr. p. 170 f.), is foreign to the whole connection. — To pndév dva Aav. Fr. mpog.| what has been said (expressly mentioned) by Daniel, not: “which is an expression of the prophet Daniel” (Wieseler); for the important point was not the prophetic expression, but the thing itself indicated by the prophet. Comp. xxii. 31.— On éo7Tés, see critical notes, and Kiihner, I. p. 677.—év trom ayl@] in the holy place; ie. not the town as invested by the Romans (so Hoelemann and many older expositors, after Luke xxi. 20), but the place of the temple which has been in question from the very first (ver. 2), and which Daniel has in view in the pas- sage referred to. The designation selected forms a tragic contrast to the BdédAvyya; comp. Mark xiii. 14: 6zrov ov Set. Others, and among them de Wette and Baumgarten-Crusius
138 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
(comp. Weiss on Mark), understand the words as referring to Palestine, especially to the neighbourhood of Jerusalem (Schott, Wieseler), or to the Mount of Olives (Bengel), because it is supposed that it would have been too late to seek to escape after the temple had been captured, and so the flight of the Christians to Pella took place as soon as the war began. The ground here urged, besides being an attempt to make use of the special form of its historical fulfilment in order to correct the prophetic picture itself, as though this latter had been of the nature of a special prediction, is irrele- vant, for this reason, that in ver. 16 the words used are not “in Jerusalem,” but év tH “Iovdaia; see on ver. 16. Jesus means to say: When the abomination of desolation will have marred and defaced the symbol of the divine guardianship of the people, then everything is to be given up as lost, and safety sought only by fleeing from Judaea to places of greater security among the mountains. —o dvaytvacKor voeita| let the reader understand ! (Eph. iii. 4). Parenthetical observa- tion by the evangelist, to impress upon his readers the precise point of time indicated by Jesus at which the flight is to take place upon the then impending (not already present, Hug, Bleek) catastrophe. Chrysostom, Euthymius Zigabenus, Paulus, Fritzsche, Kaeuffer, Hengstenberg (Authent. d. Dan, p. 258 ff.), Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, ascribe the observation to Jesus, from whose lips, however, one would have expected, in the flow of living utterance, and according to His manner elsewhere, an expression similar to that in xi. 15, xiii. 9, or at least 0 adxovwy voeitw. We may add that our explanation is favoured by Mark xiii. 14, where 70 pynOév to Aav. tov mpop. being spurious, it is consequently the reader, not of Daniel, but of the gospel, that is meant. Hoelemann incorrectly interprets: “he who has discernment, let him understand it ” (alluding to Dan. xii. 11); dvayweok. is never used in the New Testament in any other sense than that of to read.
Ver. 16 ff. Apodosis down to ver. 18.—oi év 7. Iov6.] means those who may happen to be living in the country of Judaea (John iii. 22), in contradistinction to Jerusalem with its holy place, the abominations in which are to be
CHAP. XXIV. 19, 20. 139
the signal for flight. — 7 kataBauvéro, «.7.r.] Some have conceived the idea to be this: “ne per scalas interiores, sed exteriores descendat,” Bengel (Grotius, Wetstein) ; or: let him jlee over the roofs (over the lower walls, separating house from house, till he comes to the city wall, Michaelis, Kuinoel, Fritzsche, Paulus, Winer, Kaeuffer). oth views may be taken each according to circumstances. — ta é€x THs olKkias avtod] common attraction for ta €v TH olkia €x THs otKias. See Kiihner, I. 474, and ad Xen. Mem. iii. 6. 11; Winer, p. 584 [E. T. 784].— év +@ aypo] where, being at work, he has no upper garment with him.— People will have to flee to save their lives (ver. 22); not according to the idea imported by Hofmann: to escape the otherwise too powerful temptation to deny the Lord. This again is decisively refuted by the fact that, im vv. 16-19, it is not merely the disciples or believers who are ordered to flee, but the summons to do so is a general one. What is said with reference to the flight does not assume an individualizing character till ver. 20.
Ver. 19. Ai pév yap eyxvor od duvicovtar evyew, TO goptia THs yaotpos Bapvvopevar ai dé Onrafovaar Sia Tv Tpos Ta Téexva cuuTra0eav, Theophylact.
Ver. 20. “Iva] Object of the command, and therefore its purport ; Mark xiv. 35; Col. i. 9. — dé caBBarto] with- out év, as in xii. 1; Winer, p. 205 [E. T. 274]. On the Sabbath the rest and the solemnities enjoined by the law, as well as the short distance allowed for a Sabbath-day’s journey (2000 yards, according to Ex. xvi. 29; see Lightfoot on Luke xxiv. 50; Acts i 12; Schoettgen, p. 406), could not but interfere with the necessary haste, unless one were prepared in the circumstances to ignore all such enactments. Taken by themselves, the words pndé caBBatrw seem, no doubt, to be inconsistent with Jesus’ own liberal views regarding the Sabbath (xu. 1 ff.; John v. 17, vii. 22); but he is speaking from the standpoint of His disciples, such a standpoint as they occupied at the time He addressed them, and which was destined to be outgrown only in the course of a later development of ideas (Rom. xiv. 5; Col. ii. 6). As in the case of yesuadvos, what is here said is simply with a view to everything being
140 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
avoided calculated to interfere with their hasty flight. Comp. XD;
Ver. 21. Those hindrances to flight are all the more to be deprecated that the troubles are to be unparalleled, and therefore a rapid flight will be a matter of the most urgent necessity. — €ws Tod viv] usque ad hoc tempus, Rom. viii. 22. Kéopov is not to be supplied here (Fritzsche). See, on the other hand, Mark xii. 19; 1 Mace. 1. 33; Plat. Parm. p- 152 C, Ep. xiii. p. 361 E. On the threefold negative ovée ov py, see Bornemann in the Stud. w. Krit. 1843, p. 109 f. For the expression generally, Plat. Tim. p. 38 A: ov8é yevéo- Oat tore ovdé yeyovévar viv ovd eicadbis Ecec Par; Stallbaum, ad Rep. p. 492 E.
Ver. 22. And unless those days had been shortened, those, namely, of the OrAupis pweyadn (ver. 29), etc. This is to be understood of the reduction of the number of the days over which, but for this shortening, the @Aa/us would have ex- tended, not of the curtailing of the length of the day (Fritzsche), —a thought of which Lightfoot quotes an example from Rab- binical literature (comp. the converse of this, Josh. x. 13), which, seeing that there is a considerable number of days, would be to introduce an element of a very extraordinary character into the usual ideas connected with the acceleration of the advent (1 Cor. vii. 29). Rather comp. the similar idea, which in Barnab. iv. is ascribed to Enoch. — éo #07] used here with reference to the saving of the life (vill. 25, xxvii. 40, 42, 49, and frequently); Euthymius Zigabenus: ov« av wtre&é- ¢uye Tov Gavatov. Hofmann incorrectly explains: saved from denying the Lord. — 7a@oa capE] every flesh, i.e. every mortal man (see on Acts ii. 16), would not be rescued, 2.e. would have perished. Comp. for the position of the negative, Fritzsche, Diss. II. on 2 Cor. p. 24f. The limitation of raca capé to the Jews and Christians belonging to town or country who are found in immediate contact with the theatre of war, is justified by the context. The éxrexTod are included, but it is not these alone who are meant (Hofmann). — The aorist éxodo8. conveys the idea that the shortening was resolved upon in the counsels of the divine compassion (Mark xiii. 20), and its relation to
CHAP. XXIV. 23-25. 141
the aorist €o@6 in the apodosis is this. had the shortening of the period over which the calamities were to extend not taken place, this would have involved the utter destruction of all flesh. The future codkoBwOyjc. again conveys the idea that the actual shortening is being effected, and therefore that the case supposed, with the melancholy consequences involved in it, has been averted. — 61a 5€ Tovs ExreKTOVs| for sake of the chosen (for the Messianic kingdom), in order that they might be preserved for the approaching advent. That in seeking to save the righteous, God purposely adopts a course by which He may save others at the same time, is evident from Gen. xviii. 13 ff. But the é#dexrol (see on xxii. 14) are those who, at the time of the destruction of the capital, are believers in Christ, and are found persevering in their faith in Him (ver. 13); not the future creditwri as well (Jahn in Bengel’s Archiv. I]. 1; Schott, Opuse. Il. p. 205 ff.; Lange, following Augustine, Calovius), which latter view is precluded by the evéms of ver. 29.— There is a certain solemnity in the repe- tition of the same words KodoB. ai tyépar éxetvar. Ebrard lays stress upon the fact, as he supposes, that our passage describes a calamity “cui finis sit imponendus, et quae ab aetate paulo saltem feliciore sit excipienda,” and accordingly infers that the idea of the immediate end of the world is thereby excluded. But the aetas paulo saltem felrcior, or the supposition that there is any interval at all between the @rafis peyady and ver. 29, is foreign to the text; but the end of the above-mentioned disaster is to take place in order that what is stated at ver. 29 may follow it at once.
Ver. 23 ff. Tore] then, when the desolation of the temple and the great @AAfis shall have arrived, false Messiahs, and such as falsely represent themselves to be prophets, will again come forward and urge their claims with greater energy than ever, nay, in the most seductive ways possible. Those here referred to are different from the pretenders of ver. 4 f. The excitement and longing that will be awakened in the midst of such terrible distress will be taken advantage of by impostors with pretensions to miracle-working, and then how dangerous they will prove! By such early expositors as Chrysostom and
142 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
those who come after him, ver. 23 was supposed to mark the transition to the subject of the advent, so that tore would pass over the whole period between the destruction of Jerusalem and the second advent; while, according to Ebrard (comp. Schott), the meaning intended by Jesus in vv. 23, 24 is, that after the destruction of the capital, the condition of the church and of the world, described in vv. 4-14, “in posterum quoque mansurum esse.” Such views would have been discarded if due regard had been paid to the tore by which the point of time is precisely defined, as well as to the circumstance that the allusion here is merely to the coming forward of false Christs and false prophets. Consequently we should also beware of saying, with Calovius, that at this point Christ passes to the subject of His adventus spiritualis per evangeliwm. He is still speaking of that period of distress, ver. 21 f., which is to be immediately followed, ver. 29, by the second advent. — pevdoyxptoToe | those who falsely claim to be Messiah; nothing is known regarding the historical fulfilment of this. Jonathan (Joseph. Bell. vii. 11. 3) and Barcochba (see on ver. 5) appeared at a later period.—wevdorpodyrac| according to the context, not Christian teachers (ver. 11), in the present instance, but such as pretended to be sent by God, and in- spired to speak to the people in the season of their calamity,— deceivers similar to those who had tried to impose upon their fellow-countrymen during the national misfortunes of earlier times (Jer. xiv. 14, v. 13, vi. 13, vill. 10). Comp. Joseph. Bell. ii. 13. 4: wAavow yap avOpwrot Kal aratavtes Tpoo- ynpate Oevacwod vewtepicpors Kat peTaBodas TparyywaTevopevor, Sarpovay 7d TAHG0s avéreOov, K.7.. Others suppose that the reference is to such as sought to pass for Elijah or some other prophet risen from the dead (Kuinoel), which would scarcely agree with the use of a term so general as the present; there are those also who think it is the emissaries of the false Messiahs who are intended (Grotius).—Séco0vcr] not: promise (Kypke, Krebs), but: give, so as to suit the idea involved in onueia, Comp. xii. 39 ; Deut. xiii. 1.— On onpeia cai tépata, between which there is no material difference, see on Rom. xv. 19. Miracles may also be performed by Satanic agency,
CHAP. XXIV. 26-28. 143
2 Thess. ii. 9. — wote mAavnOjvat (see critical notes): so thut the very elect may be led astray (Kiihner, II. 2, p. 1005) if possible (ed Suvatov: si fieri possit ; “conatus summus, sed tamen irritus,” Bengel). — Ver. 25. Avawaptipetar éEachari- Cowevos, Euthymius Zigabenus. Comp. John xiv. 29.
Ver. 26. Ody] according to the tenor of this my prediction. Ver. 26 does not stand to ver. 23 in the relation of a strange reduplication (Weiss), but as a rhetorical amplification which is brought to an emphatic close by a repetition of the m7 miatevonte of ver. 23.—éatt] the Messiah, ver. 23.— év Tots tTapetots] the article is to be taken demonstratively, while the plural denotes the inner rooms of a house. Accord- ing to Fritzsche, we have here the categorical plural (see on li. 20): “en, ibi est locorum, quae conclavia appellantur.” That would be too vague a pretence. The phraseology here made use of: in the wilderness—in the inner rooms of the house —is simply apocalyptic imagery. “ Ultra de deserto et pene- tralibus quaerere non est sobrii interpretis,” Maldonatus.
Ver. 27. Reason why they were not to listen to such asser- tions. The advent of the Messiah will not be of such a nature that you will require to be directed to look here or look there in order to see him ; but it will be as the lightning, which, as soon as it appears, suddenly announces its presence everywhere; oUTws EcTaL 1) Tapovalia éxelvyn, omod TavTayod pawwowervn bia Thy exrapapw THs So£ns, Chrysostom. Not as though the advent were not to be connected with some locality or other upon earth, or were to be invisible altogether (R. Hofmann); but what is meant is, that when it takes place, it will all of a sudden openly display itself in a glorious fashion over the whole world. Ebrard (comp. Schott) is wrong in supposing that the point of comparison lies only in the circumstance that the event comes suddenly and without any premonition. For certainly this would not tend to show, as Jesus means to do, that the assertion: he is in the wilderness, etc., is an wnwar- rantable pretence.
Ver. 28. Confirmation of the truth that the advent will announce its presence everywhere, and that from the point of view of the retributive punishment which the coming One
144 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
will be called upon everywhere to execute. The emphasis of this figurative adage is on Omou éav 7 and éxet: “ Wherever the carcase may happen to be, there will the eagles be gathered together,’—-on no spot where there is a carcase will this gathering fail, so that, when the Messiah shall have come, He will reveal Himself everywhere in this aspect also (namely, as an avenger). Such is the sense in which this saying was evidently understood as early as the time of Luke xvii. 37. The carcase is a metaphorical expression denoting the spiritually dead (viii. 22 ; Luke xvi. 24) who are doomed to the Messianic amowrea, while the words cuvay@joovtar (namely, at the advent) of aerot convey the same idea as that expressed in xiii. 41, and which is as follows: the angels, who are sent forth by the Messiah for the purpose, ovAré£ovaw éx Tijs Bacirelas avtod TdvTa Ta cKavoanra, Kal Badrodcw avTovs Els THY KamWoV tov mupos, the only difference being, that in our passage the prophetic imagery depicting the mode of punishment is not that of consuming by fire, and that for the simple reason that the latter would not harmonize with the idea of the carcase and the eagles (Bleek, Luthardt, Auberlen). Others (Light- foot, Hammond, Clericus, Wolf, Wetstein) have erroneously supposed that the carcase alludes to Jerusalem or the Jews, and that the eagles are intended to denote the Roman legions with their standards (Xen. Anab. i. 10. 12; Plut. Mar. 23). But it is the advent that is in question; while, according to vy. 23-27, drov éav 7 cannot be taken as referring to any one particular locality, so that Hoelemann is also in error, inasmuch as, though he interprets the eagles as representing the Messiah and His angel-hosts, he nevertheless understands the carcase to mean Jerusalem as intended to form the central scene of the advent. It is no less mistaken to explain the latter of “the corpses of Judaism” (Hilgenfeld), on the ground that, as Keim also supposes, Christ means to represent Himself “as Him who is to win the spoils amid the physical and moral ruins of Israel.” According to Cremer, the carcase denotes the anti-Messianic agitation previously described, which is destined to be suppressed and punished by the imperial power (the eagles). This view is erroneous ;
CHAP, XXIV. 29. 145
for, according to ver. 27, the cuvax@. of detot can only represent the mapovola tT. viod 7. avOp. Fritzsche and Fleck, p. 384: “ubi DMessias, ibi homines, qui ejus potestatis futuri sint” (of éxXexToi, ver. 31). Similarly such early expositors as Chrysostom (who thinks the angels and martyrs are intended to be included), Jerome, Theophylact (@omep émi vexpov copa auvayovtat o€éws of deTol, o’tTw Kai évOa adv eln 6 Xptoros, éXevoovTas Tavres of wyvor), Euthymius Zigabenus, Miinster, Luther, Erasmus (“non deerunt capiti sua membra”), Beza, Calvin, Clarius, Zeger, Calovius, Jansen. But how inappro- priate and incongruous it would be to compare the Messiah (who is conceived of as tpog) mvevpatixy, Euthymius Ziga- benus) to the carcase ; which is all the more offensive when, with Jerome, 7T@pa is supposed to contain a reference to the death of Jesus—a view which Calvin rejected. Wittichen in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1862, p. 337, reverses the subjects of comparison, and takes the carcase as representing the Israelitish é«Aexrol, and the eagles as representing the Messiah. But this interpretation is likewise forbidden by the incongruity that would result from the similitude of the carcase so sug- gestive of the domain of death, as well as by that universal character of the advent to which the context bears testi- mony. With astonishing disregard of the context, Kaeuffer observes: “py miotevonre, sc. illis, nam ubi materies ad praedandum, ibi praedatores avidi, h. e. nam in fraudem vestram erit.” On the question as to whether wT@pua without a qualifying genitive be good Greek, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 375. — ot derot] are the carrion-kites (vultur percnopterus, Linnaeus) which the ancients regarded as belonging to the eagle species. See Plin. V. H. x. 3; Aristot. ix. 22. . For the similitude, comp. Job xxxix. 30; Hos. viii. 1; Hab. viii. 1; Gov. xxx, 17: Ezek. xxxix. 1'7.
Ver. 29. Here follows the second portion of the reply of Jesus, in which He intimates what events, following at once on the destruction of Jerusalem, are immediately to precede His second coming (vv. 29-33); mentioning at the same time, that however near and certain this latter may be, yet the day and hour of its occurrence cannot be determined, and
MATT. II, K
146 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
that it will break unexpectedly upon the world (vv. 54-41); this should certainly awaken men to watchfulness and pre- paredness (vv. 42—51), to which end the two parables, xxv. 1-30, are intended to contribute. The discourse then con- cludes with a description of the final judgment over which the coming one is to preside (xxv. 31-46). — edOéws Sé peta tT. Oriuv TOV pep. ex.] but immediately after the distress of those days, immediately after the last (ro TéXos) of the series of Messianic woes described from ver. 15 onwards, and the first of which is to be coincident with the destruction of the temple. For rév ijwep. éxetvoy, comp. vv. 19, 22; and for OAApuw, ver. 21. LEhbrard’s explanation of this passage falls to the ground with his erroneous interpretation of vv. 23, 24, that explanation being as follows: z«mmediately after the unhappy condition of the church (vv. 23-28), a condition which is to continue after the destruction of Jerusalem, — it being assumed that the ed@éws involves the meaning: “nullis aliis intercedentibus indiciis.” It may be observed generally, that a whole host of strange and fanciful interpretations have been given here, in consequence of its having been assumed that Jesus could not possibly have intended to say that His second advent was to follow immediately upon the destruc- tion of Jerusalem. This assumption, however, is contrary to all exegetical rule, considering that Jesus repeatedly makes reference elsewhere (see also ver. 34) to His second coming as an event that is near at hand. Among those interpretations may also be classed that of Schott (following such earlier expositors as Hammond and others, who had already taken ev0éws in the sense of suddenly), who says that Matthew had written O&M, swbito, but that the translator (like the Sept. in the case of Job v. 3) had rendered the expression “ minus accurate” by ev@éws. This is certainly a wonderful supposi- tion, for the simple reason that the oxnp itself would be a wonderful expression to use if an interval of a thousand years was to intervene. Bengel has contributed to promote this view by his observation that: “ Nondum erat tempus revelandi totam seriem rerum futurarum a vastatione Hieros. usque ad consummationem seculi,” and by his paraphrase of the passage:
CHAP. XXIV. 29. 147
“De iis, quae post pressuram dierum illorum, delendae urbis Jerusalem, evenient proximum, quod in praesenti pro mea con- ditione commemorandum et pro vestra capacitate expectandum venit, hoc est, quod sol obscwrabitur,” etc. Many others, as Wetstein, for example, have been enabled to dispense with gratuitous assumptions of this sort by understanding ver. 29 ff. to refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, which is supposed to be described therein in the language of prophetic imagery (Kuinoel), and they so understand the verse in spite of the destruction already introduced at ver. 15. In this, however, they escape Scylla only to be drawn into Charybdis, and are compelled to have recourse to expedients of a still more hazardous kind in order to explain away the literal advent, which is depicted in language as clear as it is sublime. And yet E. J. Meyer again interprets vv. 29-34 of the destruc- tion of Jerusalem, and in such a way as to make it appear that the prediction regarding the final advent is not intro- duced till ver. 35. But this view is at once precluded by the fact that in ver. 35 0 odpavos x. 4 yh Tapedevoeras cannot be regarded as the leading idea, the theme of what follows, but only as a subsidiary thought (v. 18) by way of background for the words of 5€ Adyou wou ov pi) Taper. immediately after (observe, Christ does not say of yap AOyou, K.T.rA., but of dé NOyou, x.T-A.). Hoelemann, Cremer, Auberlen are right in their interpretation of ev@éws, but wrong in regarding the time of the culmination of the heathen power —an idea im- ported from Luke xxi. 24 — as antecedent to the period indi- cated by ev@éws. Just as there are those who seek to dispose of the historical difficulty connected with ev@éws by twisting the sense of what precedes, and by an importation from Luke xxi. 24, so Dorner seeks to dispose of it by twisting the sense of what comes after.—0o }dtos ckoTLG#,, K.7.r.] Description of the great catastrophe in the heavens which is to precede the
? Comp. the Old Testament prophecies respecting the day of the coming of Jehovah, Isa. xiii. 9 ff., xxxiv. 4, xxiv. 21; Jer. iv. 23 f.; Ezek. xxxii. 7f.; Hag. li. 6 f. ; Joel ii. 10, iii. 3f., iv. 15; Zeph. i. 15; Hag. ii. 21; Zech. xiv. 6, etc., and the passages from Rabbinical writers in Bertholdt, Christol. § 12; Gfrérer, Gesch. d. Urchrist. I. 2, pp. 195 ff., 219 ff.
148 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
second advent of the Messiah. According to Dorner, our pas- sage is intended as a prophetical delineation of the fall of heathenism, which would follow immediately upon the overthrow of Judaism; and, accordingly, he sees in the mention of the sun, moon, and stars an allusion to the nature-worship of the heathen world, an idea, however, which is refuted at once by ver. 34; see HE. J. Meyer, p. 125 ff; Bleek, p. 356; Hof- mann, p. 636; Gess, p. 136. Ewald correctly interprets: “While the whole world is being convulsed (ver. 29, after Joel i, 3 fi; Isa. xxxiv. 4, xxiv. 21), the heaven-sent Messiah appears in His glory (according to Dan. vu. 13) to judge,” etc.— ot aorépes teootvtat, x.tr.| Comp. Isa. xxxiv. 4. To be understood literally, but not as illustrative of sad times (Hengstenberg on the Revelation ; Gerlach, letzte Dinge, p. 102); and yet not in the sense of falling-stars (Fritzsche, Kuinoel), but as meaning: the whole of the stars together. Similarly in the passage in Isaiah just referred to, in accordance with the ancient idea that heaven was a firma- ment in which the stars were set for the purpose of giving light to the earth (Gen. 1. 14). The falling of the stars (which is not to be diluted, with Bengel, Paulus, Schott, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Cremer, following the Greek Fathers, so as to mean a mere obscuration) to the earth— which, in accordance with the cosmical views of the time, is the plain and natural sense of eds tiv yhv (see Rev. vi. 13)— is, no doubt, impossible as an actual fact, but it need not sur- prise us to see such an idea introduced into a prophetic picture so grandly poetical as this is,—a picture which it is scarcely fair to measure by the astronomical conceptions of our own day. —ai Suvapers Tdv ovpavav cadrev.| is usually explained of the starry hosts (Isa. xxxiv. 4, xl. 26; Ps. xxxili. 6; Deut. iv. 19; 2 Kings xvii. 16, etc.), which, coming as it does after of aotépes mecodvtat, would intro- duce a tautological feature into the picture. The words should therefore be taken in a general sense: the powers of the heavens (the powers which uphold the heavens, which stretch them out, and produce the phenomena which take place in them, ete.) will be so shaken as to lose their usual stability.
CHAP. XXIV. 30. 149
Comp. Job xxvi. 11. The interpretation of Olshausen, who follows Jerome, Chrysostom, Euthymius Zigabenus, in supposing that the trembling in the world of angels is referred to (Luke i. 13), is inconsistent not merely with carevOyo., but also with the whole connection which refers to the domain of physical things. For the plural tav ovpavev, comp. Ecclus. xvi. 16.— This convulsion in the heavens, previous to the Messiah’s descent therefrom, is not as yet to be regarded as the end of the world, but only as a pre- lude to it; the earth is not destroyed as yet by the celestial commotion referred to (ver. 30). The poetical character of the picture does not justify us in regarding the thing so vividly depicted as also belonging merely to the domain of poetry, —all the less that, in the present case, it is not political revolutions (Isa. xiii. 10, xxxiv. 4; Ezek. xxxii. 7 f.; Joel iii. 3 f.) that are in view, but the new birth of the world, and the establishment of the Messiah’s kingdom.
Ver. 30. Kat tore] and then, when what is intimated at ver. 29 shall have arrived. — davycertac] universally, and so not visible merely to the elect (Cremer), which would not be in keeping with what follows. — To onpetov tod viod T. av@p.| accordingly the sign inquired about in ver. 3, that phenomenon, namely, which is immediately to precede the coming Messiah, the Son of man of Dan. vii. 13, and which is to indicate that His second advent is now on the point of taking place, which is to be the signal of this latter event. As Jesus does not say what this is to be, it should be left quite in- definite; only this much may be inferred from what is predicted at ver. 29 about the darkening of the heavenly bodies, that it must be of the nature of a manifestation of light, the dawning of the Messianic éc£a which is perhaps to go on increasing in brilliancy and splendour until the Messiah Himself steps forth from the midst of it in the fulness of His glory. There is no foundation for supposing, with Cyril, Hilary, Chrysostom, Augustine, Jerome, Erasmus, that the allusion is to a cross appearing in the heavens; with Hebart, that it is to the rending of heaven or the appearing of angels; with Fleck and Olshausen, that it is to the star of the Messiah (Num. xxiv. 17);
150 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
similarly Bleek, though rather more by way of conjecture. Following the older expositors, Fritzsche, Ewald, Hengstenberg, R. Hofmann understand the coming Messiah Himself: “ mira- culum, quod Jesus revertens Messias oculis objiciet ” (accord- ingly, taking tod viod 7. avOp. as a genitive of subject ; while Wolf, Storr, Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 56, ed. 2, assume it to be a genitive of apposition). This view is inconsistent not only with what follows, where the words cat dyrovtas Tov vio, K.T.r. evidently point to something still farther in the future, and which the onpeiov serves to introduce, but also with the question of the disciples, ver. 3. R. Hofmann thinks that the reference is to that apparition in the form of a man which is alleged to have stood over the holy of holies for a whole night while the destruction of the capital was going on. A legendary story (chronicled by Ben-Gorion) ; and it may be added that what is said, vv. 29-31, certainly does not refer to the de- struction of Jerusalem, after which event Hofmann supposes our evangelist to have written. Lastly, some (Schott, Kuinoel) are even of opinion that onuetov does not point to any new and special circumstance at all—to anything beyond what is contained in ver. 29 ; but the introduction of the sequel by tote is decidedly against this view. —«al tote] a new point brought forward: and then, when this onmetov has been dis- played. — xéyovtac] Comp. Zech. xii. 10; Rev. i. 7; with what a totally different order of things are they now on the point of being confronted, what a breaking up and subversion of all the previous relationships of life, what a separation of elements hitherto mingled together, and what a deciding of the final destinies of men at the judgment of the old and the ushering in of the new aiév! Hence, being seized with terror and anguish, they will mowrn (see on xi. 17). The sorrow of repentance (Dorner, Ewald) is not to be regarded as excluded from this mourning. There is no adequate reason to suppose, with Ewald, that, in the collection of our Lord’s sayings (the Aoy/a), éyrovrat probably occurred twice here, and that it was reserved for the last redactor of those sayings to make a play upon the word by substituting xdyovtav. — épxopmevoy, x.7.r.] as in Dan. vii. 13,— peta Suvdu. x. 808.
CHAP. XXIV. 31. Lot
moXX.] This great power and majesty will also be displayed in the accompanying angel-hosts, ver. 31. The macau ai gvaal THs ys are not: “ omnes familiae Judaeorum” (Kuinoel), as those who explain ver. 29 ff. of the destruction of Jerusalem must understand the words, but: all the tribes of the earth. Comp. Gen. xii. 3, xxviii. 14.
Ver. 31. Kat dmocrtenect] And He will send forth, te. from the clouds of heaven, 1 Thess. iv. 16, 17.—Tods ayyéXous avtod] the angels specially employed in His service. — meTa oarTLyyos hwvans peyar.] with (having as an accompaniment) a trumpet of a loud sound. The second genitive qualifies and is governed by the first ; see Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 295 [E. T. 343]. The idea is not that the individual angels blow trumpets, but what is meant (Isa. xxvii. 13) is the last trumpet (1 Cor. xv. 52), the trumpet of God (1 Thess. iv, 16), which is sounded while the Messiah is sending forth the angels. The resurrection of believers is also to be understood as taking place on the sound of this trumpet being heard (1 Cor. as above; 1 Thess. as above). — émucvva£tovacr] gather together (xxiii. 27; 2 Thess. ii. 1; 2 Macc. i. 27, ii. 18), namely, toward the place where He is in the act of appearing upon earth. This gathering together of the elect, which is to be a gathering from every quarter (comp. Rev. i. 7), and from the whole compass of the earth, is an act and accompaniment of the second advent (in answer to Cremer’s distinction, see Hoelemann, p. 171). But the dpwdfec@ar eis aépa, to meet the Lord as He approaches (1 Thess. iv. 17), is to be regarded as taking place after this gathering together has been effected. —Tovs éxreKT. avtod] the elect belonging to Him (chosen by God for the Messianic kingdom, as in ver. 22). Comp. Rom. i. 6.— amo akpwv ovpav.| ab extremitatibus coclorum usque ad extremitates corum, 1.e. from one horizon to the other (for ovpavey without the article, see Winer, p. 115 [E. T. 150]), therefore from the whole earth (ver. 14), on which the extremities of the sky seem to rest. Deut. iv. 32, xxx. 4; Ps, xix. 7.—As showing the exegetical abuses to which this grand passage has been subjected, take the following, Light- foot: “emittet filius homines ministros suos cum tuba evan-
£52 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
gelica,” ete. ; Kuinoel (comp. Wetstein): “in tanta calamitate Judaeis, adversariis religionis Christianae, infligenda, ubivis locorum Christi sectatores per dei providentiam illaesi serva- buntur,” etc.; Olshausen: he will send out men armed with the awakening power of the Spirit of God, for the purpose of assembling believers at a place of safety. Thisis substantially the view of Tholuck also.—It may be observed, moreover, that this passage forbids the view of Kostlin, p. 26, that our Gospel does not contain a specifically Christian, but merely an ethical universalism (as contrasted with Jewish obduracy). See, on the other hand, especially viii, 11, xxii. 9 f, xxv. 31 ff, xxvii. 19, ete;
Ver. 32 f. Cheering prospect for the disciples in the midst of those final convulsions—a prospect depicted by means of a pleasing scene taken from nature. The understanding of this passage depends on the correct interpretation (1) of To Oépos, (2) of wavta tadra, and also (3) on our taking care not to supply anything we choose as the subject of éyyts éotuv emt Ovpais. — dé is simply petaBatixov.— ard THs cuK|AS] the article is generic; for amd, comp. on xi. 29. From the fig-tree, i.e. in the case of the fig-tree, see the parable (rH map.) that is intended for your instruction in the circumstances referred to. For the article conveys the idea of your simili- tude ; here, however, wapafov7 means simply a comparison, Tapadceryua. Comp. on xiii, 3.— Kal ta PvArAa Exgvy] and puts forth the leaves (the subject being 6 xKdd6os). Matthaei, Fritzsche, Lachmann, Bleek, on the authority of E F. GH KM V 4, Vulg. It, write éexpu7y, taking it as an aorist, 2.¢. ef folia edita fuerint (see, in general, Kiihner, I. p. 930f.). But in that case what would be the meaning of the allusion to the branches recovering their sap? Further, it is only by taking «. 7. $. éxpdn as present that the strictly definite element is brought out, namely: when the KAddos is in the act of budding.— 76 @épos] is usually taken in the sense of aestas, after the Vulgate. But, according to the cor- rect interpretation of wdvra tadra, summer would be too late in the present instance, and too indefinite; nor would it be sufficiently near to accord with éyyis éoru emi Ovpais. Hence
CHAP. XXIV. 32, 33. hoe
it is better to understand the harvest (equivalent to @epucpos, Photius, p. 86, 18) as referred to, as in Prov. xxvi. 1 ; Dem. 1253. 15, and frequently in classical writers; Jacobs, ad Anthol. VIII. p. 357. Comp. also Ebrard, Keim. It is not, however, the jig-harvest (which does not occur till August) that is meant, but the /fruit-harvest, the formal commence- ment of which took place as early as the second day of the Passover season.— ott x. vets] so understand ye also. For the preceding indicative, ywooxere, expressed what was matter of common observation, and so, in a way corresponding to the observation referred to, should (yivwor. imperative) the disciples also on their part understand, etc.—dérav idnre mavTa tavtal when ye will have seen all this. It is usual to seek for the reference of wavta tadra in the part of the passage before ver. 29, namely, in what Jesus has just foretold as to all the things that were to precede the second coming. But arbitrary as this is, it is outdone by those who go the length of merely picking out a few from the phenomena in question, in order to restrict the reference of mTavta TavTa to them ; as, for example, the incrementa maligni- tatis (Ebrard), or the cooling of love among believers, the preaching to the Gentiles, and the overthrow of Jerusalem (Gess). If we are to take the words in their plain and obvious mean- ing (ver. 8), wavta Tatra can only be understood to refer to what immediately precedes, therefore to what has been predicted, from that epoch-making ver. 29 on to ver. 31, respecting the onpetov of the Son of man, and the phenomena that were to accompany the second coming itself. When they shall have seen all that has been announced, vv. 29-31, they are to understand from it, etc. — 67. éyyts éotiv ert Ovpacs] To supply a subject here is purely arbitrary; the Son of man has been supposed by some to be understood (Fritzsche, de Wette, Hofmann, Bleek, Weiss, Gess); whereas the subject is TO Oépos, which, there being no reason to the contrary, may also be extended to ver. 33. This @épos is neither the second coming (Cremer), nor the judgment (Ebrard), nor the kingdom of God generally (Olshausen, Auberlen), nor even the diffusion of Christianity (Schott), but simply the harvest, understanding
154 - THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
it, however, in the higher Messianic sense symbolized by the natural harvest (Gal. vi. 9; 2 Cor. ix. 6), namely, the recep- tion in the Messianic kingdom of that eternal reward which awaits all true workers and patient sufferers. That is the joyful (Isa. ix. 2) and blessed consummation which the Lord encourages His disciples to expect immediately after the phenomena and convulsions that are to accompany His second advent. — On émt @vpais without the article, see Bornemann, ad Xen. Cyr. 1. 3. 2; and for the plural, see Kiihner, II. 1, poly,
Ver. 34. Declaration to the effect that all this is to take place before the generation then living should pass away. The well-nigh absurd manner in which it has been attempted to force into the words % yevea airy such meanings as: the creation (Maldonatus), or: the human race (Jerome), or: the Jewish nation (Jansen, Calovius, Wolf, Heumann, Storr, Dorner, Hebart, Auberlen; see, on the other hand, on Mark xiii. 30), or: “the class of men consisting of my believers” (Origen, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Clarius, Paulus, Lange), resembles the unreasonable way in which Ebrard, following up his erroneous reference of wavta Tavta (see on ver. 33), imports into the saying the idea: inde ab ipsorum (discipulorum) aetate omnibus ecclesiae temporibus inter- futura, an imaginary view which passages like x. 23, xvi. 28, xxiii. 39, should have been sufficient to prevent. This also in opposition to the interpretation of Cremer: “the generation of the elect now in question,” and that of Klostermann : “ the (future) generation which is to witness those events,’ both of which are foreign to the sense. Comp. xxiii. 36.— The wdavra tadta is the same as that of ver. 35, and therefore denoting neither the mere prognostics of the second advent, or, to be more definite, “ the taking away of the kingdom from Israel” (Gess), nor specially the destruction of Jerusalem (Schott, E. J. Meyer, Hoelemann, Baumlein in Klaiber’s Stud. I. 3, p..41 ff). That the second advent itself is intended to be included, is likewise evident from ver. 36, in which the subject of the day and hour of the advent is introduced.
Ver. 35. With the preceding radvta tadrta yévynrae will
CHAP. XXIV. 36—39. A ays)
commence the passing away of the fabric of the world as it now exists (2 Pet. iii. 7,8); but what I say (generally, though with special reference to the prophetic utterances before us) will certainly not pass away, will abide as imperishable truth (v.18). The utterance which fails of its accomplishment is conceived of as something that perishes (Addit. Esth. vii. 2), that ceases to exist. Comp. éx7imrew, Rom. ix. 6.
Ver. 36. The affirmation of ver. 34, however, does not exclude the fact that no one knows the day and hour when the second advent, with its accompanying phenomena, is to take place. It is to occur during the lifetime of the genera- tion then existing, but no one knows on what day or at what hour within the period thus indicated. Accordingly it is im- possible to tell you anything more precise in regard to this than what is stated at ver. 34.— ei uw 0 wat. pov povos] This reservation on the part of the Father excludes even the incarnate Son (Mark xiii. 32). The limitation implied in our passage as regards the human side of our Lord’s nature is to be viewed in the same light as that implied in xx. 23. See, besides, on Mark xiii. 32.
Vv. 37-39. But (6é, introducing an analogous case from an early period in sacred history) as regards the ignorance as to the precise moment of its occurrence, it will be with the second coming as it was with the flood. —joav...tpeéyovtes] not for the imperfect, but to make the predicate more strongly prominent. Comp. on vil. 29. tpeéyew means simply to eat (John vi. 54—58, xii. 18), not devouring like a beast (Beza, Grotius, Cremer), inasmuch as such an unfavourable construction is not warranted by any of the matters afterwards mentioned. — yapodvtes x. éxyap.| uxores in matrimonium ducentes et filias collocantes, descriptive of a mode of life without concern, and without any foreboding of an impending catastrophe. — cal ov« éyvwoay] The “it” (see Nagelsbach, Jdiad, p. 120, ed. 3) to be understood after éyveoay is the flood that is so near at hand. Fritzsche’s interpretation: “quod debebant intelligere” (namely, from seeing Noah build the ark), is arbitrary. The time within which it may be affirmed with certainty that the second
156 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
advent will suddenly burst upon the world, cannot be sup- posed to refer to that which intervenes between the destruction of Jerusalem and the advent, a view precluded by the ev@éws of ver. 29. That period of worldly unconcern comes in just before the final consummation, ver. 15 ff., whereupon the advent is immediately to follow (vv. 29-32). This last and most distressing time of all, coupled with the advent immediately following it, forms the terminus ante quem, and corresponds to the po Tod KataxAvopod of the Old Testament analogy. — év nwépa | without repeating the preposition before 7 (John iv. 54). Comp. Xen. Anab. v. 7. 17, and Kiihner on the passage; Winer, p. 393 [E. T. 524 f.]; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apol. p. 27 D. Comp. ver. 50.
Vv. 40, 41. Tore] then, when the second advent will have thus suddenly taken place.— 7apaXxapBavertar] is taken away, namely, by the angels who are gathering the elect together, ver. 31. The use of the present tense here pic- tures what is future as though it were already taking place. But had this referred to the being caught up in the clouds, mentioned 1 Thess. iv. 17 (Theophylact, Euthymius Ziga- benus, Jansen), dvaNapPaverar would have been used instead. —agletar] is left, expressing ov TapadapBdverae in its positive form. Comp. xxii. 38, xv. 14; Soph. 0. & 599. It is tantamount to saying: away! thou art not accepted. To understand the terms as directly the opposite of each other in the following sense: the one is taken captive, the other allowed to go free (Wetstein, Kuinoel), is grammatically wrong (7apadauP. cannot, when standing alone, be taken as equivalent to bello capere, although it is used to denote the receiving of places into surrender, im deditionem accipere, Polyb. i. 54. 12, iv. 63. 4, iv. 65. 6), and does violence to the context to suit the exigencies of the erroneous reference to the destruction of Jerusalem. Rather compare John xiv. 3. It is no doubt admissible to interpret the expression in the hostile sense: the one is seized (Polyb. ii. 69. 2; similarly Baumgarten-Crusius) or carried off (iv. 5, 8; Num. xxiii. 27; 1 Mace. iii. 37, iv. 1), namely, to be punished. But the ordi- nary explanation harmonizes better with the reference to ver.
CHAP. XXIV. 42. 157
31, as well as with the subsequent parable, ver. 45 ff., where the muaros SodXos is first introduced.—Svo ar} Goveas, x.7.r.| of two who grind at the mill, one will, etc. For the con- struction, in which, by means of a wetaBacts amo édov eis épn, the plural-subject is broken up into two separate persons, comp. Hom. Jl. vii. 306 f.: to 5& StaxpwOevte, 0 pev peta Aadv "Ayaidy Hi’, 6 8 &s Tpwwv buadav Kle. Plat. Phaedr. p. 248 A, al.; see Dissen, ad Pind. Ol. viii. 37; also ad Dem. de cor. p. 2837 f. If we were to adopt the wswal course of supplying écovras from ver. 40, we would require to translate as follows: two will be grinding at the mill. But this supplying of écovras is not at all necessary; as may be gathered from the annexing of the participle, we have in this other case, ver. 41, just a different mode of presenting the matter. — a@A700veas] the hard work usually performed by the lower order of female slaves (Ex. xi. 5; Isa. xlvii. 2; Job xxxi. 10; Eccles. xii. 3), and such as is still performed in the East by women, either singly or by two working together (Rosenmiiller, Morgenl. on Ex. xi. 5; and on the present passage, Robinson, Paldst. II. p. 405 f.). A similar _ practice prevailed in ancient Greece, Hermann, Privatalterth. § 24. 8. Hemsterhuis, ad Lucian. Tim. xxiii. On the un- classical aA7jOew (for aretv), see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 151.— é€vy T® VA] which is not to be confounded (see the critical notes) with pvrAwve (a mill-house), is the millstone (xviii. 6) of the ordinary household hand-mill. It may denote the lower (Deut. xxiv. 6) as well as the upper stone (Isa. xlvii. 2), which latter would be more precisely designated by the term émipvdov (Deut. as above). It is the upper that is intended in the present instance ; the women sit or kneel (Robinson as above), hold the handle of the upper millstone in their hands (hence év 7. w.: with the millstone), and turn it round upon the lower, which does not move.
Ver. 42. Moral inference from vv. 36—41. Comp. xxv. 13. —The following é7t «.7.Xr. (because ye, etc.) is an emphatic epexegesis of ody. This exhortation is likewise based on the assumption that the second advent is to take place in the lifetime of the disciples, who are called upon to wait for it
158 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
in an attitude of spiritual watchfulness (1 Cor. xvi. 13, 22). The idea of watchfulness, the opposite of security, coincides with that implied in the constant érowacia tod evaryryediou (Eph. vi. 15). Comp. ver. 44. — o/a] at what (an early or a late). Comp. ver. 43; Rev. iii. 3; 1 Pet. 1. 11; Eur. Iph. A. 815; Aesch. Ag. 278.
Ver. 43. But (that I may show you by means of a warning example how you may risk your salvation by allowing your- selves to be betrayed into a state of unpreparedness) know this, that if, etc. — 06 olxodecrorns] the particular one whom the thief has anticipated. —ei 78ev... éypnyopnoev av] if he had been aware at what watch in the night the thief comes, to break into his house, he would have watched. But as he does not know the hour which the thief chooses (it being different in different cases), he is found off his guard when the burglary is being committed. The rendering viguaret (Luther, Kuinoel, Bleek, after the Vulg.) is incorrect. For the illustration of the thief, comp. 1 Thess. v. 2, 4; 2 Pet; 111,10 » Rey any 8 eavicks.
Ver. 44. Ava todTo] in order that, as regards your salvation, your case may not be similar to the householder in question, who ought to have watched, although he did not know the gvraky of the thief.— «ai twets] as the householder would have been had he watched. — €rotmuor] spoken of their spiritual readiness for the second advent, which would take them by surprise (xxv. 10; Tit. 11.1). This preparedness they were to acquire for themselves (yiveo@e).
Ver. 45 f. Tés dpa, x.7.r.] who therefore, considering the necessity for preparedness thus indicated. The inference itself is presented in the form of an allegory, the SodAos representing the disciples whom the Lord has appointed to be the guides of His church, in which they are required to show themselves faithful (1 Cor. iv. 1 f.) and prudent, the former by a disposition habitually determining their whole behaviour and characterized by devotion to the will of the Lord, the latter by the intelligent choice of ways and means, by taking proper advantage of circumstances, etc. The tis is not equiva- lent to e tus (Castalio, Grotius), which it never can be; but
CHAP. XXIV. 47-51. 159
ver. 45 asks: who then is the faithful slave? and ver. 46 contains the answer ; the latter, however, being so framed that instead of simply saying, in accordance with the terms of the question, “i is he, whom his lord, on his return,” etc., prominence is given to the blessedness of the servant here in view. According to Bengel, Fritzsche, Fleck, de Wette, our question touchingly conveys the idea of seeking for: quis tandem, etc., “ hune scire pervelim.” To this, however, there is the logical objection, that the relative clause of ver. 45 would in that case have to be regarded as expressing the charac- teristic feature in the faithful and wise slave, whereas this feature is first mentioned in the relative clause of ver. 46, which clause therefore must contain the answer to the ques- tion, tis dpa éotly o motos 5. kK. $p.—oilKeteia, domestic servants, Lucian, Mere. cond. 15; Strabo, xiv. p. 668. Comp. oixetia, Symmachus, Job i. 3; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 505.— ovTws| thus, in accordance with duty assigned him in ver. 45; the principal emphasis being on this word, it is put at the end of the sentence.
Ver. 47. He will assign him a far higher position, set- ting him not merely over his domestics, but, etc. The cupPBacirevey in the Messiah’s kingdom is represented as being in accordance with that principle of gradation on which faithfulness and prudence are usually rewarded in the case of ordinary servants. Comp. xxv. 21 ff.; Luke xix. 17 ff.
Vv. 48-51. ’"Eav 6&6, «.7.r.] the emphasis is on 6 Kaxos as contrasting with 6 muctos K. ppovywos, ver. 45, therefore 0 amrLaTos K. appwv, — éxetvos] refers back to ov Katéctyaer, k.T.X., ver. 45, and represents the sum of its contents. Hence: but suppose the worthless servant who has been put in that position shall have said, etc. To assume that we have here a blending of two cases (the servant is either faith- ful or wicked), the second of which we are to regard as presupposed and pointed to by éxeivos (de Wette, Kaeuffer), is to burden the passage with unnecessary confusion. — apéntat] will have begun, does not refer to the circumstance that the lord surprises him in the midst of his misde- meanours (Fritzsche), because in that case what follows would
160 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
also have to be regarded as depending on dp£&ntai, but on the contrary it brings out the fearless wickedness of the man abandoning himself to tyrannical behaviour and sensual grati- fications. — éo@in dé «. 7.] Before, we were told what his conduct was toward his fellow-slaves over whom he had been set; now, on the other hand, we are shown how he behaved himself apart from his relation to the oixereta, — Siyotounoes avTov] he will cut him in two (Plat. Polit. p. 302 F; Polyb. vi. 28.2; x. 15..5; Ex. xxix. 17), a fommgen punishment according to which the criminal was sawn asunder, 2 Sam. xii. 31; 1 Chron. xx. 3; Heb. xi. 37. Comp. Sueton. Calig. xvii.: “ medios serra dissecuit.” Herod. vii. 37. See, in general, Wetstein and Rosenmiiller, Morgenl., on our pas- sage. There is no force in the usual objection that, in what follows, the slave is assumed to be still living ; for, in the words cal Td pépos avdtod, x.7.r., which are imme- diately added, we have a statement of the thing itself, which the similitude of that terrible punishment was intended to illustrate. All other explanations are incon- sistent with the text, such as: he will tear him with the scourge (Heumann, Paulus, Kuinoel, Schott, de Wette, Olshausen), or: hewill cut him off from his service (Beza, Grotius, Jansen, Maldonatus ; comp. Jerome, Euthymius Zigabenus), or: he will withdraw his spiritual gifts from him (Basil, Theophylact), or generally: he will punish him with the utmost severity (Chrysostom).— «al To wépos avtod, x.7.r.] and will assign him his proper place among the hypocrites, i.e. he will condemn him to have his fitting portion in common with the hypocrites, that thenceforth he may share their fate. Comp. on John xiii. 8, and the classical phrase é€v péper tuvos tiOec@ar. Rabbinical writers likewise regard Gehenna as the portion of hypocrites; see Schoettgen. But the expression tv vmoxpit. is made use of here because the xaxds doddos is a hypocrite in the inmost depths of his moral nature, inasmuch as he acts under the impression ypovifer wou 6 xvptos, though he hopes that when his lord arrives he will be able to assume the appearance of one who is still faithfully dis- charging his duty, just as he must have pretended to be
CHAP, XXIV. 161
good at the time when he received the trust which had been committed to him; but now he is suddenly unmasked. — éxet| namely, in hell, viii. 12, xiii. 42, 50, xxii. 13, xxv. 30.
REMARK 1.—It is exegetically certain that from ver. 29 on- ward Jesus announces His second advent, after having spoken, in what precedes that verse, of the destruction of Jerusalem, and of that, too, as an event that was to take place immediately before His second coming. All attempts to obtain, for the eidéws of ver. 29, a different terminus a quo (see on ver. 29), and therefore to find room enough before this «iééws for an interval, the limits of which cannot as yet be assigned, or to fix upon some different point in the discourse as that at which the subject of the second advent is introduced (Chrysostom: ver. 23; E. J. Meyer: ver. 35; Siisskind: ver. 36; Kuinoel: ver. 43; Lightfoot, Wetstein, Flatt: not till xxv. 31; Hoelemann: as early as xxiv. 19), are not the fruits of an objective inter- pretation of the text, but are based on the assumption that every trifling detail must find its fulfilment, and lead to inter- pretations in which the meaning is explained away and twisted in the most violent way possible. The attempts of Ebrard, Dorner, Cremer, Hoelemann, Gess, to show that the prediction of Jesus is in absolute harmony with the course of history, are refuted by the text itself, especially by ver. 29; above all is it impossible to explain vv. 15-28 of some event which is still in the womb of the future (in opposition to Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. p. 630 ff.) ; nor again, in ver. 34, can we narrow the scope of the ravra ratra, or extend that of the yeve aura, or make yévyra: dencte merely the dawning of the events in question.
REMARK 2.—It is true that the predictions, ver. 5 ff., regard- ing the events that were to precede the destruction of Jerusalem were not fulfilled in so special and ample a way as to harmonize with the synoptical representations of them ; still, that they were so in all essential respects, is proved by what we learn from his- tory respecting the impostors and magicians that appeared, the wars that raged far and near, the numerous cases of famine and earthquake that occurred, the persecutions of the Christians that took place, the moral degeneracy that prevailed, and the way in which the gospel had been proclaimed throughout the world, and all shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem (after the Jews had begun to rise in rebellion against the Roman authority in the time of Gessius Florus, who became pro- curator of Judea in 64). This prophecy, though in every
MATT. II. L
162 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
respect a genuine prediction, is not without its imaginative element, as may be seen from the poetical and pictorial form in which it is embodied. Compare on ver. 7, Remark. But it is just this mode of representation which shows that a vati- cinium post eventum (see on ver. 1) is not to be thought of. Comp. Holtzmann, Weizsicker, Pfleiderer.
REMARK 3.— With regard to the difficulty arising out of the fact that the second advent did not take place, as Jesus had predicted it would, immediately after the destruction of Jeru- salem,—and as an explanation of which the assumption of a blending of type and antitype (Luther) is arbitrary in itself, and only leads to confusion,—let the following be remarked : (1) Jesus has spoken of His advent in a threefold sense; for He described as His second coming (a) that outpouring of the Holy Spirit which was shortly to take place, and which was actually fulfilled; see on John xiv. 18 f., xvi. 16, 20 ff, also on Eph. ii. 17; (6) that historical manifestation of His majesty and power which would be seen, immediately after His ascension to the Father, in the triumph of His cause upon the earth, of which Matt. xxvi. 64 furnishes an undoubted example; (c) His coming, in the strict eschatological sense, to raise the dead, to hold the last judgment, and to set up His kingdom, which is also distinctly intimated in such passages of John as vi. 40, 54, v. 28, xiv. 3 (Weizel in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1836, p. 626 ff.), and in connection with which it is to be observed that in John the dvacrjow airiv yw rH eoxarn nutpe (vi. 39 f., 44, 54) does not imply any such nearness of the thing as is implied when the spiritual advent is in question ; but, on the contrary, presupposes generally that believers will have to undergo death, Again, in the parable contained in Matt. xxii. 1-14, the calling of the Gentiles is represented as coming after the destruction of Jerusalem; so that (comp. on xxi. 40 f.) in any case a longer interval is supposed to intervene between this latter event and the second coming than would seem to correspond with the eddéws Of xxiv. 29. (2) But though Jesus Himself predicted His second coming as an event close at hand, without understanding it, however, in the literal sense of the words (see above, under a and 6); though, in doing so, He availed Himself to some extent of such prophetical phraseology as had come to be the stereo- typed language for describing the future establishment of the literal kingdom of the Messiah (xxvi. 64), and in this way made use of the notions connected with this literal kingdom for the purpose of embodying his conceptions of the ideal advent, —it is nevertheless highly conceivable that, in the minds of the
CHAP. XXIV. 163
disciples, the sign of Christ’s speedy entrance into the world again came to be associated and ultimately identified with the expectation of a literal kingdom. This is all the more con- ceivable when we consider how difficult it was for them to realize anything so ideal as an invisible return, and how natural it was for them to apprehend literally the figurative language in which Jesus predicted this return, and how apt they were, in consequence, to take everything He said about His second coming, in the threefold sense above mentioned, as having reference to the one great object of eager expectation, viz. the glorious establishment of the Messiah’s kingdom. ‘The separating and sifting of the heterogeneous elements that were thus blended together in their imagination, Jesus appears to have left to the influence of future development, instead of undertaking this task Himself, by directly confuting and cor- recting the errors to which this confusion gave rise (Acts 1. 7, 8), although we must not overlook the fact that any utterances of Jesus in this direction would be apt to be lost sight of—all the more, that they would not be likely to prove generally acceptable. It may likewise be observed, as bearing upon this ,. matter, that the spiritual character of the Gospel of John—in which the idea of the advent, though not altogether absent, occupies a very secondary place as compared with the decided prominence given to that of the coming again in a spiritual sense—is a phenomenon which presupposes further teaching on the part of Jesus, differing materially from that recorded in the synoptic traditions. (3) After the idea of imminence had once got associated in the minds of the disciples with the expec- tation of the second advent and the establishment of the literal kingdom, the next step, now that the resurrection of Jesus had taken place, was to connect the hope of fulfilment with the pro- mised baptism with the spirit which was understood to be near at hand (Acts i. 6); and they further expected that the fulfilment would take place, and that they would be witnesses of it before they left Judea,—an idea which is most distinctly reflected in Matt: x. 23. Hx eventw the horizon of this hope came to be gradually enlarged, without its extending, however, beyond the lifetime of the existing generation. It was during this interval that, according to Jesus, the destruction of Jerusalem was to take place. But if He at the same time saw, and in prophetic symbolism announced, what He could not fail to be aware of, viz. the connection that there would be between this cata- strophe and the triumph of His ideal kingdom, then nothing was more natural than to expect that, with Jerusalem still standing
164 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
(differently in Luke xxi. 24), and the duration of the existing generation drawing to a close, the second advent would take place immediately after the destruction of the capital,—an ex- pectation which would be strengthened by the well-known descriptions furnished by the prophets of the triumphal entry of Jehovah and the disasters that were to precede it (Strauss, IL. p. 348), as well as by that form of the doctrine of the dolores Messiae to which the Rabbis had given currency (Langen, Judenth. in Paldst.p. 494 f.). The form of the expectation in- voluntarily modified the form of the promuse ; the ideal advent and establishment of the kingdom came to be identified with the eschatological, so that in men’s minds and in the traditions alike the former gradually disappeared, while the latter alone remained as the object of earnest longing and expectation, surrounded not merely with the gorgeous colouring of prophetic delinea- tion, but also placed in the same relation to the destruction of Jerusalem as that in which the ideal advent, announced in the language of prophetic imagery, had originally stood. Comp. Scherer in the Strassb. Beitr. II. 1851, p. 83 ff.; Holtzmann, p. 409 f.; Keim, III. p. 219 f—Certain expositors have referred, in this connection, to the sentiment of the modern poet, who says: “the world’s history is the world’s judgment,’ and have represented the destruction of Jerusalem as the first act in this judgment, which is supposed to be immediately followed (ver. 29) by a renovation of the world through the medium of Chris- tianity,—a renovation which is to go on until the last revela- tion from heaven takes place (Kern, Dorner, Olshausen). But this is only to commit the absurdity of importing into the passage a poetical judgment, such as is quite foreign to the real judgment of the New Testament. No less objectionable is Bengel’s idea, revived by Hengstenberg and Olshausen (comp. also Kern, p. 56; Lange, II. p. 1258; Schmid, Bibl. Theol. I. p- 354), about the perspective nature of the prophetic vision— an idea which could only have been vindicated from the reproach of imputing a false vision, z.c. an optical delusion, to Jesus if the latter had fazled to specify a definite time by means of a statement so very precise as that contained in the «dééwes of ver. 29, or had not added the solemn declaration of ver. 34. Dorner, Wittichen, rightly decide against this view. As a last shift, Olshausen has recourse to the idea that some condition or other is to be understood : “ All those things will happen, wnless men avert the anger of God by sincere repentance,’ —a reservation which, in a prediction of so extremely definite a character, would most certainly have been expressly mentioned, even
CHAP. XXIV. 165
although no doubt can be said to exist as to the conditional nature of the Old Testament prophecies (Bertheau in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1859, p. 335 ff). If, as Olshausen thinks, it was the wish of the Lord that His second advent should always be looked upon as a possible, nay, as a probable thing, —and if it was for this reason that He spoke as Matthew repre- sents Him to have done, then it would follow that He made use of false means for the purpose of attaining a moral end, —a thing even more inconceivable in His case than theoretical error, which latter Strauss does not hesitate to impute. Accord- ing to this view, to which Wittichen also adheres, it is to the ethical side of the ministry of Jesus that the chief importance is to be attached. But it is precisely this ethical side that, in the case of Him who was the very depository of the intuitive truth of God, would necessarily be compromised by such an error as is here in view,—an error affecting a prediction so intimately connected with His whole work, and of so much importance in its moral consequences. Comp. John viii. 46. REMARK 4.—The statement of ver. 29, to the effect that the second advent would take place immediately after the destruc- tion of Jerusalem, and that of ver. 34, to the effect that it would occur during the lifetime of the generation then living, go to decide the date of the composition of our Greek Matthew, which must accordingly have been written at some time pre- vious to the destruction of the capital. Baur, indeed (Zvan- gelien, p. 605 ; Neut. Theol. p. 109), supposes the judgment that was immediately to precede the second advent to be represented by the Jewish war in the time of Hadrian, and detects the date of the composition of our Gospel (namely, 130-134) in the dcr. rig épnuwo. of ver. 15, which he explains of the statue of Jupiter which Hadrian had erected in the temple area (Dio Cass. lxix. 12). Such a view should have been felt to be already precluded by vv. 1-3, where, even according to Baur himself, it is only the first devastation under Titus that can be meant, as well as by the parallel passages of the other Synoptists; to say nothing, moreover, of the fact that a literal destruction of Jerusalem in the time of Hadrian, which is mentioned for the first time by Jerome in his comment on Ezek. v. 1, is, according to the older testimony of Justin, Ap. i. 47, and of Eusebius, iv. 6, highly questionable (Holtzmann, p. 405). But as regards the yeved, in whose lifetime the destruction of the capital and the second advent were (ver. 34) to take place, Zeller (in the Theol. Jahrb. 1852, p. 299 f.), following Baur and Hilgenfeld, did. d. Ev. Justin’s, p. 367, has sought to make the duration of the period
166 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
in question extend over a century and more, therefore to some- where about the year 130 and even later, although the common notion of a yeveé was such that a century was understood to be equal to something like three of them (Herod. i. 142 ; Thue. 1. 14. 1; Wesseling, ad Diod. i. 24). The above, however, is an erroneous view, which its authors have been constrained to adopt simply to meet the exigencies of the case. For, with such passages before them as x. 23, xvi. 28, neither their critical nor their dogmatical preconceptions should have allowed them to doubt that anything else was meant than the ordinary life- time of the existing generation, the generation living at the time the discourse was being delivered (the yeved 4 xar& riv rapivra xpovov, Dem. 1390, 25), and that, too, only the portion of their lifetime that was still to run. Comp. Kahnis, Dogm. I. p. 494; Holtzmann, p. 408; Keim, p. 206; also Kostlin, p: 114 ff
CHAP, XXV. 167
CHAPTER XXV.
Ver. 1.1 éréyrqoiv] Lachm. and Tisch. 8: irévryow, following BC s, 1, Method. Had this been the original reading, it would also have forced its way into ver. 6, in which latter, however, it is found only in 157, Cyr.— Ver. 2. Lachm. and Tisch. 8: zévre 6: 2& adray joav wopai nal révre Opéviuor, following BC DL Zxk, min. and vss. (also Vulg. It.). Considering what a preponderance of evidence is here, and seeing how ready the transcribers would be to place the wise first in order, the reading of the Received text must be regarded as a subsequent transposition. — Ver. 3. For awirivesg there are found the readings (glosses): ai 6¢ in Z, Vulg. codd. of the It. Lachm., and ai yép in B C LX, Tisch. 8 ; likewise ai otv in D. — Ver. 4. In witnesses of importance airay is wanting after déyye/os, so that, with Lachm. and Tisch. 8, it is to be deleted as a common interpolation. — Ver.6. pyeraz] is wanting in such important witnesses (B C* D L Zx, 102, Copt. Sahid. Ar’. Cant. Method. Ephr. Cyr.), and has so much the look of a supplement, that, with Lachm. and Tisch. 8, it should be erased. But the airot after drdvr., which Tisch. 8 deletes, is wanting only in B &, 102, Meth. Cyr. — Ver. 7. For avréy it is better, with Lachm. and Tisch., to read iavrav, following ABLZ-xS. The reflective force of the pronoun had never been noticed, especially with ver. 4 preceding it, in which verse éaurdv instead of airdy after Awur. (so Tisch. 8) is supported only by the evidence of B s.— Ver. 9. For odx, as in the Received text, there is a preponderance of evidence in favour of reading od ju7, which Griesb. has recommended, and which Lachm., Tisch. 7, and also Scholz have adopted. The 4%, which Fritzsche and Tisch. 8 have discarded, was omitted from its force not being understood. — 62 after wopedecds (in Elz., Tisch. 7) would be just as apt to be inserted as a connective particle, as it would be ready to be omitted if sopedeote, x.7.A. was taken as the apodosis. Accordingly, the matter must be decided by a
1 The Codex Alex. (A) joins the list of critical authorities for the first time at ch. xxv. It begins at ver. 6 with the word éZépy:o#s,
168 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
preponderance of evidence, and that is in favour of deleting the 6.— Ver. 11. xa/ wi] Lachm. has simply ai, but against decisive evidence; and then think how readily zai might be dropped out between TAI and AI!— Ver. 13. After apay Elz. inserts é 4 6 vidc rod dvdpiaov epyeros, words which, in accordance with a decided preponderance of evidence, are to be regarded as a gloss (xxiv. 44).— Ver. 16. éaoinoev] A** BC D L 8** min.: éxépdycev. Recommended by Griesb. and Schulz, adopted by Lachm. Gloss derived from what follows. — The omission of the second réAavra by Lachm. is without adequate authority, nor had the transcribers any motive for inserting it ; comp. ver. 17.— Ver. 17. xa? airos] is wanting in important witnesses, and is erased by Lachm. and Tisch. 8; but, owing to the circumstance of asairws xai having preceded, it may very readily have been left out as superfluous and clumsy. — Ver. 18. Lachm. inserts réAavrov after ¢, only on the authority of A, It. ; but éxpupey (Lachm. Tisch.) for aséxpuey is supported by such a preponderance of evidence that it is unnecessary to regard it as taken from ver. 25.— Ver. 19. It is better, with Lachm. and Tisch., to adopt in both cases the order woAdy xpévov and Adyoy wer airy, in accordance with preponderating evidence.— Ver. 20. éx abrozs] is omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, both here and in ver. 22, following B D L 8, mm. and vss., while E G, min. read @ airot; but D, Vulg. It. Or. insert érexépdgouw before the é# airoz. Later variants are interpretations of the superfluous (and therefore sometimes omitted) é@ airots — Ver. 21. 6:, which Elz. inserts after 2g, has been deleted, in accordance with preponderating evidence, as being an inter- polation of the connective particle (so also Griesb., Scholz, Fritzsche, Lachm., Tisch.).— Ver. 22. AaSayv| is wanting in ABCLAR8, min. Syr."*; a few min. have «Angus. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. Correctly ; a supplement. — Ver. 27. For +d apyip. wov Tisch. 8 reads r& dpytpie mov, following B x* Syr.’ Correctly ; the plural would be apt to be replaced by the singular (comp. Luke), because it is a question of one talent, and because of the +d guév following. — Ver. 29. avd 6: zov] B DL 8, min.: 70d 62 Approved by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm., Tisch.; the ordinary reading is by way of helping the construction. — Ver. 30. 2aBaaere for éxBdarrere (in Elz.) is confirmed by decisive evidence. — Ver. 31. Elz. Scholz insert éyio before éyyeAo, in opposition to B D L m* 8, min. and many vss.and Fathers. An adjective borrowed from the ordinary ecclesiastical phraseology, and which, though it might readily enough be inserted, would scarcely be likely to be omitted.
CHAP. XXV. 1, 2 169
Comp. Zech. xiv. 5.— Ver. 40. rav a&édeApav wou] wanting only in B* and Fathers. Bracketed by Lachm. But comp. ver. 45. — Ver. 41. of xarnpay.] Tisch. 8 has deleted the article, in accordance with B L &, and that correctly ; it is taken from ver. 34.
Ver. 1 f. An additional exhortation to watchfulness in consequence of the day and hour of the advent being un- known, and embodied i the parable of the ten virgins, extend- ing to ver. 13, which parable is peculiar to Matthew (having been taken from the collection of our Lord’s sayings) ; for it is not the echoes of the present narrative, but something essen- tially different, that we meet with in Mark xiii. 35-37 and Luke xii. 35-38. — Tore] then, i.e. on the day on which the master will return, and inflict condign punishment upon his worthless slave. Not: after inflicting this punishment (Fritzsche), for the parable is intended to portray the coming of the Messiah ; but neither, again, is it to be taken as point- ing back to ver. 37 and ver. 14 of the previous chapter (Cremer), which would be an arbitrary interruption of the regular sequence of the discourse as indicated by tore. — opotwOyncetat| will be made like, actually so ; see on vii. 26. —7 Baoir. Tov ovpav.] the Messianic kingdom, in respect, that is, of the principle of admission and exclusion that will be followed when that kingdom comes to be set up. — €EAAOov Eis atavtT. ToD vusd.] Here the marriage is not represented as taking place in the house of the bridegroom, in accordance with the usual practice (Winer, Realw. I. p. 499; Keil, Arch. § 109), but in that of the bride (Judg. xiv. 10), from which the ten bridesmaids set out in the evening for the purpose of meeting the expected bridegroom. The reason why the parable transfers the scene of the marriage to the home of the bride, is to be found in the nature of the thing to be illus- trated, inasmuch as, at the time of His advent, Christ is to be understood as coming to the earth and as setting up His kingdom here below, and not in heaven. Comp. also the fol- lowing parable, ver. 14 ff. — é&9AGov] they went out, namely, from the bride’s house, which is self-evident from the context (ets amavtTnow Tod vuwdiov). Bornemann in the S‘ud. u. Krit.
170 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
1843, p. 112 f,—who, like the majority of expositors, sup- poses that what is here in view is the ordinary practice of conducting the bride from her own house to that of the bride- groom (but see on ver. 10),—and Ewald understand é&\Oov of the setting out of the maids from their own homes to go to the house of the bride, in order to start from the latter for the purpose of meeting the bridegroom as he comes to fetch home his bride. But the meaning of the terms forbids us to assume different starting - points for é&@ov and eis aravrnow (Acts xxviii. 15); this is further precluded by the supposition, in itself improbable, that the foolish virgins could not have obtained a fresh supply of oil at the house of the bride—Whether ten was the wswal number for brides- maids cannot be determined; but generally “numero denario (as the base of their numeral system) gavisa plurimum est gens Judaica et in sacris et in civilibus,” Lightfoot. Comp. Luke xix. 13.—qgpovepot] Comp. xxiv. 45, vii. 24, 26. This second virtue belonging to a right érowacia (see on xxiv. 55), viz. practical wisdom, is here intended to be made specially prominent. The idea of a contrast between chastity and its opposite (Cremer) is quite foreign to the context. Comp. copacvov ppovipov, Tob. vi. 12.
Ver. 3. Al’tives pwpai] sc. joav, quotquot erant stultae. — éxaBov]| they took, on setting out; not for the pluperfect (Erasmus, Vatablus).—pe? éavtody] with themselves, namely, besides the oil that was burning in their lamps.
Vv. 5, 6. The virgins, who, ver. 1, have left the house of the bride (in opposition to Cremer and Lange, who suppose €&\Oov to contain a prolepsis), and therefore are no longer there, have betaken themselves to some house on the way (€£épyeoGe, observe), in order there to await the passing by of the bridegroom. The coming of the latter was delayed on till midnight ; the maids who sat waiting began to get wearied, they nodded (aorist), and slept (imperfect). Comp. Isa. v. 27; Ps. xxi. 4. Vulgate: “ dormitaverunt omnes et dormierunt.” —iédod 6 vupdios (without épyerai, see critical remarks): behold the bridegroom ! The ery of the people who see him coming a little way off. They are made aware of his approach
CHAP, XXV. 7-13. ey)
from seeing the light of the torches or lamps carried by those who accompanied him in the procession.
Ver. 7f. "Exocpnoayr] they put in proper order, namely, by trimming the wick and such like, they dressed them. — éauvtov (see critical remarks) : each one her own; betokening
the individual preparation that was now going on. — oBépv- vuvtat] are just on the point of going out. Ver. 9. Mymote... duty] Since ov py is the correct read-
ing (see critical remarks), and seeing that the apxéon following cannot be regarded as dependent on pjote, but only on ov pu}, the punctuation should be as follows: pjrore: ob pi) apKéon, k.7.d.: never (shall we give you of our oil) : there will certainly not be enough for us and you! For the absolute negative pu, comp. xxvi. 5; Ex. x. 11; Matthiae, p. 1454 ; Kiihner, IT. 2, p. 1047. Correctly Bornemann, as above, p. 110; Bleek, Lange, Luthardt. Comp. Winer, p. 556 [E. T. 632]; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 107.
Ver. 10 f. While they were going away, came (not: advenerat, Fritzsche).— eioA#AOov pet avtod] namely, into the house of the bride, whither the bridegroom was on his way, and to which the maids were conducting him, with a view to the celebration of the marriage. The idea of the bridegroom's house being that referred to (see on ver. 1) is precluded by the correlation in which Oey o vupdios and efo7jrAOov per’ avtod stand to each other.— xvpte, xvpse] expressive of most urgent and anxious entreaty. Comp. vu. 21.
Ver. 12 f. Ovx« otda tpuas] because ye were not amongst the bridesmaids who welcomed me, ye are to me as entire strangers whom I do not know, and who, therefore, can have no part in the marriage! The knowledge of experience arising out of the intercourse of life (vil. 23; 1 Cor. viii. 3, xiii. 12; Gal. iv. 9) is the point intended to be thus <¢llustrated. Besides, Jesus might also have said (in opposition to Cremer) : ovK éyvov vm. (1 have not known you). — odv] because the foolish virgins were shut out, and because something corre- sponding to this would happen to you unless you watch.— According to ver. 13, the teaching of the parable is: that the moral preparedness that continues to maintain itself up till
12 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
the moment of the advent, the day and hour of which do not admit of being determined, will lead to participation in the Messianic kingdom, whereas those in whom this preparedness has not been muintained till the end will, when surprised by the sudden appearing of the Lord, experience in themselves the trre- parable consequences of their foolish neglect, and be shut out from His kingdom. This latter is a negative expression of con- demnation, not, as Olshausen supposes notwithstanding the éxdeiaOn 7 Ovpa, merely a way of designating such a salvation as is spoken of in 1 Cor. il. 15. More specific interpreta- tions—of the virgins, the lamps, the oil, the xcpavy7, etc.—are to be found not only in Origen, Hilary, Cyrill, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Augustine, Jerome (see Cremer, p. 156 ff), but also in Olshausen, von Meyer, Cremer, Lange, Auberlen. In those interpretations subjective opinion has, in most diverse and arbitrary fashion, exceeded the limits indicated by Jesus in ver. 13. Calvin well remarks: “Multum se torquent quidam in lucernis, in vasis, in oleo. Atqui sim- plex et genuina summa est, non sufficere alacre exigui temporis studium, nisi infatigabilis constantia simul accedat.” Neither- is the falling asleep of the virgins intended to be specially significant; for, as it happened in the case of the exemplary wise ones as well, it cannot represent any moral shortcoming. Ver. 14. The parable of the talents, extending to ver. 30, is introduced as an additional ground for the ypnyopetre, and that by viewing it as a question of work and responsi- bility. The parable in Luke xix. 12 ff, which, notwithstanding the differences in regard to individual features, resembles the present in its leading thoughts and illustrations, is to be regarded as a modification, arising in the course of the Gospel tradition, of the more original and simpler one before us (in opposition to Calvin, Olshausen, Neander, Holtzmann, Volkmar), and which Luke also represents as having been spoken 1 In connection with this parable, compare the following traditional sayings attributed to Christ: yivecbe rpareCiras Boxe (Hom. Clem. ii. 51, iii. 50, xviii. 20, ete. ; Clement of Alexandria, Origen ; Apostolical Constitutions) ; and ty ois dy tuas xaraeraBw, tv rovros xai xpvw (Justin, c. Zr. 47). Eusebius gives a
kindred parable from the Gospel of the Hebrews, and for which see Mai’s Nova patrum biblioth. TV. p. 155.
CHAP. XXV. 15. 173
at a different time ; comp. Weizsicker, p. 181. In this latter Gospel we have what was originally an independent parable (that of the rebellious subjects) blended with that of the talents (Strauss, I. p. 636 f.; Ewald, p. 419 f.; Bleek, Keim, Weiss, 1864, p.128 ff.). If it be maintained, as Kern, Lange, Cremer, are disposed to do, that in Matthew and Luke we have two distinct parables, spoken by Jesus on two different occasions, then there is no alternative but either to accept the wnnatural view that the simpler (Matthew’s) is the later form, or to suppose, wm opposition to what is recorded, that Jesus spoke the parable in Matthew, where, however, the connection is perfectly apposite, somewhat earlier than that in Luke (Schleiermacher, Neander). The one view as well as the other would be all the more questionable, that the interval during which Christ “intentionally employs the same para- bolic materials for the purpose of illustrating different sub- jects” (Auberlen) would thus comprise only a few days. Mark xii. 34 is extracted from what Matthew has taken from the collection of our Lord’s sayings.—@o7ep, «.7.r.] a case of anantapodosis similar to that of Mark xii. 34, and doubtless reproducing what already appeared in the collection of sayings from which the passage is taken. Comp. Rom. v. 12. Fritzsche on ver. 30. At the outset of the discourse it would be the intention to connect the whole parable with @o7ep, and, at the conclusion, to annex an apodosis by means of ovtws (probably oftw Kal 6 vids T. avOparrov Tounce, OY oUTwS EcTaL Kal % Tapovcia T. vIOd T. av@p.); but, considering the somewhat lengthened character of the parable, this had to be omitted. —daodnp.] on the point of going abroad (xxi. 33).—Tods idlouvs Sovrouvs] not strangers, such as exchangers, but his own servants, of whom, therefore, he had a right to expect that they would do their best to lay out for his advantage the money entrusted to them.
Ver. 15. Kata ty idiav dvvapsr] not arbitrarily, there- fore, but according to each one’s peculiar capabilities (“ pru- dentia et peritia,’ Beza) for doing business. The different charismatic gifts are bestowed in a manner corresponding to
L7t THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
the varying natural aptitudes of men. Those endowments are conferred according to an <individualizing principle. “Nemo urgetur ultra quam potest,” Bengel. — ev@éws] imme- diately, therefore without making any further arrangements for disposing of the money. Fritzsche, Rinck, and Tisch. 8 agree with B and several codd. of the It. in connecting edOéws with what follows. In that case it would be necessary either to insert the 6€ of ver. 16 before zropev0. (x**), or, with Tisch., to delete it altogether (8*). However, the evidence in favour of this view is quite inadequate. And it is precisely in connection with diedynunoev that evOéws is seen to have a peculiar significance, that, namely, of showing that absolute independence was allowed in regard to the way in which the money was to be employed by those to whom it had been entrusted, which is admirably in keeping with cata tHv idiav dvvapw.— TaddavTa] see on xviii. 25.
Ver. 16. Eipydoato] traded with them (év avrtois, in- strumental). Very common in classical writers (especially Demosthenes) with reference to commerce and matters of exchange, though usually with the simple dative of the instrument. — émrotnoev] he acquired, gained; as in German: er machte Geld (he made money). See instances in Wetstein and Kypke. So also the Latin /acere.
Ver. 18. "AwerXOav] he went away, removed to a distance. How entirely different in the case of the two first, ver. 16! They started upon a journey (aopev@.).— @puEev év Tt. yf] he digged, i.e. he made a hole in the earth. The reading yj, which Tisch. adopts, following B L & (C*: tv yfv), but from which the vss. deviate, would mean: he dug up the earth (Plat. Euthyd. p. 288 E).— 76 apyvp. tod Kvp. adr.) brings out emphatically the idea of responsibility and dereliction of duty.
Ver. 20 f. Em’ avrois] in addition to them; comp. on Col. iii, 14. The ide points the master to what had been gained ; the boldness of a good conscience. — ev] is generally taken absolutely: excellent! that is right! But this would have required edye (Plat. Gorg. p. 494 C; Lach. p. 181 A; Soph. Phil, 327), which reading (taken from Luke xix. 17,
CHAP. XXV. 24, 25. iia
where edrye is the original one) Fritzsche actually adopts, follow- ing A*, Vulg. It. Or. (once). Consequently we should connect ed with #5 motos: Thow wast admirably (probe) faithful in regard to a little. For eb when separated from the word to which it belongs, comp. Xen. Cyr. 1. 6.24; Mem. uu. 1. 33, and Kiihner thereon. "Ayaé and mioré represent the genus and species of an upright character. The opposite of this: ver. 26.—eis THY yapav Tov Kupiov cov] yapa is not to be understood of a feast (Clericus, Schoettgen, Wolf, Michelsen, Kuinoel, Schott), a sense in which the word is not used (LXX. Esth. ix. 17 is an inaccurate rendering), and which the context does not sanction any more than it countenances the idea of a festival in honour of the master’s return (in opposition to de Wette and Lange); but what is meant is that the slave is invited to participate in the happi- ness which his master is enjoying (Chrysostom admirably : Thy Tacav pakapLoTnTa Sia TOU prywatos TovTou Secxvds), thus exhibiting the thought of Rom. viii. 17. The use of the expression eloedGe is, in that case, to be regarded as due to the nature of the thing which the parable is meant to illus- trate (the Messianic kingdom).
Ver. 24 f. "Eyvwv ce, 67] well-known attraction. Winer, p. 581 [E. T. 781]. The aorist is not used here in the sense of the perfect, I know thee (Kuinoel), but: I knew thee, and hid.—What follows characterizes, in proverbial language (by a figure taken from farming), a man wnconscionably hard to please, and demanding more than is reasonable. — cuvvadyov b0ev ov dtecKopT.| gathering (corn into the adoOj«n) from a place where you have not threshed (with reference to the thresh- ing-floor of another man’s farm). SdacKxopmifew, to scatter so as to separate from each other (for the classical character of which expression see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 213), is expressly used in the present instance, because it forms a better contrast to ouvvayov than AuKpay (xxi. 44). If it were to be taken as equivalent to o7retpew, the result would be a tautological parallelism (in opposition to Erasmus, Beza, de Wette).—The entire excuse is a false pretext invented by moral indolence, —a, pretext which is reduced ad absurdum in vv. 26, 27. —
176 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
poRnGeis] namely, of losing the talent in business, or of not being able to satisfy thee. — 76 cov] self-righteous.
Ver. 26 f. The master chastises the worthless and indolent (Rom. xii. 11) servant with his own weapons. — 76ess, «.7.A.] question of astonishment, which is more spirited and more in keeping with the surprising nature of the excuse than to under- stand the words in a conceding sense (Kuinoel, de Wette), or as an independent hypothesis (Bernhardy, p. 385), in which case the ody of the apodosis would be deprived of its force (see Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 22 f.; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 718 f.).— Baretv... tots tpare€’.] flinging down upon the table of the money-changers, represents the indifference of the proceeding, — éy@] is emphatic as related to the preceding ie, éyets TO cov, ver. 25. To it likewise corresponds 70 €or, to which, however, ody tox is now added for sake of emphasis.
Vv. 28-30. Odv] because his conduct was so inexcusable. —Ver. 29. Justification of this mode of proceeding, by appeal- ing toa principle founded on universal experience, and which was to find its verification in the case before us. Comp. xiii. 12.— rod dé wx ExovTos] see critical remarks. The genitive, here placed first for sake of emphasis, might be regarded as dependent on apOyjceras (Fritzsche), in accordance, that is, with the construction of verbs of depriving with tuvos te (Kiihner, II. 1, p. 282). Inasmuch, however, as the a7’ avtov which follows would thus be superfluous and clumsy, it is better to take the genitive as absolute: as for him who has not (the poor man); comp. Thuc. v.18. 8, and Kriiger thereon. We thus obtain “duobus membris factis ex uno oppositio nervosior” (Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 272). For o éywv, the rich man, comp. Isocr. vii. 55 and Benseler thereon.— For ver. 30, comp. viii. 12, xiii. 42, 50, xxii. 13, xxiv. 51. The verse is not here out of place, but acquires a certain solemnity from its resemblance to the conclusion of ch. xxiv. (in opposition to Weiss, 1864, p.129).
Teaching of the parable—By a faithful use, after my de- parture, of those varied endowments which I have bestowed on each of you according to his special capacity, you are to do your utmost to promote my cause. For when I return and reckon
CHAP. XXV. 31-33. U7 eg
with you (ver. 19), then those who have exerted themselves in a dutiful manner will receive a distinguished reward in the kingdom of the Messiah; but those who have allowed their cifts, however small, to lie unused, will be deprived of that which has been entrusted to them, and be cast into Gehenna. For more minute and specific interpretations, all of them of a more or less arbitrary character, see Origen, Chrysostom, Theophylact. The reference to all Christian endowments gene- vally (1 Cor. xii.), is to be regarded rather as an application of the parable in a more comprehensive sense.
Ver. 31 ff. It is unnecessary to suppose that this utterance about the judgment—an utterance taken, like the preceding, from the collection of our Lord’s sayings (Aeysa)—should be immediately connected with xxiv. 30 f. (Fritzsche, de Wette) gx with xxiv. 51 (Ewald). The coming of the Messiah and His judicial dealing with His servants had been portrayed immediately before, and now the prophetic glance extends and takes in the judgment of all nations ——a judgment which is to be presided over by the Lord when He returns in His glory. This is the grand closing scene in which the eschatological predictions are all to be realized, and depicted too with a simplicity and beauty so original that there is but the less reason for imagining that this discourse about the judgment is the product of the apostolic period (Hilgen- feld, Volkmar, Scholten, Wittichen, Keim).— It is usual to understand those who are being judged as representing men generally, Christians and non-Christians alike (see, among modern expositors, Kuinoel, Fritzsche, de Wette, Lange, Weizel, as above, p. 603; Kaeuffer, de Swijs aiwy. not. p. 44; Hofmann, Schriftbew. p. 645), Bleek arbitrarily assuming that the evangelists have eatended the application of what originally referred only to Christians. On the other hand, Keil (Gn the Opusc., ed. Goldh. p. 136 ff, and Anal. 1813, III. 177 ff.) and Olshausen, as well as Baumgarten-Crusius, Georgii in Zeller’s Jahrb. 1845, p. 18 f.; Hilgenfeld, Weiz- sicker, Volkmar, Keim, Wittichen, Auberlen, Cremer, under- stand all who are not Christians to be referred to, some of them, however, expressly excluding the Jews. But non-
MATT. II. M
178 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
Christians could not have been intended, because it would be improper to say that the Messianic kingdom has been prepared for such, to say nothing of the aro cataBodjs Kéopou, ver. 34, in which the idea of the éxXexroi is exclusively involved ; further, because it would be no less improper to suppose, without more ado, that non-Christians are intended by the of dixatot of ver. 37, which latter we are not at liberty to understand in a generalized sense, but only as equivalent to the elect; again, because those things which Jesus represents (vv. 35, 36, 60) as manifestations of love toward Himself cannot possibly be conceived of as done by those who, never- theless, continued to remain outside the Christian community ; finally, because both sides of the assemblage use such language (vv. 37 ff., 44) as compels us to acknowledge their belief in the Judge before whom they now stand. Their language is the expression of a consciousness of their faith in the Messiah, towards whom, however, they have had no oppor- tunity of displaying their love. If the Messianic felicity were here adjudged to pure heathens according to the way in which they may have acted toward Christians (Hilgenfeld), this would be to suppose.a “ remarkable toleration” (Keim) altogether at variance with the whole tenor of the New Testament, and such as even Rey. xxi. 24 (see Diisterdieck on that passage) does not countenance,—a humanity which does not need faith, because it compensates for the want of it by its love (Volkmar, p. 546). If, after all this, we cannot suppose that a judement of non-Christians is here meant, we may even go still further, and say that non-Christians are not included at all, and so we must also reject the view usually adopted, since Chrysostom and Augustine, that what is here exhibited is a judgment of all men, believers and unbelievers alike. For, so far from the mention of the divine é«doy7, ver. 34, or the idea of the d/cavor, ver. 37, or what Jesus says at ver. 35, or the answer of those assembled before the Judge, vv. 37 and 44, or the entire omission generally of any distinction between belief and unbelief, harmonizing with the notion of a mixed body consisting of Christians and non-Christians, they entirely exclude the latter. We should
CHAP, XXV. 31-33. 179
therefore return to the very old view (Lactantius, Jnstit. vii. 20; Jerome, Euthymius Zigabenus), which, though it had been neglected in consequence of the prevalent eschatology, was preserved by Grotius, the view, namely, that what Jesus is here depicting is the judgment of Christians: wept tov Xpic- tavav Sé wovev oO Noyos évtTadOa, Euthymius Zigabenus, who proves this, above all, from vv. 35, 36. All the points previously adduced as arguments against the other explana- tions combine to favour this view. It is confirmed by the whole fundamental idea on which the Judge’s sentence turns (the determining principle being the love manifested toward Jesus), by the figure of the shepherd and his sheep, and finally, and at the same time somewhat more definitely, by the fact that those who are being judged are called mavta ta €Ovn. For the latter words are not intended to limit the reference expressly to the Gentiles, but they are to be taken as assuming the realization of the wniversality of Christianity by the time of the advent when all the nations of the earth (€@vn, as expressing the idea of nation, does not exclude the Jews; comp. xxvill. 19, xxiv. 9, and see on John xi. 50) will have heard the gospel and (to a proportionable degree) re-
ceived Christ (xxiv. 14; Rom. xi. 25). Jesus, then, is here) aS
describing the universal judgment of those who have believed | in Him, in whom, as they will be gathered around His) throne, His prophetic glance beholds all the nations of the) world (xxviii. 19). Comp., for the judgment of Christians, 2 Cor. v. 10; Rom. xiv. 10. The judgment of unbelievers (1 Cor. xv. 23, vi. 2; comp. on xix. 28), who are not in question at present, forms a distinct scene in the universal assize; and hence in the preceding parable also the reference is to His servants, therefore to believers. Neither here nor in the passages from Paul do those different judgment scenes presuppose anything in the shape of chiliastic ideas. The Messianic judgment is one act consisting of two scenes, not two acts with a chiliastic interval coming in between. See, on the other hand, xiii. 37 ff. — wavtes of dyyerXou] “omnes angeli, omnes nationes ; quanta celebritas !” Bengel. — 7a mpo- Bata aro tov épidwr] sheep and goats (Ecclus. xlvil. 3;
180 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
Gen. xxxvili. 17) are here represented as having been pastured together (comp. Gen. xxx. 33 ff). The wicked are conceived of under the figure of the épudor, not on account of the wantonness and stench of the latter (Grotius), or in conse- quence of their stubbornness (Lange), but generally because those animals were considered to be comparatively worthless (Luke xv. 29); and hence, in ver. 33, we have the diminutive ta épidia for the purpose of expressing contempt. — For the significance attached to the right and left side (Eccles. x. 2), see Schoettgen and Wetstein on our passage. Hermann, Gottesd. Alterth. § xxxviii. 9 f. Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 614 C; Virg. Aen. vi. 542 f.
Ver. 34. ‘O Bacwrevs] because Christ is understood to have appeared év 77 Bacthela avtod, xvi. 28, which fact is here self-evident from ver. 31.—oi evXAoynuévoe TOD TaTpos prov] the blessed of my Father (for “in Christo electi sumus,” Bengel), now actually so (see on Eph. 1. 3) by being admitted into the Messianic kingdom that has been prepared for them. On the use of the participial substantive with a genitive, see Lobeck, ad Aj. 358; Winer, p. 178 [E. T. 236].— HToLmacmernv]| not merely destined, but: put im readiness ; comp. xx. 23; 1 Cor. ii. 9; John xiv. 2. Kat ov« etme: AdBeTe, GAAA* KANPOVvouHcaTE, WS OlKEla, WS TaATP@A, WS byeTepa, Os buiv dvwbev Sspecrouweva, Chrysostom. This «Anpo- vouia is the fulfilment of the promise of v. 5, KAnpovoynaovar. Thy ynv. Comp. xix. 29.—amo kata. x] xiii. 35, not equivalent to mpo x. «., when the election took place (Eph. i. 4 ; 4 Pet. i. 20). For the order of the words, comp. Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. iv. 2. 18.
Ver. 35 f. Yuvnyayeté pe] ye have taken me along with, introduced me, that is, into your family circle along with the members of your family. Zhis meaning, but not that of Fritzsche: “simul convivio adhibuistis,’ is involved in the idea of &évos. For cuvvayw, as used with reference to a single individual who is gathered in along with others, comp. Xen. Cyrop. v. 3. 11; LXX. Deut. xxii. 2; 2 Sam. xi. 27; Judg. xix. 18; Ecclus. xiii. 15. For instances of Rabbinical promises of paradise in return for hospitality, see Schoettgen
CHAP. XXV. 87—40. 181
an‘l Wetstein.—yupuves] “Qui male vestitum et pannosum vidlit, nwdwm se vidisse dicit,” Seneca, de benef. v. 3; Jas. il. 15{. Comp. on John xxi. 7; Acts xix. 16.
‘Ver. 37 ff Not mere modesty (not even, according to Ol/shausen, unconscious modesty), but an actual declining with humility, on the ground that they have never rendered the loving services in question to Christ Himself; for they do not venture to estimate the moral value of those services accord- ipg to the lofty principle of Christ’s unity with His people, xviii. 5, x. 40. The Lord Himself then explains what He ‘means, ver. 40. Hence it does not follow from this passage that these d/catoc “ have not as yet been consciously leading the New Testament life” (Auberlen, Cremer). Bengel well remarks: “ Fideles opera bona sua, impli mala ver. 44, non perinde aestimant ut judex.” — ore cé eldoper] three times, earnestly, honestly. — éd’ écov] in quantum, inasmuch as ; see on Rom. xi. 13.—— €7rotnoarte| ye have done it, namely, the things previously mentioned. — évi rovTwav Tay added Pav pov Tov eXaxloTtar] to a single one of these my brethren, and that of the most insignificant of them. Those.words, which are referred by Keil, Olshausen, Georgii, Hilgenfeld, Keim (see on ver. 31 f.), to Christians in general; by Cremer, to the elect; by Luthardt, to the Christian church ia dts distress ; by Auberlen, to their poor miserable fellow-men (comp. de Wette, Ullmann in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1847, p. 164 ff.),—do not admit of being also referred to the apostles (xxvii. 10 ; 1 Cor. iv. 13), to whom, as surrounding His judgment-throne, Christ is supposed to point; for the amount of love shown to the apostles cannot be taken as the universal standard of judgment; and though the apostles themselves, appearing here, as they do, in their relation to the rest of Christians, may well be called the brethren of Christ (xxvii. 10; John xx. 17); yet they would certainly not be described by Him as the least of such brethren. No; as during His earthly life Christ is always surrounded by the obscure and despised (the poor, the humble, publicans and sinners, and such like), who seek their salvation through Him; so He also represents Himself as still surrounded by such as these on the occasion of the
182 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
judgment (comp. Ewald, p. 420). In consequence of thieir longing after Him, and of their love for Him, and the eternal salvation to be found in Him (as #yamnKotes THY éripavetav avtod, 2 Tim. iv. 8), they here come crowding around the throne of His glory; and to these He now points. They are the rr@yoi, revOodvtes, mpacis, Sedvwypévor of the Sermon on the Mount, who are now on the point of receiving tlie promised bliss. 1
Ver. 41. Of catnpapévot] opposite of of evdoynuévels. This consigning to everlasting destruction is also a realityy, and the doing of God. But the words tod mwatpds pov are omitted this time, because the idea of qatjp accords only with the loving act of blessing. The divine xatapa is the effect of holy wrath and the consequence of human guilt. —To HTo“macpéevor] not this time ard cataBorjs Kdopov ; this the hearer knew as matter of course. ‘The Rabbins are not agreed as to whether Gehenna, any more than paradise and the heavenly temple, came into existence before or after the first day of creation. See the passages in Wetstein. From our passage nothing can be determined one way or another, especially as it is not the aorist participle that is made use of. Observe, however, that, in this instance, Jesus does not follow up #Topacp. with wiv, as in ver. 34, but with 76 SiaBor, «.7.r.; because the fall of the angels (Jude 6; 2 Pet. ii. 4), which Scripture everywhere pre- supposes in its doctrine of the devil and his kingdom (Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. p. 313 ff), took place previous to the introduction of sin among men (John vill. 44; 2 Cor. x1. 3), so that it was for the former in the first instance that the everlasting fire was prepared; comp. vill. 29. But as men became partakers in the guilt of demons, so now are they also condemned to share in their punishment. For ayyehou tod diaB., comp. 2 Cor. xii. 7; Rev. xii. 7.
Ver. 44. Self-justification, by repelling the accusation as unwarranted. — «alt avdtoi] they too; for their answer is in exact correspondence with that of the righteous. — more... kal ov dunkovna. cor] when saw we Thee hungry, etc., with- out ministering to Thee? What was the occasion on which,
CHAP. XXV. 46. 183
according to Thy accusation, we saw Thee hungry, and did not give Thee food? Such an occasion never occurred; as we have never seen Thee in such circumstances, so can we never have refused Thee our good services. In this self-justification it is assumed that 7f they had seen Him, they would have shown their love toward Him.
Ver. 46. Comp. Dan. xii. 2. The absolute idea of eternity, in regard to the punishment of hell (comp. ver. 41), is not to be got rid of either by a popular toning down of the force of aiwvos (Paulus), or by appealing (de Wette, Schleiermacher, Oetinger) to the figurative character of the term jive and the supposed incompatibility between the idea of eternity and such a thing as evil and its punishment, any more than by the theory that the whole representation is intended simply by way of warning (according to which view it is not meant thereby to throw light upon the eternal nature of things, but only to portray the xpiovs, ie. the cessation of the conflict between good and evil by the extinction of the latter) ; but is to be regarded as exegetically established in the present passage (comp. ili. 12, xviii. 8) by the opposed fw7v aiwnor, which denotes the everlasting Messianic life (Kaeuffer, as above, p. 21); comp. also Weizel in the Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 605 ff.; Schmid in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1870, p. 136 ff. —ot 6€ dikarot] “hoc ipso judicio declarati,’ Bengel. Comp. Rom. v. 19.
REMARK.—Because the judgment is a judgment of Christians (see on ver. 31), faith is presupposed though not formally mentioned. The truth is, the Judge regulates His decision according to the way in which faith has been evidenced by love (1 Cor. xii. 1 ff; John xiii. 35), without which as its necessary fruit faith does not save (Gal. v. 6). Comp. Apol. Conf. A, p.138. The manifestations of love, as forming the principle of the Christian’s life, accordingly constitute the zp%&; by which he is to be judged (xvi. 27 ; 2 Cor. v. 10). Comp. v.7. But, in so far as, according to this concrete view of the judgment, Jesus bases His sentence upon the principle that love shown to or withheld from the least of His brethren is the same as love shown to or withheld from Himself, He does so in harmony with the view contained in xvii. 5, x. 40. Comp. John xiii. 20,
184 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
CHa Par Ry, XX VI,
Ver. 3. After dpysepete Elz. Scholz have zai of ypawmareie, which, in accordance with A B DL 8, min. vss. Or. Aug., has been deleted as an interpolation from Mark xiv. 1, Luke xxii. 2.— Ver. 4. The order dérw xparjowo: (reversed in Elz.) is supported by decisive evidence. — Ver. 7. Bapuriwov] Lachm. and Tisch. 8: woAvriwov, which, though in accordance with A D LM IX, min., is, nevertheless, taken from John xii. 3. Comp. Mark xiv. 3. From this latter passage is derived the order éyous« ard. wipov (Lachm. and Tisch. 8, following B D L 8, min.).— rjv xeaarqv| Lachm. and Tisch. 8: r%s xeparjs, following B D M 8, min. Chrys. But the genitive would be suggested to the transcribers by a comparison with ver. 12, quite as readily as by Mark xiv. 3.— Ver. 8. «irot] is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted, both here and in ver. 45, as being a common interpo- lation ; similarly with Tisch. after Sracg., ver. 65.—Ver. 9. rotro] Elz. inserts 7d wipov, against decisive evidence; borrowed from Mark xiv. 5; John xu. 5.—The article before rrwyois, which may as readily have been omitted, in accordance with John xii. 5, as inserted, in accordance with Mark xiv. 3, 1s, with Elz. and Tisch. 8, to be left out. There is a good deal of evidence on both sides ; but the insertion might easily take place out of regard to ver. 11.— Ver. 11. ravrors yap rods rrwyovs] yee et VE a, ain. Chrys. : TOUS TTWYOUS yap TaVTOTE. Recom- mended by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche. As this reading may have been taken from John xii. 8 as readily as that of the Received text from Mark xiv. 7, the matter must be deter- mined simply by the balance of evidence, and this is in favour of the Received text. — Ver. 17. éro:udéowmwev] The evi- dence of D K U, min. Or. in favour of the reading éromcéoouer (Fritzsche) is inadequate.—Ver. 20. Lachm. and Tisch. read pabnrav after dwoexx, on the authority of A L M AILS, min. vss. Chrys. Correctly ; the omission is due to Mark xiv. 17. — For xaoros airdiv, ver. 22, it is better, with Lachm. and Tisch., to adopt «is ¢xaorog, In accordance with weighty evidence. Had cig been derived from Mark xiv. 19, we should have had «iz za?
CHAP. XXVI. 185
slo; aire, again, was an interpolation of extremely common occurrence. — Ver. 26. ebrAoyvjous] Scholz: sdiyapiorjqous, follow- ing AEF HKMSUVIrATI, min. vss. Fathers. Considering, however, the weight of evidence that still remains in favour of svaoy. (B C D LZ 8), and having regard to the preponderating influence of Luke and Paul (1 Cor. xi. 23 ff) rather than Mark, upon the ecclesiastical phraseology of the Lord’s Supper, it is better to retain 2dA0v.—For this reason we should also retain rév before éprov, though deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, and not found in BC DGLZ-X, min. Chrys. Theophyl.—For 26/dov Lachm. reads dovs, omitting at the same time za/ before <izz, in accordance with B D L Z 8** min. Cant. Copt. Due to a desire to make the construction uniform with the preceding. Had 6éod¢ been changed to a tense in accordance with Mark and Luke, we should have had Yéuxe.— Ver. 27. ri worgjpsov] The article, which is deleted by Tisch., and is wanting in BEFG LZ AX, min., is due to the ecclesiastical phraseology to which Luke and Paul have given currency. — Ver. 28. r4 ry¢] Lachm. and Tisch. have simply ris, in accordance with B D L Z x, 33. rd is an exegetical addition.—xaiv7¢ before 6a. is wanting in B LZR, 338, 102, Sahid. Cyr., and is a liturgical addition. Had it been originally written, this is just the place of all others where it would not have been omitted. — Ver. 31. d:ac- nopricdjoera:] ABCGH* I L M8, min. Or. (once): é:ao- nopriobjoovras. SO Lachm. and Tisch. The reading of the Received text is a grammatical correction. — Ver. 33. Instead of <i za/ of the Received text, there is decisive evidence for the simple ei, xai Would be written in the margin from Mark xiv. 29, but would not be inserted in the text as in the case of Mark. — éyw] The evidence in favour of inserting 6¢ (which is adopted by Griesb., Matth., Fritzsche) is inadequate. An addition for the purpose of giving prominence to the contrast.— Ver. 35. After 6ojw¢ important witnesses read 62, which has been adopted by Griesb., Matth., Scholz, Fritzsche. Taken from Mark xiv. 31.— Ver. 36. we 04] Lachm.: és ob dv; DK L a, min. : we é. The reading of Lachm., though resting only on the authority of A, is nevertheless to be regarded as the original one. o% é would be omitted in conformity with Mark xiv. 32 (C M* 8, min. have simply #ws), and then there would come a restoration in some instances of o4 only, and, in others, merely of é&y.— Ver. 38. We should not follow Griesb., Matth., Fritzsche, Scholz, Tisch. 7, in adopting 6 “Iyoots after airois; a reading which, though attested by important witnesses, is nevertheless contradicted by a preponderance of evidence (A B C* D J L
186 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
s, and the majority of vss.), while, moreover, it would be in- serted more readily and more frequently (in this instance prob- ably in conformity with Mark xiv. 34) than it would be omitted. — Ver. 39. rpocaduv] soB M uy, It. Vulg. Hilar. Elz. Lachm. and Tisch. 7. The preponderance of evidence is in favour of xposerduy, which, indeed, has been adopted by Matth., Scholz, and Tisch. 8; but it is evidently a mechanical error on the part of the transcriber ; srpozpyecdas occurs nowhere else in Matth.— The wou after rarep (deleted by Tisch. 8) is suspected of being an addition from ver. 42; however, the evidence in favour of deleting it (A BC D 8, etc.) is too weighty to admit of its being retained. — Ver. 42. + worgpsov] is wanting in A BCI L NS, min. vss. and Fathers; in D it comes before rotro (as in ver. 39); in 157, Arm., it comes before dé», in which position it also occurs in A, though with a mark of erasure. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Fritzsche, Lachm., and Tisch. A sup- plement from ver. 39. Further, the da éuct following, though the evidence against it is not quite so strong (B D LX, how- ever), and though it is defended by Fritzsche, and only bracketed by Lachm., is to be condemned (with Griesb., Rinck, Tisch.) as an interpolation from ver. 39.— Ver. 43. eipioxes adrods wéaiv| Lachm. and Tisch., with the approval of Griesb. also: sdaw evpey avrovs, following BC DIL ®, min. and the majority of vss.; while other important witnesses (such as A K A) also read. <«ipev, but adhere to the order in the Received text. Accordingly, eipev is decidedly to be adopted, while cipioxes is to be regarded as derived from ver. 40; as for sé, however, there is so much diversity among the authorities with refer- ence to its connection, and consequently with reference to its position, that only the preponderance of evidence must decide, and that is favourable to Lachm. and Tisch. — In ver. 44, again, «daw is variously placed ;. but, with Lachm. and Tisch., it should be put before areAdciv, in accordance with BC DILXS, min. vss. é spirov, which Lachm. brackets, is, with Tisch., to be maintained on the strength of preponderating evidence. Had it been inserted in conformity with ver. 42, it would have been placed after +é2.7; had it been from Mark xiv. 41, again, we should have had +d spiro. The omission may have been readily occasioned by a fear lest it should be supposed that Jesus prayed iv airiv réyov but once before.—After eimey Tisch. 8 repeats the 7éa (BL &, min. Copt.), which may easily have been omitted as superfluous. However, the preponder- ance of evidence (especially that of the vss. also) is against adopting it, so that there is reason to regard it rather as a
CHAP. XXVI. 187
mechanical repetition.— Ver. 50. The reading ¢g ¢ (instead of 2p w, aS in Elz.) is attested by decisive evidence. — Ver. 52. arorotvra:] F H K MS U Vr 4, min. vss. and Fathers: amobavotvras. Approved by Griesb. in opposition to the principal mss.; a gloss, for which Sahid. must have read <zootvras.— Ver. 53. The placing of épr after tapacr. wor, by Tisch. 8, is in opposition to a preponderance of evidence, and is of the nature of an emen- dation ; #é< is likewise inserted by some. — rA¢/oug] Lachm. and Tisch.: rAciw, after B D &*. Correctly ; the reading of the Received text is an unskilled emendation. For the same reason the following 7, which Lachm. brackets, should, with Tisch., be deleted, in accordance with B D Ls; though we should not follow Tisch. 8 in reading Aeywvw (A C KL an* s*) for revedvas, because the genitive is connected with the reading wrsious. — Ver. 55. wpig tues] is, with Tisch., following B L x, 33, 102, Copt. Sahid. Cyr. Chrys., to be deleted as an interpola- tion from Mark xiv. 49.— Ver. 58. avs waxp6dev| dao should be deleted, with Tisch., in accordance with important evidence. Taken from Mark xiv. 54.— Ver. 59. xa? of wpeoBubrepor] is wanting, no doubt, in B D Ls, min. vss. and Fathers, but it was omitted in conformity with Mark xiv.55. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. A desire to conform with Mark also serves to explain the fact that, in a few of the wit- nesses, érov is placed before ri cuvédp. — davaruowory| davardcovory, as read by Lachm. and Tisch., is supported by decisive evidence, and had been altered to the more usual subjunctive. «irév should likewise be put before davar. (BC DLN x8, min. Vulg. It.). — Ver. 60. The reading of the Received text, which is attested by the important evidence of A C** EF G, etc., and likewise main- tained by Fritzsche and Scholz, is: xa/ ody eipov. Kal rorrdv eu- Somopripay rpocenbovray ovy eupov. Griesb.: xai ov eipov rorrGv ~pevd. xpoozdd. Lachm. and Tisch. : xa/ ody eipov word. xpooerd. evd., after which Lachm. gives the second ody <ipov in brackets. This second ovx evpov is Wanting in A C* L N* 8, min. vss. and Fathers (Or. twice) ; while in A B L ©! 8, min. Syr. Or. Cyr. the order of the words is: roAA. xpooead. evd. Further, Syr. Arr. Pers.’ Syr2* Slav., though omitting the second oy cipov, have retained xas before woAAav; and this reading (accordingly: zai ody cipov nai Torray Tpocerdovray ~Levdouapripay) I agree with Rinck, Lucubr. crit. p. 282 f., regarding as the original one. This za/, the force of which was missed from its not being followed by a verb, occasioned considerable embarrassment to the transcribers, who disposed of the difficulty by adding a second ody <ipor, while others got rid of the troublesome xa/by simply omitting it—déo
18a. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
~Levdoucpr.] Tisch., following BL 8, min. vss. (also Syr.) and Or. (once), reads merely 6u0. Correctly; ~pevdoucpr. is an addition, which might seem all the more necessary since a saying of Christ's actually underlay the words. — Ver. 65. ér:] is wanting before ¢8aacgyu. in such important witnesses, that Lachm. and Tisch. are justified in deleting it as a common interpolation. — Ver. 70. For avray révrwy read, with Tisch. 8, following preponderating evidence, merely wévrwy, to which airay was added for sake of greater precision. — Ver. 71. For ro% éxe7% which Tisch. 8 has restored, Scholz and Tisch. 7 read airo?s éxez Both readings are strongly attested; but the latter is to be preferred, because the current roi éxc? would involuntarily suggest itself and supersede the less definite expression adro?s exei— Ver. 74. carabewariZery] Elz., Fritzsche : xaravabewariZew, against decisive evidence. A cor- rection.
Ver. 1 f.' For this form of transition, by which a marked pause is indicated at the close of a somewhat lengthened discourse, comp. vii. 28, xi. 1, xiii. 53, xix. 1.— mavtas] re- ferring back, without any particular object in view (such as to call attention to the fact that our Lord’s functions as a teacher were now ended, Wichelhaus and the earlier expositors), to the preceding discourse, consisting, as it does, of several sections (xxiv. 4—-xxv. 46), not a parallel to LXX. Deut. xxxi. 1 (Delitzsch). — peta dv0 jpépas | after the lapse of two days, ie. the day after neat the Passover commenced. It would therefore be Tuesday, if, as the Synoptists inform us (differ- ently in John, see on John xviii. 28), the feast began on Thursday evening. — To waaya]| NDB, Aram. NNDB, the pass- ing over (Ex. xii. 13), a Mosaic feast, in commemoration of the sparing of the first-born in Egypt, began after sunset on the 14th of Nisan, and lasted till the 21st. On its original meaning as a feast in connection with the consecration of the first-fruits of the spring harvest, see Ewald, Alterth. p. 466 f. ; Dillmann in Schenkel’s Lex. IV. p. 387 f.— Kal o vids, «.7.r.] a definite prediction of what was to happen to Him at the Pass-
1See on ch. xxvi. f. (Mark xiv., Luke xxii.); Wichelhaus, ausfiihrl. Kom-
mentar iiber die Gesch. des Leidens J. Chr., Halle 1855 ; Steinmeyer, d. Leidens- gesch. d. Herrn in Bezug auf d. neueste Krit., Berl. 1868.
CHAP. XXYI. 3=5. 189
over, but represented as something already known to the dis- ciples (from xx. 19), and which, though forming part of the contents of oiéate, is at the same time introduced by a broken construction (not as dependent on 67«), in accordance with the depth of His emotion.
Vv. 3-5. Tore] ie. at the time that Jesus was saying this to His disciples. Fatal coincidence.— els tv advrAny Tod apx.]| It is usual to understand the palace of the high priest, in direct opposition to the use of avAn' in the New Testament (not excluding Luke xi. 21). We should rather interpret it of the court enclosed by the various buildings belonging to the house (see Winer, Realw. under the word Hduser ; Friedlieb, Archéol. d. Leidensgesch. p. 7 f.), such courts having been regu- larly used as meeting-places. Comp. Vulg. (aériwn), Erasmus, Castalio, Calvin, Maldonatus. This meeting is not to be regarded as one of. the public sittings of the Sanhedrim (on the probable official meeting-place of this body at that time, the so-called taverns, see Wieseler, Beitr. p. 209 ff.), but as a private conference of its members. — Tod Aeyou. Kaiaga] who bore the name of Caiaphas. Comp. 11. 23. This was a surname ; the original name was Joseph (Joseph. Antt. xviii. 2. 2); but the surname having become his ordinary and official designa- tion, it was used for the name itself; hence Aeyouévou, not ém- KaXoupévov or emideyouévov. Caiaphas (either =5*3, depressio, or 85°2, rock) obtained his appointment through the procurator Valerius Gratus, and, after enjoying his dignity for seventeen years, was deposed by Vitellius, Joseph. Antt. xvii. 2. 2, 4. 3.—cvveBovrevcarto, iva] they consulted together, in order that they, John xi. 53.— py év tH €optH] namely: let us arrest him, and put him to death! For the absolute pm, comp. on Gal. v. 13. The reference is to the entire period over which the feast extended, not to the place where it was celebrated (Wieseler, Chronol. Synops. p. 367). It is true
Of course 2va% is used as equivalent to Bacidrcoy (see, for example, the pas- sages from Polyb. in Schweighauser’s Lex. p. 101), not only by later Greek writers (Athen. Deipn. iv. p. 189 D; Herodian, i. 13. 16, frequently in the
Apodrs but also by Homer (see Duncan, Lez., ed. Rost, p. 181), Pindar, and the
‘mond hy etc. Never, however, is it so used in the New Testament. Even
Teltyg | teri, 15, adan cot apicisp. is undoubtedly the court of the house,
MAI
190 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
no scruple was felt, especially in urgent and important cases (comp. on Acts xu. 3 f.), about having executions (Sanhedr. f. 89. 1) during the feast days (although most probably never on the first of them, on which, according to Mischna Jom tob v. 2,the trial took place; comp. on John xvii. 28, and see, above all, Bleek’s Beitr. p. 136 ff), and that with a view to making the example more deterrent (Deut. xvii. 13). But the members of the Sanhedrim dreaded an uprismg among the numerous sympathizers with Jesus both within and outside the capital (a very natural apprehension, considering that this was just the season when so many strangers, and especially Galilaeans, were assembled in the city; comp. Joseph. Antt. xvi. 9. 3; Sell. i. 4. 3), though, by and by, they overcame this fear, and gladly availed themselves of the opportunity . which Judas afforded them (ver. 14). “Sic consilium divinum successit,” Bengel. To regard pa év 7H éopTH as meaning: previous to the feast! as though, during the feast itself, the execution were to be considered as already a thing of the past (Neander, p. 678; Hausrath), would be quite in keeping with John’s statement as to the day on which the crucifixion took place (comp. on Mark xiv. 2); but it would not suit the con- nection as found in Matthew and Mark, because, according to them, the consultation among the members of the Sanhedrim had taken place so very shortly before the Passover (ver. 2) that the greater part of the multitude, whose rising was appre- hended, must have been present by that time.
Ver. 6 ff. This anointing, which is also recorded in Mark xiv. 3 ff. (followed by Matthew), is not the same as that of Luke vii. 36 ff, but is so essentially different from it, not only as to the time, place, circumstances, and person, but as to the whole historical and ethical connection and import, that even the peculiar character of the incident is not sufficient to war- rant the assumption that each case is but another version of one and the same story (in opposition to Chrysostom, Grotius, Schleiermacher, Schr. d. Luk. p. 110 ff; Strauss, Weisse, Hug, Ewald, Bleek, Baur, Hilgenfeld,Schenkel Oger. This, howaven, is not a different incident (in opposition to Origen, Chy; eee Jerome, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Osiander. }
CHAP, XXVI. 6. 191
Wolf) from that recorded in John xii. 1 ff... The deviations in John’s account of the affair—to the effect that the anointing took place not two, but six days before the feast ; that Martha was the entertainer, no mention being made of Simon; that it was not the head, but the feet of Jesus that were anointed ; and that the carping about extravagance is specially ascribed to Judas—are not to be disposed of by arbitrarily assuming that the accounts of the different evangelists were intended to supplement each other (Ebrard, Wichelhaus, Lange), but are to be taken as justifying the inference that in John alone (not in Matthew and Mark) we have the narrative of an eye- witness. The incident, as given in Matthew and Mark, appears to be an episode taken from a tradition which had lost its freshness and purity, and inserted without exact his- torical connection, although, on the whole, in its right order, if with less regard to precision as tothe time of its occurrence. Hence the loose place it.occupies in the pragmatism of the passage, from which one might imagine it removed altogether, without the connection being injured in the slightest degree. The tradition on which the narrative of Matthew and Mark is based had evidently suffered in its purity from getting mixed up with certain disturbing elements from the first version of the story of the anointing in Luke vii., among which elements we may include the statement that the name of the entertainer was Simon.
Ver. 6. Tevoy. é€v Bynbav.] we. having come to Bethany, % Lim. i. 17; John vi. 25, and frequently in classical writers ; Cép, «0 Phil. ii. 7. To remove this visit back to a point of soinj previous to that indicated at ver. 2, with the effect of simp, /destroying the sequence (Ebrard, Lange), is to do such
1 On the controversy in which Faber Stapul. has been involved in consequence of his theory that Jesus had been anointed by three different Marys, see Graf in Niedner’s Z-tschr. f. histor. Theol. 1852, I. p. 54 ff. This distinguishing of three Marys (which was also adopted by so early an expositor as Euthymius Ziga- ben } and by zs, to whom Theophylact refers) is, in fact, rather too much at vari. ‘ce with the tradition that the sister of Lazarus is identical with the woman whd ehs a sinner, Luke vii., and was no other than Mary Magdalene. Yet in
nonilij the three accounts of anointing is this latter to be understood as the Mary Tefeyg 1 te. tal
192 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
harmonistic violence to the order observed in Matthew and Mark as the tote of ver. 14 should have been sufficient to avert. — 3 iwvos Tod Netpod] In a way no less unwarrant- able has the person here referred to (a person who had formerly been a leper, and who, after his healing, effected probably by Jesus, had continued to be known by this epithet) been asso- ciated with the family of Bethany ; he has been supposed to have been the deceased father of this family (Theophylact, Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 481), or some other relative or friend (Grotius, Kuinoel, Ebrard, Lange, Bleek), or the owner of the house. Of the person who, according to Matthew and Mark, provided this entertainment, nothing further is known; whereas, accord- ing to John, the entertainment was given by the family of which Lazarus was a member; the latter is the correct view, the former is based upon the similar incident recorded in Luke vii.
Ver. 7. I'vvy] According to John, it was Mary. — ada- Bactpov] Among classical writers the neuter of this word does not occur except in the plural ; in the singular a\aBao- Tpos is masculine, as also in 2 Kings xxi. 13, and feminine. “ Unguenta optime servantur in alabastris,” Plin. V. H, iii. 3 ; Herod. iu1. 20; Theocr. Jd. xv. 114; Anth.. Pol. 1x, 153ne8 Jacobs, ad Anthol. XI. p. 92.—éqi t. x. avtod] A diver- gence from John’s account, not to be reconciled in the arbitrary manner in which Calvin and Ebrard have attempted, as though the oil had been so unsparingly poured on that it ran toa and was used for the feet as well (comp. Morison) Matthew narrates an anointing of the head ; John, of t that The practice of anointing the heads of guests by |, of showing them respect is well known (comp. Pla, , Rep. p- 398 A, and Stallbaum thereon). Seeing, however, that the anointing of the /eet was wnusual (in opposition to Ebrard), and betokened a special and extraordinary amount of respect (as is, in fact, apparent from Luke v... 46), our passage would have been all the less likely to “ omit, it (Lange), had it really formed part of the tradition. — te eth pévov]| while He was reclining at table, a circumstance qu bite ing the avzod.
CHAP. XXVI. 8-12. 193
Ver. 8. The feature peculiar to John, and having an essen- tial bearing upon the character of his narrative, to the effect that it was Judas who censured the proceeding, had come to be obliterated in the tradition represented by our present passage. Our narrative, then, is certainly not contradictory of that of John, but only less precise. Arbitrary attempts have been made to explain our passage by saying either that, in Matthew, the narrative is to be regarded as sylleptical (Jerome, Beza, Maldonatus), or that Judas simply gave utterance to an observation in which the others have innocently concurred (Augustine, Calvin, Grotius, Kuinoel, Paulus, Wichelhaus), or that several of them betrayed symptoms of murmuring (Lange). — at@neva avtn] this loss,in making such a use of an expensive oil. This word never occurs in the New Testament in a transitive sense (as in Polyb. vi. 59. 5).
Ver. 9. IJoXAX0d| put more precisely in Mark xiv. 5; John xii. 5. On the expensiveness of spikenard, a pound of which is alleged to have cost even upwards of 400 denarii, see Plin. W. H. xii. 26, xiii. 4. —xat d004var] the subject (the equivalent in money, had it been sold) may be inferred from the context (apa@jvat moddov). See Kiihner, II. 1, p. 30-f.
Ver. 10. I'vovs] Comp. xvi. 8. We may imagine what precedes to have been spoken among the disciples in a low murmuring tone.—«omouvs tapéxewv, to give trouble, to cause annoyance. See Kypke, Obss. I. p. 130. Comp. movoyv Tapéyew (Herod. i. 177), and such like. — épyov yap, «.7.r.] Justification of the disapproval implied in the foregoing question. xadov, when used with épyor, is, accord- ing to ordinary usage, to be taken in an ethical sense; thus (comp. v. 16): an excellent deed, one that is morally beautiful, and not a piece of waste, as ye are niggardly enough to suppose. The disciples had allowed their estimate of the action to be determined by the principle of mere w#ility, and not by that of moral propriety, especially of love to Christ.
Ver. 11 f. Justification of the «addy on the ground of the peculiar circumstances under which the anointing took place. Jesus was on the very threshold of death; they would always
MATT. IL. N
194 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
have opportunities of showing kindness to the poor, but by and by it would be no longer in their power to do a loving service to Him in person upon earth! Accordingly there is a moral propriety in making the special manifestation of love, which was possible only now, take precedence of that general one which was always possible.—ov mavtote éyete] a sorrowful /ztotes involving the idea: but I will soon be removed by death, to which idea the ydp of ver. 12 refers. — Badotica] inasmuch as she has poured ... she has done vz (this outpouring) with the view (as though I were already a corpse) of embalming me (Gen. 1. 2). The aorist participle represents the act as finished contemporaneously with émoincay. Comp. xxvii. 4; Eph. i. 9, al.; Hermann, ad Viger. p. 774; Miiller in the Luther. Zeitschr, 1872, p. 631 ff. For the rest, it may be said that, under the influence of grateful emotion, Jesus ascribes a special motive to the woman, though she herself simply meant to testify her love and reverence. Such feelings, intensified as they were by the thought of the approaching death of the beloved Master, and struggling to express themselves in this particular form, could not but receive the highest consecration.
Ver. 13. To evayy. todto] comp. on xxiv. 14. In this instance, however, the emphasis is not on tovro (as in xxiv. 14), but on 76 evayyédov: this message of redemption, where tovro points to the subject of the message just hinted at, vv. 11, 12, viz. the death of Jesus; and although the allusion may be but slight, still it is an allusion in living connection with the thoughts of death that filled His soul, and one that naturally springs from the sorrowful emotion of His heart. The thing to which tovvo refers is, when put in explicit terms, identical with to evayy. tis yapitos 7. Oeod (Acts xx. 24), To evayy. THs owrTnpias by. (Eph. i. 13), To evayy. THs eipyvns (Eph. vi. 15), 6 Adyos tod cravpod (1 Cor. i. 18). — é€vy 6AM TO KOopuw| is not to be connected with rar. (Fritzsche, Kuinoel), but with «xnpvy07. Comp. Mark xiv. 9 ; é7rov denotes the locality in its special, év 6k@ TO Koop in its most comprehensive sense. — eis wvnuoc. avt.] belongs to rarnO. She has actwally been remembered, and her memory is blessed.
CHAP. XXVI. 14-16. 195
Vv. 14-16. On "Iovdas "Ickap., see on x. 4.—TdrTe] after this repast, but not because he had been so much offended, nay, embittered (Wichelhaus, Schenkel, following the older expositors), by the reply of Jesus, ver. 10 ff. (comp. John xii. 7 f.),—a view scarcely in keeping with the mournful tenderness of that reply in which, moreover, according to Matthew, the name of Judas was not once mentioned. According to John xiii. 27, the devil, after selecting Judas as his instrument (xiii. 2), impelled him to betray his Master, not, however, till the occasion of the last supper,—a divergence from the synoptical narrative which ought, with Strauss, to be recognised, especially as it becomes very marked when Luke xxii. 3 is compared with John xiii. 27. — eis tov 6o@dexa] tragic contrast; found in all the evangelists, even in John xii. 4; Acts i. 17.—In ver. 15 the mark of interrogation should not be inserted after Sodvac (Lachmann), but allowed to remain after wapad. avtov. Expressed syntactically, the question would run: What will ye give me, 7f I deliver Him to you? In the eagerness of his haste the traitor falls into a broken construction (Kiihner, II. 2, p. 782 f.): What will ye give me, and I will, etc. Here xaé is the explicative atque, meaning: and so; on éye, again, there is an emphasis expressive of boldness. — éotnaav] they weighed for him, according to the ancient custom, and comp. Zech. xi. 12. No doubt coined shekels (Otto, Spicil. p. 60 ff; Ewald in the Nachr. v. d. Geselisch. d. Wiss., Gott. 1855, p. 109 ff.) were in circulation since the time of Simon the Maccabee (143 B.c.), but weeghing appears to have been still practised, especially when considerable sums were paid out of the temple treasury; it is, in any case, unwar- rantable to,understand the éotyjcay merely in the sense of: they paid. For tornpt, to weigh, see Wetstein on our passage; Schleusner, Zhes. III. p. 122; Valckenaer, ad Hurip. Fragm. p. 288. The interpretation of certain expositors: they arranged with him, they promised him (Vulg. Theophylact, Castalio, Grotius, Elsner, Fritzsche, Kauffer, Wichelhaus, Lange), is in opposition not only to xxvii. 3, where the words ta apyvpia refer back to the shekels already paid, but also to the terms of the prophecy, Zech. xi.12 (comp. Matt. xxvii. 9). — tpvak. apy.]
196 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
apyvpia, shekels, only in Matthew, not in the LXX., which, in Zech. xi. 12, has tpidxovta apyvpods (se. cikdous); comp. Jer. xxxii. 9. They were shekels of the sanctuary (WIP opy Dy which, as containing the standard weight, were heavier than the ordinary shekels; according to Joseph. Anft. ii. 8. 2, they were equivalent to four Attic drachmae, though, according to Jerome (on Mie. ili. 10), whose estimate, besides being more precise, is found to tally with existing specimens of this coin, they were equal to twenty oboli, or to 34 drachmae—te. to something like 26 to 27 silbergroschen (2s. 6d.). See Ber- theau, Gresch. d. Isr. pp. 34, 39; Keil, Arch. IL. p. 146. — éEnres eveatplay, iva] he sought a good opportunity (Cic. de off. i. 40) for the purpose of, etc. Such a evxarpia as he wanted would present itself whenever he saw that cvAdAndPOevtos ovdK Ewedre OopuBos yevéoGar, Kuthymius Zigabenus; comp. ver. 5.
Remark 1.—As the statement regarding the thirty pieces of silver is peculiar to Matthew, and as one so avaricious as Judas was would hardly have been contented with so moderate a sum, it is probable that, from its not being known exactly how much the traitor had received, the Gospel traditions came ultimately to fix upon such a definite amount as was suggested by Zech. xi. 12. Then, as tending further to impugn the historical accuracy of Matthew’s statement, it is of importance to notice that it has been adopted neither by the earlier Gospel of Mark, nor the later one of Luke, nor by John. Comp. Strauss, Ewald, Scholten.
REMARK 2.—As regards the idea, that what prompted Judas to act as he did, was a desire to bring about a rising of the people at the time of the feast, and to constrain “the dilatory Messiah to establish His kingdom by means of popular violence ” (Paulus, Goldhorn in Zzschirn. Memor. 1. 2; Winer, Theile, Hase, Scholl- meyer, Jesus u. Judas, 1836; Weisse, I. p. 450),—the traitor
himself being now doubtful, according to Neander and Ewald, as - to whether Jesus was the Messiah or not,—it may be affirmed that it has no foundation whatever in the Gospel record, although it may be excused as a well-meant effort to render a mysterious character somewhat more comprehensible, and to make so strange a choice on the part of Jesus a little less puzzling. According to John especially, the subjective motive which, in conjunction with Satanic agency (Luke xxii, 3; John xiii. 2, 27), led to the betrayal was simply avarice, not
CHAP. XXVI. 17. 197
wounded ambition as well, see on ver. 14; nor love of revenge and such like (Schenkel); nor shipwrecked faith on the occasion of the anointing of Christ (Klostermann); nor melancholy, combined with irritation against Jesus because the kingdom He sought to establish was not a kingdom of this world (Lange). Naturally passionate at any rate (Pressensé), and destitute of clearness of head as well as force of character (in opposition to Weisse), he was now so carried away by his own dark and confused ideas, that though betraying Jesus he did not antici- pate that he would be condemned to death (xxvii. 3), and only began to realize what he had done when the consequences of his act stared him in the face. Those, accordingly, go too far in combating the attempts that have been made to palliate the deed in question, who seek to trace it to fierce anger against Jesus, and the profoundest wickedness (Ebrard), and who represent Judas as having been from the first—even at the time he was _ chosen—the most consummate scoundrel to be found among men (Daub, Judas Ischar. 1816). That fundamental vice of Judas, tAcoveZia, became doubtless, in the abnormal development which his moral nature underwent through intercourse with Jesus, the power which completely darkened and overmastered his inner life, culminating at last in betrayal and suicide. Moreover, in considering the crime of Judas, Scripture requires us to keep in view the dwine teleology, Peter already speaking of Jesus (Acts i. 23) as +7 wpiomévn Bovry nal xpoyvwos rod beod exdorov, IN a Way corresponding very much to the view taken of the conduct of Herod and Pilate in Acts iv. 28. Judas is thus the tragic instrument and organ of the divine ¢ciwapuévy, though not in such a sense as to extenuate in the least the enormity and culpability of his offence, ver. 24. Comp. John xvii. 12; Acts i. 25; and see, further, on John vi. 70, Remark 1.
Ver. 17. Ty S€ rpetn Tov alip.] on the first day of the unleavened bread, i.e. on the first day of the feast, the day on which the unleavened bread (nisin) is eaten. The day referred to is the 14th of Nisan (Thursday, according to the synoptic evangelists), which, following the loose popular mode of reckoning, to which Josephus (Anfé. ii. 15. 1) also conforms when he represents the feast as extending over eight days, was counted as one of the feast days, although the Passover did not begin till the evening of that day, Num. xxviii. 16 ; Ex. xii. 18 (Otto, Spicil. p. 70). — mod] in
198 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
what house. — coz] “Jesus est ut paterfamilias inter discipu- lorum familiam,’ Bengel.—to mdaya] the Passover lamb, to be eaten on the evening of the 14th of Nisan. See on John xviii. 28. This lamb was slain (not by the priests) in the fore-court of the temple in the afternoon before sunset (Dyn 2, see Hupfeld, de primitiva festor. ap. Hebr. ratione, I. p. 12).—It may seem strange that, at a season when the presence of such multitudes of strangers in the city was certain to create a scarcity of accommodation (Joseph. Bell. i, 1. 3, vi. 9. 3; Andtt. xvii. 9. 3), Jesus should have put off His arrangements for celebrating the feast till now. ‘This, however, may be accounted for by the fact that He must have had certain friends in the town, such as the one referred to in ver. 18, whose houses were so mueh at His disposal at all times that it was unnecessary to make any earlier preparation.
RemMarK.—According to John’s account, the last meal of which Jesus partook was not that of the Passover; while His death is represented as having taken place on the day before the feast, the day which Matthew here calls the spwrn ray &@iuuvr. On this great and irreconcilable discrepancy, which even the most recent exhaustive inquiry, viz. that of Wieseler (Beztr. p. 230 ff.), has failed to dispose of, see on John xviii. 28.
Ver. 18. Eis tyv worev] to Jerusalem. - According to ver. 6 ff., they were still at Bethany. — mpos tov detva] as we say when we either cannot or will not mention the name of the person intended: to so and so. See Wetstein and Hermann, ad Vig. p. 704. But it was not Jesus Himself who omitted to mention the name (“ut discipulus ex diuturna consuetudine notissimum,” Fritzsche), for, after the question of the disciples, ver. 17, He could not assume that it was quite well understood who it was that He referred to; but it has been omitted by the evangelist in his narrative (comp. even Augustine, de cons. ev. ii. 80), either because it had not been preserved as part of the tradition, or for some other reason, to us unknown. — 6 61dacx.] the Teacher xa7’ éEoynv. Doubtless the unknown person here referred to was also a believer. Comp. xxi. 3.— 6 Katpos pov] ie. the time of my death (John xiii. 1), not: for my observing the Passover (Kuinoel), which would render
CHAP, XXVI. 18. 199
the words singularly meaningless; for this time was, in fact, the same for all. There is nothing whatever to justify the very old hypothesis, invented with a view to reconcile the synoptic writers with John, that Jesus partook of His last Passover meal a day earlier than that on which it was wont to be eaten by the Jews. See on John xvii. 28. Further, this preliminary preparation implies a pious regard for Jesus on the part of the detva, who was thus singled out; this Passover ob- servance, for which preparations are being made, was destined, in fact, to be a farewell feast! According to Ewald, 6 capéds pov denotes the time when the Messianic phenomena would appear in the heavens (comp. xxiv. 34), which, however, is at variance with the text, where the death of Jesus is the all- pervading thought (see vv. 2, 4,11 f, 21). Comp. érjAvGev 7 @pa, John xvii. 1. — 701] is not the Attic future (Fritzsche, Bleek), but the present, representing what is future as now going on, and suited to the idea of a distinct friendly arrange- ment beforehand: at thy house I observe the Passover. Comp. Ex. xu. 48 ; Josh. v.10; Deut.xv.1; 3 Esdr.i.6. Similarly classical writers frequently use zrovety in the sense of to observe a feast.— Matthew's account presupposes nothing miraculous here, as Theophylact and Calvin would have us believe, but simply an arrangement, of which nothing further is known, which Jesus had come to with the person in ques- tion, and in consequence of which this latter not only under- stood what was meant by the 6 xaspds pov, but was also keeping a room in reserve for Jesus in which to celebrate the Passover. It is probable that Jesus, during His stay in Jerusalem after the triumphal entry, had come to some under- standing or other with him, so that all that now required to be done was to complete the preparations. It was reserved for the later tradition, embodied in Mark and Luke, to ascribe a miraculous character to these preparations, in which respect they seem to have shared. the fate of the incident mentioned at xxi. 2 f. This being the case, the claim of originality must be decided in favour of what is still the very simple narrative of Matthew (Strauss, Bleek, Keim), in pre- ference to that of Mark and Luke (Schulz, Schleiermacher,
200 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
Weisse, Ewald, Weiss). As represented, therefore, by Matthew (who, according to Ebrard and Holtzmann,. seems to have regarded the circumstance about the man bearing a pitcher of water as only “an unnecessary detail,” and whose narra- tive here is, according to Ewald, “somewhat winnowed”), this incident is a natural one, though the same cannot be said of the account given by Mark and Luke (in opposition to Olshausen and Neander)— Who that unknown person above referred to might be, is a point which cannot be determined.
Ver. 20. “Avéxerro] for the enactment (Ex. xii. 11) requiring the Passover lamb to be eaten standing, staff in hand, and in travelling attire, had been subsequently super- seded by the necessity of reclining. See HMieros Pesachim f. 37. 2: “Mos servorum est, ut edant stantes, at nunc come- dant recumbentes, ut dignoscatur, exisse eos e servitute in liber- tatem.” See Usteri, Comment. Joh. ev. genuin. esse. 1823, p. 26 ff—It was considered desirable that no Passover party should ever consist of fewer than ten guests (Joseph. Bell. vi. 9. 3), for the lamb had to be entirely consumed (Ex. xu. 4, 43 ff.)
Ver. 21. "Ec@covtrwv avtaer] whilst they were eating, but previous to the institution of the supper, ver. 26, which is at variance with Luke xxii. 21. The correct version of the matter is unquestionably that of Matthew, with whom John also agrees in so far as he represents the announcement of the betrayer as having taken place immediately after the feet- washing and the accompanying discourse, xiii. 21 ff.
Ver. 22. "Hp&avro] portrays the unfolding of one scene after another in the incident. Jesus did not answer till this question had been addressed to Him by all of them in turn. — PHTL Eye@ eime] surely it is not I? presupposes a reply in the negative. “ Cum scelus exhorreant, cupiunt ab ejus suspicione purgari; bona tamen conscientia freti, libere testari volunt, quam procul remoti sint a tanto scelere,” Calvin. The account in John xiii. 22 ff. does not exclude, but supplements that before us, particularly because it also mentions that Judas had retired before the supper was instituted.
Ver. 23. ‘O éwRawas, «.7.r.] he who has dipped (not: is dipping, Luther, following the Vulgate). "We have here no such
CHAP. XXVI. 24. 201
definite allusion as John xiii. 26 represents Jesus to have made to Judas. For it is not probable that the dipping in question took place subsequent to the intimation by Jesus in ver. 21 and the commotion of ver. 22,—two circumstances calculated to interrupt for a little the progress of the meal,— but rather before them, when there may have been others besides Judas dipping into the dish from which Jesus was eating. The allusion can be said to point specially to Judas only in so far as, happening to recline near to Jesus, he must have been eating out of the same dish with Him (for there would be several of such dishes standing on the table). Comp. Grotius. The éuSamropevos of Mark xiv. 20 (see on the passage) is not a substantial variation; neither has it been mésunderstood by Matthew (in opposition to Weiss in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1861, p. 53 f.), and converted by him into a special means of recognition (Holtzmann). The contents of the dish were the broth charoset (nDIN), made out of dates, figs, etc., and of the colour of brick (to remind those who partook of it of the bricks of Egypt, Maimonides, ad Pesach. vii. 11). See Buxtorf, Lew. Talm. p. 831. — év r6 TpuBrio] has dipped in the dish, into which he has put his hand, holding a piece of bread. Hom. Od. ix. 392; Aesch. Prom. 863; LXX. Deut. xxxill, 24; Ruth u. 14.
Ver. 24. ‘Yadyer] petaBaivee amd ths éevtadOa Cafe, Euthymius Zigabenus. Comp. olyeoOar, amépxyecOas, 327. Jesus is conscious that His death will be a going away to the Father (John vii. 33, viii. 22).— KaXrov, «.7.r.] well would it have been for him, ete.; for in that case he would not have existed at all, and so would not have been exposed to the severe punishment (of Gehenna) which now awaits him. Comp. Ecclus. xxiii. 14; Job iii. 1 ff.; Jer. xx. 14 ff, and the passages from Rabbinical writers in Wetstein. The expression is a popular one, and not to be urged with logical rigour, which it will not admit of. The fundamental idea embodied in it is: “multo melius est non subsistere quam male sub- sistere,’ Jerome. Observe, further, the tragic emphasis with which 0 dvOpwrros éxeivos is repeated; but for caddv jv with- out av, see Buttmann, Neut. Gr. pp. 188, 195 [E. T. 217,
202 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
226]; and on ov as a negative, where there is only one idea contained ‘in the negation, consult Kiihner, II. 2, p. 748; Buttmann, p. 299 [E. T. 347]. Euthymius Zigabenus aptly observes: ov S107 mpowpicto, Sua TovTo mapédwKev’ adAXde du0Tt tapédaxe, Sia TodTO mpowpicTo, ToD Oeod mpoewddTos TO mavTws aTroBncopevov' Euerre yap dvTws aTroBivat ToLodTOS ov éx pioews, GAN’ €k Tpoatpécews.
Ver. 25. This final direct intimation regarding the betrayer (0 mapaccdovs), and addressed to this latter himself, is at variance with John xiii. 26 ff., where ver. 29 presupposes that it had not been given. Ver. 25 is an outgrowth of tradition, the absence of which from the older narrative of Mark is unquestionably correct. — od etmas] a Rabbinical formula by which an emphatic affirmation is made, as in ver. 64. See Schoettgen. There is no such usage in the Old Testament or among classical writers. Aé this point in the narrative of Matthew, just after this declaration on the part of Jesus, we must suppose the withdrawal (mentioned at John xiii. 30) of Judas (who, notwithstanding the statement at Luke xxu. 21, was not present at the celebration of the last supper; see on John xiii. 38, Remark) to have taken place. Matthew like- wise, at ver. 47, presupposes the withdrawal of the betrayer, though he does not expressly mention it; so that his account of the matter is less precise. The objection, that it was not allowable to leave before the Passover lamb was eaten, is sufficiently disposed of by the eatraordinary nature of the cir- cumstances in which Judas found himself; but see on ver. 26.
Ver. 26.1 The meal—having been, naturally enough, inter- rupted by the discussion regarding Judas—would now be resumed ; hence the repetition of the éc@ovrwy adtév of ver. 21 with the continuative 6é, which latter is so often used in a similar way after parentheses and other digressions, especially
1 On ver. 26 ff. and the parallel passages, see Ebrard (Dogma vom heil. Abendm. I. p. 97 ff.), who also (II. p. 751 ff.) mentions the earlier literature of the subject ; see besides, the controversy between Strébel and Rodatz in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1842 ff. ; Riickert, d. Abendm., Lpz. 1856, p. 58 ff.; Keim in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1859, p. 63 ff. ; of modern dogmatic writers, consult, in
particular, Kahnis and Philippi. Comp. on Mark xiv. 22 f.; Luke xxii. 191. ; 1 Cor. xi. 24 f.
CHAP, XXVI. 26. 203
in cases where previous expressions are repeated; comp. on 2 Cor. v. 8; Eph. ii. 4. —AaBov 6 Ino. 7. dptov] Accord- ing to the Rabbis, the order of the Passover meal was as follows (see Tr. Pesach. c. 10; Otho, Lex. Rabb. p. 448 ff. ; Lightfoot, p. 474 ff.; Lund, Jud. Heiligth., ed. Wolf, p. 1125 ff.; Wichelhaus, p. 248 ff; Vaihinger in Herzog’s Hncykl. XI. p. 141 ff) :—(1) It began with drinking wine, before partak- ing of which, however, the head of the family offered up thanks for the wine and the return of that sacred day (according to the school of Sammai, for the day and for the wine). “Poculum ebibit, et postea benedicit de lotione manuum, et lavat,’ Maimonides. (2) Then bitter herbs (on 1», intended to represent the bitter life of their forefathers in Egypt) were put upon the table, some of which being dipped in a sour or brinish liquid, were eaten amid thanksgivings. (3) The un- leavened bread, the broth chavoset (see on ver. 23), the lamb and the flesh of the chagiga (see on John xviii. 28), were now presented. (4) Thereupon the head of the family, after a “ Benedictus, qui creavit fructum terrae,” took as much of the bitter herbs as might be equal to the size of an olive, dipped it in the broth charoset, and then ate it, all the other guests following his example. (5) The second cup of wine was now mixed, and at this stage the father, at the request of his son, or whether requested by him or not, was expected to explain to him the peculiarities of the several parts of this meal. (6) This did not take place till the Passover viands had been put a second time upon the table; then came the singing of the first part of the Hadllel (Ps. cxiil., cxiv.), another short thanksgiving by the father, and the drinking of the second cup. (7) The father then washed his hands, took two pieces of bread, broke one of them, laid the broken pieces upon that which remained whole, repeated the “ Benedictus sit dlle, qui producit panem e terra,” rolled a piece of the broken bread in bitter herbs, dipped this into the broth charoset, and ate, after having given thanks; he then took some of the chagiga, after another thanksgiving, and so also with regard to the lamb. (8) The feast was now continued by the guests partaking as they felt inclined, concluding, however, with the father eating
204 TUE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
the last bit of the lamb, which was not to be less than an olive in size, after which no one was at liberty to eat anything more. The father now washed his hands, and, praise having been offered, the third cup (929237 8D3) was drunk. Then came the singing of the second part of the Hallel (Ps. exv.—cxviii.) and the drinking of the fourth cup, which was, in some in- stances, followed by a fifth, with the final singing of Ps. exx.— exxxvil. (Bartoloce. Bibl. Rabb. II. p. 736 ff.).— Seeing that, according to this order, the feasting, strictly speaking, did not begin till No. 8, for all that preceded had the character of a ceremonial introduction to it; seeing, further, that it is in itself improbable that Jesus would interrupt or alter the peculiarly ceremonial part of the feast by an act or utterance in any way foreign to it; and considering, in the last place, that when Judas retired, which he did immediately after he was announced as the betrayer, and therefore previous to the institution of the last supper,—the Passover meal had already extended pretty far on into the night (John xiii. 30)—we must assume that the éoOiovtwy avtév of ver. 21, as well as the similar expression in ver. 26, should come in after No. 7, and that the eating under No. 8 is the stage at which the Lord’s supper was instituted ; so that the bread which Jesus took and brake would not be that mentioned under No. 7 (Fritzsche), but the aptov (with the article, see the critical remarks), the particular bread with which, as they all knew, He had just instituted the supper. He would have violated the Passover itself if He had proclaimed any new and peculiar symbolism in connection with the bread before conforming, in the first place, to the popular ceremonial observed at this feast, and before the less formal and peculiarly festive part of the proceedings was reached. Again, had the breaking and distributing of the bread been that referred to under No. 7, one cannot see why he should not have availed Himself of the bitter herbs as well, furnishing, as they would have done, so appropriate a symbol of the sufferimg inseparable from His death.— xat etdXoyycas] after having repeated a blessing—whether the “‘Benedictus alle, qui producit panem e terra” (comp. No. 7 above), or some other more appropriate to the particular act about to be performed, it is impossible to
CHAP. XXVI. 26. 205
say. The latter, however, is the more probable, as it would be more in accordance with the very special nature of Christ’s feelings and intention on this occasion. Now that the meal was drawing to a close (before the second part of the Hallel was sung, ver. 30), He felt a desire to introduce at the end a special repast of significance so profound as never to be for- gotten. The idea that His evAoyeiv, as being the expression of His omnipotent will (Philippi, p. 467 ff.), possessed creative power, so that the body and blood became realized in the giving of bread and wine, may no doubt accord with the orthodox view of the sacrament, but can be as little justified, on exegetical grounds, as that orthodox view itself; even in 1 Cor. x. 16 nothing more is implied than a eucharistical consecration prayer for the purpose of setting apart bread and wine to a sacred use. — It is, further, impossible to determine whether by cali éd/Sou tots wabnt. we are to understand the handing of the bread piece by piece, or simply the presenting of it all at once upon a plate. Considering, however, that the guests were reclining, the latter is the more probable view, and is quite in keeping with the AdBere. This AdBeTre denotes simply a taking with the hand, which then conveys to the mouth the thing so taken, not also a taking in a spiritual sense (Ebrard). Further, it must not be inferred from the words before us, nor from our Lord’s interpretation (my body) of the bread which He presents, that He Himself had not eaten of it. See on ver. 29. He must, however, be regarded as having done so before handing it to the disciples, and before uttering the following words.—Todt0 éote TO cpa pov] There can be no doubt that todro is the subject, and (avoiding the Lutheran synecdoche) can only refer to the bread that was being handed to them, and not to the living body of Christ (Carlstadt), nor to the predicate which first follows (Strobel), while it is equally certain that no emphasis of any kind is to be laid upon the enclitic wov (in opposition to Olshausen and Stier). But seeing, moreover, that the body of Jesus was still unbroken (still living), and that, as yet, His blood had not been shed, none of the guests can have sup- posed what, on the occasion of the first celebration of the
206 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
supper, was, accordingly, a plain impossibility, viz., that they were in reality eating and drinking the very body and blood of the Lord,’ and seeing also that, for the reason just stated, Jesus Himself could not have intended His simple words to be understood in a sense which they did not then admit of,— for to suppose any essential difference between the first and every subsequent observance of the supper (Schmid, Juvdl. Theol. I. p. 341; Thomasius, Chr. Pers. wu. Werk, III. 2, p. 62; Stier ; Gess, I. p. 167) is to have recourse to an expedient that is not only unwarrantable, but extremely questionable (see, on the other hand, Tholuck in the Stud. w. Krit. 1869, p. 126 f.), and because, so long as the idea of the xpéas is not taken into account, any substantial partaking of the oda alone and by itself, without the aiwa, appears utterly incon- ceivable ;? for here, again, the idea of a spiritual body, which it is supposed Jesus might even then have communicated (Olshausen ; Rodatz in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1843, 3, p. 56; Kahnis, Abendm. p. 453; Hofmann; Schoeberlein, db. d. heal. Abendm. 1869, p. 66), belongs entirely to the region of non- exegetical and docetic fancies, for which even the transfigura- tion furnishes no support whatever (see on 1 Cor. x. 16), and is inconsistent with the aiwa (1 Cor. xv. 50; Phil. m1. 21):
1 Wetstein well observes: ‘‘ Non quaerebant utrum panis, quem videbant, panis esset, vel utrum aliud corpus inconspicuum in interstitiis, panis delitesceret, sed quid haec actio significaret, cujus rei esset repraesentatio aut memoriale.” Thomasius, however, as above, p. 61, finds no other way of disposing of the simple impossibility referred to, but by maintaining that this giving of Himself on the part of the Lord was of the nature of a miracle. Comp. Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 215, also Philippi, p. 433 f., who is at the same time dis- posed to assume that the Spirit illuminated the minds of the disciples as with lightning flash. The supposition of a miracle is certainly the last resort, and this on exegetical grounds is wholly unjustifiable in a case in which neither the narrative itself nor the thing narrated implies a miracle.
2 In reply to the question why Jesus distributes the body and blood separately, Thomasius, p. 68, has no answer but this: ‘‘I do not know.” We are accord- ingly met on the one hand with the assertion of a miracle, on the other with a non liquet. This is the way difficulties are supposed to be got over, but they remain, and continue to assert themselves all the same. There ought to be no hesitation in conceding that the separate participation, namely, of the body without the blood, and then of the blood by itself, is not to be understood as an
actual eating and drinking of them, but as due to the symbolism based upon the circumstance of the body being put to death and the blood shed.
CHAP. XXVI. 26. 207
it follows that éori is neither more nor less than the copula of the symbolic statement:' “ This, which ye are to take and eat, this broken bread,” is, symbolically speaking, my body,” —the body, namely, which is on the point of being put to death as a AvTpov avTi TodA@y (xx. 28). The sym- bolical interpretation has also been correctly adhered to by David Schulz, de Wette, Julius Miiller, Bleek, Riickert, Keim, Weizsicker ; comp. Ewald, Morison, Weiss on Mark, and others. According to Matthew, as also according to Paul (1 Cor. xi. 24, where «dpevoy is spurious), Jesus omits entirely the tertiwm comparationis,— an omission, however, which in itself is more in keeping with the vivid symbolism of the passage and the deep emotion of our Lord. The symbolical act of breaking, which cannot possibly have anything to do with the glorified body, but which refers solely to that which was about to be put to death, was sufficient to enable us to perceive in this breaking what the point of comparison was; for the breaking of the bread and the putting to death of the body resemble each other in so
‘In the case of Luke and Paul, the necessity of adopting the symbolical interpretation of é¢7i shows itself above all (1) in the words used with refer- ence to the cup (4 xan diaéyxn). The new covenant has been made in and through the actual blood of Christ. This blood, inasmuch as it has been shed, is the essential objective causa effectiva of the covenant. It is so in virtue of the historical fact of the shedding, while it is this same fact that justifies its being designated a new covenant (John xi. 25). The wine poured into the cup can be said to be the blood of Christ as it actually was after being shed on the cross, only in so far as it represents that real covenant-blood as it was previous to its being shed, andewith the near prospect of its shedding fully in view ; it ts this blood, but only in the sense warranted by a profound vivid symbolism. (2) It is on the strength of this symbolical interpretation that Luke and Paul would appear to have added the expression <is 7. funy avéuvnow to the words of the institution. See on Luke xxii. 19 f. The avéuynors denotes a realizing of that as present which is no longer so in bodily form.
? Not: that which I here hand to you in the form of bread (the Catholic view), nor: that which I here hand to you in, with, and under the covenant (the synecdoche of Lutheran orthodoxy). The doctrine of the omnipresence of Christ’s body is inconsistent with the essential idea of a body, as was pointed out as early as the time of the Fathers, especially by Augustine: ‘‘ Cavendum enim est, ne ita divinitatem adstruamus hominis, ut veritatem corporis auferamus,” Augustine, ep. 57, ad Dardan. ; they understood the body of Christ to be in heaven, where it always remained.
208 TIE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
far as the connection of the whole is violently destroyed, so that the bread in fragments can no longer be said to be the bread, nor the body when put to death to be any longer a living being." The eating (and the drinking), on the other hand, is a symbol of the reception and appropriation, in saving faith (John vi. 51 ff), of the atoning and redeeming virtue inherent in the death of the body (Paul as above: 70 i7rép tuov) and in the shedding of the blood of Jesus; so that the act of receiving the elements in the consciousness of this, establishes a xowwvia with the body and blood that is spiritually living and active, and therefore, in all ethical respects, genuine and real (see on 1 Cor. x. 16),—a fellowship in which the believing communi- cant realizes in his inward experience that the divine-human life of the crucified Redeemer is being imparted to him with saving efficacy, and in which he acquires a full assurance of eternal life. With regard to the divers views that have prevailed upon this point in the church, and of which the two held by Protestants do not admit of being harmonized without sacrificing their distinctive peculiarities (in opposition to Ebrard, Lange), it may be said that those of the Catholics and Lutherans are exegetically at one in so far as their inter- pretation of the éo7é is concerned, for they agree in regarding it as the copula of actual being ; it is only when they attempt a more precise dogmatic definition of the mode of this actual being that the divergence begins to show itself. Similarly, there is no difference of an exegetical nature (Rodatz in Rudel- bach’s Zettschr. 1843, 4, p. 11) between the interpretation of Zwingli (and Oecolampadius) and that of Calvin (“ externum sionum dicitur id esse, quod figurat,’ Calvin). On the rela-
1 Philippi, p. 422 ff., is wrong in refusing to admit that the point of com- parison lies in the breaking. The ?xaece is the circumstance above all which the whole four evangelists agree in recording, making it appear, too, from the terms they employ, that it was regarded as a special act. Moreover, the fact that at a very early period the spurious xAwmevav of 1 Cor. xi. 24 had come to be extensively adopted, may be regarded as affording evidence in favour of the correctness of the church’s interpretation of this symbolical act. The same view is implied in the reading épurrcmsvov ; comp. Constitt. Ap. viii. 12. 16.
CHAP. XXVI. 27. 209
tion of Luther’s doctrine to that of Calvin, see Julius Miiller’s dogmat. Abh. p. 404 ff. For éoré (which, however, Jesus would not express in Aramaic, His words probably being "oval 87) as a copula of symbolical or allegorical being, comp. xiii. 38 f.; Luke xii. 1; John x. 6, xiv. 6; Gal. iv. 24; Heb. x. 20; Rev. i. 20.—That Jesus might also have used oap& instead of o@pa (comp. John vi.) is clear; in that case pro- minence would have been given to the material of which the capa is composed (comp. Col. i. 22). Comp. Riickert, p. 69. But it would not have been proper to use «péas (dead flesh, the flesh of what has been slain, Rom. xiv. 21; 1 Cor. viii. 13; see Schulz, Abendm. p. 94).
Ver. 27. Matthew says indefinitely: a cup, for to before moTnp. is spurious. Luke and Paul are somewhat more precise, inasmuch as they speak of the cup as having been the one which was presented peta 76 Secrvnoas. Accordingly, the cup in question here is usually understood to have been the poculum benedictionis, referred to above under No. 8, the third cup. But in that case what becomes of the fourth one, over which the second part of the Hallel was sung? As it is not likely that this latter would be omitted; as it is no less improbable that Jesus, after investing the cup now under con- sideration with the symbolism of His blood, would have sent round another after it with which no such symbolical signi- ficance was associated ; as ver. 29 expressly forbids the sup- position of another cup having followed; and as, in the last place, mention is made of the Hallel (the second portion of it) as coming immediately after the drinking of this one-—we are bound to suppose that it is the fourth cup that is here meant, and in regard to which Maimonides (as quoted by Lightfoot) observes: “ Deinde miscet poculum quartum, et super wlud perficit Hallel, additque insuper benedictionem cantict (Ww N33), quod est: Laudent te, Domine, omnia opera tua, etc., et dicit: Benedictus sit, qui creavit fructum vitis,—et postea non quie= quam gustat ista nocte.” Paul,no doubt, expressly calls the cup used at the supper 70 mrotypiov THs evAoyias (1 Cor. x. 16), which corresponds with the name of the third cup (see on ver. 26); but, as the epexegetical 6 evAoyotuev shows, this
MATT. II. ie)
210 TILE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
designation is not a terminus technicus taken from the Jewish ritual, but it is to be traced to the Christian standpoint, in fact, to the Christian act of consecration. See on 1 Cor. x. 16.— For the size of the Passover cups, and what is said about the wine being red and mixed with water, consult Grotius and Lightfoot. In the Constitt. Ap. vill. 12. 16, Christ Himself is even spoken of as to motipuov Kepdoas €& oivov Kat OaTos. —evxyaptoT.] is substantially the same as evaroy., ver. 26, which latter has reference to the phraseology of the prayer (benedictus, etc.), comp. xiv. 19; Luke xxiv. 30; Acts xxvii. 35; 1 Tim. iv. 3 f.; Matt. xv.36. Thens72 was a thanksgiving prayer. Comp. on 1 Cor. xiv. 16.
Ver. 28. The death-symbolism is now applied to that which contains the life (Gen. ix. 4 ff, and comp. on Acts xv.), viz. the blood, which is described as sacrificial blood that is to be shed in order to make atonement. Neither here nor any- where else in the New Testament (Heb. xii. 24 not excepted) can there be any question of the glorified blood of Christ. Comp. on ver. 26, and on 1 Cor. x. 16. According to New Testament ideas, glorified blood is as much a contradictio in adjecto as glorified flesh. This also in opposition to Hofmann, p. 220.— tredrto] this, which ye are about to drink, the wine which is in this cup. Although this wine was red, it must not be supposed that the point of the symbolism lay in the colour (Wetstein, Paulus), but in the circumstance of its being powred out (see below: To 7. odd. exyvvou.) into the cup ; the outpouring is the symbolical correlative to the breaking in the case of the bread. — yap] justifies the qiere ...aavtes, on the ground of the interpretation given to that which is about to be drunk. — éoré] as in ver. 26.—70 aipa pov THs StaOHKns| This is the preferable reading ; see the critical remarks. “ This is my blood of the covenant,” my covenant blood (N25 D4, Ex. xxiv. 8), my blood which serves to ratify the covenant with God. This is conceived of as sacrificial blood (in opposition to Hofmann). See Delitzsch on Heb. ix. 20. Ina similar way Moses ratified the covenant with God by means of the sacrificial blood of an animal, Ex. xxiv. 6 ff. On the double genitive with only one noun, see Fritzsche, Quaest. Luc. p. 111 f.; Lobeck, ad Aj. 309;
CHAP. XXVI. 28. 2th
Winer, p. 180 [E. T. 239]. For the arrangement of the words, comp. Thue. iv. 85. 2: 7H Te amoxdnoes wou Tév TUA@Y. The connecting of the ov with aiwa corresponds to the To coud pou of ver. 26, as well as to the amplified form of our Lord’s words as given by Luke and Paul; consequently we must not, with Riickert, connect the pronoun with +. dvaOy«ys (the blood of my covenant). The covenant which Jesus has in view is that of grace, in accordance with Jer. xxxi. 31 ff., hence called the new one (by Paul and Luke) in contradistinction to the old one under the daw. See on 1 Cor. xi. 26.—70 zrept TOMNGY EkyYUY. Els ahEeoiv apapTidy]| Epexegesis of 7d -aipa ov Ths SvabyKns, by way of indicating who are to par- ticipate in the covenant (epi moAddv), the divine benefit conferred upon them (eis deo. duaprt.), and the means by which the covenant is ratified (€xyvvop.): which is shed (ex- pressing as present what, though future, is near and certain) Jor the benefit of many, inasmuch as it becomes instrwmental in procuring the forgiveness of sins. The last part of this state- ment, and consequently what is implied in it, viz. the atoning purpose contemplated by the shedding of blood (comp. Lev. xvil. 11), is to be understood as setting forth more precisely the idea expressed by zrepi. It must not be supposed, how- ever, that twép, which is used by Luke instead of zepi, is essentially different from the latter; but is to be distinguished from it only in respect of the different moral basis on which the idea contained in it rests (like the German wm and wer’), so that both the prepositions are often interchanged in cases where they have exactly one and the same reference, as in Demosthenes especially. See generally, on Gal. i. 4; 1 Cor. i. 13, xv. 3. — The shedding of the blood is the objec- tive medium of the forgiveness of sins; the subjective medium, viz. faith, is contained by implication in the use made in this instance, as in xx. 28 (see on the passage), of moAAay, as well as in the symbolic reference of the wiere.— It is to be observed, further, that the genuineness of the words eis aec. duapt. is put beyond all suspicion by the unexceptionable evidence in their favour (in opposition to David Schulz), although, from their being omitted in every other record of the
212 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
institution of the supper (also in Justin, Ap. i. 66, ¢. Tr. 70), they should not be regarded as having been originally spoken by Christ, but as an explanatory addition introduced into the tradition, and put into the mouth of Jesus.
ReMARK 1.—That Jesus meant to institute a regular ordinance to be similarly observed by His church in all time coming, is not apparent certainly from the narrative in Matthew and Mark; but it is doubtless to be inferred from 1 Cor. xi. 24—26, no less than from the practice of the apostolic church, that the apostles were convineed that such was the intention of our Lord, so much so, that to the words of the institution themselves was added that express injunction to repeat the observance éic +. zuny aveyvgow Which Paul and Luke have recorded. As bearing upon this matter, Paul’s declaration: rapiAaSov ard rod xupiov, ver. 23, is of such decisive importance that there can no longer be any doubt (Riickert, p. 124 ff.) as to whether Jesus intended to institute an ordinance for future observance. We cannot, there- fore, endorse the view that the repetition of the observance was due to the impression made upon the minds of the grateful disciples by the first celebration of the supper (Paulus, comp. also Weisse, Lvangelienfr. p. 195).
REMARK 2.—The two most recent and exhaustive Protestant monographs treating of the Lord’s supper on the lines of the Con- fessions, but also discussing the subject exegetically, are: Ebrard, das Dogma vom heil. Abendm., Frankf. 1845 f., as representing the Reformed view, and Kahnis, d. Lehre vom Abendm., Lpz. 1851, as representing the Lutheran. Riickert, on the other hand, d. Abendm., s. Wesen u. s. Gesch. (Liz. 1856), ignores the Confessions altogether, and proceeds on purely excgetical principles. The result at which Ebrard arrives, p. 110 (comp. what he says, Olshausen’s Leidensgesch. 1862, p. 103), is as follows: “ The breaking of the bread is a memorial of the death of Jesus; the eating of the bread thus broken is a symbolical act denoting that this death is appropriated by the believer through his fellowship with the life of Christ. But inasmuch as Jesus gives the bread to be eaten and the wine to be drunk, and inasmuch as He declares those substances to be pledges of the new covenant in His blood, the bread and the wine are, there- fore, not mere symbols, but they assume that he who partakes of them is an actual shaver in the atonement brought about by the death of Christ. And since such a fellowship with Christ’s death cannot exist apart from fellowship with His life ;
CHAP. XXVI. pA lies:
since, in other words,” the new covenant “consists in an actual connection and union,—it follows that partaking of the Lord’s supper involves as its result a true, personal central union and fellowship of life with Christ.” The result at which Kahnis arrives in his above-cited work published in 1851? is the orthodox Lutheran view, and is as follows: “ The body which Christ gives us to feed upon in the supper is the same that was broken for us on the cross,—just as its substratum, the bread, was broken,—with a view to its being eaten. The blood which Christ gives us to drink in the supper is the same that was shed for us on the cross,—just as its substratum, the wine, was poured out,—with a view to its being drunk” (p. 104). He comes back to Luther’s synecdoche in regard to rodr0, which latter he takes as representing the concrete union of two substances, the one of which, viz. the bread, constitutes the embodiment and medium of the other (the body); the former he understands to be, logically speaking, only accidental in its nature, the essential substance being brought out in the predicate. As for the second element, he considers that it expresses the identity of the communion blood with the blood of the atoning sacrifice, and that not in respect of the function, but of the thing itself (for he regards it as an arbitrary dis- tinction to say that the former blood ratifies, and that the latter
1In his Dogmatil:, however (1861), I. pp. 516, 616 ff., II. p. 657 ff., Kahnis candidly acknowledges the shortcomings of the Lutheran view, and the necessity of correcting them, and manifests, at the same time, a decided leaning in the direction of the Reformed doctrine. The supper, he says, ‘‘is the medium of imparting to the believing communicant, in bread and wine, the atoning efficacy of the body and blood of Christ that have been sacrificed for us, which atoning efficacy places him to whom it is imparted in mysterious fellowship with the body of Christ.” Kahnis now rejects, in particular, the Lutheran synecdoche, and approves of the symbolica] interpretation in so far as bread and wine, being symbols of Christ’s body and blood, constitute, in virtue of the act of insti- tution, that sacramental word concerning our Lord’s body and blood which when emitted by Christ has the effect a conveying the benefits of His death. He expresses himself more clearly in II. p. 557, where he says: ‘‘The Lord’s supper is the sacrament of the altar which, in the form of bread and wine, the symbols of the body and blood of Christ, which have been sacrificed for us, im- parts to the believing communicant the sin-forgiving efficacy of Christ’s death.” Those divinely-appointed symbols he regards as the visible word concerning Christ’s body and blood, which word, as the terms of the institution indicate, is the medium through which the atoning power of His death, i.e. the forgiveness of sins, is communicated. From the bread and wine Christ is supposed to create a eucharistic corporeality, which He employs as the medium for the com- munication of Himself.
214 THE GOSFEL OF MATTHEW.
propitiates) ; and that, accordingly, the reality in point of effi- cacy which, in the words of the institution, is ascribed to the latter necessarily implies a corresponding efficacy in regard to the former.—By adopting the kind of exegesis that has been employed in establishing the strictly Lutheran view, it would not be difficult to make out a case in favour of that doctrine of transubstantiation and the mass which is still keenly but awkwardly maintained by Schegg, and which finds an abler but no less arbitrary and mistaken advocate in Dollinger (Christenth. wu. Kirche, pp. 37 ff, 248 ff, ed. 2), because in both cases the results are based upon the application of the exegeti- cal method to dogmatic premises.— Then, in the last place, Rickert arrives at the conclusion that, as far as Matthew and Mark are concerned, the whole stress is intended to be laid upon the actions, that these are to be understood symbolically, and that the words spoken serve only as hints to enable us to interpret. the actions aright. He thinks that the idea of an actual eating of the body or drinking of the blood never crossed the mind either of Jesus or of the disciples ; that it was Paul who, in speculating as to the meaning of the material substances, began to attach to them a higher importance, and to entertain the view that in the supper worthy and unworthy alike were partakers of the body and blood of Christ in the supersensual and heavenly form in which he conceived them to exist subse- quent to the Lord’s ascension. In this way, according to Riickert, Paul entered upon a line of interpretation for which sufficient justification cannot be found either in what was done or in what was spoken by our Lord, so that his view has fur- nished the germs of a version of the matter which, so far at least asits beneficial results are concerned, does not tell in his favour (p. 242). in answer to Riickert in reference to Paul, see on 1 Cor. x. 16.
ReMARK 3.—As for the different versions of the words of the institution that are to be met with in the four evangelists, that of Mark is the most concise (Matthew’s coming next), and, con- sidering the situation (for when the mind is full and deeply moved the words are few) and the connection of this evangelist with Peter, it is to be regarded as the most original. Yet the supplementary statements furnished by the others are ser- viceable in the way of exposition, for they let us see what view was taken of the nature of the Lord’s supper in the apostolic age, as is pre-eminently the case with regard to the rouro moleire cig vr. eury avawynow Of Pauland Luke. Comp. on Luke xxii. 19. According to Gess, I. p. 147, the variations in question
CIUAP. XXVI. 29. 215
are to be accounted for by supposing that, while the elements were circulating, Jesus Himself made use of a variety of expres- sions. But there can be no doubt that on an occasion of such painful emotion He would utter the few thoughtful words He made use of only once for all. This is the only view that can be said to be in keeping with the sad and sacred nature of the situation, especially as the texts do not lead us to suppose that there was any further speaking; comp., in particular, Mark xiv. 23, 24.
Ver. 29. The certainty and nearness of His death, which had just been expressed in the symbolism of the wine, impel Jesus to add a sorrowful but yet comforting assurance (introducing it with the continuative autem).— dts od py miow| that I will certainly not drink. According to the synoptic conception of the meal as being the one in connection with the Passover, this presupposes that the cup mentioned at ver. 27 f. was the last one of the meal (the fourth), and not the one before the last. For it may be held as certain that, at this feast above all, and considering His present frame of mind, He would take care not to give offence by omitting the fourth Passover-cup ; and what reason, it may be asked, would He have had for doing so? The cup in question was the concluding one, during the drinking of which the second portion of the Hallel was sung (ver. 30).—azapte] from this present occasion, on which I have just drunk of it. To suppose that Jesus Himself did not also partake of the cup (Olshausen, de Wette, Rickert, Weiss) is a gratuitous assumption, incom- patible with the ordinary Passover usage. We are to under- stand the drinking on the part of Jesus as having taken place after the evyapurtjoas, ver. 27, before He handed the cup to the disciples, and announced to them the symbolical signifi- cance that was to be attached to it: Comp. Chrysostom. Matthew does not mention this circumstance, because he did not regard it as forming part of the symbolism here in view. Euthymius Zigabenus correctly observes: e¢ 6€ Tod motTnpiov peTéaxe, pweTéNaPev apa Kai Tod dptov. Comp. on ver. 26.— €k TOVTOV TOD YEvYHp. T. awT.| TovTOV is emphatic, and points to the Passover-wine. Mark and Luke are less
216 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
precise, not having to’rov. From this it must not be assumed that Jesus never drank any wine after His resurrec- tion. Acts x. 41; Ignat. Smyrn. 3. For yévynua as used by later Greek writers (likewise the LXX.) in the sense of xapmos, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 286. For the reasons for rejecting the reading yevruatos (Lachmann, Tischendorf), not- withstanding the far greater number of testimonies in its favour, see Fritzsche on Mark, p.619 f. The use of this term instead of otvos has something solemn about it, containing, as it does, an allusion to the form of thanksgiving for the Passover wine: “benedictus sit, qui creavit fructwm vitis.” Comp. Lightfoot on ver. 27.—x«atvov] novum, different in respect of quality; “novitatem dicit plane singularem,” Bengel ; not vecens, véov. This conception of the new Passover wine, which is to be the product of the coming aeon and of the glorified «ticts, is connected with the idea of the renewal of the world in view of the Messianic kingdom. Luke xxi. 16, comp. ver. 30. To understand the new celebration of the Passover in the perfected kingdom only in a figurative sense, corresponding somewhat to the feasts of the patriarchs, alluded to at vill. 11 (“ vos aliquando mecum in coelo summa laetitia et felicitate perfruemini,’” Kuinoel, Neander), would, in presence of such a characteristic allusion to the Passover, be as arbitrary on the one hand as the referring of the expression (Chrysos- tom, Euthymius Zigabenus, Miinster, Clarius) to the period subsequent to the resurrection of Jesus (Acts x. 41) would be erroneous on the other, and that on account of the tovrov and the words év 77 Baown. tT. 7. ., which can only be intended to designate the kingdom of Messiah. It is wrong to take ‘awov, aS Kuinoel and Fritzsche have done, in the sense of iterum, for it isa characteristic predicate of the wine that it is here in question; besides, had it been otherwise, we should have had anew: €« xawhs, Thue. iii. 92. 5, or the ordinary madw of the New Testament.
Ver. 30. ‘YL uvyocavtes] namely, the second portion of the Hallel (Ps. exv.—exviil.). See Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 613 f. Jesus also took part in the singing. Comp. Justin, ¢. 77.106. — €EjNOov, «.7.r.]| The regulation (comp. Ex. xi. 22), which
CHAP. XXVI. 31-35. a1
required that this night should be spent in the city (Lightfoot, p. 564), appears not to have been universally complied with. See Tosapht in Pesach. 8 in Lightfoot, minister. templi, p. 727.
Ver. 31. Tore] whilst they were going out, ver. 36.— mavTes] put first so as to be highly emphatic. — cxavdan.] Comp. on xi. 6. In this instance it means: instead of standing faithfully by me till the last, ye will be cowardly enough to run away and leave me to my fate, and thus show that your faith has not been able to bear the brunt of the struggle. Comp. John xvi. 32. See ver. 56. With what painful astonishment these words must have filled the dis- ciples, sincerely conscious as they were of their faithful de- votion to their Master! Accordingly this announcement is fol- lowed up with quoting the prediction in which the tragic event is foretold. The passage here introduced with yéyp. yap is from Zech. xiii. 7 (quoted with great freedom). In the shep- herd who, according to this passage, is to be smitten, Jesus sees a typical representation of Himself as devoted to death by God, so that the words cannot have had reference (Ewald, Hitzig) to the foolish shepherd (ch. xi. 15 ff), but only to the one appointed by God Himself (Hofmann), whose antitype is Jesus, and His disciples the scattered sheep; comp. Heng- stenberg, Christol. III. 1, p. 528.
Ver. 32 f. IIpoe:rrav ta AvTNpa, Tporeyes Kal Ta Tapapv- Govpeva, Euthymius Zigabenus——They were again to gather around Him in Galilee, the native scene of His ministry. Comp. xxvii. 10. The authenticity of these words in their present form may be called in question, in so far as Christ cannot have predicted His resurrection in such explicit terms. See on xvi. 21. The answer of Peter, given in the bold self-confidence of his love, savours somewhat of self-exaltation ; consequently the impression made upon him by the experi- ence of his shortcomings was all the deeper.
Ver. 34f. IIpiv aréxtopa davicar] before a cock crows, therefore before the day begins to dawn. Cock-crowing occurs in the third of the four night watches (see on xiv. 24), which watch lasted from midnight till about three o’clock, and is called adextopopwvia in Mark xiii. 35. For the opposite
218 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
of the zpiv ad. gav., see Plat. Symp. p. 223 C: mpos typépav 75n Gdextpvovoy adovtwv ; Lucian, Ocyp. 670: éel 8 addéxtwp nuepav eoddrticev; Horace, Sat. i. 1.10. For a later modi- fication of the expression in conformity with the repeated denials, see Mark xiv. 30. On the question as to whether or not adé«Twp can be considered good Greek, consult Lobeck, -ad Phryn. p.228f. This prediction as to the time was subse- quently confirmed by the actual crowing of a cock, ver. 74: — amapyynon je] thou wilt deny me, deny that I am thy Lord and Master. Comp. Celsus in Origen, ii. 45: odte ouvaTréGavov ovte vTepaTtéBavov av’Tod, ovdé KoAdoEwY KaTA- ppovely érretcPncav, aArAG Kal HpvycavTo eivat waOntat. For avy cot avo, comp. John xi. 16.—arapvjcopac] The future after od un (see Hartung, Partikell. p. 157; Winer, p. 471 f. [E. T. 635]) is rather more expressive of a confident assertion than the subjunctive, the reading of A E G, ete. — opolws Kat TavTes, «.7.A.] Considering the sincere but as yet untried love of each, this is not an improbable statement, though it is found only in Matthew and Mark.
Ver. 36. I'e@cnpav7y or, according to a still better attested form, I'e@onuavet (Lachmann, Tischendorf), is most likely the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew j2¥ 3, an oil-wress. It was a plot of ground (ywpiev, John iv. 5; Acts i. 18, iv. 34, v. 3, xxviii. 7), perhaps a small estate with a garden (John xviii. 1); according to Keim, an olive-yard where nobody lived. If the place was not public property, Jesus, according to John xix. 2, must have been on friendly terms with the owner. On the place (the present Dschesmanye), which subsequent tradition has fixed upon as the site of the ancient Gethsemane, see Robinson, Pal. I. p. 389; Tobler, d. Siloahquelle wu. d. Oelberg, 1852.— avtod] here ; the only other instances in the New Testament are found in Acts xv. 34, xvili, 19, xxi. 4; of frequent occurrence in classical writers. — €xet] pointing toward the place.
Ver. 37 f. Anticipating the inward struggle that awaited Him, He retired farther into the garden, taking with Him none (xvii. 1) but the three most intimate disciples. — }p&aro] indicating the first symptoms of the condition in question, —
CHAP, XXVI. 39. | 219
AumetoOat x. adnpmovetv] Climax. Suidas explains adnpov. as meaning: Aiavy AvreioPa. See Buttmann, Lexilog. II. p-135 f.; Ael V. H. xiii. 3; Phil. ii, 26.— wepirurros] very sorrowful, Ps. xliii. 5; 3 Esdr: viii. 71 f.; Isocr. p) 11 B; Aristot. Zth. iv. 3; Diog. L. vu. 97. The opposite of this is Tepiyapns. —% ux wov] Comp. John xii. 27; Xen. Hell. iv. 4.3: adnpovicas tas wuyas. The soul, the intermediate element through which the spirit (ro mwvedua, ver. 41) is con- nected with the body in the unity of the individual (see Beck, Bibl. Seelenl. p. 11), is the seat of pleasure and pain. Comp. Stirm in the Twib. Zeitschr. 1834, 3, p. 25 ff.— €ws Oavarov] defining the extent of the wepidumos: unto death, so as almost to cause death, so that I am nearly dead from very grief; Jonah iv. 9; Isa. xxxvin. 1; and see on Phil. ii. 27. The idea of the mors infernalis (Calovius), as though Christ had been experiencing the pains of hell, is here exegetically unwarrantable. Euthymius Zigabenus correctly observes: davepw@repoy éEayopever THy acbéveav THs Picews ws avOpwros. — peivate . . . €wov| “In magnis tentationi- bus juvat solitudo, sed tamen, ut in propinquo sint amici,” Bengel.
Ver. 39. Mcexpor] belongs to mpoedOav: after He had gone jorward a short distance. For puxpov comp. Xen. Cyrop. iv. 2. 6 (pixpov opevOévres); Hist. Gr. vii. 2. 13° (uexpov 8 avtovs mpotéuapavtes).— él mpocwmov avtod] The article was not necessary before mpocw7. (in opposition to Fritzsche, who takes avtod as meaning there). Comp. xi. 10, xvii. 6, and elsewhere. Winer, p. 116 [E. T. 152]. Bengel appropriately observes: “7% faciem, non modo in genua ; summa demissio.” ei dvvatov éats] ethical possibility according to the divine purpose. Similarly the popular ex- pression wdvta duvatd oot is to be understood, according to the sense in which Jesus uses it, as implying the necessary condition of harmony with the divine will. — To totypuov tovrTo| ze. this suffering and death immediately before me. Comp. xx. 22. — 3rAxpv ovy, «.7.r.] The wish, to which in His human dread of suffering He gave utterance, that, if possible, He should not be called upon to endure it (€devEe to avOpemwor,
220 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
Chrysostom), at once gives place to absolute submission, John v. 30, vi. 38. The word to be understood after ov (OéAeus) is not yevéoOw, but, as corresponding with the oty (not 4%, observe), ryevnoetat, or éotat, in which the petitioner expresses his final determination. It may be observed further, that the broken utterance is in keeping with the deep emotion of our Lord. —For @s, which, so far as the essential meaning is concerned, is identical with the relative pronoun, comp. Hermann, ad Hom. h. in Cer. 172.
Ver. 40. The fact that the disciples slept, and that these disciples did so in circumstances such as the present, and that all three gave way, and that their sleep proved to be of so overpowering a character, is, notwithstanding Luke’s ex- planation that it was aio THs AUVs (xxii. 45), a psychologi- cal mystery, although, after utterances of Jesus so manifestly authentic as those of vv. 40 and 45, the statement that they did sleep is not to be regarded as wnhistorical, but is to be taken as implying that Jesus had spent a considerable time in prayer, and that the disciples, in consequence of their deep mental exhaustion, found it impossible to keep awake. — xa] three times ; the narrative is characterized by a simple pathos. — 7@ Ilétp@] to him He addressed words that were equally ap- plicable to them all; but then it was he who a little ago had surpassed all the others in so boldly declaring how much he was prepared to do for his Master, vv. 33, 35. — otras] siccine, thus, uttered with painful surprise, is to be taken in con- nection with what follows, without inserting a separate mark of interrogation (in opposition to Euthymius Zigabenus and Beza). Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 5.
Ver. 41.°Iva] indicating, not the object of the mpocedyeobe, but purpose, and that of the watching and praying. — eicéXOnte eis metpacpov] in order that ye may not be betrayed into circumstances in which ye might be led to show yourselves unfaithful to me (into the cxavSarigeoOar of ver. 31). Comp. vi. 13. By watching and praying, as a means of maintaining clearness of judgment, freedom, and a determination to adhere to Christ, they were to avoid getting into such outward cir- cumstances as might prove dangerous to their moral wellbeing.
CHAP. XXVI. 42—44. 224
The watching here is no doubt of a physical nature (ver. 40), but the wpocevyecGar has the effect of imparting to it the character and sacredness belonging to spiritual watchfulness (Col. iv. 2).—76 pwev mvedpa, «.7.r.] a general proposition (all the more telling that it is not introduced with a yap), intended to refer, by way of warning, to the circumstances in which the disciples were placed, as though it had been said: ye are no doubt, so far as the principle of your ethical life in its general aim and tendency is concerned, willing and ready to remain true to me; but on the individual side of your nature, where the influence of sense is so strong, you are incapable of resisting the temptations to unfaithful- ness by which you are beset. Comp. on John ii.6. Euthy- mius Zigabenus: 7 6€ cap£, dcOevns otoa, bTootéNNeTAL Kal ovx evtovet. In order, therefore, to avoid getting into a pre- dicament in which, owing to the weakness in question, you would not be able to withstand the overmastering power of influences fatal to your salvation without the special protection and help of God that are to be obtained through vigilance and prayerfulness, watch and pray !
Ver. 42 ff. Idnduv é« devrépov] a well-known pleonasm. John xxi. 15; Acts x. 15. Comp. devtepov radu, Plat. Polit. p. 260 D, ad&s madw (p. 282 C), and such like. We some- times find even a threefold form: ad@cs ad radu, Soph. Phil. 940, O. C. 1421.— ec] not quandoquidem (Grotius), but: 7/. The actual feelings of Jesus are expressed in all their reality in the form of acquiescence in that condition of impossibility (ov Svvatat) as regards the divine purpose which prevents the thing from being otherwise.— todt0] without To mornpiov (see the critical remarks): ¢hzs, which I am called upon to drink. — éav py avTo Tia] without my having drunk tt ; if it cannot pass from me unless it is drunk.— y evn OnT@ TO OEANMA ToOv| this is the taxon wexpt Oavatov otavpod, Phil. ii. 8; Rom. v.19. Observe in this second prayer the climax of resignation and submission; His own will, as mentioned in ver. 39, is completely silenced. Mark’s account is here less precise. — Ver, 43. joav yap, «.7.r.] for their eyes (see on viii. 3) were heavy (weighed down with drowsiness). Comp. Eur. Alc. 385.
222 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
— Ver. 44. é« tpitov] belongs to mpoonvé Comp. 2 Cor. xii. 8.—7. avr. NOy.] as is given at ver. 42.
Ver. 45. The annoyance at finding the disciples asleep (ver. 40: odtws ovK icyvoaTe, x.T.r.) now deepens into an in- tensely painful irony: “ sleep on now, and have out your rest” (the emphasis is not on 76 Nourov, but on Kabevdere x. avaTr.) ! He had previously addressed them with a ypnyopsite, but to how little purpose! and, accordingly, He now turns to them with the sadly ironical abandonment of one who has no further hope, and tells them to do quite the reverse: sleep on, ete. Comp. Euthymius Zigabenus, Beza, Miinster, Erasmus, Calvin, Er. Schmid, Maldonatus, Bengel, Jansen, Michaelis, Fritzsche, Keim, Ewald. On dourov and 76 Nourrov, for the rest of the time, in the sense of jam (Vulgate), henceforward (Plat. Prot. p. 321 C), see Schaefer, ad Long. p. 400; Jacobs, ad Philostr. p. 663. Comp. on Acts xxvii. 20. To object, as is frequently done, that the ironical view does not accord with the frame of mind in which Jesus must have been, is to fail to appreciate aright the nature of the situation. Irony is not inconsistent even with the deepest anguish of soul, especially in cases where such anguish is also accompanied with such clearness of judgment as we find in the present instance ; and consider what it was for Jesus to see such an over- powering tendency to sleep on the part of His disciples, and to find everything so different from what He needed, and might reasonably have expected! Winer, p. 292 [E. T. 391], following Chrysostom, Theophylact (who, however, admits the plausibility of the ironical view), and Grotius, excludes the idea of irony, and interprets thus: “ sleep on, then, as you are doing, and take your rest,” which words are supposed to be spoken permissively in accordance with the calm, mild, resigned spirit produced by the prayers in which He had just been engaged. This is also substantially the view of Kuinoel, de Wette, Morison, Weiss on Mark; and see even Augustine, who says: “verba indulyentis eis jam somnum.” But the idea that any such indulgence was seriously intended, would be incompatible with the danger referred to at ver. 41, and wuich He knew was threatening even the disciples themselves.
CHAP. XXVI. 46. 223
There are others, again, who are disposed to take the words interrogatively, thus: are ye stall asleep? Such is the view of Henry Stephens, Heumann, Kypke, Krebs, in spite of the ordinary usage with regard to To Aomov, to understand which in the sense of “ henceforth” (Bleek, Volkmar) would be entirely out of keeping with the use of the present here. Tf, however, the mark of interrogation be inserted after caQev- dere, and 7d Aourov Kai avatravecOe be then taken impera- tively (Klostermann), in that case «ai would have the inten- sive force of even ; but its logical position would have to be before TO Aouzrov, not before avatravecGe, where it could be rendered admissible at all only by an artificial twisting of the sense (“now you may henceforth rest on, even as long as you choose””).—While Jesus is in the act of uttering His cabevdere, k.T.., He observes the hostile band approaching ; the painful irony changes to a painful earnestness, and He continues in abrupt and disjointed words: (6ov, ijyyixev, «.7.r. The 1) dpa should be taken absolutely: hora fatalis, John xvii. 1. The next clause describes in detail the character of that hour. — ets xelpas aduapT.] into sinners’ hands. He refers to the members of the Sanhedrim, at whose disposal He would be placed by means of His apprehension, and not to the Romans (Maldonatus, Grotius, Hilgenfeld), nor to both of these together (Lange). The zapadidovs is not God, but Judas, acting, however, in pursuance of the divine purpose, Acts ii. 23.
Ver. 46. Observe the air of quick despatch about the words eyelper Oe, aywopev, idov.—adyoper] is not a summons to take to flight, in consequence perhaps of a momentary return of the former shrinking from suffering (which would be incon- sistent with the fact of the victory that had been achieved, and with the clear consciousness which He had that 6 vids T. ad. Tapadiéotat, «.7.d. ver. 45), but: to go to meet the betrayer, with a view to the fulfilling of the wapadééotae of which He had just been speaking. Kavrteifev eréev, Ore éxov atroOaveirat, Euthymius Zigabenus.
REMARK.—On the agony in the garden (see, in general, Ullmann, Siindlos., ed. 7, p. 127 ff.; Dettinger in the Tb. Zeutschr. 1837, 4, 1838, 1; Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 306 ff. ;
ee THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
Keim, III. p. 306 ff.), the following points may be noted: (1) As to the nature of it, we must not regard it simply as bodily suffering (Thiess, Paulus), nor as consisting in sorrow on account of the disciples and the Jews (Jerome), nor as pain caused by seeing His hopes disappointed (Wolfenbiittel Frag- ments), nor as grief at the thought of parting from His friends (Schuster in Eichhorn’s £ib/. IX. p. 1012 ff.) ; but, as the prayer vv. 39, 42 proves, as consisting in fear and dread of the cruel suffering and death that were so near at hand, the prospect of which affected Christ—whose sensibilities were purely human, and not of the nature of a philosophical abstraction, like the imperturbability of Socrates or the apathy of the Stoic (Celsus, in Origen, 11. 24, charges Him with cowardice)—all the more powerfully in proportion to the greater purity, and depth, and genuineness of His feelings, and the increasing distinctness with which He foresaw the approach of the painful and, according to the counsel of the Father, inevitable issue. For having been victorious hitherto over every hostile power, because His hour had not yet come (John vii. 30, viii. 20), He realized, now that it was come (ver. 45), the whole intensity of horror implied in being thus inevitably abandoned, in pursuance of God’s redemptive purpose, to the disposal of such powers, with the immediate prospect before Him of a most dreadful death, a death in which He was expected, and in which He Himself desired, to manifest His perfect obedience to the Father’s will. The momentary disturbing of the complete harmony of His will with that of God, which took place in Gethsemane, is to be ascribed to the human doéévere incidental to His state of humiliation (comp. 2 Cor. xiil.4; Heb. v. 7), and should be regarded simply as a natural shrinking from suffering and death, a shrinking entirely free from sin (comp. Dorner, Jesu stindlose Vollkommenh. p. 6 f.). Neither was it in any way due to the conviction, unwarrantably ascribed to Him by Schenkel, that His death was not absolutely necessary for the redemption of the world. That touch of human weakness should not even be described as sin in embryo, sin not yet developed (Keim), because the absolute resignation to the Father’s will which immediately manifests itself anew pre- cludes the idea of any taint of sin whatever. To suppose, however, that this agony must be regarded (Olshausen, Gess) as an actual abandonment by God. i.e. as a withdrawing of the presence of the higher powers from Jesus, is to contradict the testimony of Heb. v. 7, and to suppose what is inconsistent with the very idea of the Son of God (Strauss, II. p. 441); and
CHAP. XXVL 225
to explain it on the ground of the vicarious character of the suffering (Olshausen, Ebrard, Steinmeyer, following Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, Beza, and the dogmatic writers of the orthodox school), as though it were to be regarded as “a concrete bearing of the whole concentrated force of a world’s sin” (Ebrard), and of the wrath of God in all its fulness (comp. Thomasius, III. 1, p. 69 f.; Weber, v. Zorne Gottes, p. 266 ff.), is erroneously to take a materialistic and quantitative view of the iAworjpiov of Jesus ; whereas Scripture estimates His atoning death according to its qualitative value,—that is to say, it regards the painful death to which the sinless Son of God subjected Himself in obedience to the Father’s will as consti- tuting the efficient cause of the atonement, and that not because He required to undergo such an amount of suffering as might be equivalent in quantity and intensity to the whole sum of the punishment due to mankind, but because the vicarious Avrpov on behalf of humanity consisted in the volun- tary surrender of His own life. Comp. ver. 27 f., xx. 28; John pea Ae ohm 2, i. 5 51 Lim. 11.165 2) Con v, 21: ‘Gale mi, 13, But it would be unwarrantable, on the other hand, to ascribe the dread which Jesus felt merely to the thought of death as a divine judgment, and the agonies of which He was supposed to be already enduring by anticipation (Kostlin in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. III. p. 125). Those who adopt this view lay great stress upon the sinlessness of our Lord as tending to intensify this painful anticipation of death (Det- tinger, comp. Ullmann, Neander). (2) John, notwithstanding the fact that he was both an eye and ear witness of the agony in Gethsemane, makes no mention of it whatever, although he records something analogous to it as having taken place somewhat earlier, xii. 27. With the view of accounting for this silence, it is not enough to suppose that John had omitted this incident because it had been suffi- ciently recorded by the other evangelists, for a mere external reason such as this would accord neither with the spirit of his Gospel nor with the principle of selection according to which it was composed (in opposition to Liicke, Tholuck, Olshausen, Ebrard). We should rather seek the explanation of the matter in the greater freedom which characterizes the com- position of this Gospel, and therefore in the peculiarities of style and form which are due to this work of John being an inde- pendent reproduction of our Lord’s life. After the prayer of Jesus, which he records in ch. xvii., John felt that the agony could not well find a place in his Gospel, and that, after xii. 23 ff., there MATT. II, P
226 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
was no reason why it should be inserted any more than the cry of anguish on the cross. Comp. Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 557 f. In John, too, ch. xviii, the transition from acting to suffering is somewhat abrupt (in opposition to Hofmann) ; but after the high- priestly prayer, the suffering appears as one series of victories culminating in the triumphant issue of xix. 30; im fact, when Jesus offered up that prayer, He did so as though He were already victorious (xvi. 33). It is quite unfair to make use of John’s silence either for the purpose of throwing discredit upon the synoptic narrative (Goldhorn in Tzschirner’s Magaz. f. chr. Pred. 1, 2, p. 1 ff; Schleiermacher, Z. J. p. 422 f.), or as telling against John (Bretschneider, Probab. p. 33 ff.; Weisse, IT. p. 268; Baur, Keim; likewise Theile in Winer’s Journ. II. p. 353 ff., comp. however, his Biogr. Jesu, p. 62), or with a view to impugn the historical character of both narratives (Strauss, Bruno Bauer). The accounts of the two earliest evangelists bear the impress of living reality to such an extent that their character is the very reverse of that which one expects to find in a legend (in opposition to Gfrorer, Heil. Sage, p. 337 ; Usteri in the Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 465) ; nor is there any reason why, even after the high-priestly prayer, such an agony as that in question should not find a place in the Gospel narrative; for who shall presume to say what changes of feeling, what eleva- tion and depression of spirit, may not have taken place on the eve of such a catastrophe in a heart so noble, so susceptible, and so full of the healthiest sensibilities, and that not in conse- quence of any moral weakness, but owing to the struggle that had to be waged with the natural human will (comp. Gess, p. 175; Weizsicker, p. 563)? Comp. John, remark after ch. xvii. (3) The report of Jesus’ prayer should not be (unpsychologically) supposed to have been communicated by the Lord Himself to His disciples, but ought rather to be regarded as derived from the testimony of those who, before sleep had overpowered them, were still in a position to hear at least the first words of it.
Ver. 47. Eis tév SHd5exa] precisely as in ver. 14, and repeated on both occasions in all three evangelists. In the oral and written tradition this tragic designation (katnyopia, Euthymius Zigabenus) had come to be so stereotyped that it would be unconsciously inserted without there being any further occasion for doing so. The same holds true with regard to 6 mapadidovs avtov, ver. 48, xxvii. 3.—oydos moXvs| Matthew makes no reference to the Roman cohort, John
CHAP. XXVI. 48-50. 227
xvill. 3; his account, however, does not, at the same time, exclude it, as it is simply less precise. Luke xxii. 52 like- wise represents the high priests and elders as appearing at this early stage among the throng; but this is an unwarrant- able amplification of the tradition; see on Luke. — vA av] cudgels, fustibus (Vulgate). Herod. 11. 63, iv. 180; Polyb. vi. 36. 3.. Wetstein on the passage. — dao To», «.7.d.] belongs to 7A6e; see on Gal. ii. 12.
Ver. 48. It is usual, though unwarrantable (see on John xviii. 24), to take €dwxev in the sense of the pluperfect (comp. Mark xiv. 44), in which case it is necessary, with Ewald, to make ver. 48 a parenthesis. The Vulgate correctly renders by: dedit. He communicated the signal to them while they were on the way.—dv av dtrAXoo, «.7.r.] Fritzsche inserts a colon after @iAjow, and supposes the following words to be understood: est vobis comprehendendus. It may be given more simply thus: Whomsoever I shall have kissed, He it is (just He, no other is the one in question)! This avtés serves to single out the person intended, from those about Him. Hermann, ad Viger. p. 733.
Ver. 49. Ev@éws] is not to be taken with etre (Fritzsche), but with mpocedOav: immediately, as soon as he had given them this signal, he stepped wp, ete. No sooner said than done. — katediancer] embraced and kissed Him, kissed Him most endearingly. Xen. Mem. ii. 6. 33: 5 Tods pév Kadods idjcavros pov, Tors 8 ayabods katadirjnoavtos; Tob. vii. 6 ; Keclus. xxix. 5; 3 Mace. v. 49; Test. XII. patr. p. 730. It is not the case, as de Wette imagines (see Luke vii. 38, 45; Acts xx. 37), that in the New Testament (and the LXX.) the compound has lest the force here ascribed to it; but it is to be insisted on in our present passage as much as in classical Greek. The signal, as arranged, was to be simply a kiss; the signal actually given was kissing accompanied with embraces, which was entirely in keeping with the excitement of Judas, and the desire he felt that there should be xo mistake as to the person intended.
Ver. 50. ‘Eratpe] as in xx. 13.—éd 6 wapec] As the relative os is never used in a direct (see Lobeck, ad Phiyn. p.
228 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
57), but only in an indirect question (Kiihner, IT. 2, p. 942; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 372), it follows that the ordinary interrogative interpretation must be wrong; and that to suppose (Winer, p. 157 [E. T. 207 f.]) that we have here one of those corrupt usages peculiar to the Greek of a less classical age, is, so far as 6s is concerned, without any foundation whatever. Fritzsche, followed by Buttmann, Newt. Gr. p. 217 [E. T. 253], understands the expression as an caclamation : “ad qualem rem perpetrandam ades!” But even then, Greek usage would have required that it should have been put in an interrogative form and expressed by 7/, or failing this we might have had the words 颒 ofoy instead (Ellendt, as above, p. 300 f.). The language, as might be expected from the urgent nature of the situation, 1s somewhat abrupt in its character: Mriend, mind what you are here for! attend to that. With these words He spurns the kisses with which the traitor was overwhelming Him. This suits the connection better than the supplying of ed7é (Morison). Instead of this hypocritical kissing, Jesus would prefer that Judas should at once proceed with the dark deed he had in view, and deliver Him to the catchpolls—John xviii. 3 ff., it is true, makes no mention whatever of the kissing ; but this is not to be taken as indicating the legendary character of the incident, especially as there is nothing to prevent us from supposing that it may have taken place just before the question tia €nreire, John xviii. 4; see on this latter passage.
Ver. 51. It is strange that the Synoptists have not men- tioned the name of Peter here (John xviii. 10, where the name of the high priest’s servant is also given). It may be that, with a view to prevent the apostle from getting into trouble with the authorities, his name was suppressed from the very first, and that, accordingly, the incident came to be incorporated in the primitive gospel traditions without any names being mentioned, it having been reserved for John ultimately to supply this omission. —avttobd To wriov] his ear (see on viii. 3). On @tiov, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 211. He missed the head at which the stroke was aimed.
Ver. 52. Put back thy sword into its place (@jxnv, John xviii. 11; «odcov, 1 Chron. xxi. 27). A pictorial representation ;
CHAP. XXVI. 53, 54. 229
the sword was uplifted.— mwavtes yap, «.1.r.] All, who have taken a sword, will perish by the sword,—an ordinary axiom in law (Rev. xiii. 10) adduced for the purpose of enforcing His disapproval of the unwarrantable conduct of Peter, not, a tpodynteia ths SiapOopas Tav émedOovtov ait “Iovdaiwv (Euthymius Zigabenus, comp. Grotius), nor “an ideal sentence of death” (Lange) pronounced upon Peter—all such interpre- tations being foreign to our passage. Luther, however, fitly observes : “Those take the sword who use it without proper authority.”
Ver. 53. ”H] or, in case this should not be sufficient to induce thee to thrust back thy sword. — apt] this instant. See on Gal. i. 10.—The interrogation does not extend merely as far as pov, in which case it would lose much of its signi- ficance, while the language would be rendered too abrupt, but on to ayyéAwv ; yet not as though «ai (for that, 6c) introduced a broken construction, but thus: Thinkest thou that I am not able... and He will (not) place at my side, etc.? so that I can thus dispense entirely with thy protection! The force of the negative runs through the whole sentence. — 7reElo dHdexa ANeyeovas ayyérov (see the critical remarks) is a genuine Attic usage, according to which it is permissible to have the neuter mAecioy or wAeiw without a change of con- struction, or even without inserting 7. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 410 f.; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apol. p. 17 D; Kiihner, II. 2, p. 847. The number ¢welve corresponds to the number of the apostles, because of these only one had shown a disposi- tion to defend him.
Ver. 54. Tas otdv] How, in that case, could it be, if, that is, I were to be defended by thee or angel hosts, how could it be possible that, etc. In his comment on ody, Euthymius Zigabenus aptly analyses it as follows: e¢ ux ottws avaipebo. For mos, comp. on xxiii. 33. — 67+] states the purport of the ypapai, so that to complete the sense a Aéyovaas or ypddov- gat may be understood (Fritzsche, Quaest. Luc. p. 58 f.; Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 215): how shall the Scriptures be Sulfilled which say that it must happen thus, and not otherwise? Jesus here alludes to the fact of His arrest, which, according
230 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
to Scripture, is a necessary part of the destiny assigned Him; comp. Acts iv. 28; Luke xxiv. 25 f. We must not expect to find what is here referred to in any passages of Scripture in particular; suffice it to know, that al/ the predictions relating to the sufferings of the Messiah find their necessary fulfilment in the historical events of our Lord’s life, the arrest itself not excluded. Comp. ver. 31.—The healing of the wounded servant is peculiar to Luke xxii. 51. It probably came to be engrafted upon the tradition at a later period; for this act of healing, in virtue of the peculiarity of its alleged occasion and character, as well as in virtue of its being the last which Jesus performed, would otherwise scarcely have been omitted by all the other evangelists ; see also on Luke as above.
Ver. 55. "Ev éxeivn +h pa] in that hour, in which that was going on which is recorded between ver. 47 and the present passage, subsequently, however, to the scene with Peter, and while the arrest was taking place. Comp. xviii. 1, x. 19.— Tots dyXors] not to the high priests, ete, as Luke xxii. 52 would have us suppose. What is meant is the crowds of which the dyAos oAvs of ver. 47 was composed.
Ver. 56. Todto ... wpodntov| It is still Jesus who speaks, and who with these words closes His address. Comp. also Mark xiv. 19. In Luke xxii. 53 we find a somewhat different conclusion given. Erasmus, Jansen, Bengel, Fritzsche, de Wette, Schegg, Bleek, Weiss, Holtzmann, Hilgenfeld, regard the words in question as a remark by the evangelist (comp. i, 22, xxi. 4); but if that were so, we should have expected some specific quotation instead of such a general expression as ai ypapal tr. wp., and what is more, our Lord’s words would thus be deprived of their proper conclusion, of that which contains the very point of His remarks. For the gist of the whole matter lay in this avowal of His conviction as the God-man that all that was now taking place was a carrying out of the divine purpose with regard to the fulfilling of the Scriptures, and— thus the mystery of ver. 55 is solved.— rote of padnral, k.T.r.] Observe the wavres. Not one of them stood his ground. Here was the verification of the words of Jesus, ver. 31; comp. John xvi. 32.
CHAP. XXVI. 57-60. wre |
Ver. 57 f. The Synoptists make no mention of the judicial examination before Annas (John xviii. 13); their narrative is for this reason incomplete, though it does not exclude such examination (Luke xxii. 66). As for the trial before the members of the Sanhedrim, which took place at the house of Caiaphas, John merely alludes to it, xvill. 24, where, how- ever, améotetrev is not to be taken as a pluperfect.— dao paxpoOev] a well-known pleonasm: in later Greek the azo is dropped. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 93. Bengel appropriately observes : “ medius inter animositatem ver. 51 et timorem ver. 70.’ —ris avrAHs] not the palace but the court, as in ver. 3. —eicerOwv écw] see Lobeck, ad Aj. 741; Paralip. p. 538. — 70 TéXos]| exitwm ret ; 3 Mace. iii. 14, common in classical writers. Luther renders admirably: “wo es hinaus wollte ” (what the upshot would be).
Ver. 59 f. Kat to cuvédptov bdov] and the whole San- hedrim generally. This is a legitimate enough use of the words, even although certain individual members (Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea) did not concur in this proceeding. —wevdouaptupiayv] so called from the historian’s own point of view. Euthymius Zigabenus well remarks: @s pév éxeivous COoKel, wapTtuplav, ws Sé TH adyGeia, yrevdouaptupiav. — Oras Oavat. avdt.] with a view to putting Him to death, which could only be effected by their pronouncing in the first instance a capital sentence, and then having it ratified by the authority of the imperial procurator.— «ai ovy ebpov Kai NON@V TpoceXOovtay evoouaptvpwor (see the critical remarks): and they found no means of doing so, even though many false witnesses had come forward. There were many who presented themselves to bear witness against Jesus ; yet the Sanhedrim did not find what it wanted to find, doubtless because of the lack of that agreement between two of the witnesses at least which the law required (Num. xxxv. 30; Deut. xvii. 6, xix. 15). See what imme- diately follows: torepov dé mpocedO. S¥0, and comp. Mark xiv. 56. Though there was a show of complying with the ordinary forms of judicial process, they were nevertheless shamefully violated (in opposition to Salvador, Saalschutz),
Don THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
in that exculpatory evidence (John xviii. 20 f.) was never called for.
Ver. 61. The expression John ii. 19, which Jesus had made use of with reference to His own body, was not only misunderstood by those witnesses, but also misrepresented (John: Avoate): whether wilfully or not, cannot be determined. But in any case the testimony was objectively false, and even in the case of the two who agreed it was in all probability subjectively so. Comp. Acts vi. 13 f.—6ésa tpidv jpep.] not: after three days (Gal. ii. 1), but: during three days. The work of building was to extend over this short period, and would then be complete. See on Gal. ii. 1,
Ver. 62. With the sublime calm of one who is conscious of his own superior worth, Jesus meekly abstains from uttering a single word before this contemptible tribunal in the way of self-vindication, elds 5€ Kal, OTs waTny amoKpieita, Tapa tovovTos, Euthymius Zigabenus; whereas the high priest who finds, and that with considerable gratification, that the charge of being a Messianic pretender is now fully substantiated by the language of Jesus just deponed to (see ver. 63), quite forgets himself, and breaks out into a passion. — The breaking up of the following utterance into two questions: answerest thow not ? what (t.e. how heinous a matter) do these witness against thee ? is, so far as the latter question is concerned, neither feeble (de Wette) nor unnatural (Weiss), but entirely in keeping with the passionate haste of the speaker. This being the case, the two clauses should not be run into one. We should neither, on the one hand, following Erasmus, with Fritzsche, take té in the sense of cur, or (ad Marc. p. 650) the whole sentence as equivalent to té Todtd éotw, 6 obdTot cov KaTapaptupodow ; nor, on the other, with the Vulgate, Luther, de Wette, Ewald, Bleek, Keim, Weiss, should we adopt the rendering: “nihil respondes ad ea, quae isti adversum te testificantur ?” This latter, however, would not be inconsistent with the strict meaning of the terms employed, for it is quite per- missible to use azoxpiverOai tu in the sense of: to reply to anything (see Ast, Lew. Plat. I. p. 239), and to take vi as equivalent to 6,74 (Buttmann, Newt. Gr. p. 216 [E. T.
CHAP. XXVI. 68, 64. Done
251], who supposes “hérend” (hearing) to be understood before 77).
Ver. 63. The high priest answers this second refusal to speak by repeating a formal oath, in which Jesus is adjured to declare whether He be the Messiah or not. For this con- fession would determine how far they would be justified in pronouncing a capital sentence, and such as the Roman pro- curator would not fail to confirm. — é€opxi€w] means, like the earlier form é£opxow: I call upon thee to swear, Dem. eb 526; Polybiany 61; 10) vi. 21. Lyxvi, 31. 5y, Comp. yaw, Gen. xxiv. 3, al. To give an affirmative answer to this formula was to take the full oath usually administered in any court of law. Michaelis, Mos. R. § 302; Matthaei, doctr. Christi de jurejur. 1847, p. 8; Keil, Arch. Il. p. 256. The fact that Jesus took the oath has been denied, though without any reason whatever, by Wuttke, Dollinger, Steinmeyer. — Kata Tov Oeov, K.T.r.] by the living God. Comp. 1 Kings ii. 24; Judith i. 12; common in Greek authors, see Kiihner, I. 1, p. 434; also Heb. vi. 15, and Bleek thereon. The living God as such would not fail to punish the perjured, Heb. x. 31. It was the uniform practice in courts of law to swear by God. See Saalschutz, JZ R. p. 614. —o vids tod Oeod] ordinary, recognised designation of the Messiah, into which, naturally enough, the metaphysical conception does not enter here, however much it may have been present to the mind of Christ Himself in making the affirmation which follows.
Ver. 64. Sv etmras] see on ver. 25. Mark xiv. 62: éy@ eiut. A distinguished confession on the part of the Son in presence of the Father, and before the highest tribunal of the theocratic nation. —7dv] not profecto (Olshausen), nor guin (Kuinoel), but: however, ie. (comp. Klotz, ad Devar. p. 725) apart from what I have just affirmed, ye shall hence- forward have reason to be satisfied, from actual observation, that I am the Messiah who was seen by Daniel in his vision (Dan. vii. 13). — a7dp7c] is not to be taken with Aéyo byiv (Schulz in 3d ed. of Griesbach), but—since in any other con- nection it would lose its forcee—with éyeobe; nor is it to be understood in any other sense than that of henceforth, ie.
Jae THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
from the time of my impending death, through which I am to enter into my Sofa. But seeing that amdpte forbids us to understand dyeoGe as denoting only a single momentary glance (comp. on the contrary, John i. 51), we are bound to suppose that Jesus used it somewhat loosely to express the idea of coming to perceive in the course of experience (as in the passage of John just referred to) the fact of His being seated at the right hand of God (in allusion to Ps. ex. 1), and that He did not intend épyopevor, x.7.r. to refer to the second advent, but (Beza, Neander, Holtzmann, Schenkel, Gess, Weissenbach) to a coming in the figurative sense of the word, namely, in the shape of those mighty influences which, from His place in heaven, He will shed upon the earth, —nanifestations, all of them, of His sovereign sway. We are shut up to this view by the fact that the sdtting cannct possibly be regarded as an object of actual sight, and that adapt. dWeoOe can only be said of something that, beginning now, is continued henceforth.— tis duvdp.] The Mighty One is conceived of as power (the abstract for the con- crete). Similarly in the Talmud 1239, Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 585. Such abstract terms (as for instance our: majesty) have somewhat of an imposing character. Comp. 2 Pet. 1. Li.
Ver. 65. As may be seen from 2 Kings xviii. 17, the rending of the garments as an indication of unusual vexation was indulged in above all on hearing any utterance of a blasphe- mous nature. See Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 2146; Schoettgen, p. 234; Wetstein on our passage. Maimonides, quoted by Buxtorf as above, thus describes the usual mode of proceeding in such cases: “ Laceratio fit stando, a collo anterius, non posterius, non ad latus neque ad fimbrias inferiores vestis. Longitudo rapturae palmus est. Laceratio non fit in interula seu indusio linteo, nec in pallio exteriori: in reliquis vestibus corport accommodatis omnibus fit, etiamst decem fuerint.” The last-mentioned particular may serve to account for the use of the plural ra (udtva (1 Mace. ii. 14). That part of the law which forbade the high priest to rend his garments (Lev. x. 6, xxl, 10) had reference merely to ordinary mourning for the
CHAP. XXVI. 66, 67. 235
dead. Comp. 1 Macc. xi. 71; Joseph. Bell. ii, 15. 4.— éBracdnwnce] in so far as by falsely pretending to be the Messiah, the Son of God, and by further arrogating to Him- self participation in divine honour and authority, ver. 64, He had been guilty of insulting the majesty of God; comp. John v. 18, x. 33. The pain of the high priest no doubt represented the genuine vexation of one who was most deeply moved; but the judgment which he formed regarding Jesus was based upon the gratuitous assumption that He was not the Messiah, and indicates a predisposition to find Him guilty of the capital charge (Lev. xxiv. 16). For ti étu yp. ey. papr., comp. Plat. Rep. p. 340 A.
Ver. 66. At this point the high priest, notwithstanding the precipitancy with which the trial is being hurried through, and notwithstanding the candid confession just made by the accused, calls for a formal vote, the result of which is a verdict of guilty, and that of an offence deserving to be punished by death. The next thing that had to be considered was the course to be adopted with a view to the carrying out of the sentence. It was this that formed the subject of deliberation at that con- clave to which reference is made at xxvii. 1.
Ver. 67. Those to whom Matthew here refers are the members of the Sanhedrim (as are also the twés of Mark xiv. 65). Mera ydp tv adixoy Katadixny @s atimov twa Kal TpiwBorwatoy NaBovTes, x.7.r., Euthymius Zigabenus. Coarse outburst of passion on the verdict being announced. A somewhat different form of the tradition is adopted by Luke (xxl. 63), who, moreover, represents the maltreatment here referred to as having taken place before the trial. The way in which harmonists have cut and carved upon the individual features of the narrative is altogether arbitrary. The account in John xvill. 22 has no connection with that now before us, but refers to an incident in the house of Annas, which the Synoptists have entirely omitted. — éxoradg.] buffetings, blows with the fist. Comp. the Attic expression xovdvros. — éppamt.] slaps in the face with the palm of the hand; pamiswos O€ TO Tralew KaT& Tod TpoowTov, Euthymius Zigabenus; comp. v. 39; Hos. xi. 5; Isa. 1. 6; Dem. 787,
236 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
23; Aristot. Meteor. ii. 8. 9; 3 Esdr. iv. 30; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 176; Becker, Anecd. p. 300. It is in this sense that the word is usually taken. But Beza, Bengel, Ewald, Bleek, Lange, maintain that it is a blow with a rod that is meant (Herod. viii. 59; Anacr. vii. 2; Plut. Them. xi.), the sense in which the word is commonly used by Greek authors, and which ought to be preferred here, because ot 6é (see on xxviii. 16) introduces the mention of a different kind of maltreatment, and because in Mark xiv. 65 the paifew is imputed to the officers of the Sanhedrim, which, however, would not warrant us in identifying with the latter the oi dé of Matthew.
Ver. 68. IIpodyrevoov ypiv] Differently in Mark xiv. 65. But so far as the rpodnrt., tis éotw, x.7.r. is concerned, Luke xxii. 64 agrees with Matthew, although the favourite mode of accounting for this would seem to be that of tracing it to the obscuring influence of a later tradition; in no case, however, is this theory to be applied to the exposition of Matthew, for it would involve a point of essential consequence. According to Matthew, the sport lay in the demand that Jesus as Messiah, and consequently as a prophet (xxi. 11), should tell who it was that had struck Him, though He had no natural means of knowing. This conduct, of course, pro- ceeds on the assumption that the Messiah possessed that higher knowledge which is derived from divine revelation ; hence also the scoffing way in which they address Him by the title of Xpuoros. Fritzsche thinks that the prominent idea here is that of foretelling, as being calculated, when thus conjoined with the preterite waicas, to form an acerba irrisio. But that would be more likely to result in an abswrda irrisio, unmarked by the slightest touch of humour.
Ver. 69. "E&w] with reference to the interior of the par- ticular building in which the trial of Jesus had been con- ducted. In ver. 58 éow is used because in that instance Peter went from the street into the court - yard. — pla matdicxn] pia is here used in view of the dddn of ver. 71 below. Comp. on viii.19. Both of them may have seen (jo@a, jv) Peter among the followers of Jesus somewhere in Jeru-
CHAP. XXVI. 70—73. Jab
salem, and may have preserved a distinct recollection of his appearance. awdicxn, in the sense of a female slave, corre- sponds exactly to our (German) Mddchen ; see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 239.— kat od hoOa, «.7.X.] categorical accusation, as in vv. 71, 73, and not a question (Klostermann). — Tod Tanrtr.] which specific designation she may have heard applied to the Prisoner. The other slave (ver. 71) is still more specific, inasmuch as she calls Him 0 Nafwpaios.
Ver. 70.”"Eurpocdev ravtwy (see the critical remarks) : before all who were present.—ovx otda TL réyELs] evasive denial: so little have I been with Him, that I am at a loss to know what is meant by this imputation of thine.
Ver. 71. “E&eXOovra] from the court-yard to the porch, which, passing through some part of the buildings that stood round the four sides of the former, conducted into the anterior court outside (poavdov ; according to Mark xiv. 68, it was in this latter that the present denial took place). Comp. Hermann, Privatalterth. § 19. 9 ff. In spite of the plain meaning of mvAwy, door, doorway (see Luke xvi. 20; Acts x. 17, xii. 13 f., xiv. 13; Rev. xxi.), it is usually supposed that it is the outer court in front of the house, the zpoavrArov (see Poll. i. 77, ix. 16), that is meant. —avdtots éxei] éxet belongs to déyet, while avtozs, in accordance with a loose usage of frequent occurrence (Winer, p. 137 f. [E. T. 181)), is meant to refer to the people generally whom she happened to meet with. It would be wrong to connect éxe? with cai ovtos (Matthaei, Scholz), because in such a connection it would be meaningless.
Ver. 72. Observe the climax in the terms of the threefold denial. —ye@ Spxov] is peculiar to Matthew, and is here used in the sense of an oath.— tov a&vOpwmov] the man (in question). Alas, such is the language, cold and distant, which Peter uses with reference to his Master! What a contrast to xvi. 16! “Ecce, columna firmissima ad unius aurae impulsum tota contremuit,’ Augustine.
Ver. 73. The answer of Peter given at ver. 72, and in the course of which his Galilaean dialect was recognised, gave occasion to those standing by (that they were exactly Sanhedrim
238 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
officers, apparitores, Kuinoel, Paulus, does not necessarily follow from the use of ée7ates) to step up to Peter after a little while, and to corroborate (a\n@@s) the assertion of the maid-servant.— €& avt@v] of those who were along with Jesus, ver. 71.— Kal yap] for even, apart from circumstances by which thou hast been already identified. ——7 Nada cov] thy speech (see on John vill. 43), namely, through the coarse provincial accent. The natives of Galilee were unable to distinguish especially the gutturals properly, pronounced the letter w like a n, etc. See Buxtorf, Lew. Talm. p. 435, 2417 ; Lightfoot, Centur. Chorogr. p. 151 ff.; Wetstein on our passage ; Keim, I. p. 310.
Ver. 74. Tote p£aro] for previously he had not resorted as yet to the cata@euarifew, but had contented himself with the simple ouvtew (ver. 72, ue dpxov). Whereas before he had only sworn, he now takes to cursing as well. “Nune gubernaculum animae plane amisit,’ Bengel. The impreca- tions were intended to fall upon himself (should he be found, that is, to be telling an untruth). For the word catafeyarifa, which was in all probability a vulgar corruption, comp. Rev. xxi. 3; Iren. Haer. i. 13. 2, 16. 3; Oecolampadius, ad Aeé. xxiii, 12. — 670] recitantis, as in ver. 72. — aréxta@p] a cock. There are Rabbinical statements (see the passages in Wetstein) to the effect that it was not allowable to keep animals of this sort in Jerusalem; but as there are other Rabbinical passages again which assert the opposite of this (see Lightfoot, p. 483), it is unnecessary to have recourse (Reland, Wolf) to the supposi- tion that the bird in question may have belonged to a Gentile, may even have been about Pilate’s house, or some house out- side the city.
Ver. 75. "E&eXO. €Ew] namely, from the porch (ver. 71) in which the second and third denial had taken place. Finding he could no longer repress the feeling of sorrowful penitence that filled his heart, the apostle must go outside to be all alone with his remorse andshame. The fear of being detected (Chrysostom) had by this time undoubtedly become to him a very secondary consideration; he was now himself again. — elpnKoros avt@| who had said to him (ver. 34), in itself a superfluous
CHAP. XXVI. 75. 239
expression, and yet “grande participium,” Bengel. — rixpas]| he wept bitterly. Comp. Isa. xxii. 4, and the passages in Wetstein. How totally different was it with Judas! “ Lacry- marum physica amaritudo (comp. Hom. Qd. iv. 153) aut dulcedo (comp. yAv«voaxpus, Meleag. 45), congruit cum affectu animi,” Bengel.
REMARK.—Seeing that the whole four evangelists concur in representing Peter as having denied Jesus three times, we are bound to regard the threefold repetition of the denial as one of the essential features of the incident (in opposition to Paulus, who, in the discrepancies that occur in the various accounts, finds traces of no less than ezght different denials). The infor- mation regarding this circumstance can only have been derived from Peter himself; comp. also John xxi. 1 ff. As for the rest, however, it must be acknowledged—(1) that John (and Luke too, see on Luke xxi. 54 ff) represents the three denials as having taken place in a different locality altogether, namely, in the court of the house in which Annas lived, and not in that of Caiaphas; while to try to account for this by supposing that those two persons occupied one and the same dwelling (Euthymius Zigabenus, Ebrard, Lange, Lichtenstein, Riggenbach, Pressensé, Steinmeyer, Keim), is a harmonistic expedient that is far from according with the clear view of the matter presented in the fourth Gospel; see on John xviii. 16,25. (2) That the Synop- tists agree neither with John nor with one another as to certain points of detail connected with the three different scenes in question, and more particularly with reference to the localities in which they are alleged to have taken place, and the persons by whom the apostle was interrogated as to his connection with Jesus; while to say, in attempting to dispose of this, that “ Abnegatio ad plures plurium interrogationes facta wno paro- xysmo, pro una numeratur” (Bengel), is to make a mere assertion, against which all the accounts of this incident without excep- tion enter, so to speak, an emphatic protest. (3) It is better, on the whole, to allow the discrepancies to remain just as they stand, and to look upon them as sufficiently accounted for by the diverse forms which the primitive tradition assumed in regard to details. This tradition has for its basis of fact the threefold denial, not merely a denial several times repeated, and, as Strauss alleges, reduced to the number three to agree with the prediction of Jesus. It is to the narrative of John, however, as being that of the only evangelist who was an
240 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
eye-witness, that we ought to trust for the most correct representation of this matter. Olshausen, however, gives to the synoptic narratives with the one hand so much of the merit in this respect as he takes from the Johannine with the other, and thus lays himself open to the charge of arbitrarily con- founding them all. ;
CHAP, XXVII. 241
CHAPTER XAVIT
Ver. 2. airév] after rapéd. has very important evidence both for and against it, being just as liable to be inserted as a very common supplement as to be omitted on account of its super- fluous character, a character likely to be ascribed to it all the more that it is wanting also in Mark xv.1. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8.— Movriw 1/4.] B L 8, 33, 102, vss. Or. have simply IAdérw; but the full form of the name is to be pre- ferred all the more that the parallel passages have only TAdr. — Ver.3. rapadsd0ds] Lachm.: rapadods, following only B L 33, 259, vss. (2). The aorist would more readily occur to the tran- scribers, since the betrayal had already taken place. — Ver. 4. &dGov] dixasmv, although recommended by Griesb. and Schulz, has too little evidence in its favour, and should be regarded as an early exegetical correction with a view to render the ex- pression more forcible ; comp. xxiii. 35.— oer] Scholz, Lachm., Tisch.: ¢y, in accordance with decisive evidence. — Ver. 5. Instead of ¢v7@ va@, Tisch. 8 has e/g riv vaév. Exegetical emen- dation, against which there is a preponderance of evidence. — Ver. 9. ‘Izpewiov] The omission of the prophet’s name in 33, 157, Syr. Pers. and Codd. in Aug., as well as the reading Zuyopiov in 22, Syr.’ in the margin, is due to the fact that the quotation is not found in Jeremiah.— Ver. 11. gory] BC L &, 1, 33, Or.: éorééy. So Lachm. and Tisch. 8. Exegetical emendation with a view to greater precision.— Vv. 16, 17. BapaBPav] Fritzsche: “Incotv BapaSB%v. So Origen’* several min. Aram. Syr;*, and early scholiasts. Advocated above all by Fritzsche in the Litt. Blatt z. allgem. Kirchenzeit. 1848, p. 538 f., in opposition to Lachm. ed. may. p. xxxvii. f., with which latter critic Tisch. agrees. For my own part, I look upon the reading “Ijootv BupaSGav as the original one, for I am utterly at a loss to see how “Inoodv should have found its way into the text (in answer to Holtzmann, who supposes that it was from Acts iv. 36 through a blunder of the transcriber, and in answer to Tisch. 8, who with Tregelles traces it to an abbreviation of the name I7ooiv (IN), in which case it is supposed that YMININ MATT. II. Q
242 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
came to be substituted for rMIN); and because to take away the sacred name from the robber would seem very natural and all the more justifiable that it is likewise omitted in vv. 20 f., 26, and by the other evangelists, not to mention that, from a similar feeling of reverence, it would seem to have been sup- pressed in the tradition current in the apostolic age. Comp. also Rinck, Lucubr. crit. p. 285, de Wette, Ewald, Bleek, Keim, Weizsiicker. The view that ’Ijooty has been adopted from the Gospel of the Hebrews (Tisch.) is a very questionable inference from the statement of Jerome, that instead of BapaG 8. that Gospel had substituted jiliwm magistri eorum. It would be just as warrantable to quote the same authority in favour of the originality of the reading ’Iyootv BapaBG.— Ver. 22. aire (Elz., Scholz) after Azyouor has been deleted in accordance with preponderating evidence. — Ver. 24. The reading xarévavrs (Lachm.) is supported only by the insufficient evidence of B D; comp. xxi. 2.—r0d ésxasou rodrov] The words soo dimaiov are wanting in B D 102, Cant. Ver. Verc. Mm. Chrys. Or.™* They are placed after rotrov in A, while A reads roi rourov Omafov. Lachm. inserts them after rotrov, but in brackets ; Tisch. deletes them, and that correctly. They are to be re- garded as a gloss (suggested by the reading d/xasv, ver. 4), written on the margin at first, and afterwards, when incor- porated in the text, conjoined in some instances with rod afwaros (as in ver. 4) and in others with rolrovu; hence so many different ways of arranging the words. — Ver. 28. éxdbcavres] B D s** 157, Cant. Ver. Vere. Colb. Corb. 2, Lachm.: évdu- cavres. Correctly; éduc. was not understood, and was accord- ingly altered Comp. on 2 Cor. v. 3. In what follows we should, with Lachm. and Tisch., restore the arrangement xray. noun. repiéd. avr@, in accordance with important evidence. — Ver. 29. ia} rjv deZsc&y] As the reading 2 ry dc: (approved by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm., Tisch.) has such important evidence as that of A B D L N 8, min. vss. Fathers in its favour, and the one in the Received text might so easily originate in a mechanical conforming with zai ry x9. (for which Tisch., in opposition to a preponderance of MS. evidence, substitutes éa/ rig xepadazjs), we cannot but regard 2 ry 6e&:¢ as having the best claim to originality. — Ver. 33. Elz. has 65 gor: Aeyowevos xpaviov roros. So also Scholz. There is a multiplicity of readings here. Fritzsche, Rinck (comp. also
1 Lachm. adopts the reading tvdicavres in accordance with his fundamental
principles of criticism, still he looks upon it as an error of early date. See his Praef. ed. maj. Il. p. 6.
CHAP. XXVII. 243
Griesb.) have simply 6 gor: xpaviov réroc, while Lachm. and Tisch. read 6 ori xpaviov romog Asyéuevos. The balance of evidence is decidedly in favour of regarding the neuter 6 as genuine; it was changed to the masculine to suit rérov and réros. Further, Aeyouevog IS Wanting only in D, min. Copt. Sahid. Arm. Vule. It., where its omission may probably have been resorted to as a means of getting rid of a difficult construction, while the readings Asyémevor, wedepunvevduevoc, wedepunvevduevoyv (Mark xv. 22), xarovmevoey (Luke xxiil. 33), are also to be regarded as exegetical variations. We ought therefore to retain the A¢cyéuevos, and in the order in which it is taken by Lachm. and Tisch., on the authority of B L 8, min. Ath. Its earlier position in Elz. is probably due to gor Azeyou. (comp. gor: mebepu., Mark xv. 22) being sometimes taken together. — Ver. 34. o&0¢] Lachm. and Tisch. 8: of, which is supported by evidence so important, viz. B D K L i* 8, min. vss. and Fathers, that we must regard ocos as derived from Ps. lxviii. 22. The word oivey was allowed to remain in Mark xv. 23 because the gal/ did not happen to be mentioned there; and this being the case, the alteration, in conformity with Ps. lxviiil. as above, would not so readily suggest itself. — Ver. 35. After xAjpov Elz. inserts: ha rAnpwd7 To pybev dard rov xpopyjrov' Asewepiouvro Ta iweéri& juov EuuToIs, nal exi Tov imariowey wov edaPov xrjpov. Against decisive evidence ; sup- plement from John xix. 24.— Ver. 40. xaré@né:] Lachm. and Tisch. 8: xa/ xaré8., following A D &, min. Syr3* Cant. Ver. Vere. Colp. Clar. Cyr. The xa has been added for the purpose of connecting the two clauses together.— Ver. 41. After speo- Purépav, Matth., Fritzsche insert xa) ®apicaiwy, for which there is important though not preponderant evidence. Those chief adversaries of Jesus were by way of gloss mentioned on the margin, but subsequently the words crept into the text, being sometimes found along with, and sometimes substituted for, xpecPurépwy (aS in D, min. Cant. Ver. Verc. Colb. Clar. Corb. 2, Gat. Cassiod.). — Ver. 42. ¢? Baor.] Fritzsche and Tisch. read simply BaoA., following B D L 8, 33,102,Sahid. Correctly ; «is a supplementary addition from ver. 40, its insertion in D, min. vss. Eus. before zérodev below being likewise traceable to the same source. — wiorsicowev| Lachm.: wioredowev, only in accord- ance with A, Vulg. Ver. Vere. Colb. Or., but correctly not- withstanding. By way of gloss the present was replaced sometimes by the future (Elz.) and sometimes by the sub- junctive soreticwue. Tisch. 8 adopts the latter.—éa’ aire] The witnesses are divided between air@ (Elz. Lachm.), é’ airg (Griesb., Tisch. 7), and é’ airéy (Fritzsche, Tisch, 8).
244 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
The reading 22’ airs (EF GH K MSU V AQ, min) should be preferred, inasmuch as this expression not only occurs nowhere else in Matthew, but is a somewhat rare one gene- rally. — Ver. 44. For airév, Elz. has air@, against decisive MS. authority. Emendation in conformity with the construction évesdiew ti v1. — Ver. 46. The MSS. present very considerable variety as regards the spelling of the Hebrew words. Lachm.: "HA! HAI Anud cuBanbavi. Tisch. 8: ‘Hae 'HAei Aue ouPaydavi. The latter is the best attested. — Ver. 49. dAdros 62 AuBav Adyany évucev avrov trav TAcupay, nal ERAGE VOwp xa aiua, Supported though it be by BC LUI 8, min. vss. Chrys., is clearly an irrelevant interpolation (after airéy) borrowed from John xix. 34. Yet this interpolation occasioned the error condemned by Clem. v. 1311, that Christ’s side was pierced before He expired.— Ver. 52. ny épon| BDGLvS, min. Or. Eus.: 7yépdnouv. So Fritzsche, Lachm., Tisch. But how readily would the whole surroundings of the passage suggest the plural to the mechanical transcribers ! — Ver. 54. yevéweva] Lachm. and Tisch.: yivoueva, following B D, min. Vulg. It. Or. (who, however, has yevéueva as well). The aorist might have originated as readily in a failure to appreciate the © difference of meaning as in a comparison of the present passage with Luke xxiii. 47 f.— Ver. 56. For ‘Iwo7, Tisch. 8 has “Iwong, following D* Lx, vss. Or. Eus. Emendation suggested by the assumption that the mother of Jesus must have been intended (comp. on xiii. 55); hence &* enumerates the three Marys thus: Map. 4 rod IaxwBov xal 7 Map. 4 Iwonp xai n Map. 4 rev via Zeb. —- Ver. 57. ¢uadyrevoe] Lachm. and Tisch. 8: guadyrevdn, follow- ing C D 8 and two min. Altered in accordance with xiii. 52.— Ver. 64. Elz. inserts vixros after airod, against decisive evidence ; borrowed from xxviii. 13. The 6 again, which Elz. has after 2on, ver. 65, is an interpolation for sake of connection, and is wanting in very important witnesses (not, however, in ACD»).
Ver. 1. By the time the Sanhedrim met, as it now did, in full sederunt (aavtes, comp. xxvi. 59), for the purpose of con- sulting as to how they were now to give effect to the verdict of xxvi. 66, it was well on in the morning (after cock-crowing, xxvi. 74).— doe] they consulted before going further (comp. on xxii. 15) as to what the consequence might be (comp. on xxiv. 24) if they carried out their intention of putting Him to death, in other words, if they were likewise to give effect to the verdict already agreed upon: évoxos Oavartou oti,
CHAP. XXVII. 2. 245
Ver. 2. Anoavtes] The shackles which had been put upon Jesus at the time of His arrest (xxvi. 50, comp. with John Xviii. 12), and which He still wore when He was led away from Annas to Caiaphas (John xvii. 24), would seem, from. what is here stated, to have been either wholly or partially removed during the trial. With the view of His being securely conducted to the residence of the procurator, they take the precaution to put their prisoner in chains again. It is not expressly affirmed, either by Matthew or Mark, that the annyayov was the work of the members of the Sanhedrim in pleno (as generally supposed, Weiss and Keim also sharing in the opinion) ; and, indeed, it is scarcely probable that they would have so far incurred the risk of a popular tumult (comp. xxvi. 5). The statement in Luke xxiii. 1 is unques- tionably the product of a later tradition. As for Matthew and Mark, they seem to assume that merely a deputation accompanied the prisoner, though doubtless it would be large. enough to be in keeping with the importance of the occa- sion. Comp. also on ver. 3.—Tapéd@xav avtov Iovria, k.T.r.] For after Judaea became a Roman province (from the time that King Archelaus was dethroned, 759 v.c.), the Sanhedrim had lost the jus gladw. Comp. on John xvii. 31. On Pontius Pilate, the fifth procurator of Judaea, who was successor to Valerius Gratus, and who, after holding office for ten years (from A.D. 26 onwards), was summoned to Rome at the instance of Vitellius, then governor of Syria, to answer to certain charges made against him, and then (according to Evuseb. ii. 7) banished to Vienne, where he is said to have committed suicide, see Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 87 ff.; Leyrer in Herzog’s Encykl. XI. p. 663 ff.; Gerlach, d. Rom. Statthalter in Syr. u. Jud. p. 53 ff; Hausrath, Zeit- gesch. I. p. 312 ff. For certain Christian legends regarding His death, consult Tischendorf’s Lvang. Apocr. p. 426 ff. Caesarea was the place where the procurators usually resided (Acts xxiii. 23 f, xxiv. 27, xxv. 1); but, as it was the Passover season, Pilate was in Jerusalem (to be ready, in fact, to quell any disturbance that might arise, comp. on xxvi. 5), where he lived in the praetorium (see on ver. 27).—7To
246 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
Hyewove] principi. The more precise designation would have been 7 émutpoT@, procuratori. Comp. Joseph. Anit. xviii. 3. 1: IWiddros 8 6 THs "Iovdaias ryewov. On the comprehensive sense in which 7yeuav is frequently used, see Krebs, Obss. p. 61 ff.
Ver. 3. Tore] as Jesus was being led away to the procu- rator. From this Judas saw that his Master had been con- demned (xxvi. 66), for otherwise He would not have been thus taken before Pilate. —o mapadidovs avtov] His be- trayer, xxvi. 25, 48. — wetapedn Gets, «.7.r.] cannot be said to favour the view that Judas was animated by a good inten- tion (see on xxvi. 16, Remark 2), though it no doubt serves to show he neither contemplated nor expected so serious a result. It is possible that, looking to the innocence of Jesus, and remembering how often before He had succeeded in disarming His enemies, the traitor may have cherished the hope that the issue would prove harmless. Now: “ vellet, si posset, factum infectum reddere,” Bengel. Such was his repentance, but it was not of a godly nature (2 Cor. vii. 9 f.), for it led to despair.—améatpewe]| he returned them (xxv. 52+ Thue. v. 75, viii. 108; Xen. Anab. ii. 6. 3, al.), 1e. he took them back (Gen. xliii. 21; Judg. xi. 13; Jer. xxviii. 3), Heb. 2¥.— rots apy. «. Tt. tpecfP.] from which it is to be inferred that Matthew did not look upon this as a fwl/ meeting of the Sanhedrim (ver. 2).
Ver. 4."Hpaprov mapadovs] see on xxvi. 12.—aiua Odor] eis TO XvORvar, Euthymius Zigabenus ; comp. Deut. xxvii. 25; 1 Mace. i. 37; 2 Macc.i. 8 ; Phalar. ep. 40; Heliod. vill. 10.—Té wpods tas] sc. €ote; what is it as regards us? ie. what matters it to ws? we are in no way called upon to concern ourselves about what thou hast done. Comp. John xxi. 22 f£.; the words are also frequently used in this sense by Greek authors. — od dary] Thou wilt see to ut thyself, thou wilt have to consider for thyself what is now to be done by thee ; comp. ver. 24; Acts xviii. 15; 1 Sam. xxv. 17; 4 Mace. ix. 1. “Impii in facto consortes, post factum deserunt,” Bengel.
Ver. 5. "Ev 7@ va@] is to be taken neither in the sense
CHAP. XXVII. 5. 247
of near the temple (Kypke), nor as referring to the room, Gasith, in which the Sanhedrim held its sittings (Grotius), nor as equivalent to év T@ ‘ep@ (Fritzsche, Olshausen, Bleek) ; but, in accordance with the regular use of vads (see on iv. 5) and the only possible meaning of év, we must interpret thus: he flung down the money in the temple proper, i.e. in the holy place where the priests were to be found. Judas zn his despair had ventured within that place which none but priests were permitted to enter. —amnyEato] he strangled himself, Hom. Od. xix. 230; Herod. vii. 232; Xen. Cyrop. 11. 1. 14; Hier. vil. 13; Aesch. Suppl. 400; Ael. V. H. v. 3. There is no reason why the statement in Acts i. 18 should compel us to take amrdyyowar as denoting, in a figurative sense, an awakening of the conscience (Grotius, Perizonius, Hammond, Heinsius), for although dyyew is sometimes so used by classical authors (Dem. 406, 5; and see the expositors, ad Thom. Mag. p. 8), such a meaning would be inadmissible here, where we have no qualifying term, and where the style is that of a plain his- torical narrative (comp. 2 Sam. xvii. 23; Tob. 11.10). With a view to reconcile what is here said with Acts 1.18, it is usual to assume that the traitor first hanged himself, and then fell down headlong, Matthew being supposed to furnish the first, and Luke the second half of the statement (Kuinoel, Fritzsche, Olshausen, Kaeuffer, Paulus, Ebrard, Baumgarten - Crusius). But such a way of parcelling out this statement, besides being arbitrary in itself, is quite inadmissible, all the more so that it is by no means clear from Acts i. 18 that swicide had been com- mitted. Now as suicide was regarded by the Jews with the utmost abhorrence, it would for that very reason have occupied a prominent place in the narrative instead of being passed over in silence. It has been attempted to account for the absence of any express mention of suicide, by supposing that the historian assumed his readers to be familiar with the fact. But if one thing forbids such an explanation more than another, 3t is the highly rhetorical character of the passage in the Acts just referred to, which, rhetorical though it be, records, for example, the circumstance of the purchase of the field with all the historical fidelity of Matthew himself, the only difference being
248 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
that Luke’s mode of representing the matter is almost poetical in its character (in opposition to Strauss, Zeller, de Wette, Ewald, Bleek, Pressensé, Paret, Keim, all of whom concur with Paulus in assuming, in opposition to Matthew, that Judas bought the field himself). Comp. on Actsi18. In Matt. xxvii. 5 and Acts 1. 18, we have two different accounts of the fate of the betrayer, from which nothing further is to be gathered by way of historical fact than that he came to a violent end. In the course of subsequent tradition, however, this violent death came to be represented sometimes as suicide by means of hanging (Matthew, Ignatius, ad Philipp. interpol. 4), at a later stage again as a fall resulting in the bursting of the bowels, or at a later period still as the consequence of his having been crushed by a carriage when the body was in a fearfully swollen condition (Papias as quoted by Oecumenius, ad Act. l.c., and by Apollinaris in Routh’s reliquiae sacr. p. 9, 23 ff.; also in Cramer’s Catena, p. 231; Overbeck in Hilgen- feld’s Zeitschr. 1867, p. 39 ff.; Anger, Synops. p. 233). There is no other way of accounting for so many diverse traditions regarding this matter, but by supposing that nothing was known as to how the death actually took place. Be this as it may, we cannot entertain the view that Judas sunk into obscurity, and so disappeared from history, but that meanwhile the Christian legends regarding him were elabo- rated out of certain predictions and typical characters (Strauss, Keim, Scholten) found in Scripture (in such passages as Ps. cix. 8, lxix. 25); such a view being inadmissible, because it takes no account of what is common to all the New Testament accounts, the fact, namely, that Judas died a violent death, and that very soon after the betrayal; and further, because the sup- posed predictions (Ps. lxix., cix., xx.) and typical characters (such as Ahithophel, 2 Sam. xv. 30 ff., xvii. 23; Antiochus, 2 Mace. ix. 5 ff.) did not help to create such stories regarding the traitor’s death, but it would be nearer the truth to say that they were subsequently taken advantage of by critics to account for the stories after they had originated.
Ver. 6. Ovx« €€eorr] “argumento ducto ex Deut. xxiii. 18, Sanhedr. f. 112,” Wetstein. — tum atwatos] the price
CHAP. XXVII. 7—10. 249
of blood, which is supposed to have been shed. — copf.] tov iepov Onoavpov, Kareirat 5é KopRavas, Josephus, Bell. ii. 9. 4.
Ver. 7 f. "Hydpacar] It is not said that they did so immediately ; but the purchase took place shortly after, according to Acts i. 18. — Tov aypov Tod Kepap.] the field of the potter, the field which had previously belonged to some well-known potter. Whether the latter had used the field for the purpose of digging clay, it is impossible to determine. — els tadnyv t. Eévows] as a burying - place for the strangers, namely, such foreign Jews (proselytes included) as happened to die when on a visit to Jerusalem; not Gentiles (Paulus), who, had they been intended, would have been indicated more specifically. — 610] because it had been bought with the Tyr) aiwatos above (ver. 6). — aypos atwatos] 821 pn, Acts i. 18, where, however, the name is traced to a different origin. On the place which in accordance with tradition is still pointed out as the field here referred to, see Robinson, II. p. 178 ff. ; Tobler, Topogr.
Ver. 9 f. Tore] when they bought this field for the thirty pieces of money.—The passage here quoted is a very free adaptation of Zech. xi. 12, 13,1 “Iepewiov being simply a slip of the memory (comp. Augustine, de cons. ev. iii. 8, and recently Keil himself, following Calvin and the Fathers), such, however, as might readily enough occur through a reminiscence of Jer. xvii. 2. Considering that in the original Hebrew the resem- blance of this latter passage to Zechariah, as above, is suffi- ciently close to warrant the typical mode of interpretation (Credner, Beitr. II. p. 152 f.), it is arbitrary to maintain, in the somewhat uncritical fashion of Rupert, Lyra, Maldonatus,
1 If the evangelist had meant to combine two different predictions (Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erf. Il. p. 128 f. ; Haupt, alttest. Citate, p. 286 ff.), then, according to the analogy of ii. 23, we should have expected the words 3 cay xpodnray to be used. But, in short, our quotation belongs so exclusively to Zechariah, that candour forbids the idea of a combination with Jer. xviii., as well as the view adopted by Hengstenberg (comp. Grotius), that Zechariah reproduces the prediction of Jeremiah. For a detailed enumeration of the various attempts that have been made to deal with the inaccurate use of ‘Iepeziov, consult Morison, who follows Clericus in holding that there must have been a transcriber’s error in the very earliest copy of our Gospel.
250 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
Jansen, Clericus, Friedlieb, that ‘Iepeuiov is spurious; or, on the other hand, to resort, as Origen, Euthymius Zigabenus, Kuinoel, Ewald have done, to the idea of some lost produc- tion of Jeremiah’s, or of some oral utterance that had never been committed to writing (see, above all, Calovius, who in support of this view lays great stress on pyOév). As for the statement of Jerome, that he had seen the passage in a copy of Jeremiah belonging to some person at Nazareth, there can be no doubt that what he saw was an interpolation, for he also is one of those who ascribe the citation in question to Zechariah. No less arbitrary is the conjecture of Eusebius, Dem. ev. x. 4, that the Jews may have deleted the passage from Jeremiah; for though it reappears again in a certain Arabic work (Bengel, Appar. crit. p. 142), and in a Sahidic and a Coptic lectionary (see Michaelis, Bibl. IV. p. 208 ff. ; Briefwechs. III. pp. 63, 89 ; Hinlect. I. p. 264), it does so simply as an interpolation from our present passage. See Paulus, exeget. Handb. IIL. p. 615 ff—According to the historical sense of Zechariah, as above, the prophet, acting in Jehovah’s name, resigns his office of shepherd over Ephraim to Ephraim’s own ruin; and having requested his wages, consisting of 30 shekels of silver, to be paid him, he casts the money, as being God’s property, into the treasury of the temple. “And they weighed for my wages thirty pieces of silver. Then Jehovah said to me: Cast it into the treasury, that handsome (ironi- cally) sum of which they have thought me worthy! So I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them into the treasury that was in God’s house,” Ewald, Proph.; Bleek in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1852, p. 279 ff, For we ought to read iON, into the treasury (equivalent, as Kimchi explains, to 731Nn bs, and as is actually the reading of two mss. in Kennicott), and not 7$#7">8, to the potter, as Matthew, in fact, also read and understood the words, though such a meaning is entirely foreign to the con- text in Zechariah. Comp. Hitzig, kl. Proph. p. 374. The expositors of Zechariah, who take sin in the sense of potter, have had recourse to many an unfounded and sometimes singular hypothesis. For specimens of these, see also Hengsten- berg’s Christol. TIL. 1, p. 457 ff.; Hofmann, Weissag. u. Eryf.
CHAP. XXVII. 9, 10. 20
II. p. 128 f.; Lange, Z. J. II. p. 1494 f.; Steinmeyer, p. 105 f.; Haupt, alttest. Citate, p. 272 ff.— aor] in Zechariah and LXX. is the first person singular, here it is the third person plural. The liberty thus used with the terms of the quotation may be supposed to be warranted by the concluding words : xaba ovvéta&é pot 0 KUpios. Neither the original Hebrew nor the LXX. countenances the supposition that the evangelist erroncously took é\aS8ov to be third person plural, like «ay immediately following (in opposition to Hilgenfeld). — ra TpidxovTa apyvp.| meaning, according to the typical refer- ence in Matthew, the thirty shekels brought back by Judas. —THv TL, K.T.r.] In apposition with Ta tTpiax. dpy. The words correspond more with the Hebrew than with the LXX., though in this instance too a slight liberty is taken with them, inasmuch as for ‘A>. WX we have once more (comp. on édaBov) the third person plural Ov ériunoayto, and for amy the explanatory rendering a7d vidv "Icpayrd. The passage then is to be rendered as follows: And they took the thirty pieces of silver—the value of the highly valued One, on whonr they put their own price (middle, éryunsavto) at the instance of sons of Israel, i.e. the price of the priceless One, whose market value they fixed for themselves upon an occasion furnished by sons of Israel. The expression vidv "Icpana is the plural of cate- gory (ii. 20), and is regarded as finding its historical antitype in Judas, who, xxvi. 14 f., undertakes and carries through the shameful transaction there referred to,—he a son of Israel negotiates the sale of the Messiah of the people of Israel. In addition to what has just been observed, we would direct atten- tion to the following details :—(1) Tod tetinuévov is intended to represent the Hebrew word 1?‘ (pretiz) ; but the evangelist has evidently read 1P'3 (cari, aestwmatt), which he refers to Jesus as being the highly valued One xaz’ éfoyyy; nor must we fail to notice here the remarkable collocation: pretium pretiost, 1c. THY @v_V Tod TavTiwov Xpioctod, Euthymius Ziga- benus ; comp. Theophylact, also Ewald. That distinguished personage, whose worth as such cannot in fact be estimated by any mere money standard (Tow), they have actually valued (eryuncavto) at thirty shekels! To take the tod teripnp.
252 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
merely in the sense of dv étiuno. (of the valued one, him whom they have valued), as the majority of expositors do (including even yet de Wette, Lange, and Hofmann, Weissag. wu. Erf. II. p. 130), instead of expressing the idea in a more forcible manner, would simply produce, especially after 7. tyujv, a tautological redundancy. (2) The subject of étyuncavto is the same as that of é\aBov, namely, the high priests; nor is the verb to be taken in the sense of estimating highly, as in the case of TeTiun., but in that of valuing, putting a price wpon, the sense in which it is used in Isa. lv. 2, and very frequently by classical writers, and in which the Hebrew ‘77? is intended to be understood. (3) dm vidv "Icp., which is a more definite rendering of the amyn of the original, must necessarily be connected, like its corresponding Hebrew expression, with éTysnoavto, and not with édaBov (Fritzsche, Hilgenfeld), nor with tod teryunu. (which de Wette considers possible), and be understood as denoting origin, 1.e. as denoting, in our present passage, the occasion brought about by some one (comp. also Bleek) in connection with which the étipjcavto took place; “ amo de eo ponitur, quod praebet occasionem vel opportuni- tatem, ut aliquid fieri possit,” Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 549 A; comp. Kiihner, II. 1, p. 396; similarly xi. 19; see also Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 194. They were indebted to the sons of Israel (Judas, see above) for that which suggested and led to the éryuncavro. We cannot approve of the course which some adopt of supplying tuvés: equivalent to of "Iopanniras (Euthymius Zigabenus), or “gui sunt ex filiis Israel” (Beza, Grotius, Maldonatus, Paulus, Kuinoel, Ewald, de Wette, Grimm, Anger), thus making azo vidv “Iap. the subject of éryuno. In that case, the ordinary é« (comp. Buttmann, Newt. Gr. p. 138 [E. T. 158]) would have been used (as in xxiii. 34; Jobn xvi. 17, al.), and instead of vidy we should have had tv viev, inasmuch as the whole community would be intended to which the tuvés are supposed to belong. Comp. also 1 Mace. vii. 33, 3 Mace. i. 8, where, though azé is the preposition used, the article is conjoined with the substantive following. The absence of the article here is likewise un- favourable to the views of Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erf. II. p.
CHAP. XXVII. 9, 10. 253
131, who, taking dzro to mean on the part of, interprets thus: “What Caiaphas and Judas did (étycavto), was done indirectly by the whole nation.” To explain azo as others have done, by assuming the idea of purchase in connection with it (Castalio: “quem licitati emerunt ab Israelitis,’ comp. Eras- mus, Luther, Vatablus, Jansen, Lange), is not only arbitrary, inasmuch as the idea involved in étiyyjcavto does not justify the supposed pregnant force of dao (Buttmann, p. 276 [E. T. 322]), but is incompatible with the 5yn of the original. No less inconsistent with the original is the explanation of Baum- garten-Crusius: “whom they had valued from among the children of Israel,” that is to say, “which they had fixed as the price of one of the children of Israel.” In that case, again, we should have required the article along with viev ; and, besides, what a poor designation of the Messiah would be the result of such an interpretation! With an equal disregard of the terms of the passage, Linder main+ tains, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1859, p. 513, that azo is equi- valent to twa é«: as an Israelite (whom they treated like a slave); and to the same effect is the explanation of Steinmeyer, p. 107: whom they have valued in, the name of the nation. Neither the simple azo nor the anarthrous vidv "Icp. admits of being so understood, although Hilgenfeld is also of opinion that our passage meant to describe the betrayal as an act jor which the whole body of the Jewish people was to be held responsible. Ver. 10. Kai éSwxav aita eis tov aypov Tod Kepap.| Zech. as above, Ti ON nin na nie pws, But, inasmuch as the important matter here was the purchase of the potter’s field, Matthew leaves mn’ m3 entirely out of view, takes 731° in the sense of potter (see, on the other hand, on ver. 9 above), and, in order that ayia ON may fully harmonize with a typical and prophetic view of the passage, he paraphrases the words thus: eés tov aypov Tod Kepauéws, where efs is intended to express the destined object of the thing: for the purpose of acquiring the field belonging to the potter.—xa0a ouvéraké por xpos] corresponds to Zechariah’s *?8 nin? WN, ver. 13, the words employed by the prophet when he asserts that in
254 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
casting the shekels into the treasury of the temple he did so in obedience to the command of God. In accordance with the typical reference ascribed to the passage by Matthew, the words “ according to that which the Lord commanded me” are so applied as to express the idea that the using of the traitor’s reward for the purpose of buying the potter’s field was simply giving effect to the decree of Him from whom the prophet had Seed the command in question. That which God had commissioned the prophet (ov) to do with the thirty pieces of silver is done in the antitypical fulfilment of the prophecy by the high priests, who thus carry out the divine decree above referred to. Ka@a, just as (Xen. Mem. iv. 6.5; Polyb. iii. 107. 10; Lucian, Cont. 24; Diod. Sic. i. 36; in classical Greek xa@a7rep is usually employed), occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It is quite possible that the words used in the Hebrew original of Matthew were 127 W832 or m¥ W8D, which in the LXX. are likewise rendered by Kabe eae Bim ili el 255) Nid) vay St
Ver. 11 f. Continuation, aie the episode in vv. 3-10, of the narrative introduced at ver. 2. The accusation preferred by the Jews, though not expressly mentioned, may readily be inferred from the procurator’s question. See Luke xxiii 2. In appearing before Pilate, they craftily give prominence to the political aspect of the Messianic pretensions of Jesus. — av Xéyers] There is nothing ambiguous in such a reply (which was not so framed that it might be taken either as an affirmative or as equivalent to éy@ pév TodTo ov Aéyw, ov dé Aéyets, Theophylact), but such a decided affirmative as the terms of the question: Art thou, etc., were calculated to elicit, John xviii. 37. Comp. xxvi. 64.—ovdev azrexp.] Comp. on xxvi. 62. The calm and dignified silence of the true king.
Ver. 14. IIpos ove Ev pHa] intensifying the force of the expression: to not even a single word, 1.e. to not even a single inquisitorial interrogative. The silence mentioned in vy. 12, 14 comes in after the examination reported in John xvill. 37. — @ote Oavyalerv] convinced as he was of the innocence of Jesus, he was all the more at a loss to under-
CHAP. XXVII. 15, 16. 254
stand the forbearance with which He maintained such sublime silence. .
Ver. 15. Kara éoptyv] on the occasion of the feast, ie. during the feast-time (Kiihner, II. 1, p. 412; Winer, p. 374 [E. T. 500]); that the Passover is here meant is evident from the conteat.— As there is no allusion to this custom anywhere else (for an account of which, however, see Bynaeus, de morte Chr. III. p. 97 ff.), nothing whatever is known as to when it originated. But whether we date the custom back to the Maccabaean age or to an earlier period still (Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 570), or regard it as having been introduced’ for the first time by the Romans (Grotius, Schleiermacher, Friedlieb) for the purpose of conciliating the Jews, we cannot fail to see in it a reference to that which is intended to be set forth by the Passover (sparing mercy), and applicable most probably to the 14th of Nisan (comp. on John xviii. 24, 39).
Ver. 16. Eiyov] The subject is to be found in o #yepudr, ver. 15, that is to say: the procurator and his soldiers; for, like Jesus, Barabbas had also to be examined before Pilate before his case could be finally disposed of. He was lying in the prison in the praetorium awaiting execution, after having received sentence of death.— Concerning this robber and murderer Jesus Barabbas (see the critical remarks), nothing further is known. The name Barabbas occurs very frequently even in the Talmud; Lightfoot, p. 489. There is the less reason, therefore, for thinking, with Olshausen, that the characteristic significance of the name 838 13, father’s son (7. probably the son of a Rabbi, xxiii. 9), in close proximity with the person of Jesus, is an illustration of the saying: “ Ludit in humanis divina potentia rebus.’ Still it is possible
1 It may be mentioned as tending to favour this supposition, that while no trace of such a custom is met with in the Talmud, there is something to a certain modified extent analogous to it in the practice observed by the Romans at the feast of the Jectisternia (Liv. v. 14). Schoettgen detects an allusion to some such origin in Pesachim f. 91, 1, though this is very doubtful. Then, as for the statement of Josephus, Antt. xx. 9. 3, which is quoted by Keim, it cannot be said to imply the existence of any practice, and it refers besides to a case in which ten persons were liberated.
256 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
that the accidental similarity in the name Jesus (see the critical remarks) may have helped to suggest to Pilate the release of Barabbas as an alternative, though, after all, the circumstance that the latter was a most notorious criminal undoubtedly swayed him most. For the baser the criminal, the less would Pilate expect them to demand his release. “ But they would sooner have asked the devil himself to be liberated,” Luther’s gloss.
Ver. 17. Odv] In accordance with the custom referred to, and as it so happened that at that moment there lay under sentence of death (vv. 15, 16) a noted criminal called Jesus Barabbas, Pilate got the multitude that was collected outside gathered together, and then asked them to choose between Jesus Barabbas and Jesus who was called the Messiah. — avt@v] refers not to the members of the Sanhedrim, but to the dyAos, ver. 15. See ver. 20.
Ver. 18. I'ap] Had he not been aware, etc., he would not have thus attempted to effect the release of Jesus. — rapé- Swxav] The subject of the verb is, of course, the members of the Sanhedrim (ver. 2), whose dominant selfishness was too conspicuous in itself, as well as from the animus that characterized their behaviour, to escape his notice. They were jealous of the importance and influence of Jesus; dua denotes the motive which animated them: because of envy ; see Winer, p. 372 [E. T. 497]. This was the causa remotior.
Ver. 19. Before, Pilate had submitted the question of ver. 17 to the consideration of the people by way of sounding them. Now, he seats himself upon the tribunal (upon the MOdcTpwtTov, John xix. 13) for the purpose of hearing the decision of the multitude, and of thereafter pronouncing sentence. But while he is sitting on the tribunal, and before he had time again to address his question to the multitude, his wife sends, etc. This particular is peculiar to Matthew; whereas the sending to Herod, and that before the proposal about the release, occurs only in Luke (xxiil. 6 ff.); and as for John, he omits both those circumstances altogether, though, on the whole, his account of the trial before Pilate is much more detailed than the concise narra-
CHAP. XXVII. 20, 21. 257
tive of Matthew, and that without any want of harmony being found between the two evangelists. — 17 yuv7 avtod] for since the time of Augustus it was customary for Roman governors to take their wives with them into the provinces, Tacit. Ann. iii. 33 f. According to tradition, the name of Pilate’s wife was Procla, or Claudia Procula (see Evang. Nicod. ii, and thereon Thilo, p. 522 ff). In the Greek church she has been canonised. — réyovca] through her messen- gers, xxii. 16, xi. 2.—pmdév coe x. 7. Sex. éx.] comp. vil. 29; John ii. 4. She was afraid that a judgment from the gods would be the consequence if he had anything to do with the death of Jesus. — moda yap Exadop, x.7.r.] This alarming dream is to be accounted for on the under- standing that the governor’s wife, who in the Evang. Nicod. is described, and it may be correctly, as OeoaeBrj5 and lovédai- fouca (see Tischendorf, Pilati circa Christum judic. ete. ex actis Pilat. 1855, p. 16 f.), may have heard of Jesus, may even have seen Him and felt a lively interest in Him, and may have been informed of His arrest as well as of the jeopardy in which His life was placed. There is nothing to show that Matthew intended us to regard this incident as a special divine interposition. There is the less reason for relegating it to the domain of legend (Strauss, Ewald, Scholten, Volkmar, Keim).— o7pepor] during the part of the night belonging to the current day.—x«ar dvap] see on i. 20. It was a terrible morning-dream.
Ver. 20. The question of ver. 17 is still under the con- sideration of the assembled crowd; and while Pilate, who had mounted the tribunal for the purpose of hearing their decision, is occupied with the messengers from his wife, the members of the Sanhedrim take advantage of this interruption to per- suade the people, etc. —tva] purpose of érevcav. “Oras is likewise used with ze/Oew by Greek authors. See Schoem. ad Plut. Cleom. p. 192.
Ver. 21. "AmoxpiGeis Sé, «7.2r.] The governor, having from his tribunal overheard this parleying of the members of the Sanhedrim with the people, now replies to it by once more demanding of the latter, with a view to a final decision:
MATT. II. R
258 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
which of the two, etc. He thus puts a stop to the officious conduct of the hierarchs, and resumes his attitude of waiting for the answer of the crowd.
Ver. 22. Ti ody troinow Incodv;] What, then (if Bar- abbas is to be released), am J to do with Jesus, how shall I dispose of him? On this use of the double accusative with moveiv, in the sense of doing good or evil to any one, comp. Kiihner, II. 1, p. 277; Wunder, ad Soph. Phil. 684.— otavpwOntw] ov Aéyouct hovevOnta, dAdAa cTavpwOyTo, va Kal TO €idos Tod Oavatov Kaxovpyov (as a rebel) dmedeyyy avtov, Euthymius Zigabenus. Doubtless it was also at the instigation of the hierarchs that they demanded this par- ticular form of punishment.
Ver. 23. Ti yap] does not presuppose a “ non faciam,” or some such phrase (Grotius, Maldonatus, Fritzsche), but yap denotes an inference from the existing state of matters, and throws the whole emphasis upon ti: quid ergo. See on John ix. 30 and 1 Cor. xi. 22. — Chrysostom appropriately points out how dvdvipws wai cpodpa paraxas Pilate behaved.
Ver. 24. The circumstance of Pilate’s washing his hands, which Strauss and Keim regard as legendary, is also peculiar to Matthew. — érz obdév were?) that it was all of no avail, John xii. 19. “Desperatum est hoc praejudicium practicum,” Bengel. — dAXa padAov OopuBos yiverat] that the tumult is only aggravated thereby.—amevityato tas xetpas| he washed his hands, to show that he was no party to the execution thus insisted upon. This ceremony was a piece of Jewish symbolism (Deut. xxi. 6 f.; Joseph. Antt. iv. 8. 16; Sota viii. 6); and as Pilate understood its significance, he would hope by having recourse to it to make himself the more intelligible to Jews. It is possible that what led the governor to conform to this Jewish custom was the analogy between it and similar practices observed by Gentiles after a murder has been committed (Herod. i. 34; Virg. Aen. ii. 719 f.; Soph. Aj 654, and Schneidewin thereon ; Wetstein on our passage), more particularly as it was also customary for Gentile judges before pronouncing sen- tence to protest, and that “pds tov Arvov” (Constitt. Ap. 1.
CHAP. XXVII. 25, 26. 259
52. 1; Evang. Nicod. ix.), that they were innocent of the blood of the person about to be condemned; see Thilo, ad Cod. Apocr. I. p. 573 f.; Heberle in the Stud. u. Krit. 1856, p. 859 ff.— ao tod atparos] a Greek author would have used the genitive merely (Maetzner, ad Lycurg. 79). The construction with dz is a Hebraism (279 ‘p23, 2 Sam. tii. 27), founded on the idea of removing to a distance. Comp. Hist. Susann. 46, and xaOapds azo, Acts xx. 26. — ipets d.] See on ver. 4.
Ver. 25. "Ed jas, «.7.r.] Defiant and vindictive cry, in the hurry of which (rova’tn yap 1) opp x. % Tovnpa éribupia, Chrysostom) the verb is left to be understood (xxi. 35). Comp. 2 Sam. 1.16, and see on Acts xviii. 6. From what we know of such wild outbursts of popular fanaticism, there is no ground for supposing (Strauss; comp. also Keim, Scholten, Volkmar) that the language only represents the matter as seen from the standpoint of Christians, by whom the destruction of the Jews had come to be regarded as a judg- ment for putting Jesus to death. And as for their wicked imprecations on their own heads, they were only in accordance with the decrees of the divine nemesis, and therefore are to be regarded in the light of unconscious prophecy.
Ver. 26. PpayedkrA@oas] a late word adopted from the Latin, and used for paotiyotv. Comp. John ii. 15; see Wetstein. It was the practice among the Romans to scourge the culprit (with cords or thongs of leather) before crucifying him (Liv, xxxiii, 36; Curt. vii. 11. 28: Valer. Max. i 7; Joseph. Bell. v.11. 1, al. ; Heyne, Opusc. III. p. 184 f; Keim, III. p. 390 f.). According to the more detailed narrative of John xix. 1 ff., Pilate, after this scourging was over, and while the soldiers were mocking Him, made a final attempt to have Jesus set at liberty. According to Luke xxiii. 16, the governor contemplated ultimate scourging immediately after the exami- nation before Herod,—a circumstance which neither prevents us from supposing that he subsequently carried out his inten- tion (in opposition to Strauss), nor justifies the interpretation of our passage given by Paulus: whom He had previously scourged (with a view to His being liberated). — wapédmxev|
260 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
namely, to the Roman soldiers, ver. 27. These latter were entrusted with the task of seeing the execution carried out.
Ver. 27. Eis 70 tpattwpcov] It would appear, then, that the scourging had taken place outside, in front of the prae- torium, beside the tribunal. This coincides with Mark xv. 16, ow tis avs, which merely defines the locality more precisely. The mpastwpiov was the official residence, the palace of the governor, it being commonly supposed (so also Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 53, and Keim, III. p. 359 ff.) that Herod’s palace, situated in the higher part of the city, was used for this purpose. But, inasmuch as this latter building would have to be reserved for the accommodation of Herod himself whenever he had occasion to go to Jerusalem, and with what is said at Luke xxiii. 7 before us, it is more likely that the palace in question was a different and special one connected with fort Antonia, in which the ovetpa (comp. Acts xxi. 31— 35) was quartered. Comp. also Weiss on Mark xv. 16.— ol TTpaTL@TaL TOV HYEu.| Who were on duty as the procu- rator’s orderlies. — éx’ avtov] about Him; comp. Mark v. 21, not adversus ewm (Fritzsche, de Wette); for they were merely to make sport of Him. — t7v eretpay] the cohort, which was quartered at Jerusalem in the garrison of the praetorium (in Caesarea there were five cohorts stationed). Comp. on John xvill. 3. The expression: the whole cohort, is to be understood in its popular, and not in a strictly literal sense; the otpatia- rat, to whose charge Jesus had been committed, and who only formed part of the cohort, invited all their comrades to join them who happened to be in barracks at the time.
Ver. 28. "Evdvcavrtes (see the critical remarks) is to be explained by the fact that previous to the scourging all His clothes had been pulled off (Acts xvi. 22; Dionys. Hal. ix. 596). They accordingly put on His under garments again, and instead of the upper robes (ra iuatia, ver. 31) they arrayed Him in a zed sagum, the ordinary military cloak (Plut. Sert. 14; Philop. 9, 11), for the purpose, however, of ridicul- ing His pretensions to the dignity of king; for kings and emperors likewise wore the yAavs, the only difference being that in their case the garment was longer and of a finer
CHAP. XXVII. 29-32. 261
texture. Plut. Demetr. 41 f.; Mor. p. 186 C, al. On this military cloak, which was first used by the Macedonians, see Hermann, Privatalterth. § xxi. 20; Friedlieb, p. 118. According to the other evangelists, the cloak made use of on this occasion was of a purple colour; but Matthew would intend scarlet (Heb. ix. 19; Rev. xvii. 3; Num. iv. 8; Plut. Fab. xv.) to be taken as at least conveying the zdea of purple.
Ver. 29 f. “E& adxavdar] belongs to wAéEavtes. What is meant is something made by twisting together young flexible thorns so as to represent.the royal diadem. The object was not to produce suffering, but to excite ridicule; so that while we cannot altogether dissociate the idea of something painful from this crown of thorns, we must not conceive of it as covered with prickles which were intentionally thrust into the flesh. Michaelis adopts the rendering Bérenklaw (dxav@0s); but this is incompatible with the axdv@woy of Mark xv. 17, which adjective is never used with reference to the plant just mentioned. Besides, this latter was a plant that was highly prized (for which reason it was often used for ornamental purposes in pieces of sculpture and on the capitals of Cor- inthian pillars), and therefore would be but ill suited for a caricature. It is impossible to determine what species of thorn it was (possibly the so-called spina Christi?; see Tobler, Denkbl. pp. 113,179). — «ai caXrapov] éOnxay being under- stood, the connection with éré@nxav is zeugmatic—Observe the imperfects évémrasfov and érumtoy as indicating the con- tinuous character of the proceeding.
Ver. 31. Kai évédvcav avtov ra iat. adtod) His upper garments, for which they had substituted the sagwm. This is in no way at variance with évévcavres, ver. 28.—We are to understand that as the crown of thorns had now served its purpose, it was also taken off at the same time.
Ver. 32. "E£€epyopevor] because the law required that all executions should take place outside the city. Num. xv. 35 f.; 1 Kings xxi. 13; Acts vi. 58; Lightfoot and Grotius on our passage.—On the question as to whether this Simon of Cyrene, a place in Libya Pentapolitana, thickly peopled with Jews,
262 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
resided statedly in Jerusalem (Acts vi. 19), or was only there on a visit (Acts ii. 10), see below. It was usual to compel the person who was to be executed to carry his own cross (see on x. 38, and Keim, p. 397 f.);' to this the case of Jesus was no exception, John xix. 17. This statement of John does not exclude what is here said with regard to Simon and the cross, nor does it pretend to deny it (Keim), but it simply passes it over in silence, recording merely the main point in question, —the fact, namely, that Jesus had to carry His own cross (though there is nothing to prevent the supposition that He may have broken down under the burden before reaching the scene of the crucifixion).—That with such a large crowd following (Luke xxiii. 27) they should notwithstanding compel a foreigner who happened to be going toward the city (Mark, Luke) to carry the cross the rest of the way, is a circumstance
1 That is to say, the post, the upright beam of the cross, to which the trans- verse beam was not attached till the scene of the execution was reached, where the instrument of torture was duly put together and then set up with the crimi- nal nailed to it. Hence (because sravpés originally meant a post) we find Greek authors making use of such expressions as oraupdv Qépsi, exPépein, Baordew, Awp Beaver, aipeiv, COMP. cravpoPopeiv; Latin writers, however, with rather more regard for precision, distinguish between the upright beam which the criminal was called upon to carry, and the crux as it appeared when completed and seé up at the place of execution, The upright beam which the cruciarius was compelled to drag after him was called patibulim ; hence we never meet with the phrase crucem ferre, but always. patibulum (the upright post) ferre, which patibulum was placed upon the poor criminal’s back, and with his outstretched hands securely tied to it, he had to balance it the best way he could upon his neck and shoulders. It is this distinction between crux and patibulum that enables us adequately to explain the well-known passages of Plautus: ‘ Pati- bulum ferat per urbem, deinde affigatur cruci” (ap. Non. Marcell. 221), and “Dispensis manibus quom patibulum habebis” (Mil. glor. ii. 4. 7), and simi- larly with regard to expressions referring to the cross (as completed and set up): in crucem tollere, in crucem agere (Cicero and others), etc. ; the comic expression crucisalus (Plaut. Bacch. ii. 3. 128); as also the passage in Tacit. Ann. xiv, 33, where the different modes of punishing by death are enumerated, beginning with those of a general nature and ending with the more specific: ‘‘ Caedes, pati- bula (beams for penal purposes generally), ignes, cruces.” From this it is mani. fest at once that it would be incorrect to suppose, with Keim, that all that Christ had to carry was the cross-beam. Such a view is at variance both with the lan. guage of our text: rov eravpoy aip:v, and with the Latin phrase : patibulum ferre, So much is the patibulum regarded as the main portion of the cross, that in poetry it is sometimes used as equivalent to crux, as in Prudent. Peristeph. ix. 641; ** Crux illa nostra est, nos patibulum ascendimus,”
2
CHAP. XXVII. 23. 263
sufficiently accounted for by the infamy that attached to that odious thing. Possibly Simon was a slave. To suppose that he was one of Jesus’ followers, and that for this reason he had been pressed into the service (Grotius, Kuinoel), is altogether arbitrary, for, according to the text, the determining circum- stance lies in the fact that he was dv@pwrov Kupnvaiov. A foreigner coming from Cyrene would not be considered too respectable a person to be employed in such degrading work. That Simon, however, became a Christian, and that perhaps in consequence of his thus carrying the cross and being present at the crucifixion, is a legitimate inference from Mark xv. 21 compared with Rom. xvi. 13.—7yydp.] See on v. 41. iva] mentions the object for which this was done.
Ver. 33. Fodyo04, Chald. 870373, Heb. n?3>3, meaning a skull. Jerome and most other expositors (including Luther, Fritzsche, Strauss, Tholuck, Friedlieb) derive the name from the circum- stance that, as this was a place for executing criminals, it abounded with skulls (which, however, are not to be conceived of as lying unburied) ; while Cyrill, Jerome, Calovius, Reland, Bengel, Paulus, Liicke, de Wette, Ewald, Bleek, Volkmar, Keim, Weiss, on the other hand, trace the name to the shape of the hill. The latter view, which is also that of Thenius (in Ilgen’s Zettschr. f. Theol. 1842, 4, p. 1 ff.) and Furer (in Schenkel’s Lew. II. p. 506), ought to be preferred, because the name means nothing more than simply a skull (not hill of skulls, valley of skulls, and such like, as though the plural (skulls) had been used). A similar practice of giving to places, according to their shape, such names, as Kopf, Schettel (comp. the hills called Kefadai in Strabo, xvii. 3, p. 835), Stirn, and the like, is not uncommon among ourselves—
1 In trying to account for the origin of the name, the Fathers, from Tertullian and Origen down to Euthymius Zigabenus, make reference to the tradition that Adam was buried in the place of a skull, This Judaeo-Christian legend is very old and very widely diffused (see Dillmann, ‘‘zum christ]. Adambuch,” in Ewald’s Jahrb. V. p. 142); but we are not warranted in confidently assuming that it was of pre-Christian origin (Dillmann) simply because Athanasius, Epiphanius, and others have characterized it as Jewish ; it would naturally find much favour, as being well calculated to serve the interests of Christian typology (Augustine : ‘* quia ibi erectus sit medicus, ubi jacebat aegrotus,”’ etc.).
264 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
(Germans). — 6 éote xpaviov ToTos AEyouevas] which, ie. which Aramaic term denotes (€or) a so-called (Aeyou., Kiihner, Il. 1, p. 232) place of a skull, Lat.: quod calvariae: quem dicunt locum significat. It was probably a round, bare hill. But where it stood it is utterly impossible to determine, although it may be regarded as certain (in opposition to Raumer, Schubert, Krafft, Lange, Furer) that it was not the place within the city (the so-called Mount Calvary), which subse- quently to the time of Constantine had been excavated under the impression that it was so,—a point, however, which Ritter, Erdk. XVI. 1, p. 427 ff. leaves somewhat doubtful. See Robinson, Paldst. II. p. 270 ff, and his newere Forsch. 1857, p. 332 ff. In answer to Robinson, consult Schaffter, d. dchte Lage d. heil. Grabes, 1849. But see in general, Tobler, Gol- gatha, seine Kirchen und Kloster, 1851; Fallmerayer in the Abh. d. Baier. Akad. 1852, VI. p. 641 ff.; Ewald, Jahrb. II. p-118 ff., VI. p. 84 ff. ; Arnold in Herzog’s Encykl. V. p. 307 ff. ; Keim, III. p. 404 ff.
Ver. 34. The Jews were in the habit of giving the criminal a stupefying drink before nailing him to the cross. Sanhedr. vi. See Wetstein, ad Marc. xv. 23; Doughtaeus, Anal. II. p. 42. This drink consisted of wine (see the critical remarks) mixed with gall, according to Matthew; with myrrh, according to Mark. yor admits of no other meaning than that of gail, and-on no account must it be made to bear the sense of myrrh or wormwood’ (Beza, Grotius, Paulus, Langen, Stein- meyer, Keim). The tradition about the gall, which unques- tionably belongs to a later period, originated in the LXX.
1 No doubt the LXX. translate mayd, wormwood, by oan (Prov. v. 4; Lam. iii. 15); but in those passages they took it as meaning literal “ gall,” just as in the case of Ps. Ixix. 22, which regulates the sense of our present passage, they also understood gall to be meant, although the word in the original is WN (poison). Comp. Jer. viii. 14; Deut. xxix. 17, A usage so entirely foreign to the Greek tongue certainly cannot be justified on the ground of one or two passages, like these from the Septuagint. Had ‘‘bitter spiced wine” (Steinmeyer) been what Matthew intended, he would have had no more difficulty in expressing this than Mark himself. But the idea he wished to convey was that of wine along with gall, in fact mixed with it, and this idea he expresses as plain as words can speak it. Comp. Barnab. 7: oravombsis trorilero o%es xaih KAN
bd
CHAP, XXVII. 35 69 rendering of Ps. Ixix. 22; people wished to make out that there was maltreatment in the very drink that was offered. — yevodpevos] According to Matthew, then, Jesus rejected the potion because the taste of gall made it undrinkable. <A later view than that embodied in Mark xv. 23, from which passage it would appear that Jesus does not even taste the drink, but declines it altogether, because He has no desire to be stupefied before death. _ Ver. 35. Stavp@cavtes] The cross consisted of the upright post and the horizontal beam (called by Justin and Tertullian: antenna), the former usually projecting some dis- tance beyond the latter (as was also the case, according to the tradition of the early church, with the cross of Jesus, see Friedlieb, p. 130 ff.; Langen, p. 321 ff). As a rule, it was first of all set up, and then the person to be crucified was hoisted on to it with his he resting upon a peg, (miryua) that passed between his 1 egs (ef & emoxovvTat ot otavpovuevot, Justin, ec. Tryph. 91; Tren. Haer. ii. 24. 4), after which the hands were nailed to the cross-beam. Paulus (see his Komment., exeg. Handb., and Skizzen aus m. Bildwngsgesch. 1839, p. 146 ff), following Clericus on John xx. 27 and Dathe on Ps. xxii. 7, firmly maintains that the feet were not nailed as well ;‘ an opinion which is likewise held more or less decidedly by Liicke, Fritzsche, Ammon, Baumgarten- Crusius, Winer, de peduwm in eruce afizione, 1845; Schleier- macher, L. J. p. 447. In answer to Paulus, see Hug in the Freib. Zettschr. III. p. 167 ff, and V. p. 102 ff., VIL p. 153 ff. ; Gutacht. II. p. 174; and especially Bahr in Heydenreich and Hiiffell’s Zeitschr. 1830, 2, p. 308 ff., and in Tholuck’s liter. Anz. 1835, Nos. 1-6. For the history of this dispute, see Tholuck’s liter. Anz. 1834, Nos. 53-55, and Langen, p. 312 ff That the feet were usually nailed, and that the case of Jesus was no exception to the general rule, may be regarded as beyond doubt, and that for the following reasons : (1) Because nothing can be more evident than that Plautus, 1 This question possesses an interest not merely antiquarian ; it is of
essential importance in enabling us to judge of the view held by Dr. Paulus, that the death of Jesus was only apparent and not real.
266 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
Mostell. ii. 1. 13 (“ego dabo ei talentum, primus qui in crucem excucurrerit, sed ea lege, wt offigantur bis pedes, bis brachia”), presupposes that to nail the feet as well as the hands was the ordinary practice, and that he intends the bis to point to something of an eaceptional character ; (2) because Justin, c. Zryph. 97, expressly maintains (comp. Apol. I. 35), and that in a polemical treatise, at a time when crucifixion was still in vogue, that the feet of Jesus were pierced with nails, and treats the circumstance as a fulfilment of Ps. xxii. 17, without the slightest hint that in this there was any departure from the usual custom; (3) because Tertullian (c. Mare. iii. 19), in whose day also crucifixion was univer- sally practised (Constantine having been the first to abolish it), agrees with Justin in seeing Ps. xxii. 17 verified in Christ, and would hardly have said, with reference to the piercing of our Lord’s hands and feet: “ quae proprie atrocitas crucis est,” unless it had been generally understood that the feet were nailed as well; (4) because Lucian, Prometh. 2 (where, more- over, it is not crucifying in the proper sense of the word that is alluded to), and Lucan, Phars. vi. 547 (“insertum manibus chalybem”), furnish nothing but arguments a silentio, which have the less weight that these passages do not pretend to give a full account of the matter; (5) because we nowhere find in ancient literature any distinct mention of a case in which the feet hung loose or were merely tied to the cross, for Xen. Eph. iv. 2 merely informs us that the binding of the hands and the feet was a practice peculiar to the Lyyptians ; (6) and lastly, because in Luke xxiv. 39 f. itself the piercing of the feet is taken for granted, for only by means of the pierced hands and feet was Christ to be identified (His cor- poreality was also to be proved, but that was to be done by the handling which followed). It is probable that each foot was nailed separately." The most plausible arguments
1 This view is borne out not only by the simple fact that it would be some- what impracticable to pierce both the feet when lying one above the other (as they usually appear in pictures, and as they are already represented by Nonnus, John xx. 19), because in order to secure the necessary firmness, the nail would require to be so long and thick that there would be a danger of dislocating, if
CHAP, XXVIL. 35. 267
in addition to the above against the view that the feet were nailed are: (1) what is said in John xx. 25 (see Liicke, II. p. 798), where, however, the absence of any mention of the feet on the part of Thomas entirely accord with his natural sense of propriety. He assumes the Lord, who had been seen by his fellow-disciples, to be standing before him ; and so, with a view to identification, he wishes to feel the prints of the nails in his hands and the wound in His side, those being the marks that could then be most con- veniently got at; and that is enough. To have stooped down to examine the feet as well would have been going rather far, would have seemed somewhat indecent, somewhat undignified, nay, we should say that the introduction of such a feature into the narrative would have had an apocryphal air; (2) the fact that while Socrates, H. H.i. 17, speaks of the Empress Helena, who found the cross, as having also discovered Tous Frous of Tais yEepot Tov Xpictod Kata Tov aTavpoy éveTra- ynoav, he makes no mention of the nails for the feet. But, according to the context, the nails for the hands are to be understood as forming merely a part of what was discovered along with the cross, as forming a portion, that is, of what the empress gave asa present to her son. This passage, however, has all the less force as an argument against the supposition that the feet were nailed, that Ambrose, Or. de obitu Theodos. § 47, while also stating that two nails belonging to the cross that was discovered were presented to Constantine, clearly indicates at the same time that they were the nazls for the feet (“ferro pedum”). It would appear, then, that two nails were presented to Constantine, but opinion was divided as to whether they were those for the feet or those for the hands, there being also a third view, to the effect that the two pairs were presented together (Rufinus, H LZ. u. 8; not of shattering the feet, but it is still further confirmed by the ancient tradi- tion respecting the two pairs of nails that were used to fasten Jesus to the cross. See below under No. 2. And how isit possible to understand aright what Plautus says about feet twice-nailed, if we are to conceive of them as lying one upon the other! Probably they were placed alongside of each other, and then nailed
with the soles flat upon the upright beam of the cross. A board for the feet (suppedaneum) was not used, being unnecessary.
268 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
Theodoret, H. #. i. 17). This diversity of opinion bears, however, a united testimony, not against, but in favour of the practice of nailing the feet, and that a testimony belonging to a time when there were many still living who had a vivid recollection of the days when crucifixion was quite common. — dtepepicavto Ta ipatia avtovd| The criminal when affixed to the cross was absolutely naked (Artemid. ii. 58; Lipsius, de cruce, ii. 7), and his clothes fell, as a perquisite, to the executioners (Wetstein on our passage). The supposition that there was a cloth for covering the lois has at least no early testimony to support it. See Thilo, ad Evang. Nicod. x. p. 582 f.— BadXovtes KAHpov] more precisely in John xix. 23 f. Whether this was done by means of dice or by putting the lots into something or other (a helmet) and then shaking them out (comp. on Acts i. 26), it is impossible to say.
Ver. 37. Whether it was customary to have a tablet (cavis) put over the cross containing a statement of the crime (rv aitiav avtov) for which the offender was being executed, we have no means of knowing. According to Dio Cass. liv. 8, it might be seen hanging round the neck of the criminal even when he was passing through the city to the place of execution. Comp. also Sueton. Domit. 10; Calig. 32; Euseb. v. 1. 19. — éwé6mxav] It was undoubtedly affixed to the part of the cross that projected above the horizontal beam. But it is inadmissible, in deference to the hypothesis that the “title” (John xix. 19) was affixed to the cross before it was set up, either to.transpose the verses in the text (vv. 33, 34, 37, 38, 35, 36, 39, so Wassenbergh in Valckenaer, Schol. II. p. 31), or to take émé@nxav (Kuinoel) in — the sense of the pluperfect, or to assume some tmaccuracy in the narrative, by supposing, for example, that the various details are not given in chronological order, and that the mention of the watch being set is introduced too soon, from a desire to include at once all that was done (de Wette, Bleek) by the soldiers (who, however, are understood to have nailed up the “title” as well!). According to Matthew's statement, it would appear that when the soldiers had finished
CHAP. XXVIL. 38-40. 269
the work of crucifixion, and had cast lots for the clothes, and had mounted guard over the body, they proceed, by way of supplementing what had been already done, to affix the “ title” to the top of the cross. The terms of the inscription are given with diplomatic precision in John xix. 20, though others, including Keim, prefer the shortest version, being that found in Mark.
Ver. 88. Tore] then, after the crucifixion of Jesus was thus disposed of. — otavpotvtar]| spoken with reference to another band of soldiers which takes the place of ka@revor étnpovy avutov éxet, ver. 36. The whole statement is merely of a cursory and summary nature.
Ver. 39. Oi 6€ tapamop.| That what is here said seems to imply, what would ill accord with the synoptic statement as to the day on which our Lord was crucified, that:this took place on a working day (Fritzsche, de Wette), is not to be denied (comp. on John xviii. 28 ; Mark xv. 21), though it cannot be assumed with certainty that such was the case. But there can be no doubt that the place of execution was close to a public thoroughfare. — kivodvtes Tas Keg. avT.]| The shaking of the head here is not to be regarded as thet which expresses refusal or passion (Hom. J/. xvii. 200, 442; Od. v. 285, 376), but, according to Ps. xxii. 8, as indicating malicious jeering at the helplessness of one who had made such lofty pretensions, ver. 40. Comp. Job xvi. 4; Ps. cix. 25; Tam, it; 15.; Isa. xxxvir 22; Jer. xvii. 165° Buxt. Lez. Talim. p. 2039; Justin, Ap. I. 38.
Ver. 40. "Edeyov 6¢ Ta ToLadTa KwpwdodyTes as edorny, Euthymius Zigabenus. We should not fail to notice the parallelism in both the clauses (in opposition to Fritzsche, who puts a comma merely after ceavrov, and supposes that in both instances the imperative is conditioned by ei vids et Tod Ged), 6 Katadvor, K.T.r. being parallel to e¢ vids ef T. @., and cacov ceavtov to KaTaBn% amo ToD cTavpov. —o KaTAaNUwY, K.T.r.] is an allusion to xxvi. 61. For the use of the present par- ticiple in a characterizing sense (the destroyer, etc.), comp. xxiii. 37. The allegation of the witnesses, xxvi. 61, had come to be a matter of public talk, which is scarcely to be wondered
270 TIIE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
at considering the extraordinary nature of it. — Observe, more- over, that here the emphasis is on vios (comp. iv. 3), while in ver. 43 it is on Oeod.
Ver. 42. Parallelism similar to that of ver. 40.—xal muatevomwev (see the critical remarks) éx’ atdtT@: and we believe on Him (at once), that is, as actually being the Messiah. évi with the dative (Luke xxiv. 25) conveys the idea that the faith would rest upon Him. So also Rom. ix. 33, x. 11; eine, 4.746 sd Pet, a0. 1,
Ver. 43. In the mouth of the members of Sanhedrim, who in ver. 41 are introduced as joining in the blasphemies of the passers-by, and who, ver. 42, have likewise the inscription over the cross in view, the jeering assumes a more impious character. They now avail themselves even of the language of holy writ, quoting from the 22d Psalm (which, moreover, the Jews declared to be non-Messianic), the 5th verse of which is given somewhat loosely from the LXX. (#Amuwcev él KUplov, pucdcOw adtov, cwodTw avrov, btu Oérer adTov). — 6éXev avtov] is the rendering of the Heb. i2 75M, and is to be interpreted in accordance with the Septuagint usage of Oérew (see Schleusner, Zhes. II. p. 51, and comp. on Rom. vii. 21): if He is the object of his desire, ie. if he likes Him ; comp. Tob. xiii. 6; Ps. xviii, 19, xli, 11. In other instances the LXX. give the preposition as well, render- ing the Hebrew (1 Sam. xviii. 22, al.) by Oérew & tu, Fritzsche supplies picacOar; but in that case we should have had merely e¢ Oée« without avtov; comp. Col. ii. 18. — 6ru Oeod eye vios] The emphasis is on Oeod, as conveying the idea: I am not the son of a man, but of God, who in consequence will be certain to deliver me.-—Comp. Wisd. ii. 18.— Observe further the short bounding sentences in which their malicious jeering, ver. 42 f., finds vent.
Ver. 44. To & avdto] not: after the same manner (as generally interpreted), but expressing the object itself (comp. Soph. Oed. Col. 1006: tocadr’ ovedifers we; Plat. Phaedr. p. 241: 60a tov Erepoy redovdopyxapev), for, as is well known, such verbs as denote a particular mode of speaking or acting are often construed like Aéyery Teva TL OY ToLEty TWA TL.
CHAP. XXVII. 45. he gi |
Kricer, § xlyi. 12; Kuhner, Il. 1, p. 276: Comp. on Phil. ii. 18.— of Anora’] different from Luke xxiii. 39; the generic interpretation of the plural (Augustine, de cons. ev. ill. 16; Ebrard, Krafft) is precluded by the neces- sary reference to ver. 38. The harmonists (Origen, Cyrill, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Zeger, Lange) resorted to the expedient of supposing that at /irst both of them may have reviled Him, but that subsequently only one was found to do so, because the other had in the meantime been converted. Luke does not base his account upon a later tradition (Ewald, Schenkel, Keim), but upon materials of a more accurate and copious character drawn from a different circle of traditions.
Ver. 45. "Amo 5é€ €xtms Spas] counting from the third (nine o’clock in the morning), the hour at which He had been nailed to the cross, Mark xv. 25. Respecting the difficulty of reconciling the statements of Matthew and Mark as to the hour in question with what is mentioned by John at xix. 14, and the preference that must necessarily be given to the latter, see on John, xix. 14. — oxotos] An ordinary eclipse of the sun was not possible during full moon (Origen) ; for which reason the eclipse of the 202d Olympiad, recorded by Phlegon in Syncellus, Chronogr. I. p. 614, ed. Bonn, and already referred to by Eusebius, is equally out of the question (Wieseler, chronol. Synops. p. 387 f.). But as little must we suppose that the reference is to that darkness in the air which precedes an ordinary earthquake (Paulus, Kuinoel, de Wette, Schleier- macher, LZ. J. p. 448, Weisse), for it is not an earthquake in the ordinary sense that is described in ver. 51 ff.; in fact, Mark and Luke, though recording the darkness and the rending of the veil, say nothing about. the earthquake. The darkness upon this occasion was of an wnusual, a supernatural character, being as it were the voice of God making itself heard through nature, the gloom over which made it appear as though the whole earth were bewailing the ignominious death which the Son of God was dying. The prodigies, to all appearance similar, that are alleged to have accompanied the death of certain heroes of antiquity (see Wetstein), and those solar
272 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
obscurations alluded to in Rabbinical literature, were different in kind fron that now before us (ordinary eclipses of the sun, such ‘s that which took place after the death of Caesar, Serv ad. Virg. G. I. 466), and, even apart from this, would not j1stily us im relegating what is matter of history, John’s omision of it ‘notwithstanding, to the region of myth (in opposition to Strauss, Keim, Scholten), especially when we consider that the death in this instance was not that of a mere human hero, that there were those still living who could corroborate the evangelic narrative, and that the darkness here in question was associated with the extremely peculiar onetoy of the rending of the veil of the temple. —émi macav tiv yjv] Keeping in view the supernatural character of the event as well as the usage elsewhere with regard to the somewhat indefinite phraseolovy waoa or 6An % y (Luke xxi. 35, xxiii. 44; Rom. ix. 17, x. 18; Rev. xiii. 3), it is clear that the only rendering in keeping with the tone of the narrative is: over the whole carth (koopexov 8€ hv To oKdTos, ob peprxdv, Theophy- lact, comp. Chrysostom, Euthymius Zigabenus), not merely : over the whole land (Origen, Erasmus, Luther, Maldonatus, Kuinoel, Paulus, Olshausen, Ebrard, Lange, Steinmeyer), though at the same time we are not called upon to construe the words in accordance with the laws of physical geography ; they are simply to be regarded as expressing the popular idea of the matter.
Ver. 46. “AveBonoev] He cried aloud. See Winer, de verbor. cum praepos. convpos. usu, 1838, IIL. p. 6 f.; comp. Luke ix. 38 ; LXX. and Apoer., Herod., Plato.—The circumstance of the following exclamation being given in Hebrew is sufficiently and naturally enough accounted for by the jeering language of ver. 47, which language is understood to be suggested by the sound of the Hebrew words recorded in our present passage. —oaBayOavi] Chald.: ‘7p’ =the Heb. ‘2.77. Jesus
gives vent to His feelings in the opening words of the twenty- second Psalm. We have here, however, the purely human — feeling that arises from a natural but momentary quailing before the agontes of death, and which was in every respect similar to that which had been experienced by the author of
CHAP. XXVII. 46. 273
the psalm. The combination of profound mental anguish, in consequence of entire abandonment by men, with t)!e well-nigh ‘intolerable pangs of dissolution, was all the more “atural and inevitable in the case of One whose feelings wee so deep, tender, and real, whose moral consciousness was s) pure, and whose love was so intense. In éyxarédumes Jesus expressed, of course, what He felt, for His ordinary conviction that He was in fellowship God had for the moment given way under the pressure of extreme bodily and mental suffering, and a mere passing feeling as though He were no longer sustained by the power of the divine life had taken its place (comp. Gess, p. 196); but this subjective feeling must not be con- founded with actual objective desertion on the part of God (in opposition to Olshausen and earlier expositors), which in the case of Jesus would have been a metaphysical and moral im- possibility. The dividing of the exclamation into different parts, so as to correspond to the different elements in Christ’s nature,. merely gives rise to arbitrary and fanciful views (Lange, Ebrard), similar to those which have been based on the meta- physical deduction from the idea of necessity (Ebrard). To assume, as the theologians have done, that in the distressful cry of abandonment we have the vicarious enduring of the wrath of God (“ira Dei adversus nostra peccata effunditur in ipsum, et sic satisfit justitiae Dei,’ Melanchthon, comp. Luther on Ps. xxii., Calvin, Quenstedt), or the infliction of divine punish- ment (Kostlin in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. III. 1, p. 125, and Weiss himself), is, as in the case of the agony in Gethsemane, to go farther than we are warranted in doing by the New Testament view of the atoning death of Christ, the vicarious character of which is not to be regarded as consisting in an objective and actual equivalent. Comp. Remarks after xxvi. 46. Others, again, have assumed that Jesus, though quoting only the opening words of Ps. xxii, had the whole psalm in view, including, therefore, the comforting words with which it con- cludes (Paulus, Gratz, de Wette, Bleek ; comp. Schleiermacher, Glaubensl. II. p. 141, ed. 4, and LZ. J. p. 457). This, however, besides being somewhat arbitrary, gives rise to the incongruity of introducing the element of reflection where only pure feeling MATT. II. s
Dap THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
prevailed, as we see exemplified by Hofmann, Schrifibew. II. 1, p. 309, who, in accordance with his view that Jesus was abandoned to the mercies of an ungodly world, substitutes a secondary thought (“request for the so long delayed deliver- ance through death”) for the plain and direct sense of the words. The authenticity of our Lord’s exclamation, which the author of the Wolfenbiittel Fragnents has singularly miscon- strued (in describing it as the cry of despair over a lost cause), is denied by Strauss (who speaks of Ps. xxii. as having served the purpose of a programme of Christ’s passion), while it is strongly questioned by Keim, partly on account of Ps. xxi. and partly because he thinks that the subsequent accompany- ing narrative is clearly (?) of the nature of a fictitious legend. But legend would hardly have put the language of despair into the mouth of the dying Redeemer, and certainly there is nothing in the witticisms that follow to warrant the idea that we have here one legend upon another. —ivare] the momentary but agonizing feeling that He is abandoned by God, impels Him to ask what the divine object of this may be. He doubtless knew this already, but the pangs of death had overpowered Him (2 Cor. xiii. 4)—a passing anomaly as regards the spirit that uniformly characterized the prayers of Jesus. — éyxataXeim@] means: to abandon any one to utter helplessness. Comp. 2 Cor. iv. 9; Acts i. 27; Heb. xi. 5; Plat. Conv. p. 179 A; Dem. p. 158, 10, al. ; Kcelus. iit, AG, ii. 230) ax. 22 0,
Ver. 47. A heartless Jewish witticism founded upon a silly malicious perversion of the words dé, 7Ad, and not a mis- understanding of their meaning on the part of the Roman soldiers (Euthymius Zigabenus), or illiterate Jews (Theophy- lact, Erasmus, Olshausen, Lange), or Hellenists (Grotius), for the whole context introduces us to one scene after another of envenomed mockery; see ver. 49.—odtos] that one there! pointing Him out among the three who were being crucified.
Ver. 48 f. A touch of sympathy on the part of some one who had been moved by the painful cry of Jesus, and who would fain relieve Him by reaching Him a cordial. What
CHAP. XXVII. 50. 275
a contrast to this in ver. 49! According to John xix. 28, Jesus expressly intimated that He was thirsty. Mark xv. 36 makes it appear that the person who reached the drink to Jesus was also one of those who were mocking Him, a dis- crepancy which we should make no attempt to reconcile, and in which we can have no difficulty in detecting traces of a more corrupt tradition. Luke omits this incident altogether, though in xxii. 36 he states that by way of mocking our Lord the soldiers offered Him the posca just before the darkness came on. Strauss takes advantage of these discrepancies so as to make it appear that they are but different applications of the prediction contained in Ps. lxix., without, however, disputing the fact that drink had been given to Jesus on two different occasions. —d£ovs] poscae, sour wine, the ordinary drink of the Roman soldiers. Comp. ver. 34 and Wetstein thereon. — ages] stop! don’t give him anything to drink! we want to see whether Elias whom he is invoking as his deliverer will come to his help, which help you would render unnecessary by giving him drink. — épyetac] placed first for sake of emphasis: whether he is coming, does not fail coming !
Ver. 50. IIdnuv] refers to ver. 46. What did Jesus cry in this instance? See John xix. 30, from which Luke xxiii. 46 diverges somewhat, containing, in fact, an explanatory addition to the account of the great closing scene, that is evidently borrowed from Ps. xxxi. 6.— agfxe 70 Tvedpa] ie. He died. See Herod. iv. 190; Eur. Hee. 571: ddjxe mvedpa Oavacino opayn; Kypke, I. p. 140; Gen. xxxv. 18; Ecclus, xxxvil. 23; Wisd. xvi. 14. There is no question here of a separating of the vedua from the yuy7. See in answer to Strobel, Delitzsch, Psych. p. 400 f. The theory of a merely apparent death (Bahrdt, Venturini, Paulus) is so decidedly at variance with the predictions of Jesus Himself regarding His end, as well as with the whole testimony of the Gospel, is so utterly destructive of the fundamental idea of the resurrection, undermines so completely the whole groundwork of the redemp- tion brought about by Christ, is so inconsistent with the accumu- lated testimeny of centuries as furnished by the very existence
276 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
of the church itself, which is based upon the facts of the death and the resurrection of Jesus, and requires such a remarkable series of other theories and assumptions of an extraordinary and supernatural character in order to explain duly authenti- cated facts regarding Christ's appearance and actings after His resurrection,—that, with friends and foes alike testifying to the actual death of Jesus, we are bound at once to dismiss it as an utterly abortive attempt to get rid of the physio- logical mystery (but see on Luke, Remarks after xxiv. 51) of the resurrection. It is true that though those modern critics (Strauss, Weisse, Ewald, Schweizer, Schenkel, Volkmar, Scholten, Keim) who deny the literal resurrection of Christ’s body, and who suggest various ways of accounting for His alleged reappearing again on several occasions, do not dis- pute the reality of His death, their view is nevertheless as much at variance with the whole of the New Testament evidence in favour of the resurrection as is the one just adverted to. Comp. xxviii. 10, Rem., and Luke xxiv. 51, Rem. '
Ver. 51 f. Not an ordinary earthquake, but a supernatural phenomenon, as was that of the darkness in’ ver. 45.— kat idov] “Hie wendet sich’s und wird gar ein neues Wesen” [at this point the history enters upon a fresh stage, and something entirely new appears], Luther. The style of the narrative here is characterized by a simple solemnity, among other indications of which we have the frequent recurrence of kat.— 70 xataTétacpa] 12757, the veil sus- pended before the holy of holies, Ex. xxvi. 31; Lev. xxi. 23; 1 Mace 1 22; Ecclus. xxx, 5; Heb, vi. 195 Geis 20. The vending in two (for eis S00, comp. Lucian, TZoz. 54; Lapith. 44), of which mention is also made by Mark and Luke, was not the effect of the convulsion in nature (which was a subsequent occurrence), but a divine onpetor, accompanying the moment of decease, for the purpose of indi- cating that in this atoning death of Jesus the old dispensation of sacrifices was being done away, and free access to the eracious presence of God at the same time restored. Comp. Heb. vi. 19: £, ix.) 6 ff, x. 19 f) To. treat what as) tite
CHAP. XXVII. 51, 52. 277
matter of divine symbolism as though it were symbolical legend (Schleiermacher, Strauss, Scholten, Keim) is all the more unwarrantable that neither in Old Testament prophecy nor in the popular beliefs of the Jews do we find anything calculated to suggest the formation of any such legend. ‘The influence of legend has operated rather in the way of trans- forming the rending of the veil into an incident of a more imposing and startling nature: “ superliminare (the lintel) templt infinitae magnitudinis fractum esse atque divisum,” Evang. sec. Hebr. quoted by Jerome. See Hilgenfeld, WV. 7. extr. can. 1V.p.17. The idea underlying this legend was that of the destruction of the temple——What follows is peculiar to Matthew. The rocks in question were those in the immediate neighbourhood, and so also with regard to Ta wvnpeta. The opening of the graves is in like manner to be regarded as divine symbolism, according to which the death of Jesus is to be understood as preparing the way for the future resurrection of believers to the eternal life of the Messianic kingdom (John i. 14 f., vi. 54). The thing thus signified by the divine sign—a sign sufficiently intelligible, and possess- ing all the characteristics of a genuine symbol (in opposition to Steinmeyer, p. 226)—-was so moulded and amplified in the course of tradition that it became ultimately transformed into an historical incident : ToANA copata THY KeKoww. ayiov HyépOn, «.7.X. For a specimen of still further and more extravagant amplification of the material in question—material to which Ignatius likewise briefly alludes, ad Magnes. 9, and which he expressly mentions, ad Trall. interpol. 9—see Evang. Nicod. 17 ff. This legend respecting the rising of the Old Testa- ment saints (dyiwv) is based upon the assumption of the descensus Christi ad wmferos, in the course of which Jesus was understood not only to have visitsd them, but also to have secured their resurrection (comp. Hv. Nicod.; Ignatius, ad Trail. i.c.). But it is quite arbitrary to assume that in those who are thus alleged to have risen from their graves we have mere “apparitions assuring us of the continued existence of the departed” (Michaelis, Paulus, Kuinoel, Hug, Krabbe, p. 505; Steudel, Glaubensl. p. 455; Bleek). Besides,
278 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
the legend regarding the rising of the saints on this occasion is, in itself considered, no more incompatible with the idea of Christ being the arapyi taév Keo. (1 Cor. xv. 20; Col. i. 18) than the raising of Lazarus and certain others. See on 1 Cor. xv. 20. It is true that, according to Epi- phanius, Origen, Ambrose, Luther, Calovius (comp. also Delitzsch, Psych. p. 414), the dead now in question came forth in spiritual bodies and ascended to heaven ‘along with Christ ; but with Jerome it is at the same time assumed, in opposition to the terms of our passage, that: “ Von antea resurrexerunt, guam Dominus resurgeret, ut esset primogenitus resurrectionis cz mortuis ;” comp. also Calvin, and Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 492. In the Acta Pilati as found in Thilo, p. 810, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the twelve patriarchs, and Noah, are expressly mentioned as being among the number of those who rose from the dead. The names are given somewhat differently in the Evang. Nicod.
Ver. 53. Mera trnhv éyepotv avtod] is to be taken in an active sense (Ps. cxxxix. 2; Plat. Zim. p. 70 C; comp. e&éyepaots, Polyb. ix. 15. 4; dvéyepous, Plut. Mor. p. 156 B), yet not as though avrod were a genitive of the subject (“ post- quam eos Jesus in vitam restituerat,” Fritzsche, which would be to make the addition of avrod something like superfluous), but a genitive of the object, in which case it is unnecessary to say who it was that raised up Christ. The words are not to be connected with é&eA@ovtes (de Wette, following the majority of the earlier expositors), which would involve the absurd idea that those here referred to had been lying in their graves alive awaiting the coming of the third day; but, as Heinsius, with efondOov. After life was restored they left their eraves, but only after the resurrection of Jesus did they enter the holy city. Up till then they had kept themselves concealed. And this is by no means difficult to understand ; for it was only after the resurrection of Jesus that their appearing could be of service in the way of bearing testimony in favour of Him in whose death the power of Hades was supposed to have been vanquished, and hence it was only then that their rising found its appropriate explanation. — aylav
CHAP. XXVII. 54—56. 279
moAwv] is in keeping with the solemnity of the entire narra- tive; comp. iv. 5.
Ver. 54. ‘O Sé Exarovtapxos] “ Centurio supplicio prae- positus,” Seneca, de ira, i. 16. He belonged to the oveipa, ver. 27. — ol wet avtod tnpobrtes T. Ina] is to be taken as one expression ; see ver. 35 f.—Kal Ta ytvomueva] Kai, as in xxvi. 59, and numerous instances besides, serves to con- join the general with the particular: and what was taking place (generally, that is), viz. the various incidents accompany- ing the death of Jesus (ver. 46 ff). The present participle (see the critical remarks) is used with reference to things they have been witnessing up till the present moment; see Kiihner, IT. 1, pp. 117, 163.—édoByOncar] they were seized with terror, under the impression that all that was happening was a manifestation of the wrath of the gods.— @ce0d vids] in the mouth of heathens can only denote a son of God in the heathen sense of the words (hero, demi-god), the sense in which they certainly understood them to be used when they heard Jesus accused and mocked. — #v] during His life.
Ver. 55 f. "Hrorov@ncarv] Here, as in ver. 60 and often elsewhere, we have the aorist in the relative clause instead of the usual pluperfect.—17 Mayéarnvn] from Magdala (see on xv. 39), comp. Luke viii. 2; she is not identical with the Mary of John xu. 1 ff, who again has been confounded with the sinner of Luke vi. 36. Comp. on xxvi. 6 ff. The xvo019 is likewise mentioned in Rabbinical literature (Eisen- menger, entdeckt. Judenth. I. p. 277), though this must not be confounded with xb», a plaiter of hair, which the Talmud alleges the mother of Jesus to have been (Lightfoot, p. 498). —% Tod Iax@Bou, «.7.X.] the wife of Alphaeus. See on xiii. 55; John xix. 25. The mother of Joses is not a different Mary from the mother of James (Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. £01), otherwise we should have had kai 4 tod "Iwo pjtnp. See also Mark xv. 47, Remark.— 1 payjrnp tav vidv ZeBed.] Salome. Comp. on xx: 20. In John xix. 25 she is desig- nated: 1 adedgy Ths puntpos avtov. The mother of Jesus, whose presence on this occasion is attested by John, is not mentioned by the Synoptists, though at the same time
280 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
they do not exclude her (in opposition to Schenkel, Keim), especially as Matthew and Mark make no express reference to any but the women who ministered to the Lord. For this reason alone we feel bound to reject the hypothesis of Chrysostom and Theophylact, revived by Fritzsche, but refuted so long ago by Euthymius Zigabenus,—the hypothesis, namely, that it is the mother of Jesus who is meant by Mapia 9 tod TaxwBov cai Iwoh wyrnp (xiii. 55). So also Hesychius of Jerusalem in Cramer’s Catena, p. 256.
Ver. 57. "Owias Sé yevop.] the so-called first or early evening, just before the close of the Jewish day. Deut. xxi. 22 f.; Joseph. Bell.iv. 5. 2. See also Lightfoot, p. 499. — avd Apia.) belongs to avOpwiros wrovcos. Comp. paryot amo avatoNov, i. 1. The other evangelists describe him as a member of the Sanhedrim; an additional reason for sup- posing him to have resided in Jerusalem.—7A0ev] namely, to the place of execution, as the context shows, and not to the practorium (de Wette, Bleek), to which latter ver. 58 represents him as going only after his return from the scene of the crucifixion. Arimathia, 0.027 with the article, 1 Sam. i. 1, the birthplace of Samuel (see Eusebius, Onom., and Jerome, Hp. 86, ad Eustoch. epitaph. Paul. p. 673), and consequently identical with Rama (see on ii. 18); LXX.: ’Appabaip.— cat adros] et ipse, like those women and their sons, ver. 56. —pwaOnreveuv tuvi] to be a disciple of any one; see Kypke, II. p. 141 f. Comp. on xiii. 52. He was a secret follower of Jesus, John xix. 38. :
Ver. 58. According to Roman usage, the bodies of criminals were left hanging upon the cross, where they were allowed to decompose and be devoured by birds of prey. Plaut. mit. glor. ii. 4. 9; Horace, Zp. 1.16.48. However, should the relatives in any case ask the body for the purpose of burying, there was nothing to forbid their request being complied with. Ulpian, xlviii. 24. 1, de cadav. punit. ; Hug in the Preyb. Zeitschr. 5, p. 174 ff. —poceX8@.] therefore from the place of execution to the praetorium. — a7 0b00fvar 76 cd pa] TO saya is due not merely to the simple style of the narrative, but in its threefold repetition expresses with involuntary emphasis the
CHAP. XXVII. 59, 60. 281
author’s own painful sympathy. dzrodo@. has the force of reddi (Vulg.), the thing asked being regarded as the petitioner’s own peculiar property. Comp. xxi. 21.
Ver. 59. “Jam initia honoris,” Bengel.—ocvdove ka- Gapa] with pure (unstained linen) linen, the dative of instru- ment. Keeping in view the ordinary practice on such occasions, it must not be supposed that the reference here is to a dress (Kuinoel, Fritzsche), but (comp. Herod. ii. 86) to strips or bands (John xix. 40), in which the body was swathed after being washed. Comp. Wetstein. Matthew makes no mention of spices (John xix. 40), but neither does he exclude their use, for he may have meant us to understand that, in conformity with the usual practice, they would be put in, as matter of course, when the body was wrapped up (in oppo- sition to Strauss, de Wette, Keim). Mark xvi. 1 and Luke xxiii. 56 represent the putting in of the spices as something intended to be done after the burial. This, however, is in no way inconsistent with the statement of John, for there is no reason why the women may not have supplemented with a subsequent and more careful dressing of the body (aretfpwow, Mark xvi. 1) what had been done imperfectly, because somewhat hurriedly, by Joseph and (see John xix. 39) Nicodemus.
Ver. 60. “O éXatopunoev] Aorist, as in ver. 55.—The other evangelists say nothing about the grave having belonged to Joseph; John xix. 42 rather gives us to understand that, owing to the necessary despatch, it was made choice of from its being close at hand. We thus see that Matthew’s account is unsupported by the earlier testimony of Mark on the one hand, and the later testimony of Luke and John on the other. This, however, only goes to confirm the view that in Matthew we have a later amplification of the tradition which was expunged again by Luke and John, for this latter at least would scarcely have left unnoticed the devotion evinced by Joseph in thus giving up his own tomb, and yet it is John who distinctly alleges a different reason altogether for the choice of the grave. The ordinary supposi- tion, that Matthew’s account is intended to supplement those
282 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
of the other evangelists, fails to meet the exigencies of the case, especially in regard to John, on whom so tender a feature in connection with the burial would doubtless have made too deep an impression to admit of his passing it over in silence. ——As a new grave was calculated to do honour to Jesus (comp. on John as above), the circumstance that this one had not been previously used may have gone far to determine the choice, so that there is no ground for supposing that what is said with reference to this has been added without historical warrant (Strauss, Scholten).—év 79 wérpa] The article is to be understood as indicating a rocky place just at hand.— 1h Ovpa] Comp. Hom. Od. ix. 243: mérpny éréOnne Ovpnow. In Rabbinical phraseology the stone used for this purpose is called 25ia, a roller. See Paulus, exeget. Handb. III. p. 819. Such a mode of stopping up graves is met with even in the present day (Strauss, Sinai u. Golgatha, p. 205).
Ver. 61. "Hv dé éxet] present at the burial. — 7) adr Map.] see ver. 56. The article is wanting only in A D*, and should be maintained, Wieseler (Chronol. Synops. p. 427) notwithstanding. Its omission in the case of A may be traced to the reading % Iwan, which this Ms. has at Mark xv. 47. Wieseler approves of this reading, and holds the Mary of our text to be the wife or daughter of Joseph of Arimathea. But see remark on Mark xy. 47. — xcaOnpevat, k.7..| unoccupied, absorbed in grief; comp. Nagelsbach on Hom. J. i. 154.
Ver. 62."H tts éoti wera tHv Tapack.] which follows the day of preparation, i.e. on Saturday. For wapackev’n is used to designate the day that immediately precedes the Sabbath (as in the present instance) or any of the feast days. Comp. on John xix. 14. According to the Synoptists, the mapacxevn of the Sabbath happened to coincide this year with the first day of the feast, which might also properly enough be designated oaBParov (Ley. xxiii. 11, 15),—this latter circumstance being, according to Wieseler (Synops. p. 417), the reason why Matthew did not prefer the simpler and more obvious expression #r1s é€ott ca8Parov ; an expression which, when used in connection
CHAP. XXVII. 63, 64. 283
with the days of the Passover week, was liable to be misunder- stood. But Matthew had already spoken so definitely of the first day of the feast as that on which Jesus was crucified (see xxvi. 17-xxvii. 1), that he had no cause to apprehend any misunderstanding of his words had he chosen to write Hts éott caBRatov. But as little does that precise state- ment regarding the day permit us to suppose that the expres- sion in question has been made to turn on the divergent narrative of John (in opposition to de Wette). The most natural explanation of the peculiar phraseology: %Tus éott peta T. Tapack., is to be found in that Christian usage according to which the wapacke’n (ie. the mpocaBPBaror, Mark xv. 42) has come to be the recognised designation for the Friday of the crucifixion. Michaelis, Paulus, Kuinoel suppose that it is the part of Friday after sunset that is intended, by which time, therefore, the Sabbath had begun. This, however, is distinctly precluded by 7H ésravpuov.
Ver. 63. “EpvyjcOnpev] we have remembered, it has just occurred to us, the sense being purely that of the aorist and not of the perfect (in opposition to de Wette).— éxetvos 6 wAdvos] that deceiver (2 Cor. vi. 8), impostor; Justin, c. Tr. 69: AaowAavos. Without once mentioning His name, they contemptuously allude to Him as one now removed to a distance, as got rid of by death. This is a sense in which exeivos is frequently used by Greek authors (Schoem. ad Js. p- 177 ; Ellendt, Lew. Soph. I. p. 559). — éyelpopac] present ; marking the confidence with which he affirmed it.
Ver. 64. Kat €orac] is more lively and natural when not taken as dependent on pote. The Vulgate renders cor- rectly: et erit.—1 éoxyatn wavy] the last error (see on Eph. iv. 14), that, namely, which would gain ground among the credulous masses, through those who might steal away the body of Jesus pretending that He had risen from the dead. —Ths mpwotns| which found acceptance with the multitude through giving out and encouraging others to give out that He was the Messiah. —ye/pwv] worse, i.e. more fatal to public order and security, etc. For the use of this expression, comp. x1°45; 2 Sam. xiii. 15.
I84t THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
Ver. 65 f. Pilate’s reply is sharp and peremptory. — éyete xkovoT@odtav]| with Luther, Vatablus, Wolf, Paulus, de Wette, Keim, Steinmeyer, éyeve is to be taken as an imperative, habetote (comp. Xen. Cyrop. viii. 7.11; Mark ix. 50, xi. 22; Soph. Phil. 778): ye shall have a watch! For if it be taken as an indicative, as is generally done in conformity with the Vulgate, we must not suppose that the reference is to Roman soldiers (Grotius, Fritzsche), for the Sanhedrim had not any such placed at their disposal, not even to the detachment that guarded the cross (Kuinoel), for its duties were now over, but simply to the ordinary temple guards. But it is evident from xxvii. 14 that it was not these latter who were set to watch the grave. This duty was assigned to a company of Roman soldiers, which company the Acta Pil. magnifies into a cohort. — os oldaTe] as, by such means as, ye know how to prevent vt, Z.e.in the best way you can. The idea: “vereor autem, ut satis communire illud possitis” (Fritzsche), is foreign to the text.— peta ths KoveTwdias] belongs to jogadric. tr. Tad. ; they secured the grave by means of (Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 530 D) the watch, which they posted in front of it. The intervening odpayic. Tt. lO. is to be understood as having preceded the jodanr. 7. T. peta Tt. Kovot.: after they had sealed the stone. To connect peta tT. koveTwd. with oppayic. (Chry- sostom) would result either in the feeble and somewhat inappropriate idea that the watch had helped them with the sealing (Bleek), or in the harsh and unnecessary assumption that our expression is an abbreviation for peta Tod mpocOetvas THv KoveTwolav (Fritzsche). — odpayic.] Comp. Dan. vi. 17. The sealing was effected by stretching a cord across the stone at the mouth of the sepulchre, and then fastening it to the rock at either cnd by means of sealing-clay (Paulsen, Regier. d. Morgenl. p. 298 ; Harmar, Beobacht. II. p. 467); or if the stone at the door happened to be fastened with a cross-beam, this latter was sealed to the rock (Strauss, Sinai wand Golgatha, p. 205).
REMARK.—As it is certain that Jesus cannot have predicted His resurrection in any explicit or intelligible manner even to His own disciples; as, moreover, it is impossible to suppose
CHAP, XXVII. 285
that the women who visited the grave’on the resurrection morning could have contemplated embalming the body, or would have concerned themselves merely about how the stone was to be rolled away, if they had been aware that a watch had been set, and that the grave had been sealed; and finally, as the supposition that Pilate complied with the request for a guard, or at all events, that the members of the Sanhedrim so little understood their own interest as both to leave the body of Jesus in the hands of His followers instead of taking possession of it themselves, and to bribe the soldiers to give false testimony instead of duly calling them to account, as they might have done, for their culpable neglect, is in the highest degree im- probable, just as much so as the idea that the procurator would be likely to take no notice of a dereliction of duty on the part of his own soldiers, who, by maintaining the truth of a very stupid fabrication, would only be proclaiming how much they themselves were to blame in the matter: it follows that the story about the watching of the grave—a story which is further disproved by the fact that nowhere in the discussions belonging to the apostolic age do we find any reference confirmatory or otherwise to the alleged stealing of the body—must be referred to the category of unhistorical legend. And a clue to the origin of this legend is furnished by the evangelist himself in mention- ing the rumour about the stealing of the body,—a rumour emanating to all appearance from a Jewish source, and circu- lated with the hostile intention of disproving the resurrection of Jesus (Paulus, exeg. Handb. 111. p. 837 ff.; Strauss, II. p, 562 ff. ; Schleiermacher, Z. J. p. 458 ff.; Weisse, Ewald, Hase, Bleek, Keim, Scholten, Hilgenfeld). The arguments advanced by Hug in the Freyburg. Zeitschr. 1831, 3, p. 184 ff. ; 5, p. 80 ff.; Kuinoel, Hofmann, Krabbe, Ebrard, Lange, Riggenbach, Steinmeyer, against the supposition of a legend, resolve themselves into arbitrary assumptions and foreign importations which simply leave the matter as historically incomprehensible as ever. The same thing may be said with regard to the emendation which Olshausen takes the liberty of introducing, according to which it is made to appear that the Sanhedrim did not act in their corporate capacity, but that the affair was managed simply on the authority of Caiaphas alone. Still the unhistorical character of the story by no means justifies the assumption of an interpolation (in opposition to Stroth in Eichhorn’s ftepert. 1X. p. 141),—an interpolation, too, that would have had to be introduced into three different passages (xxvii. 62, 66, xxvii. 4, 11 ff); yet one can understand how this apocryphal
286 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
story should have most readily engrafted itself specially and exclusively upon the Gospel of Matthew, a Gospel originating in Judaeo-Christian circles, and having, by this time, the more developed form in which it has come down to us. For a further amplification of the legend, see Lv. Nicod. 14.
CHAP, XXVIII. 287
CHAPTER XXVIII
VER. 2. dri 7. dbpas]| is wanting in B DR, 60, 84, Vulg. It. Or. Dion. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. Exegetical addition, which many witnesses have supplemented still further by adding rod wvnueiou (Mark xvi. 3). — Ver. 6. 6 xdpso¢] is wanting, no doubt, only in Bx, 33, 102, Copt. Aeth. Arm. Ar.’ one Cod. of the It. Or.** Chrys. ; but, with Tisch. it is to be condemned. This designation is foreign to Matth., while as “gloriosa appel- latio” (Bengel) it was more liable to be inserted than omitted. — Ver. 8. 2&A9.] Tisch.: dazed, following BC Lx, 33, 69, 124. Correctly ; the more significant reading of the Received text is derived from Mark. — Ver. 9. Before xa idod the Received text Inserts: ws 62 éropebovro dwuyysirAas rors madras airod. No such clause is found in B D 8, min. Syr. Ar.” Perss. Copt. Arm. Vulg. Sax. It. Or. Eus. Jer. Aug. Defended by Griesb. Matth. Fritzsche, Scholz, Bornem. (Schol. in Luc. p. xxxix.); condemned by Mill, Bengel, Gersd., Schulz, Rinck, Lachm., Tisch. There would be nothing feeble or awkward about the words if thus inserted, on the contrary, the effect would be somewhat solemn (see Bornem.) ; but seeing that they are wanting in witnesses so ancient and so important, and seeing that #< is not found in this sense anywhere else in Matth. (other grammatical grounds mentioned by Gersd. are untenable), there is reason to suspect that they are an early addition for the sake of greater precision. — Ver. 11. For azjyy. read, with Tisch. 8, dvjyy., though only in accordance with D x, Or. Chrys. The Received reading is taken from ver. 10, while dvayyérArzw occurs nowhere else in Matthew. — Ver. 14. éai rod ny.| Lachm.: iv rod 7y., following B D, 59, Vulg. It. But this is an explanatory correction in consequence of not catching the sense. — Ver. 15. Lachm. inserts jyuépas after ofmepov, in accord- ance with BD L. Correctly; as Matth. does not add jmép. in any other instance (xi. 25, xxvil. 8), it was more natural for the transcriber to omit than to insert it.— Ver. 17. air@] is wanting in B DX, 33, 102, Vulg. It. Chrys. Aug. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. A somewhat common addition, for which
288 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
other Mss. (min.) have airév.— Ver. 19. After ropevd. Elz. inserts ody, Which is bracketed by Lachm. and deleted by Matth. and Tisch. Added as a connecting particle, but wanting in very im- portant witnesses, while other and less important ones have viv.
Ver. 1. On the various ways of viewing and interpreting the story of the resurrection, see, as regards their critical aspect, Keim, III. p. 527 ff.; and on the apologetic side, consult Steinmeyer, Apolog. Beitr. III. 1871. — owé 6€ caBBartor| but late on the Sabbath, means neither . . . after the close of the Sabbath (Olshausen, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Bleek), nor: after the close of the week (Severus of Antioch, Euthymius Zigabenus, Grotius, Wieseler, p. 425) ; for dwé, sero, with a defining genitive (without which it occurs nowhere else in the New Testament) always denotes the lateness of the period thus specified and still current (Ta TedXevTaia TovTaY, Euthymius Zigabenus). Comp. in general, Kriiger, § xlvu. 10. 4; Kiihner, II. 1, p. 292. Take the following as examples of this usage from classical authors: Xen. Hist. ii. 1. 14; Thue. iv. 93. 1: Ths jpepas owe; Dem. p. 541, ult.: dé tis dpas éylyveto; Luc. Dem. enc. 14, and de morte Peregr. 21: owe Tis HAtKias. Hence by: late on the Sabbath, we are not to suppose Saturday evening to be intended,—any such mis- understanding being precluded both by the nature of the ex- pression made use of, an expression by no means synonymous with the usual dydas yevopeévys (in opposition to Keim), and by what is still further specified immediately after,—but far on in the Saturday night, after midnight, toward daybreak on Sun- day, in conformity with the civil mode of reckoning, according to which the ordinary day was understood to extend from sunrise till sunrise again. Lightfoot, comparing the Rabbinical expression Nl’ ‘p'b2, aptly observes: “ oye totam noctem denotat.’ Comp. so early a writer as Augustine, de cons. ev. 24. Consequently the point of time mentioned here is substantially identical with that given in Luke xxiv. 1: 77 pia THY caBRatwv dpOpov Babéos, and in John xx. 1: 7H wa Tov caBB. Tpwt cKoTias Ett ovens; while, on the other hand, Mark xvi. 2 represents the sun as already risen. For owé, comp. Ammonius: éomépa pév yap éotw 1 peta THY SvoW TOD
CHAP. XXVIII. 1. 289
Hriov Opa’ dé SE pweTa TOV Ths dUVcEWsS.— TH eTLpwcK. els plav caBBatwrv| when it was dawning toward Sunday, ze. as the light was beginning to appear on the morning of Sunday. Understand 7épa after erupwor.; and for émupockes % nwépa, comp. Herod. iii. 86: dw’ nuépn Scadwcxovcn, also ix. 45. The participial expression without the mpépa is similar to 7 émvca, and the like (Kiihner, II. 1, p. 228). Keim supposes the evening to be intended, since, according to the Jewish mode of reckoning, the day began with the rising of the stars or the lighting of lamps, so that the meaning of our passage would be as follows: “Jn the evening after six o'clock, just when the stars were beginning to twinkle.”* But to say nothing of the startling discrepancy that would thus arise between Matthew and the other evangelists, we would be under the necessity, according to Luke xxiii. 54 (see on the passage), of understanding the words immediately following as simply equivalent to: 7) ula caBBdtav éeridwokovcn ; comp. caBBatov éeripwoxer, Ev. Nicod. 12, p. 600, Thilo’s edition. Nor, if we adopt Keim’s interpretation, is it at all clear what substantive should be understood along with 77 émiwor. Ewald, Apost. Zeit. p. 82, unwarrantably supplies éovépg, and, like Keim, supposes the reference to be to the evening lighting of the lamps, though he is inclined to think that Matthew in- tended summarily to include in his statement what the women did on Saturday evening and early on Sunday, a view which finds no support whatever in the text; as for the intention to embalm the body, there is no trace of such a thing in Matthew. Lastly, to suppose that in framing his statement as to the time here in question, the author of our revised Gospel has had recourse to a combination of Mark xvi. 1 and 2 (Weiss), is to give him but little credit for literary skill; for instead of taking the trouble to form any such combination, he had only to take Mark’s two statements and place the one after the other, thus: Ssayevouevov tod caBBatov, Mav Tpwl Tis
‘1 This idea of Keim’s about the twinkling of the stars is an importation; for the expression ixi¢ocxer, as applied to the evening, has reference only ¢o tho ordinary domestic lighting of the lamps. See in particular, Lightfoot on Luke xxiii. 54,
MATT. IL, T
290 TIIE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
pias caBBatwv. But so far from that, he has proceeded in entire independence of Mark. — The expression pia caBBatov corresponds exactly to the Rabbinical mode of designating the days of the week: nawa Jnx, Sunday; nawa uw, Monday; naw. -wsy, Tuesday, and so on. See Lightfoot, p. 500. Observe that ca8Bata denotes, in the first instance, Sabbath, and then week ; and similarly, that the juépa to be understood with éidwor. is to be taken in the sense of day light (John ix. 4, xi. 9; Rom. xiii, 12; 1 Thess. v. 5).— 7 &dAn Mapia] as in xxvii. 56.—In John xx. 1 only Mary Magdalene is mentioned, whereas in the Synoptists we have an amplified version of the tradition as regards the number of the women, Matthew mentioning two, Mark three (Salome), while Luke (xxiv. 10) gives us to understand that, in addition to the two Marys and Joanna, whom he specially names, there were several others. In dealing with such discrepancies in the tradition we should beware of seeking to coerce the different narratives into harmony with one another, which can never be done without prejudice to their respective authors. We see an illustration of this in the supposition that Mary Magdalene came /irst of all to the grave, and then hastened back to the city to inform Peter of what had taken place, and that during her absence Mary the mother of James, Joanna, Salome, and the other women arrived (Olshausen, Ebrard). Comp. on John xx. 1. The same thing is exemplified by the other view, that Mary Magdalene went to the grave along with the rest of the women, but that on the way back she outran the others, etc. For the various attempts to harmonize the divergent narratives, see Griesbach, Opuse. II. p. 241 ff.; Strauss, II. p. 570 ff; Wieseler, p. 425 ff. — Oewphnoat tov tagor] to look at the grave; according to Mark and Luke, to anoint the body. This latter statement is the more original and more correct of the two, though Matthew could not consistently adopt it after what he had said about the sealing and watching of the grave.
Ver. 2. It is wrong to take the aorists in a pluperfect sense (Castalio, Kuinoel, Kern, Ebrard), or to conceive of the action of the 7A0e as not yet completed (de Wette). Matthew repre-
CIIAP., XXVIII. 3-6. 291
sents what is here recorded as taking place in presence of the women (nrOe... Oewpfoat... Kai iSov), whose attention, however, had been so much occupied with the accompanying phenomena, that they did not observe (vv. 5, 6) the circumstance itself of our Lord’s emerging from the grave (which, besides, must have been invisible to the outward eye owing to the nature of the body He had now assumed, comp. on ver. 17). The other evangelists make no mention of this (legendary) super- natural and visible rolling away of the stone; and, though differing as to the number of the angels, they agree in representing them as having appeared inside the grave. Here, if anywhere, however, amid so much that is supernatural, must we be prepared to expect divergent accounts of what took place, above all in regard to the angelic manifestations, which are matters depending on individual observation and experience (comp. on John xx. 12), and not the objective perceptions of impartial and disinterested spectators. — yap] assigning the reason for the violent earthquake which, as a divine onpetov, formed an appropriate accompaniment to this miraculous angelic manifestation. — «. éxaO7TO9, K.7.A.] as the heaven-sent guardian and interpreter of the empty tomb.
Ver. 3 f. ‘H idéa avtod] his appearance, his outward aspect, found nowhere else in the New Testament, though occurring in Dan. i.15, 2 Mace. ii. 16, and frequently in classical authors. On the relation of this term to eiéos, see Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 596 A, and Parmen. p. 128 E; and comp. Ameis on Hom. Qd. ix. 508, Appendix. The appearance of the countenance is meant; see what fol- lows. Comp. xvii. 2.—@s dotpamy7] not: as having the form, but as shining with the brightness of lightning. Comp. Plat. Phaedr. p. 254 B: eidov thy ow aotparrovoay, For the white raiment, comp. 2 Macc. xi 8; Acts 1.10. The sentinels were convulsed (éce(c@ncav, 3 Esdr. iv. 36) with error at the sight of the angel (avrod), and became as powerless as though they had been dead. The circumstance of these latter being mentioned again at this point is in strict keeping with the connection of Matthew’s narrative.
Ver. 5 f. AcroxptOeis] said in view of the terrifying effect
292 TIIE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
‘which he saw was being produced upon the women by what was taking place. Comp. on xi. 25.— p17 poBeiobe bpeis]. Umeis is neither to be understood as a vocative (0 vos /), nor to be referred to what follows (both of which Fritzsche has sug- gested) ; but, as the simplicity of the address and a due regard to the sense require, is to be taken thus: ye should not be afraid, duets being thus regarded as forming a contrast to the sentinels, who are paralyzed with terror. To say that no par- ticular emphasis ever rests upon the personal pronoun (de Wette) is to say what, as regards the whole of the New Tes- tament, is simply not the case (instance also Mark xiii. 9; Acts viii. 24).— ofSa yap, «.7.r.] Ground of the reassuring terms in which the angel addresses them; he knows the loving purpose for which they are come, and what joyful news he has to tell then!
Ver. 7. IIpodyes] he is im the act of going before you to Galilee ; 67e is recitative. Bengel correctly observes: “ Verba discipulis dicenda se porrigunt usque ad videbitis.” Accord- ingly buds and éyeoGe refer to the disciples (comp. xxvi. 32), not to the women as well, who, in fact, saw Jesus forth- with; and see ver. 10. For the meeting itself, which is here promised, see ver. 16 ff. — éxei] therefore not previously in Jerusalem or anywhere else in Judaea. Between what is here stated and the narratives of Luke and John there is a manifest and irreconcilable difference. In the Stud. u. Krit. 1869, p. 532 ff, Graf still tries in vain to make out a case in favour of assuming, as matter of course, the expiry of the festival period before the mpodyes and 6. Observe, moreover, the dyeoGe; on no earlier occasion than that of their meeting in Galilee were they to be favoured with a sight of Him. — etrov tpiv] I have told you it, in the sense of: take this as my intimation of the fact (see on John vi. 36), thus conjoining with the announcement a hint carefully to note how certainly it will be verified by the result. It is wrong, therefore, to suppose that for ei7rov we should read efzrev, after Mark xvi. 7 (Maldonatus, Michaelis), in which case some assume an error in translation (Bolten, Eichhorn, Buslav, de ling. orig. ev. M. p. 67); others, an error on the part of the transcriber (Schol-
CHAP. XXVIII. 8-10. 293
ten); and others, again, an erroneous use of Mark (Schnecken- burger, Holtzmann). The (Sov, etzroy iptv is here peculiar to Matthew.
Ver. 8. Mera PoBou, éd’ ois cidov rapadofous peta yapas dé, éf ois yKovoav evayyedtous, Euthymius Zigabenus.— feyaAns] applying to both substantives. For similar in- stances of the mingling of fear with joy (Virg. Aen. i. 514, xi. 807, al.), consult Wetstein; Koster in the Stud. u. Krit. 1862, p. 351.
Ver. 9. On seeing the strange and superhuman appearance presented by the risen Lord, the women are so filled with consternation (u poPetcGe, ver. 10) that they take hold of His feet in a suppliant attitude (€xpdar. avtod tr. modas), and testify their submission and reverence by the act of rpooKxtvy- ots. Bengel says correctly: “Jesum ante passionem alii potius alieniores adorarunt quam descipuli.”
Ver. 10. My) hoBeicbe: timadyete, amayy.| Asyndeton, the matter being pressing, urgent. —- Tot’s adeXgois wov] He thus designates His disciples (comp. on John xx. 17; Justin, c¢. Tr. 106), not mpos tyunv aitav (Euthymius Zigabenus), for which there was no occasion, but in view of that conception of Him as a superhuman being which had so profoundly im- pressed the women prostrate at His feet.—iva] does not state the purport of the order involved in azrayy. (de Wette; there is nothing whatever of the nature of an order about dzray.), but the idea is: take word to my brethren (namely, about my resurrection, about your having seen me, about my having spoken to you, and what I said), in order that (as soon as they receive these tidings from you) they may proceed to Galilee, xxvi. 32.—kaxet we Govrac] is not to| be regarded as dependent on wa, but: and there they shall see me. This repetition of the directions about going to Galilee (ver. 7), to which latter our evangelist gives con- siderable prominence as the scene of the new reunion (ver. 16 ff.), cannot be characterized as superfluous (de Wette, Bruno Bauer), or even as poor and meaningless (Keim), betraying the hand of a later editor, but is intended to be express and emphatic ; comp. Steinmeyer. With the exception
294 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
of John xxi., the other canonical Gospels, in which, however, we cannot include the spurious conclusion of Mark, make no mention of any appearance of the risen Lord in Galilee; according to John xx., Jesus remained at least eight days in Jerusalem, as did also His disciples, to whom He there manifested Himself on two occasions, though it would appear from John xxi. that the third manifestation took place in Galilee, while Luke, on the other hand (xxiv. 49; Acts i. 4, xiii. 31), excludes Galilee altogether, just as Matthew excludes Judaea. To harmonize these divergent accounts is impossible (Strauss, II. p. 558 ff.; Holtzmann, p. 500 f.; Keim); and, with regard to the account of Matthew in particular, it may be observed that it is so far from assuming the manifestations to the disciples in Judaea as having previously occurred (in opposition to Augustine, Olshausen, Krabbe, Ebrard, Lange), that it clearly intends the meeting with the eleven, ver. 16 ff, as the jirst appearance to those latter, and as the one that had been promised by the angel, ver. 7,and by Jesus Himself, ver. 10. From those divergent accounts, how- ever, it may be fairly inferred that the tradition regarding the appearances of the. risen Lord to His disciples assumed a threefold shape: (1) the purely Galilaean, which is that adopted by Matthew ; (2) the purely Judaean, which is that of Luke, and also of John with the supplementary ch. xxi. left out; (3) the combined form in which the appearances both in Galilee and Judaea are embraced, which is that of John with the supplementary chapter in question included, That Jesus appeared to the disciples both in Jerusalem and in Galilee as well might be already deduced as a legitimate historical inference from the fact of a distinct Judaean and Galilaean tradition having been current; but the matter is placed beyond a doubt by John, if, as we are entitled to assume, the apostle is to be regarded as the author of ch. xxi. The next step, of course, is to regard it as an ascertained historical fact that the appearances in Judaea preceded those in Galilee; though, at the same time, it should not ‘be forgotten that Matthew's account is not merely vague and concise (Bleek), but that it, in fact, ignores the appearances
CHAP. XXVIII. 10. 295
in Judaea altogether, entirely excludes them as being unsuited to the connection; comp. Schleiermacher, Z. J. p. 465 f. Now, as this is inconceivable in the case of Matthew the apostle, we are bound to infer from our narrative that this is another of those passages in our Gospel which show traces of other than apostolic authorship. See Introd. § 2.
ReMARK.—It is evident from 1 Cor. xv. 5 ff. that, even taking the narratives of all the evangelists together, we would have but an imperfect enumeration of the appearances of Jesus subsequent to His resurrection, Matthew’s account being the most deficient of any. With regard to the appearances themselves, modern criticism, discarding the idea that the death was only apparent (see on xxvii. 50), has treated them partly as subjective creations, either of the intellect (Strauss, Scholten), in its efforts to reconcile the Messianic prophecies and the belief in the Messiah with the fact of His death, or of ecstatic vision (Baur, Strauss, 1864; Holsten, Ewald), and therefore as mere mental phenomena which came to be embodied in certain objective incidents. There are those again who, attributing the appear- ances in question to some oljective influence emanating from Christ Himself, have felt constrained to regard them as real manifestations of His person in the glorified form (Schenkel) in which it emerged from out of death (not from the grave),—a view in which Weisse, Keim, Schweizer substantially concur, inasmuch as Keim, in particular, lays stress on the necessity of “such a telegram from heaven” after the extinction of Christ’s earthly nature, though he considers the question as to whether our Lord also communicated the form of the vision directly or only indirectly, as of but secondary consequence. But all these attempts to treat what has been recorded as an actual fact as
‘Rud. Hofmann (de Berg Galiléa, 1856), following certain early expositors, has attempted to explain the discrepancies between the various narratives by maintaining that 4 Teaiaeia, Matt. xxviil., is not the country, but a mountain of this name, namely, the northmost of the three peaks of the Mount of Olives. But nowhere in the New Testament do we find such a designation applied to any locality but the well-known province of that name ; nor, if we interpret fairly the passages quoted by Hofmann from Tertullian (Apol. 21), Lactantius (iv. 19), and Chrysostom, are we able to find in them any allusion to a mountain called Galilee; and surely it is not to be presumed that anything of a trust- worthy nature can be learnt as to the existence of such a mountain from the confusions of a certain corrupt part of the text in the Hvang. Nicod. 14; sea already, Thilo, ad Cod, Apocr. I. p. 620 f,
296 TUE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
though it were based merely on mental phenomena are in opposition in general to the explicit and wnhesitating view of all the evangelists and apostles as well as in particular to the uniform reference to the empty grave, and no less uniform use of the expression third day, all classical testimonies which can never be silenced. If,in addition to all this, it be borne in mind that the apostles found in the resurrection of their Lord a living and un- failing source of courage and hope, and of that cheerfulness with which they bore suffering and death,—that the apostolic church generally saw in it the foundation on which its own existence was based,—that Paul, in particular, insists upon it as incon- trovertible evidence for, and as an d&rapy7 of the resurrection of the body (1 Cor. xv. 23; Rom viii. 11), and as constituting an essential factor in man’s justification (Rom. iv. 25; Phil. 11. 10), though he is fond of speaking of being buried and raised up with Christ as descriptive of what is essential to the moral standing of the Christian (Rom. vi. 4; Col. ii. 12), and can only conceive of the glorified body of the Lord, to which those of believers will one day be conformed (Phil. ii. 21), as no other than that which came forth from the grave and was taken up to heaven,—if, we say, this be borne in mind, not the shadow of an exegetical pretext will be left for construing the resurrection from the grave of one whose body was exempted from corrup- tion (Acts ii. 31, x. 41) into something or other which might be more appropriately described as a resurrection from the cross, and which would therefore require us to suppose that all the apostles and the whole church from the very beginning had been the victims of a delusion. See, in answer to Keim, Schmidt in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1872, p. 413 ff If this view of the resurrection were adopted, then, in opposition once more to New Testament authority, we should have to identify it with the ascension (comp. on Luke xxiv. 51, Remark); while, on the other hand, it would be necessary to give up the Des- census Christi ad inferos as a second error arising out of that which has just been referred to.
Ver. 11. ITopevop. dé adt.] but while they were going away, to convey the intelligence to the disciples, ver. 10. While, therefore, the women are still on their way, the soldiers in question repair to the city and report to the high priests what had happened.
Ver. 12 ff. SuvayOévres] Change of subject. Winer, p. 586 [E. T. 787]. — cupBovr. te AaBovtes] after consulting
CHAP, XXVIII. 16. 297
together, as in xii. 14, xxii. 15, xxvii. 1, 7. The conjunctive particle te has the same force as in xxvii. 48, and occurs no- where else in Matthew; found so much the more frequently in Luke’s writings, especially in the Acts. — adpyvpza] as in xxvi. 15, xxvil. 3, 5, 9. Silver pieces, a sufficient number of shekels. — etvrare, x... | an infelix astutia (Augustine), seeing that they could not possibly know what had taken place while they were sleeping. — Ver. 14. él tod iyepovos] coram procuratore. axovevv is not to be understood, with the majority of expositors, merely in the sense of: to come to the ears of, which is inadmissible on account of ézé (for in that case Matthew would have simply written: kai éav axovon TodTo o ny., or used the passive with the dative), but in the judicial sense (John vii. 51; Xen. Cyrop. i. 2. 14, and frequently): if this comes to be inquired into, if an investigation into this matter should take place before the procurator. Erasmus: “sires apud illum judicem agatur.” Comp. Vatablus and Bleek—ypets] with a self-important emphasis. Comp. tas in the next clause. —Telcopev avtov] we will persuade him, ie. satisfy, appease him (see on Gal. i. 10), in order, that is, that he may not punish you; see what follows. — dwepiuvous] free from all concern (1 Cor. vil. 32), and, in the present instance, in the objective sense: free from danger and all unpleasant con- sequences (Herodian, ii. 4. 3).— Ver. 15. ws éd:day0.] as they had been instructed, Herod. iii. 134.—o Aoyos odTos | not: “the whole narrative” (Paulus), but, as the context requires (ver. 13), this story of the alleged stealing of the body. The industrious circulation of this falsehood is also mentioned by Justin, ¢«. 7r. xvi. 108. For an abominable expansion of it, as quoted from the Toledoth Jeschu, see Eisenmenger’s entdeckt. Judenth. I. p. 190 ff. For 7) onpepov jpépa, see Lobeck, Paral. p. 534.
Ver. 16. The eleven disciples, in accordance with the directions given them, ver. 10, proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain, ete. — ob éta£ato, x.7.X.] an additional particular as to the locality in question, which the women received, ver. 10, and had subsequently communicated to the disciples. The od, wbi, is to be regarded as also including the preceding
298 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
whither (to go and abide there), Luke x. 1, xxii. 10, xxiv. 28; Winer, p. 439 f. [E. T. 592]; Kiihner, IT. 1, p. 473.
Ver. 17. "Idovrtes, «.7.A.] According to the account now before us, evidently the first occasion of meeting again since the resurrection, and the jirst impression produced by it— corresponding to the odeoGe of vv. 7,10. See, besides, on ver. 10.—oi d€ édictacav] It was previously said in a general way that the eleven fell prostrate before Him, though all did not do so: some doubted whether He, whom they saw before them, could really be Jesus. This particular is added by means of of 6é, which, however, is not preceded by a corresponding of wév before tpocex’vncav, because this latter applied to the majority, whereas the doubters, who did not prostrate themselves, were only the exception. Had Matthew's words been: of wev Tpocexvvncar, ot O€ edictacay, he would thus have represented the eleven as divided into two co- ordinate parts, into as nearly as possible two halves, and so have stated something different from what was intended. This is a case precisely similar to that of the of 6€ éppamioav of xxvi. 67, where, in like manner, the preceding éxoraguoav avtov (without of wév) represents what was done by the majority. “Quibus in locis primum wniversa res ponitur, deinde partitio nascitur, quae ostendit, priora quoque verba non de universa causa jam accipi posse,” Klotz, ad Devar. p. 358. Comp. Xen. Hell. i. 2.14: @yovto és Aexérevay, ot 8 és Méyapa; Cyrop. iv. 5.46: opate tous, bc00 juiv mapeow. oi 5é mpoodyovrat, and the passages in Pflugk, ad Eur. Hee. 1160; Kiihner, II. 2, p. 808. According to Fritzsche, a preceding of pev ov« édictacayv should be understood. This, however, is purely arbitrary, for the édictacay has its appro- priate correlative already in the preceding mpocexvvnoar. Again, as matter of course, we must not think of predicating the mpocextvncav of the doubters as well, which would be psychologically absurd (only after his doubts were overcome did Thomas exclaim: o kupids pou x. 6 Geds pov!). Fritzsche (comp. Theophylact, Grotius, and Markland in Eur. Suppl. p. 326) attempts to obviate this objection by understanding éSicrasav in a pluperfect sense (they had doubted before they
CHAP. XXVIII. 17, 299
saw Jesus); an expedient, however, of the same arbitrary nature as before (comp. on John xvill. 24), and such as no reader of our passage (with mpocex’ynoav before him) would have suspected to be at all necessary. Others, in spite of the plain and explicit statements of Matthew,and inorder to free the eleven from the imputation of doubt, have here turned to account the jive hundred brethren, 1 Cor. xv. 6 (Calovius, Michaelis, Ebrard, Lange), or the seventy disciples (Kuinoel), and attri- buted the éd/ctacav to certain of these! Others, again, have resorted to conjecture ; Beza, for example, thinks that for o/ dé we might read ovdé; Bornemann, in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1843, p. 126 (comp. Schleusner), suggests: of 5€ diéotacay (some fell prostrate, the others started back from each other with astonishment). Zhe doubting itself on the part of the disciples (comp. Luke xxiv. 31, 37, 41; John xx. 19, 26) is not to be explained by the supposition of an already glorified state of the body (following the Fathers, Olshausen, Glockler, Krabbe, Kiihn, wie ging Chr. durch d. Grdbes Thir ? 1838; comp. Kinkel’s unscriptural idea of a repeated ascension to heaven, in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1841, p. 597 ff.), for after His resurrection Christ still retained His material bodily organism, as the evangelists are at some pains to remind us (Luke xxiv. 39-43; John xx. 20, 27, xxi. 5; comp. also Acts i. 21 f, x. 41). At the same time, it is not enough to appeal to the fact that “nothing that was subject to death any longer adhered to-the living One” (Hase), but, in accordance with the evangelic accounts of the appearing and sudden vanishing of the risen Lord; and of the whole relation in which He stood to His disciples and His disciples to Him, we must assume some change in the bodily organism and outward aspect of Jesus, a mysterious transformation of His whole person, an intermediate phase of existence between the bodily nature as formerly existing and the glorified state into which He passed at the moment of the ascension,—a phase of exist- ence, however, of which it is impossible for us to form any distinct conception, for this is a case where analogy and experience alike fail us. His body did not retain, as did those of Jairus’ daughter, the young man of Nain, and Lazarus,
300 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
exactly the same essential nature as belonged to it before death, but still it was not as yet the capa tis SdEns adtod (Phil. iii. 21), though it was certainly immortal, a fact which of itself would necessarily involve the very essential change which came over it; comp. also Bleek.
Ver. 18.’ IIpoceX wv] From feelings of modesty and reverence, the eleven had not ventured to go quite close to Him. — €660n] with all the emphasis of the conviction that He was triumphant at last: was given to me, etc., was practi- cally given, that is, when the Father awoke me out of death. Thereby His state of humiliation came to an end, and the resur- rection was the turning-point at which Christ entered into the heavenly glory, in which He is to reign as xvpvos mravrov till the time of the final surrender of His sway into the hands of the Father (1 Cor. xv. 28). It is true, no doubt, that when first sent forth by God He was invested with the é£ouvc/a over all things (xi. 27; John xiii. 3); but in His state of xévwors it would, of necessity, come to be limited by the conditions of that human life into which He had descended. With His resurrection, however, this limitation was removed, and His é£ovoia fully and absolutely restored, so that He once more came into complete possession of His premundane de€a (John xvi. 5 ;: Luke xxiv. 26; Phil. ii. 9 f.; Rom. xiv. 95 Eph 20 ff, iv. 10; 1 Cor. xv. 25 ff), the d0&@ in which He had existed as the Adyos doapxos, and to which He was again exalted as the glorified Son of man. Comp. on John i. 14.— maaa €€ovcia] all authority, nothing being excepted either in heaven or earth which can be referred to the category of €£ovoia, Some, unwarrantably interpreting in a rationalistic sense, have understood this to mean the “potestas animis homi- num per doctrinam imperandi” (Kuinoel),—or, as Keim ex- presses it, the handing over to Him of all spirits to be His instruments in carrying out His purposes in the world,—or absolute power to make all necessary arrangements for the estab- lishment of the Messianic theocracy (Paulus), or power over the whole world of humanity with a view to its redemption (Volk- mar), and such like. What is really meant, however, is the
1 Comp. for ver. 18 ff., Theod. Schott in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1871, p. 1 ff.
CHAP. XXVIII. 19. 301
munus regium of Christ, free from all limitation, without, however, compromising in any way the absolute supremacy of the Father; John xiv. 28; 1 Cor. xv. 27, xi. 3.
Ver. 19. The ovy of the Received text (see the critical remarks) is a gloss correctly representing the connection of the thoughts. The fact stated in ver. 18 is itself the reason why all nations should be brought under His government, and made subject to His sway by means of the pa@nreveuv, etc. — wabn- vevoate] make them my paOntai (John iv. 1); comp. xiii. 52; Acts xiv. 21. This ¢ransitive use of the verb is not met with in classical Greek. Observe how here every one who becomes a believer is conceived of as standing to Christ in the personal relation of a wa@nrys, in accordance with which view the term came to be applied to Christians generally. — mavtTa Ta €0vn| all nations without exception, xxv. 32, xxiv. 14, xxvi. 13. With these words—and this is the new feature in the present instructions—the previous prohibi- tion, x. 5, was cancelled, and the apostolic mission declared to be a mission to the whole world. On this occasion Jesus makes no mention of any particular condition on which Gentiles were to be admitted into the church, says nothing about whether it was or was not necessary that they should in the first instance become Jewish proselytes (Acts xv. 1; Gal. ii. 1), though He certainly meant that it was not neces- sary ; and hence, because of this omission, the difficulty which the apostles had at first about directly and unconditionally admitting the Gentiles. If this latter circumstance had been borne in mind, it could hardly have been asserted, as it has been, that the special revelation from heaven, for the purpose of removing the scruples in question, Acts x., tells against the authenticity of the commission recorded in our passage (in answer to Credner, Hinleit. I. p. 203; Strauss, Keim). — Bamrifovtes, x.7.X.] in which the pabnredew is to be con- summated, not something that must be done after the waOnrev- cate (Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 164; comp. also, on the other hand, Theod. Schott, p. 18), as though our passage ran thus, waOnrevoavtes . . . Bamtifere. Besides, that the phrase Barrifovtes x.7.r. did not require in every case the performance
pay be THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW,
of the ceremony by the apostles themselves, was distinctly manifest to them in the discharge of their functions even from the first (Acts ii. 41). Comp. also 1 Cor. i. 17.—famrifecv eis] means to baptize with reference to. The particular object to which the baptism has reference is to be gathered from the context. See on Rom. vi. 3, and thereon Fritzsche, I. p. 359 ; comp. also on 1 Cor. x. 2. Here, where the Bamrifeuv eis To dvowa is regarded as that through which the pa@yteve is operated, and through which, accordingly, the introduction into spiritual fellowship with, and ethical dependence upon Christ is brought about, it must be understood as denoting that by baptism the believer passes into that new phase of life in which he accepts the name of the Futher (of Christ) and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit as the sum of his creed and confession. To dvowa,- because it is precisely the name of him who is confessed that expresses his whole specific relation considered by itself, and with reference to him who confesses, and accordingly the three names, “ Father, Son, and Spirit,’ are to be understood as expressing the sum-total of the distinctive confession which the individual to be baptized is to accept as his both now and for all time coming.’ Consequently the Corinthians were not baptized e’s to dvopa IIavdov (1 Cor. i. 13), because it was not the name “ Paul,” but the name “ Christ,” that was to constitute the sum of their creed and their confession. For a similar reason, when the Samaritans circumcised, they did so ow an ow (see Schéttgen on the passage), because the
1 Had Jesus used the words r& dxsuzara instead of +d dveu«, then, however much He may have intended the names of three distinct persons to be under- stood, He would still have been liable to be misapprehended, for it might have been supposed that the plural was meant to refer to the various names of each separate person. The singular points to the specific name assigned in the text to each of the three respectively, so that tis ré cveza is, of course, to be understood both before rod viod and rot dyiov wveduaros ; comp. Rey. xiv. 1: +d dvoua aired zal To von Tod warpos avrov. We must beware of making any such dogmatic use of the singular as to employ it as an argument either for (Basilides, Jerome, Theophylact) or against (the Sabellians) the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. We should be equally on our guard against the view of Gess, who holds that Christ abstained from using the words ‘‘ of God the Father,” ete., because he considers the designation God to belong to the Son and the Holy Spirit as well, Such a dogmatic idea was not at all likely to be present to His
CIIAP. XXVIII. 19. 303
name “ Gerizim ” represented the specific point in their distin- tive creed and confession (their shibboleth). The dedication of the believer to the Father, ete., is of course to be regarded as practically taking place in the course of the Bamrifew eis to dvona «.7.X.; for though this is not directly intimated by the words themselves (in opposition to Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. 2, p. 163; Thomasius, Chr. Pers. u. Werk, II. 2, p. 12), it is im- plied in the act of baptism, and could have been expressed by the simple use of es (without to dvowa), as in 1 Cor. x. 2; Rom. vi. 3; Gal. iii. 27. Further, eds To dvowa is not to be taken as equivalent to ef To dvowafew (Francke in the Séchs. Stud. 1846, p. 11 ff.), as though the meaning of the baptism consisted merely in calling God the Father, Christ the Son, and the Spirit the Holy Spirit. Such a view certainly could not apply in the last-mentioned case, for, like Father and Son, To Tvedua ayvov must be understood to be a specifically Chris- tian designation of the Spirit. 7d dvowa is rather intended to indicate the essential nature of the Persons or Beings to whom the baptism has reference, that nature being revealed in the gospel, then expressed in the name of each Person respectively, and finally made the subject of the Chris- tian’s confession and creed. Finally, in opposition to the utterly erroneous view of Bindseil (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1832, p. 410 ff), that Bamrifew eis TO dvoua means: to lead to the adoption of the name through baptism, 7c. to get the person who is to be baptized to call himself after the
mind upon an occasion of leave-taking like the present, any more than was the thing itself on which the idea is supposed to be based, for He was never known to claim the name 4:0: either for Himself or for the Holy Spirit. Still the New Testament, i.e. the Subordinatian, view of the Trinity as constituting the summary of the Christian creed and confession lies at the root of this whole phraseology. — Observe, further, that the baptismal formula: ‘‘in nomine,” and: ‘‘ in the name,” rests entirely on a mistranslation on the part of the Itala and Vulgate, so that there is accordingly no ground for the idea, adopted from the older expositors, that the person who baptizes acts as Christ’s representative (Sengel- mann in the Zeitschr. f. Protestantism. 1856, p. 341 ff.), neither is this view countenanced by Acts x. 48. Tertullian (de bapt. 13) gives the correct render- ing in nomen, though as early as the time of Cyprian (Hp. lxxiii. 5) im nomine is met with. The practice of dipping ¢hree times dates very far back (being vouched for even by Tertullian), but cannot be traced to the apostolic age.
9
304 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
particular name or names in question, see Fritzsche as above. But as for the view of Weisse (Zvangelienfr. p. 186 f.) and of Volkmar, p. 629, as well, that Christ’s commission to baptize is entirely unhistorical, it is only of a piece with their denial of the actual bodily resurrection of Jesus. Ewald, too (Gesch. d. Apost. Zeit. p. 180), is disposed to trace the origin of the commission to the inner world of a later apostolic conscious- ness.—It is a mistake to speak of our passage as the formula of baptism ;' for Jesus is not to be understood as merely repeating the words that were to be employed on baptismal occasions (and accordingly no trace of any such use of the words is found in the apostolic age; comp. on the contrary, the simple expression: PBamtitew eis Xpiotov, Rom. vi. 3; Gal. iii. 27; Bamrifew eis to dvowa X., Acts viii. 16, and emi T® vow. X., Acts ii. 38), but as indicating the particular aim and meaning of the act of baptism. See Reiche, de baptism. orig., etc., 1816, p. 141 ff. The formula of baptism (for it was so styled as early as the time of Tertullian, de bapt. 13), which in its strictly literal sense has no bearing what- ever upon the essence of the sacrament (Hofling, I. p. 40 ff), was constructed out of the words of the text at a subsequent period (see already Justin, Ap. i. 61), as was also the case, at a still later period, with regard to the baptismal confession of
1 Tt is no less erroneous to suppose that our passage represents the first insti- tution of baptism. For long before this the disciples had been baptizing in obedience to the instructions of Jesus, as may be seen from John iv. 1 f., where baptism by the disciples is spoken of as tantamount to baptism by Jesus Himself, and where again there is as little reason to suppose the mere continuation of the baptism of John to be meant as there is in the case of our present passage (John iii. 5). Inthe passage before us we have the same commission as that just referred to, only with this difference, that it is now extended so as to apply to al/ nations. This at once disposes of the question as to whether baptism should not occupy merely a secondary place as a sacrament (Laufs in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 215 ff.). Comp. also, on the other hand, 1 Cor. x. 1-3, where there is an unmistakeable reference to baptism and the Lord’s Supper as the two great and equally important sacraments of the Christian church. Of these two, how- ever, it isclearly not the Lord’s Supper, but baptism, on which the greatest stress is laid as forming the divine constituent factor in the work of redemption, and that above all in the Epistles of Paul, in which the only instance of anything like a full treatment of the subject of the Lord’s Supper is that of First Corin- thians, and even then it is of a somewhat incidental character.
CHAP. XXVIII. 20. 305
the three articles (see Kollner, Symbol. d. Luth. K. p. 14 ff.). There is therefore nothing here to justify those who question the genuineness of our passage (Teller, Hue. 2, ad Burnet de fide et officiis Christianorwm, 1786, p. 262; see, on the other hand, Beckhaus, Aechth. d. s. g. Taufformel, 1794), or those who of late have doubted its originality, at least in the form in which it has come down to us (Strauss, Bruno Bauer, de Wette, Wittichen in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1862, p. 336 ; Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, Scholten, Keim), and that because, forsooth, they have professed to see in it a torepov mpotepov. Excep- tion has been taken, again, partly to the wdvta ta éOvn, though it is just in these words that we find the broader and more comprehensive spirit that characterized, as might be expected, our Lord’s farewell commission, and partly to the “studied summary” (de Wette) of the New Testament doctrine of the Trinity. But surely if there was one time more than another when careful reflection was called for, it was now, when, in the course of this calm and solemn address, the risen Redeemer was endeavouring to seize the whole essence of the Christian faith in its three great leading elements as represented by the three substantially co-equal persons of the Godhead with a view to its being adopted as a constant onuetoy to be used by the disciples when they went forth to proclaim the gospel (Chrysostom : tacav ovvtopor Sidackariay éeyyeipnoas my Sia tov Barticpatos). The conjecture put forward by Keim, III. p. 286 f, that Jesus instituted baptism—though without any specific reference to all nations—on the night of the last supper, to serve the purpose of a second visible sign of His continued fellowship with the church after His departure from the world, is inadmissible, because there is no trace of this in the text, and because, had such a contemporaneous institution of the two sacraments taken place, it would have made so deep an impression that it could never have been forgotten, to say nothing of the impossibility of reconciling such a view with John iv. 1 f. ;
Ver. 20. Avddoxovtes adtovs, x.7.r.] without being con- joined by «ai, therefore not co-ordinate with, but subordinate to the Bamrifovres, intimating that a certain ethical teaching
MATY, IL U
306 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW,
must necessarily accompany in every case the administration of baptism: while ye teach them to observe everything, ete. This moral instruction must not be omitted’? when you baptize, but it must be regarded as an essential part of the ordinance. That being the case, infant baptism cannot pos- sibly have been contemplated in Samrié., nor, of course, in mavta tT. €0vn either.—xat idod, «.7.r.| Encouragement to execute the commission entrusted to them, ver. 19.— éy@] with strong emphasis: J who am invested with that high e€ovola to which I have just referred. — pe? twav etme] namely, through the working of that power which has been committed to me, ver. 18, and with which I will con- tinue to protect, support, strengthen you, etc. Comp. Acts xvill. 10; 2 Cor. xii 9,10. The dpets are the disciples to whom the Lord is speaking, not the church ; the present tense (not écowaz) points to the fact of His having now entered, and that permanently, into His estate of exaltation. The promised help itself, however, is that vouchsafed by the glorified Redeemer in order to the carrying out of His own work (Phil. iii. 21, iv. 13; Col. i 29; 2 Cor. xii. 9), imparted through the medium of the Spirit (John xiv.—xvi.), which is regarded as the Spirit of Christ (see on Rom. vii. 9), and sometimes manifesting itself also in signs and wonders (Mark xvi. 20 ; Rom. xv. 19; 2 Cor. xii. 12; Heb. ii. 14), in visions and revela- tions (2 Cor. xii. 1; Acts xxii. 17). But in connection with this matter (comp. on xviii. 20) we must discard entirely the unscrip-
1 Odx dpxsi yap 70 Bdwricowe nal re doypura pds cwrnpiny, ci om xa) TorITEiE xpoozin, Kuthymius Zigabenus, who thus admirably points out that what is meant by dddexorres, x.7.A., is not the teaching of the gospel with a view to conversion. The axon riorews (Gal. iii. 2) and the rioris 22 &xons (Rom. x. 17) are understood, as a matter of course, to have preceded the baptism. Comp. Theodor Schott, who, however, without being justified by anything in the text, is disposed to restrict the dca tvereiAdu. duiv, on the one hand, to the instructions contained in the farewell addresses (from the night before the crucifixion on to the ascension), and rapeiv, on the other, to a faithful observance on the part of the convert of what he already knew. Comp., on the contrary, xix. 17; John xiy. 15, 21, xv. 10; 1 Tim. vi 14-1 John ii. 3f., ii, 22 f., v. 21.5) Reve ct. aif anv ee Ecclus. xxix. 1, in all which passages rapeiv ras tvroAcds means observe, 2.€. to obey, the commandments. Admirable, however, is the comment of Bengel: ‘‘ Ut baptizatis convenit, fidei virtute.”
CHAP, XXVIII. oO
tural idea of a substantial ubiquity (in opposition to Luther, Calovius, Philippi). Beza well observes : “ Ut qui corpore est absens, virtute tamen sit totus praesentissimus.” —7doas T. nwép.| all the days that were still to elapse éws tT. cuvTed. Tod aidvos, i.e. until the close of the current age (see on xxiv. 3), which would be coincident with the second advent, and after the gospel had been proclaimed throughout the whole world (xxiv. 14); “ continua praesentia,” Bengel.
REMARK 1.—According to John xxi. 14, the Lord’s appearance at the sea of Tiberias, John xxi. which Matthew not only omits, but which he does not seem to have been aware of (see on ver. 10), must have preceded that referred to in our passage.
REMARK 2.—Matthew makes no mention of the return of Jesus and His disciples to Judaea, or of the ascension from the Mount of Olives; he follows a tradition in which those two facts had not yet found a place, just as they appear to have been likewise omitted in the lost conclusion of Mark; then it so happened that the apostolic Aéyia terminated with our Lord’s parting address, ver. 19f. We must beware of imputing to the evangelist any subjective motive for making no mention of any other appearance but that which took place on the mountain in Galilee ; for had he omitted and recorded events in this arbitrary fashion, and merely as he thought fit, and that, too, when dealing with the sublimest and most marvellous portion of the gospel narrative, he would have been acting a most unjustifiable part, and only ruining his own credit for historical fidelity. By the apostles the ascension, the actual bodily mounting up into heaven, was regarded as a fact about which there could not be any possible doubt, and without which they would have felt the second advent to be simply inconceivable (Phil. ii. 9, iii. 20 ; Eph. iv. 10; 1 Pet. i. 22; John xx. 17), and accordingly it is presupposed in the concluding words of our Gospel; but the embodying of it in an outward incident, supposed to have occurred in presence of the apostles, is to be attributed to a tradition which Luke, it is true, has adopted (as regards the author of the appendix to Mark, see on Mark xvi. 19 f.), but which has been rejected by our evangelist and John, notwith- standing that in any case this latter would have been an eye- witness. But yet the fact wiself that the Lord, shortly after His resurrection, ascended into heaven, and that not merely in spirit (which, and that in entire opposition to Scripture, would either exclude the resurrection of the actual body, or presuppose a
308 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
second death), but in the body as perfectly transformed and glorified at the moment of the ascension, is one of the truths of which we are also fully convinced, confirmed as it is by the whole New Testament, and furnishing, as it does, an indispens- able basis for anything like certainty in regard to Christian eschatology. On the ascension, see Luke xxiv, 51, Rem.
ia) } . citi
i}. RADU BRS RS AERA OD TRE RR EE TPIS SIT DIDO A AOD ET a IT CET FTE